Fred Fry International

December 7th - Never Forget

2009-12-07T09:25:00.000-05:00

Today is the 68th anniversary of the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

While the attack was done by the Japanese, we in fact have three countries to 'thank' for World War II. Those of course being Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union. To this day, one of those countries has yet to atone for this crime against humanity. Unfortunately, it needs to be stated that the Soviet Union was a leading player in bringing about World War II, because Russia has never really been forced to face that inconvenient detail.

German and Soviet troops at the so-called "Border of Peace", or a demarcation line set up by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; picture taken during the Polish Defense War of 1939. Soviet BT tank visible in the foreground. - Wikipedia

So in order not to forget, we first need to properly remember and recognize the criminal acts of our supposed 'Allie' in that War.

-------------------- --------------------

Fazer's 'Mignon' Chocolate Egg

2009-12-06T14:25:00.000-05:00

Like many people, I love chocolate. And not just any chocolate, but good chocolate. Fazer in Finland makes great chocolate. My MBA classmates would joke that Fazer profits would drop when I left the country.

One of Fazer's products is their Mignon egg.

Mignon (chocolate egg)

The Mignon chocolate egg is an Easter confectionery made by the Fazer company. Its distinctive features are a filling of almond-hazelnut nougat inside a real eggshell. The Mignon is the second oldest Fazer product (only surpassed by the Pihlaja marmalade candy), dating back from 1896, when Karl Fazer brought the recipe from Germany.

Enduringly popular as parts of Finnish Easter celebrations with ca. two million eggs sold per year, Mignon eggs are handmade at the Fazer factory in Vantaa. - Wikipedia

Here are some photos of the 'unboxing' of a Fazer Mignon four-pack. Yes, they are as good as they look. And even though I moved from Finland years ago, I now buy Fazer chocolate by the case whenever I am there.

-------------------- --------------------

Gore Effect - Washington, DC Area

2009-12-05T12:20:00.001-05:00

OK, they were predicting some snow, this evening. However, the rain changed started changing to snow around 9:30 this morning instead of late afternoon like they predicted. It is also accumulating on the ground which they did not predict to happen until overnight.

Noontime - 5 December 2009 - McLean, VA

So, thanks for global warming, because otherwise without it we would be buried in snow and ice!

-------------------- --------------------

Congressional ‘Don’t ask – Don’t Tell’ Flanking Maneuver?

2009-12-04T11:30:00.000-05:00

One issue the Obama Administration has been facing is what to do with the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell‘ policy. Now comes word that Congress is looking into the matter and would like some servicemen (and women) to publicly ‘out’ themselves. As a reward for doing so, they would be given immunity in the process:

Gay service members who reveal their sexual orientations during congressional testimony would be immune from forced discharges under a bill introduced Wednesday, as lawmakers prepare to consider repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military.

The legislation’s author, U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said the bill is needed to ensure that Congress has reliable and relevant witnesses at its disposal if the House holds hearings next year on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The bill also would protect from retaliatory personnel actions any members of the military who testify for or against lifting the 16-year ban. – Washington Post

It is interesting to see how this would play out as the result would seem to be that those service members who testify would then be serving in violation of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. And once that happens I can see calls to repeal the policy altogether using those who testify as examples why the policy is no longer needed.

Then again, they can turn this into a de facto repeal depending on how they grant immunity. I would think that simply volunteering to testify would be enough to warrant immunity.

The story does note that immunity is not total:

Alexander Nichols, executive director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group for gay Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, said the legislation is good in theory but on a practical level would not protect gay service members who out themselves to Congress from becoming pariahs within their units.

“This proposal is, of course, well-intentioned and the idea behind it is certainly noble, but I believe it is a bit naive in its conceit and doesn’t reflect a thoughtfulness on what this would mean for gay and lesbian service members,” Nichols said. He thinks it is better for gay veterans to share their experiences than to put active duty service members at risk. – Washington Post

Developing…

-------------------- --------------------

Russia: 'No Copenhagen climