Lies. Government statistics. But I repeat myself . . .

I've been warning about our economic malaise for some time (and been branded a Jonah or a Cassandra by some for doing so). I remain pessimistic about the short to medium term, as there are no signs whatsoever that things are improving (but plenty to indicate the opposite). This was reinforced today by a column in yesterday's New York Post by John Crudele.

Just when we think business conditions are going to start acting more ladylike, the economy shows you its butt end and raises a middle finger.

It happened again on Friday when the Labor Department announced that 125,000 jobs were lost by the US economy in June. Most of the loss was because the 2010 Census is winding down, but the number of new private sector jobs was also abysmal.

President Obama quickly rushed to the cameras -- as politicians often do -- to explain that even with the May dip we should be grateful that we've had five straight months of job growth.

You shouldn't be grateful.

In fact, you should be angry -- not only about the poor performance of the job market (and I'll get to the misleading notion that we've had five months of job growth in a moment) but also because you are being conned.

From January through May the government has reported job growth of 14,000, 39,000, 208,000, 313,000, culminating with 433,000 new jobs in May. The January and February reports originally showed job losses but turned positive when revisions were done.

Much of the March and April growth and nearly all of the May improvement came from temporary, part-time hirings by Census 2010.

Unless your goal in life is a career once every 10 years with the Census, these jobs really don't count. And, as I've shown in previous columns, there are also big questions as to how these jobs were calculated by Census and reported to the Labor Department.

That aside, add up those five months of growth and you get 1.007 million new jobs. Keep in mind that 750,000 additional jobs would have been needed just to absorb new workers coming into the economy during those months. Again, put the issue of jobs for new workers aside.

During those five months of alleged job growth, the Labor Department was pulling a statistical trick -- one that didn't work last year and probably won't work this year.

The department included in its calculations 728,000 jobs that it thinks -- but can't prove -- were created by newly formed companies that are beyond its ability to survey.

This outpaces last year's guess, which proved to be totally wrong. Census jobs that are very temporary. Estimates for probably non-existent jobs created by newly formed companies that likely don't exist. Seasonal adjustments. Revisions.

Tally the numbers and they don't add up to an economic recovery. And that gets me back to the issue of double-dip recession.

The good news is that there won't be a double dip. Why? Because the economy has never really recovered in the first place -- it's all one long slog along the bottom of an economic cycle.

Officially, the recession has not ended because the independent National Bureau of Economic Research hasn't declared the Great Recession over yet. And the group doesn't have a meeting scheduled to reconsider.

While the nation's gross domestic product may have been expanding since last summer, this really isn't a legitimate gauge anymore for the recession's end -- and the NBER knows it.

But there's another reason you are hearing so much lately about the "double dip." This notion saves the reputation of Wall Street economists who were almost universally calling for the US economy to perform much better than it has in 2010.

The itty-bitty improvement in the spring labor market gives economists -- like the president -- a chance to proclaim that they were correct about the US economy. They will also argue that any "double dip" came from situations outside the US that couldn't have been anticipated.

This is all, of course, nonsense.

There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

Mr. Crudele is quite right, of course. The statistics put out by the present Administration are cherry-picked to give the rosiest possible picture of the economy. It's an election year, after all. They don't care if they're found out later . . . just so long as they can fool voters long enough to maintain their majorities in the House and Senate.

Let's hope they don't succeed, either in fooling voters, or in retaining their majorities. We're neck-deep in the proverbial brown substance if they do.

While on the subject of job creation, I'm still waiting for many job-seekers to wake up and smell the coffee. I've seen innumerable references in various news reports to people wanting - insisting on! - work that's 'commensurate with their qualifications', or that pays a decent wage. Unbelievably, some of them actually refuse to take 'lesser' jobs. Sorry, folks. In today's economy, you take what you can get, and you're grateful for it. You know all the jobs that illegal immigrants are said to do, the ones that Americans won't do? Seasonal jobs in the agricultural sector, working long hours in the fields for less than minimum wage? Those might just be the only jobs open to those with few or no marketable skills right now.

I'm particularly struck by the whines and moans of teenagers and students who are either at, or have just left, university. They're complaining that most of the jobs that used to be open to them, like waitressing, busboys, entry-level retail assistants and so on, are now taken by older folks. Guess what, youngsters? Those older folks have lost their higher-paying jobs, and are now willing to work for whatever they can get, so long as it helps to pay the bills. The average employer can now choose between conscientious hard-working adults, who know how lucky they are to have any job, and self-centered whiny teens who don't know what they want to do with their lives, but demand a high salary and plenty of time off in return for doing as little as possible. Guess who he's going to hire, every time?

You have an undergraduate degree in sociology? Aztlan culture? Basket-weaving? Ethnic studies? Black history? I have news for you. There aren't many companies hiring in those fields right now, and university students are learning that a degree in those fields no longer even qualifies you to ask "Do you want fries with that?" If you sit around waiting for a job and salary 'commensurate with your qualifications', you're going to sit for a long, long time. Uncle Sam won't be paying you while you wait, as he has in the past. We're going broke, honey. Ain't got no hope and we've run out of change.

Get a job doing something - anything - to earn your daily bread. If that means picking peas in a field, so be it. Be grateful you're young enough and strong enough to do so. And if the fact that Americans now need those jobs helps to stiffen our national resolve into deporting the millions of illegal immigrants currently mooching off our wallets and our taxes, so much the better for this country.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #370

Today's Doofus is from Virginia.

A 35-year-old mother died after her 7-year-old son accidentally crashed their powerboat into a pier on the Hampton River Sunday evening, according to police.

Virginia Marine Police Spokesman Don Bull said an adult allowed the child to briefly steer the boat as the family was returning home from a day on the water. The child veered the boat into and underneath the pier at about 6:15 p.m.

His mother, Elizabeth J. Elliott of Hampton, was sitting on the bow of the boat and took the brunt of the impact, sending her crashing through the boat's glass windshield and into the back of the boat, according to John Bull, Director of Public Relations for the Marine Resources Commission of Virginia.

Stephano Leonardi and his family were enjoying the holiday in their backyard overlooking the river when they heard the crash and saw the boat start spinning in circles.

"My father, he jumped on the jet ski to go immediately straight over there with some line to try to pull it in," said Leonardi. "A friend of mine actually went and ran and jumped in the water to swim immediately over there."

Leonardi said they pulled the boat and its stunned passengers back to their pier. He said the 7-year-old boy who had been steering the boat was screaming and his grandmother, Elliott's mother, was frantic.

"He was just like, 'Help! Help!' and the older lady, I believe it was her daughter, she was screaming, 'Help! Help!'"

Leonardi scooped the boy up in his arms. "I picked him up and grabbed him and we had to get him to land and I told some of the older women to take care of him and get him away," he said.

Back on the boat, the boy's mother was bleeding terribly. "You had people jump in there to check vital signs, I mean she was really bad off," said Leonardi.

. . .

Bull added that Virginia does not have any laws regarding age restrictions for people operating motorboats, even though there is a law that requires anyone operating a personal watercraft to be at least 16 years old, or 14 if they have completed a personal watercraft course.

There's more at the link.

Whoever put a seven-year-old child at the helm of a powerful speedboat like that should be tried for culpable homicide, in my opinion. Such a craft is just as fast as the average family car. The likely consequences of putting a child behind the wheel of that car aren't exactly hard to imagine; so why the hell would allowing them to steer a boat of similar performance result in anything different?

Now the poor kid has to live with the knowledge that he killed his own mother . . . when, in reality, the person responsible for her death is whoever allowed him to steer in the first place. If that was his mother, she was asking for trouble, and got it - to her son's eternal detriment. If it was someone else, I hope they don't get much sleep at night for the next few years, thinking about what they've done.





Peter

Quote of the day

From Grouchy Old Cripple's friend Ron:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Considering the real-world incompetence, blind dogmatic insistence on a particular ideology, and refusal to face reality that the President and his allies have demonstrated during his term of office thus far, I'm forced to agree.

More and more I find myself in agreement with Robert A. Heinlein, who postulated in one of his books (I forget which one) that those reliant on handouts from the government for their survival should lose their right to vote unless and until they're standing on their own two feet once more, and no longer 'sucking at the government teat'. That would instantly remove a whole bunch of people from the electoral rolls who are almost guaranteed to vote for the person or party promising them the most money (i.e. "what's in it for me?") rather than voting for the good of the country.

*Sigh*

Peter

UPDATED - The psychic octopus is at it again

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about an allegedly 'psychic' octopus in Germany, and provided a video clip of the critter. It's said to have predicted the result of all Germany's matches in the World Cup so far.

According to the BBC, the octopus' latest prediction isn't so comforting for home-team fans.

A "psychic" octopus in Germany, which appears to have correctly predicted every World Cup game involving the national team so far, has picked Spain over Germany in the semi-final.

Paul, from the Sea Life Aquarium in the western city of Oberhausen, chose a mussel from a jar with the Spanish flag instead of one with a German flag.

The two-year-old cephalopod has become a national celebrity.

According to his owners, he has a record of predicting German results.

They say Paul chose the winner in nearly 70% of Germany's games during the 2008 European Championship.

He correctly predicted all five of the team's previous World Cup games - including a shock defeat by Serbia in the group stages.

His prognosis ahead of Wednesday's World Cup semi-final was broadcast live on German TV.

Correspondents says Paul's plumping for Spain has caused alarm in the country, but some analysts point out that his predictive powers are not perfect.

During Euro 2008 he wrongly picked Germany as the victor against Spain.

I fear that if Paul's got it right, he might end up as calamari for the losers' dinner!



Peter

UPDATED TO ADD: The octopus got it right! Spain defeated Germany 1-0 in this afternoon's match.

Banging my head against a brick wall . . .

. . . at least, that's what it feels like tonight! My landlord has been battling to repair an irritable, fault-prone Internet connection, and for most of the evening I haven't been able to work on blog posts. I hope things will return to (relative) normality soon, but I'm afraid I won't be able to put up any blog posts tonight. Given luck and network stability, I'll try to put up a couple in the morning.

Peter

"Booth babes" deserve more respect, it seems

I've never been particularly respectful of "booth babes", the (often scantily-clad) young women one finds at auto shows and similar trade fairs, showing off various products. I'd always regarded them as eye candy, there to distract the customer while rapacious salesmen took advantage of the distraction to separate him from his money as quickly as possible. Since I have a visceral distaste for sex being used to sell anything, I'm afraid I didn't give the human element much thought.

I have to apologize to at least some of the ladies concerned. I recently came across a blog called "Do You Come With The Car?" I'm intrigued to find that according to the author, the ladies who work in that field have to be thoroughly trained and educated in the products they're selling, and be very professional in dealing with the public. Quite frankly, I had no idea so much work was involved. It's definitely given me a new respect for that profession - although it still feels odd to consider it a 'profession' at all!

The blog, and the author's regular column "The Booth Babe Chronicles" in the E-zine The Truth About Cars, make interesting reading. I recommend both.

Peter

The World Cup, magic, and Africa

A friend e-mailed me a link to this article in the Telegraph.

A snake used by a South African fortuneteller to “control” the progress of teams in the World Cup has been seized by animal welfare inspectors, a spokesman said Monday.

The nine-foot-long Burmese rock python was being used by a sangoma in a Cape Town township to communicate with the ancestors, to ask them to intercede in World Cup matches, said Sarah Scarth, spokesman for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

SPCA wildlife inspectors were alerted to the snake on June 30, she said.

“They found the snake was being kept in a shack and in back of a car, and was being used allegedly by the sangoma to speak to the ancestors,” she said.

“People were paying the sangomas to ask the ancestors to help their chosen teams advance in the tournament.”

There's more at the link.

My friend wanted to know whether this sort of superstition was really still rampant in Africa. I had to tell him that sadly, it's as strong as ever, despite a few generations of Western education. Consider just these few reports from across the continent, that I was able to find in only a few minutes of searching:

• Gamblers wanting to bet on World Cup games are "smoking dried vulture brains, believing it will give them the power to predict match results";
• In South African soccer, 'muti', or 'medicine', a charmed or enchanted substance produced by witch-doctors or sangomas, "is used at all levels of the game, from players kicking the ball socially on weekends to managers of top-flight clubs";
• Still in South Africa, children are being murdered so that their body parts can be used to make 'muti';
  
• In Kenya and Tanzania, old women "face being hacked to death as 'witches', blamed for every virus and sickness blowing across the savannah";
• In the Central African Republic, "about 40 percent of the cases in the ... court system are witchcraft prosecutions";
• In Sierra Leone, sick people are believed to have been shot with a 'witch gun'. "The National President of Sierra Leone Indigenous Traditional Healers Union, Dr. Alhaji Suliaman Kabba, ... said a person who operates witch gun would never be perceived by the ordinary eye adding that such people only carry out their evil acts when they are in an invisible state";
• In Nigeria, some fundamentalist Evangelical pastors are preaching that many children are witches, or possessed by the Devil, and conducting appalling exorcism rites that torture and in some cases cause the death of the children concerned;
  
• In 2005, the BBC asked: "Is witchcraft alive in Africa?" The responses to the article (you can read them at the link) overwhelmingly demonstrated that belief in witchcraft is as strong as ever.
  

Some of these reports are several years old, but don't let that fool you. The situations they describe are as real today as they ever were. I used to work in Johannesburg, the commercial heart of South Africa. The Stock Exchange (the biggest in Africa) used to be situated on Diagonal Street; and around it, one would find 'muti' shops, selling amulets, 'medicine' and other products to produce 'good luck' or 'good fortune' for the day's trading, or to ensure that one's 'enemies' (i.e. rival stockbrokers) would experience the opposite that day. I've accompanied brokers with multiple graduate degrees as they entered the building . . . but not before they'd bought their 'muti' for the day. To do without it was unthinkable to them, and they used to regard me with some pity for my lack of understanding of the importance of the 'spirits'.

It's hard for me to convey just how deep this spiritual blindness runs in the average African. There are, of course, those who've broken free of such superstition; but they're in the minority, I fear. For example, you and I might see lightning strike a tree, and watch it burst into flames. We understand that the enormous heat generated by the electricity in the lightning bolt has caused the fire. On the other hand, the average African might believe that the spirits of the trees had been fighting, and the spirit of that particular tree had just been zapped! If you try to argue against that, he'll look at you with sorrow, pitying your blindness to the obvious.

It's a different world in Africa. Sometimes it's a bloody unpleasant one, and deadly dangerous. Those dangers give rise to primitive superstitions, which in their turn make it more dangerous still.

Peter

A different sort of bullring

The annual Festival Major is taking place in Denia, Spain, at present. This includes the famous Bous a la Mar, or 'Bulls in the Sea'. Unlike the usual bullfights in that country, this doesn't involve bloodshed (of the bulls, anyway - spectators might suffer a bit!) The bulls are released into a waterfront 'arena' filled with eager spectators, all trying to taunt the bulls into charging them. To escape, they usually end up diving into the sea, followed by the bull!




The water isn't necessarily a safe place, given that the bull's in there too . . .




Swimming spectators are expected to extricate themselves. The lifesavers concentrate on the animals!




I haven't found any video clips of this year's festival, but here's one from 2008 that gives some idea of what goes on.

Not for me, thank you . . . but if any adventurous readers want to have a go, please leave a comment to let us know how you did!



Peter

Politics and economic reality, Part 1

I've posted several times about the misguided, fiscally disastrous economic policies being followed by the US Government (in both current and former administrations). Reader A. K. e-mailed me to ask what I thought was necessary to fix the problem, not in terms of fiscal policy only, but in terms of what role government should play in economic activity as a whole.

That's a very good question, and it's one I'll try to answer in a number of posts over the next few weeks, as I have time to write them. Obviously, I'll have to set out how I see things, my personal political philosophy, if you will. My answers will come from within this framework.

This first article will focus on the size of government in economic terms. How big should it be? Your answer will largely depend on your political outlook. If you're primarily focused on the individual, rather than the group, you'll tend to believe that government should be as small as possible, taking care of essential needs, but leaving the rest to private enterprise. If you're more group-focused, your approach will be that of a statist, saying that government should be big enough to provide for basic human needs across a broad spectrum. Some try to re-cast this into divisions like 'conservative' versus 'liberal', 'capitalist' versus 'socialist', and so on: but those are a bit artificial. After all, so-called 'conservatives' or 'capitalists' can spend just as much taxpayers' money as their 'liberal' or 'socialist' opponents! We have abundant evidence of that over the past couple of decades in US politics.

I'm very much on the side of smaller government, and the primacy of the individual over the group. I hold firmly that when it comes to inalienable rights, a group has no rights; only the individual does. (Remember, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not, repeat, do not 'confer' those rights upon us; they merely recognize them, and acknowledge that they pre-exist the Constitution.) Anyone who tries to work with and for the interests of the group inevitably comes to a point where 'the greatest good of the greatest number' runs head-on into the rights of the individual who is or will be disadvantaged by what's good for the group. In my book, the individual's rights generally trump any effort by the group to take what's his for their benefit, be it money (in the form of taxes), land, goods or services. The individual should be inconvenienced as little as possible to provide what is essential for the State; national defense, the common good in its essentials, etc. Anything beyond that is outside the 'essentials', in my opinion. Matters such as health care, welfare, social security, etc. I leave to the individual to arrange. For those who can't provide them on their own, sure, there's room for some form of help; but that properly belongs in the realm of charity, not enforced taxation of the productive to indefinitely support the unproductive (which is what we have now).

Having clarified that, I think the size of government can be defined as the proportion, or percentage, of gross domestic product that it should consume in its operations and the services it provides. I think there's abundant historical evidence to prove that the less a government consumes, the better for the economy. Think of it this way. If there are a hundred dollars in circulation, they can be used to buy goods and services, invest in new means of production, and so on; or they can be used to pay bureaucrats to oversee rules and regulations that are imposed on society. The latter produces no new income, no profit, and therefore generates no additional economic activity. If twenty dollars out of that hundred are consumed by government, at least it leaves 80% of the gross to be used more profitably. If forty are consumed by government, the profitable proportion is much lower. You get the idea?

This is summed up in a very interesting graph known as the Rahn Curve. It was developed by Richard Rahn, former Chief Economist of the US Chamber of Commerce. (It's very similar in concept to the Laffer Curve, which applies to taxation.) Perhaps the best detailed analysis of the Rahn Curve is published by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It can be found here. I recommend it to those with an interest in government and economics. A simpler explanation is given in the video below, which I recommend to everyone, not just those with a deeper economic interest. It's very important.

I hope you took the time to watch that video; it explains in a nutshell how the growth in government spending as a percentage, or proportion, of gross domestic product inevitably leads to a decline in the latter. In other words, the more government spends, the less productive and the more inefficient will be the economy as a whole. That's a foundational principle of economics that most of our politicians have either forgotten, or chosen to ignore.

To apply that to the political choices facing us right now, I think we need to ensure that we elect politicians who are aware of this fundamental economic reality, and who will undertake to observe it in their legislative actions and political leadership. If they're of the 'tax-and-spend' variety, they have no clue about economic reality, and should be rejected. If they believe that government should spend what is essential, and wean itself from all other responsibilities (thereby lessening the share of gross domestic product that it consumes), I want them in office. Those of a more statist bent will disagree, of course, but that's their right and privilege. They won't get my support or my vote.

Note, too, that I don't cast this in terms of political parties. I regard both the Democratic and Republican parties with a jaundiced eye. Many, perhaps most, of their elected politicians aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to Hell. They're self-centered, focused on what's good for them and their party rather than what the country needs. The sooner we throw out all politicians of that ilk, irrespective of their party, and put into office those who understand economic reality and will be responsible representatives of the people, the better. I'm not going to worry about what party they belong to - it's the individual who interests me.

What say you, readers? Anything to add to the discussion so far? Let's hear from you in a comment.

Peter

This one's for Marko!

My friend Marko, the Munchkin Wrangler, has written in the past about his love for old-fashioned typewriters. He's also written about Apple's new iPad, and commented that he'll "own one sooner or later".

Well, Marko, how about two for the price of one? Here's an iPad app that'll warm the cockles of your heart!

Details may be found here. I think it's too cute for words!



Peter

The 2010 Bulwer-Lytton winner is announced!

One of my favorite literary events, "the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (BLFC) is a tongue-in-cheek contest that takes place annually and is sponsored by the English Department of San José State University in San Jose, California. Entrants are invited 'to compose the opening sentence to the worst of all possible novels' – that is, deliberately bad."

The winner of this year's competition was Ms. Molly Ringle of Seattle, WA. Her winning entry:

For the first month of Ricardo and Felicity's affair, they greeted one another at every stolen rendezvous with a kiss--a lengthy, ravenous kiss, Ricardo lapping and sucking at Felicity's mouth as if she were a giant cage-mounted water bottle and he were the world's thirstiest gerbil.

The Guardian reports:

The author told the Seattle Times that she had been inspired to write her winning sentence as she nursed her infant son. "Something about his attitude and posture ... It reminded me of those guinea pigs we used to have as kids," she said. "I've asked myself, probably belatedly, is that what I want to be famous for? But hopefully people in the publishing world know it's all in the name of comedy."

And anyway, she added, "you kind of have to have a certain amount of skill to write a sentence so bad it would win. You have to work at it."

Contest judge Scott Rice, a professor at San Jose State University, praised her "outlandishly inappropriate comparison" to the paper. "It is a send-up of writers who try too hard to be original, and it is a send-up of those revolting couples whose public displays of affection make them poster children for celibacy," he said.

There's more at the link.

You can find the category winners and runners-up, as well as the 'Dishonorable Mentions', at the contest Web site. One of my favorites is the runner-up in the Adventure category:

When Hru-Kar, the alpha-ranking male of the silver-backed gorilla tribe finished unleashing simian hell on Lt. Cavendish, the once handsome young soldier from Her Majesty’s 47th Regiment resembled nothing so much as a crumpled up piece of khaki-colored construction paper that had been dipped in La Victoria chunky salsa.

Being an African boy, who knows what gorillas can do, that tickles my fancy somewhat. I daresay my friend Lawdog, also an African boy, will appreciate it too!



Peter

Doofus Of The Day #369

Today's award goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The BBC is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on moving staff out of state-of-the-art studios only nine months after they moved in.

The broadcast staff are being relocated to specially built temporary offices after it was discovered that no safety checks had been carried out at their new base in a recently refurbished wing of the Corporation’s flagship headquarters in Central London.

The tests should have been done on fire alarms, lifts and lighting at Broadcasting House – the iconic building in Regent Street – as part of an £830 million [just over US $1.26 billion] renovation.

But now hundreds of employees will have to operate out of makeshift studios in Bush House – where the BBC World Service is based – when Broadcasting House closes for several weeks while the tests are completed.

. . .

The renovation – which has gone £20 million [US $30.4 million] over its original budget of £813 million [US $1.24 billion] and is running at least two years late – is being investigated by the Government’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, amid growing concern about how the Corporation spends money on its vast property portfolio.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘On completion of a project, all systems . . .  must undergo essential testing to ensure they meet health and safety regulations.’

Disgruntled workers say the corporation could have saved licence fee payers’ money by ensuring the checks were completed before they were allowed to move in.

There's more at the link.

Sounds just like a State-run bureaucracy, doesn't it? Spend the taxpayers' money hand over fist. If we run short, we'll just take some more of their hard-earned cash to cover our mistakes! I'm sure the license-fee-paying British public are overjoyed to see how their money is being spent wasted . . .





Peter

Why you shouldn't automatically believe the news media

I was both alarmed and suspicious to hear a 'talking head' on CNN (who turns out to be a Ms. Kerry Kennedy, from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights) assert the following in relation to the oil pollution crisis in the Gulf of Mexico:

"... people are getting sick. And the patients, the health care providers cannot properly diagnose what the problems are because BP will not give them the names of the chemicals that are in the dispersants. However, we know that they're the same types of illnesses that people reported in Alaska. Now, the average lifespan of a person who did cleanup on the Exxon Valdez is 51 years old. Almost all those people who did work on the Exxon Valdez are now dead. And BP still here, once again, is big oil not giving the information to the doctors and health care officials."

That's taken verbatim from CNN's transcript of her interview. Bold print is my emphasis. Here she is making the claim in the flesh on camera.

I found her claims hard to believe. Surely, if the workers who'd cleaned up the Exxon Valdez disaster had been dying like flies, we'd have heard about it? I did a little online research, and, sure enough, came up with some evidence that Ms. Kennedy clearly hadn't bothered to read.

You'd think that more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, scientists would know what, if any, long-term health dangers face the thousands of workers needed to clean up the Gulf of Mexico spill.

You'd be wrong.

"We don't know a damn thing," said Anchorage lawyer Michael Schneider , whose firm talked with dozens of Alaska cleanup workers following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in preparation for a class-action lawsuit that never came.

In New Orleans last week, U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin delivered a similar, if more subtle, message to a gathering of health experts meeting to talk about how to protect people working on the massive BP oil spill still gushing in the Gulf of Mexico .

"Current scientific literature is inconclusive with regard to the potential hazards resulting from the spill," Benjamin said. "Some scientists predict little or no toxic effect . . . while other scientists express serious concerns about the potential short-term and long-term impacts the exposure to oil and dispersants could have on the health of responders and our communities."

That lack of published, peer-reviewed study of the Exxon Valdez cleanup workers has made protecting the growing number workers in the Gulf of Mexico all the more difficult and has Alaska watchdogs warning that BP and government regulators are repeating mistakes that made people sick a generation ago.

"We don't have the good answers that we could have had from the Exxon Valdez to either know that there are problems or to reassure people that there were not," said Mark Catlin , an industrial hygienist who visited the cleanup in 1989.

There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

How very inconvenient for Ms. Kennedy and her claims . . . but then, I gather (from doing a bit more Internet research) that some view the RFK Center as less than balanced, factual and ethical in its approach to crises. Some appear to feel that they never let a good crisis go to waste, exploiting it for all the publicity they can wring from it. I further note (from the CNN transcript) that Ms. Kennedy supports the Administration and blames BP for all the problems being experienced in the Gulf. To whit:

BROWN: Do you think the administration is doing enough to help people get through this?

KENNEDY: Well, I think the administration, frankly, has been incredible in responding to this crisis. But this is BP's crisis.

She says this with a straight face, despite the fact that Gulf Coast State governors and local officials are complaining bitterly - and publicly - about the heavy-handed Federal Government bureaucracy that's stifling relief and cleanup efforts (the same bureaucracy that is apparently trying to keep news media far, far away from the cleanup operation, for fear they'll disclose precisely the problems the locals are complaining about).

Unfortunately, Ms. Kennedy's claims have been broadcast worldwide by CNN. Millions will have seen them by now, and many will have believed them. What's that you say? Will CNN broadcast a correction? Don't make me laugh. If you think either Ms. Kennedy or CNN will do anything to correct or withdraw her claims, or broadcast the truth . . . well, there's this bridge in Brooklyn, NYC I'd like to sell you. Cash only, please, and in small bills.

How can we believe our news media about anything when they broadcast bulls*** like this and call it news? It belongs in a fictional drama series like The X-Files. It has nothing to do with the facts - but will inevitably be exploited by those who have no interest in truth, only in furthering their particular political and/or social and/or economic agenda by any means, fair or foul.

You might want to keep that in mind the next time you watch and/or read the news in your favorite media outlet . . .





Peter

What an example!

I was first intrigued, then astonished, to learn about Nick Vujicic, an Australian motivational speaker and evangelist who was born without arms or legs. The video clip below shows him speaking to an Australian school. It's worth watching.

I've got to take my hat off to him. If I'd been born with so many handicaps and disadvantages, I honestly don't know whether I wouldn't have turned my face to the wall and given up. His courage in the face of adversity is a tremendous example.

If you'd like to learn more about Nick and his work, see his Web site.

Peter

Now that's a bath!

I think this has to be the most extravagant bathtub I've ever heard of!

The huge tub ... is carved from a single enormous block of the purest white rock crystal, quarried in the Amazon region of Brazil. The block was discovered in 2006 when Paolo Baldi, father of the company's current CEO Luca Baldi, learned of the existence of this ten-ton block of flawless crystal and had it extracted and transported to Italy intact.




This incredible bathtub is the second to be made from the immense block. Each is unique, though both were sculpted with diamond cuts and left partially rough to expose the natural beauty of the crystal.




If you are thinking of snapping up this incredible tub, your pockets may have to be as deep as the quarries it is excavated from as it comes in at £530,000 [currently about US $805,000].

If your tastes (and your bank balance) run to that sort of thing, it's on show at Harrods in London until the end of July. It can apparently seat three people at once. Even so . . . eight hundred and five thousand dollars??? For a bathtub??? For that price, I'd want a lifetime supply of hot and cold running bath attendants as well!





Peter

The horror! The horror!

I'm still chuckling at a contribution by Ken at the blog Popehat. Here's a brief extract.

Black it was, and chased with even blacker lace. But it was not the color that made it notable. No, a black bra by the side of the road is a mere curiosity, soon forgotten. What cut me short and stopped my clients in their tracks was its size. The bra was not just vast. Vast does not begin to describe it. The strapping was thick and lengthy, the cups heroic, the whole thing looking like the harness of some ancient and improbably muscled gladiator. It looked not real at all, an image of a bra blown up and carelessly cut and pasted upon our reality. My clients stood agape, disappointment in the law’s delay temporarily forgotten, and I saw in their eyes that their minds struggled in vain to calculate what mine did — what kind of unearthly bosom did this bra contain?

There's more at the link. Go read for a good laugh!

Peter

A new twist to the KC-X competition

I'm intrigued by the news that a relatively unknown US company has teamed up with Antonov of the Ukraine to offer the latter company's aircraft as a candidate for the US Air Force's KC-X competition to select a new aerial refueling tanker.

There's a lot of skepticism in aviation circles about the news. Pundits have pointed out that none of the proposed Antonov models have ever been used as aerial tankers (indeed, two of the three don't yet exist!); that the US partner, US Aerospace, has never built an aircraft in its life and appears to be in financial difficulties already; and that the project appears to depend on unnamed outside investors, who may or may not materialize. Also, Antonov in the Ukraine has been struggling to find financing for its projects since the breakup of the Soviet Union. There are rumors that Russia would like to see the company either fold up entirely, or move back to Russia so that the latter nation can control its output. I'm pretty sure the last thing Russia wants is for Antonov to partner with a Western firm, and it can be expected to mount vigorous opposition.

Nevertheless, the bare bones of the proposal as currently outlined have me thinking hard. There may be more to this than meets the eye. Even if the US Aerospace/Antonov partnership doesn't win the KC-X competition, they may have real prospects for sales of heavy-duty cargo aircraft in the longer term, particularly with their proposal to develop what they're calling the An-122; a twin-engine version of the four-engine An-124, the largest transport aircraft ever put into production in the Soviet Union (only a single prototype of its larger six-engine sibling, the An-225, was ever built).

Antonov An-124 transport aircraft

The An-124 is slightly smaller than the US Air Force's C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft, currently the largest in the USAF's fleet. Allegedly the An-124 can carry a slightly heavier load, although that depends on the 'authority' one consults. Basically, they're of equivalent performance.

C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft of the USAF

Both types can carry payloads in the 120-metric-tonne class, although a proposed upgraded version of the An-124 (not yet built) is claimed to be capable of lifting 150 metric tonnes. The USAF has used chartered An-124 aircraft for many years to airlift heavy freight between the USA and operational areas in Iraq and Afghanistan, supplementing the C-5 Galaxy fleet and sparing the latter from accumulating too much wear and tear.

The proposal to produce a twin-engine version of the An-124 (dubbed the An-122 in the US Aerospace/Antonov proposal) is a very interesting one. The An-124 is powered by four Ivchenko Progress D-18T turbofans, each producing 51,600 pounds of static thrust. They're noted for being fairly 'thirsty', not as economical as Western engines of the same generation, and there are reports that they require more maintenance than the latter as well. Be that as it may, the An-124's four engines produce a combined total of 206,400 pounds of thrust at maximum power.

Western engine technology has progressed by leaps and bounds since the An-124's engines were designed. The most powerful turbofan currently available is the General Electric GE90-115B, as fitted to the Boeing 777-300ER airliner.

Boeing 777-300ER airliner of All Nippon Airways

This engine produces a monstrous 115,000 pounds of static thrust at full throttle (and has been recorded at over 127,000 pounds of thrust, although the latter isn't a practical figure for routine operations). To give you an idea of just how much power that is, during testing on a Boeing 747 testbed aircraft (shown below), a single GE90 engine generated enough thrust to keep the Jumbo at flying speed with its other three engines idling.

Boeing 747-121 testing a General Electric GE90 engine intended for the Boeing 777

Two of those engines would produce a combined maximum thrust of 230,000 pounds - 11½% more than the four engines currently powering the An-124. There appears to be little reason why two of them could not be fitted to the latter aircraft, conferring a significant increase in power whilst simultaneously bringing greater fuel economy (likely to be at least a 10% improvement, possibly as high as 15%). That would, in turn, increase the range of the An-124 appreciably. The General Electric engines reportedly sell for around $24 million in 2009 dollars. Two of them would probably cost more than four of the older-model engines currently used on the An-124, but since they'd bring more power, improved reliability, reduced fuel consumption and better range, that's probably an expense worth paying.

Whether or not the US Aerospace/Antonov partnership is successful in winning the KC-X competition, they might just have a winner on their hands in a twin-engined version of the An-124. I'm sure the USAF would be interested, as would other air forces and commercial freight operators throughout the world, particularly if it can be put on the market at an economical price. Politics might derail sales to the USAF, of course, but there's nothing comparable in production anywhere in the world right now. That might trump a lot of potential opposition.

I'd like to see this one fly.

Peter

The vuvuzela goes mainstream!

I'm delighted to see that the vuvuzela, the iconic musical instrument (or, depending on one's perspective, instrument of sonic torture) of the 2010 World Cup football championships in South Africa, appears to have made the big time in Western civilization as well.

First comes a report of a gold-encrusted vuvuzela for the discerning aficionado.

A canny Austrian goldsmith has been assigned to create the world’s most expensive Vuvuzela.

Linz-based entrepreneur Klemens Pointner said today (Fri) he had received an order from a South African businessman to turn a three-Euro plastic trumpet into a unique gold-cast item worth 15,000 Euros [US $18,828].

"I really enjoyed creating this piece. I made sure I’d have it done in time for the final of the World Cup," Pointner said.

The goldsmith added: "My client is a Russian oligarch who I met at a trade fair in Moscow. He wanted something truly unique to hand over as a gift to a business partner ahead of the kick-off of the final."

Pointner – who refused to reveal his customer’s identity – said the white gold-clad Vuvuzela also features a one-carat diamond.

Vuvuzelas have become a bestseller across Austria over the past few months. Organisers of Vienna’s Donauinselfest, Europe’s biggest free of charge open air event, however banned the plastic trumpets from the venue last weekend.

Banned from a music festival? Why am I not surprised?

Next, would you believe that the vuvuzela is making an impression on the classical music scene? In the video clip below, three musicians from the Konzerthausorchester Berlin present works by Brahms and Ravel 'adapted' for the vuvuzela.

Note that I didn't say what kind of impression the vuvuzela was making in classical music!

It's even making its mark in fantasy movies. Here's a slightly modified version of 'The Lord Of The Rings' with vuvuzela accompaniment.

I think I hear J. R. R. Tolkien spinning in his grave . . .

Finally, the animal kingdom is also expressing an opinion (sort of) about the noise.

And very well spoken that opinion was!



Peter

Civil rights in Canada are not always rights, it seems

I'm intrigued by the political machinations of the Ontario provincial leadership in Canada, who seem to think that civil rights can be subordinated to political expediency at the stroke of a pen. The Canadian blog Postcards Of The Hanging reports:

Premier Dalton McGuinty decided that the G20 summit was an excellent opportunity to relieve the populace of some of their rights.

The province has secretly passed an unprecedented regulation that empowers police to arrest anyone near the G20 security zone who refuses to identify themselves or agree to a police search.

A 31-year-old man has already been arrested under the new regulation, which was quietly passed by the provincial cabinet on June 2.

The regulation was made under Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act and was not debated in the Legislature. According to a provincial spokesperson, the cabinet action came in response to an “extraordinary request” by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who wanted additional policing powers shortly after learning the G20 was coming to Toronto.

The regulation kicked in Monday and will expire June 28, the day after the summit ends. While the new regulation appeared without notice on the province’s e-Laws online database last week, it won’t be officially published in The Ontario Gazette until July 3 — one week after the regulation expires.

. . .

The Public Works Protection Act is a nasty piece of work to begin with. It allows the government and the cops to designate anyone a "guard," who has full police powers and can arrest you without the constitutional niceties of a warrant, probable cause, or even a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.

According to the new regulation, “guards” appointed under the act can arrest anyone who, in specific areas, comes within five metres of the security zone.

Within those areas, police can demand identification from anyone coming within five metres of the fence perimeter and search them. If they refuse, they face arrest. Anyone convicted under the regulation could also face up to two months in jail or a $500 maximum fine.

“It reminds me a little bit of the War Measures Act,” said lawyer Nathalie Des Rosiers of the new regulation. Des Rosiers is a lawyer with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been working to monitor arrests during the summit. “This is highly unusual to have this declaration done by order-in-council without many people knowing about it.”

You'll notice that this doesn't apply to any breach of the security perimeter, it apples to being close to it. Insisting on your rights regrading probable cause before submitting to a search is now a crime in and of itself.

This was done in secret and by regulation, which is antithetical to a country that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law. Criminal acts are defined by the legislature and passed into law, which decidedly didn't happen here. McGuinty's Cabinet did this all on their lonesome, without any input from anyone.

To say that this is unconstitutional is to understate the matter greatly. Firstly, rights - such as those governing probable cause and freedom from interference - are just that, rights. They are not privileges, subject to government whim. That's to say nothing about the right to freedom of assembly. Remember, these regulations apply to five meters outside of the security zone, where you would expect the zillions of protesters currently in the city to assemble.

If you're going to subject folks to arrest and conviction for something that isn't a crime (because this is a regulation and not a law that we're discussing), it would have been greatly helpful to advise the public of it. To do this in secret leads to no other conclusion that McGuinty and Blair want to arrest a lot of people, rather than provide security.

Another neat circumvention of democracy is that Toronto's mayor, David Miller, was as in the dark about this as the rest of us were. The chief of police - a municipal officer - went around the mayor and city council, to which he's at least supposed to be nominally accountable.

There's more at the link.

The Toronto Globe and Mail opined:

The Ontario government was more than just heavy-handed and oppressive in giving police wide powers at the G20 Summit in Toronto – it was sneaky, too. With no forewarning, no chance of debate, no time for a court challenge, it quietly declared the downtown area within the security fence an “island of non-constitutionality,” as a civil liberties lawyer describes it. The secrecy is nearly as bad as the substance. While the state has a right to prevent violence, what right has it to pre-empt debate and challenge?

. . .

Police in Canada don't typically have the right to stop people and demand their name and address, and an explanation of their purpose in being there, as they do under the Public Works Protection Act invoked for the summit. (What public works are being protected here, by the way?) Police don't have an automatic right to search people and their vehicles, to refuse permission for them to enter an area and use force to stop them. People can't usually be sentenced to two months in jail for failing to abide by these otherwise non-existent duties. An increased need for security at international summits isn't enough to justify these rules; the right to expression needs protection, too, when the world's leaders are at hand.

. . .

Government has no civil liberties watchdog as such; it is, however, obliged to act in conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its behaviour can be challenged in court. That may yet happen if arrests begin to pile up. But in such a short event, the damage to freedom of assembly and expression may have been done. Government itself has a duty to be vigilant, not just against radicalized protesters, but against its own temptation to compromise individual freedom.

Again, there's more at the link.

Toronto's Chief of Police tried to defend the additional powers he requested from the provincial government, but doesn't seem to have convinced many people. The police position has been made worse by the blatant falsity of many of their claims about items confiscated from passers-by. The Toronto Globe and Mail noted that many of the 'weapons' seized from alleged 'demonstrators' were not what they seemed.

Toronto Police staged a display of weaponry to demonstrate “the extent of the criminal conspiracy” among hard-line G20 protesters, but several of the items had nothing to do with the summit.

Facing criticism for their tactics, police invited journalists on Tuesday to view a range of weapons, from a machete and baseball bat to bear spray and crowbars.

Chief Bill Blair, who told reporters the items were evidence of the protesters’ intent, singled out arrows covered in sports socks, which he said were designed to be dipped in a flammable liquid and set ablaze.

However, the arrows belong to Brian Barrett, a 25-year-old landscaper who was heading to a role-playing fantasy game when he was stopped at Union Station on Saturday morning. Police took his jousting gear but let Mr. Barrett go, saying it was a case of bad timing.

In addition to the arrows – which Mr. Barrett made safe for live-action role playing by cutting off the pointy ends and attaching a bit of pool noodle covered in socks – police displayed his metal body armour, foam shields and several clubs made of plastic tubing covered with foam and fabric.

Mr. Barrett said he was “appalled” at the placement of his chain-mail beneath a machete. He regularly takes public transit from his Whitby, Ont., home to Centennial Park to play the game, called Amtgard, while wearing the 85-pound armour and is worried people will think: “Oh my God, that’s one of the terrorists from G20.”

Police also displayed a crossbow and chainsaw seized in an incident on Friday that they said had no ties to the summit. When asked, Chief Blair acknowledged they were unrelated, but said “everything else” had been confiscated from demonstrators.

On Wednesday, however, Michael Went and Doug Kerr e-mailed a letter to Chief Blair saying their bamboo poles may have been included in the exhibit. As they headed to a picnic to commemorate the 1969 Stonewall riots on Sunday morning, police seized seven or eight of the long poles, citing the G20 summit. The couple had planned to use the poles to fly a rainbow flag and decorate the park.

“It makes you wonder what are the other things that they’ve displayed [that] were taken from people on the street that weren’t doing anything wrong?” asked Mr. Kerr, a 42-year-old management consultant.

Julian Falconer, a Toronto lawyer representing four independent journalists in summit-related police complaints, called the display of unrelated objects a “public-relations exercise [that] borders on the absurd.”

More at the link, as usual.

Sounds like heavy-handed, undemocratic police conduct to me . . . eerily reminiscent of the habit of some US law enforcement agencies of sending armored, heavily-armed SWAT teams to make arrests on the flimsiest of evidence, causing injury and death to innocent persons, all because they couldn't be bothered to do things the usual way, gathering evidence and making arrests using normal police powers.

Shame on all those who made it possible, and all those trying to justify or excuse it. This is no way to exercise the 'rule of law'.

Peter

Doofus Of The Day #368

Today's award goes to a trailer-thief in Louisville, Kentucky.

Louisville police say a man's ringing cell phone proves he is a thief.

Police say the man was so anxious to get rid of a stolen utility trailer that he posted it on Craigslist.

"When I saw the ad, I really had a feeling that it was our trailer," says Charletta Scales, who owns the trailer.

Charletta Scales and her family noticed the trailer was missing on Monday. Once they spotted an ad for the trailer on Craigslist, the Scales' made an appointment to meet with the man selling the trailer.

"The minute that we actually pulled up, there was nobody in sight," says Ryan Scales, Charletta's son. "As soon as we turned the corner, I mean, the gentleman that stole it didn't even have the thought to remove the reflective tape that we had on the trailer."

Metro Police arrived a short time later. That's when the suspect, 25-year-old Gerard Ray, changed his story.

"And he looked back and said I don't know anything about that," says officer David Peters, with LMPD.

That's when police came up with a plan to determine whether or not Ray was connected to the trailer and the Craigslist ad.

"What happened was I had the victim call the number that was listed on Craigslist and he had the phone on him and it started ringing," says Officer Peters.

I'm sure the cops greatly appreciated the doofidity of the thief!



Peter

Your politicians at work - screwing the electorate one more time

I note with displeasure - but little surprise - that the House of Representatives will not be passing an annual budget for the USA this year.

Last night by the slimmest of margins (215-210), House Democrats passed a non-existent $1.12 trillion budget. Confused? I don't blame you.

The Democrats' "deemed as passed" resolution is missing the most basic elements of a standard budget that is expected each year: total outlays, total federal revenue, total proposed changes to revenue, total deficit levels, and total debt levels.

Connie Hair with Human Events points out that "never before -- since the creation of the Congressional budget process -- has the House failed to pass a budget, failed to propose a budget then deemed the non-existent budget as passed as a means to avoid a direct, recorded vote on a budget, but still allow Congress to spend taxpayer money."

So, knowing full well that our nation is already $13 trillion in debt, House Democrats found it politically expedient to pursue this alternative to a real budget that will allow them to keep up their record levels of spending without having to be fiscally accountable. Now that's leadership for you!

Unlike the commentator, I don't hold Democrats solely responsible for this monumental mess-up. I'm convinced Republicans would do precisely the same thing if it were in their best political interests. Neither party is really interested in what's good for America, or what the USA needs. They're only focused on what's good for them and their political objectives. As proof, the 'deem and pass' maneuver the Democrats used to get their 'non-budget' approved has been used in the past by Republicans as well, to pass legislation they knew would probably not make it through the usual parliamentary procedures. Both parties are equally guilty.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report last Tuesday (link is to an Adobe Acrobat file in .PDF format) that illustrates the dire financial situation into which the failures of both parties have led this country. (Admittedly, those failures have been particularly egregious during the Obama Administration, but the foundations were laid under former President Bush, and under his predecessors from both parties.) Some highlights of its report:

• The CBO report affirms that the massive health care overhaul fails to address the explosion in health care costs ... [it] states: “Enactment of the [health care] legislation did not cause CBO to change its estimates of longer-term growth rates for spending on the government's health care programs.” This finding echoes CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s recent comments: “Rising health costs will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.”
• The long-term budget outlook continues to worsen with each passing year Congress fails to act. Debt held by the public will eclipse the size of the entire US economy by the year 2023.
• Under CBO’s economic models, Americans’ living standards (real GDP per capita) begin to deteriorate in 2015, and the model breaks down completely in 2027 due to the crushing levels of debt. CBO cannot compute how an economy can function with such high levels of government borrowing to finance deficits, crowding out ever-increasing sectors of the private economy. “Unsustainable” is an understatement.
• The CBO projects that government spending as a share of economy will double by 2043, up from its historical average of roughly 20%. Despite tax revenues above the historical average in the years ahead, the explosion in spending drives the unsustainable explosion in debt. The Long-Term Budget Outlook is clear: the explosive growth of spending is the problem.
• The tidal wave of debt is driven primarily from the nation’s largest entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- along with the compounding growth in interest payments on the debt. Mandatory Federal spending on health care will roughly double from 5.5% of GDP today to 10.9% of GDP over the next 25 years.
  

So, in the face of a report so damning, from a politically neutral source, our elected 'leaders' choose to ignore reality and fail to pass an annual budget. Guess what they'll do instead? That's right - they'll make it up as they go along, sucking figures out of their thumbs, trying to 'govern by the seat of their pants' instead of sticking to hard numbers from the real world. That's too difficult, you see.

What's the answer? It's simple. Throw out every single incumbent in Washington come November. I don't care what party they belong to, and I don't care what party their replacements belong to. Send a message to Washington that the 'same old, same old' crowd are completely unacceptable, and we want change and responsible government. Guess what? If a crowd of freshmen Congresspersons and Senators roll into Washington next year, they will have gotten the message, loud and clear!

What to do with those currently in office? Let's see . . . tar . . . feathers . . . rope . . . yeah, they're all on the list. Time to go shopping!





Peter

Trying something new. Feedback, please!

Hello, readers. I've made a minor change to my blog template, so that anytime someone clicks on a link here, it'll open in a new tab (if your browser supports tabbed browsing) or a new window (if it doesn't). The idea is to make it a bit easier for readers, in that they can simply close the tab or window and be right back at the blog, instead of having to click the 'Back' arrow and wait for the blog page to reload (which can be slow, depending on the volume of Internet traffic).

Please let me know how you find this feature. If enough of you don't like it, I'll put things back the way they were. On the other hand, if you find it useful, I'll leave it in place.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Peter

I don't get it

This advertisement for the Nissan Qashqai leaves me scratching my head. I don't see the point they're trying to make.

I mean . . . bowling balls to represent the hazards of urban driving? It makes no sense. I daresay the advertising agency was trying to capitalize on the success of the unique Sony Bravia 'bouncing balls' advertisement (which is really superb, a classic of its kind), but I'm not sure the image makes the transition from TV colors to vehicle safety with any success.

What say you, readers? Does this Nissan advertisement do anything for you other than puzzle you?

Peter

Better late than never!

I was touched to read (via Cassy Fiano) the story of Robert Bearden of Belton, TX.

Robert Bearden of Belton stood front and center Monday at III Corps Headquarters wearing a crisply-pressed, vintage World War II Army uniform.

On D-Day, June 6, 1944, Bearden parachuted behind German lines with the 82nd Airborne Division.

Monday, 66 years later, 13 awards were pinned to his uniform by Maj. Gen. William F. Grimsley, acting commander of Fort Hood, during a ceremony that filled the west atrium at headquarters.




The presentation of the decorations that should have been pinned to his chest those many years ago didn’t happen for a variety of reasons. Commanders in the aftermath of the war didn’t submit the paperwork. It all fell through he cracks and Bearden never complained.

Grimsley said it finally came together from the combined efforts, hard work and diligence of U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and her staff, the Department of the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

He read a letter from Hutchison that charted Bearden’s military career beginning with his joining the Texas National Guard’s 36th Infantry Division in 1940. He went for training at the U.S. Army Parachute School at Fort Benning, Ga., in 1942. He parachuted into Normandy on D-Day in 1944.

Bearden was wounded twice in the first two days of battle. The Germans captured his unit when they were totally surrounded, out of ammunition and without food. He spent the rest of the war in a German concentration camp – Stalag IIIC just 15 miles from Berlin. The Russians liberated him there in January 1945.

Grimsley said it was a huge privilege to honor a living legend whose experiences are an account of courage and sacrifice.

“Finally, after 60 some-odd years we are about to reward him all of the awards he is due,” Grimsley said. “Courage, valor and willpower have no expiration date.”

It took about 10 minutes for Grimsley with the aid of Command Sgt. Maj. Archie Davis, the III Corps rear detachment command sergeant major, to affix so many medals at one time.

After a standing ovation, Bearden took the podium. He made no reference to the awards having come so late in life.

“I have been following this great Army since about 1940 – that’s about 70 years,” Bearden said. “I haven’t been separated from this Army by any distance for those 70 years. And I can tell you that today we have the best manned, most intelligent, best trained and best equipped fighting force ever.”

Bearden said he wanted to mention that a friend was in the audience who was a U.S. Marine.

“When I talk about D-Day I talk about Normandy,” he said. “But I can tell you he’s got several other D-Days he can talk about in the Pacific. Those great marines fought from one end of the Pacific to the other and if they hadn’t done a good job we would be speaking another language.”

Bearden said he appreciated the efficiency the III Corps military and civilian staff showed in putting together the ceremony.

“I just wish they had been planning the D-Day jump in Normandy,” Bearden said. “I might even have hit my drop zone.”

Bearden’s friends at the ceremony said he never once mentioned not getting the medals and the recognition.

“It’s just like him,” said Robert Dawson, 82. “He lived it. He didn’t need to fuss about it. He had the personal satisfaction of knowing even if nobody else knew.”

There's more at the link.

I'm sorry Mr. Bearden had to wait over 60 years to receive his medals: but, in one sense, he may be doing his country more good receiving them now than if he'd done so along with everyone else of his unit. His investiture gives us a chance to thank him, and remember his comrades, and all we owe them.

From this combat veteran to Mr. Bearden and all the others: Saaaa-lute!

Peter

Light blogging tonight

Yours truly is worn out . . . hard day of working, meds making me sleepy, and generally feeling a little out of sorts. I'll be fine in the morning, I'm sure, and I'll probably put up a couple more posts at that time.

To keep you busy until then, here's a fascinating video from Yosemite National Park about 'frazil ice'. I'd never heard of it, but I like the comparison to 'cold lava'. It seems to flow in a very similar manner.

Ol' Mother Nature can still surprise me with her creativity!

Peter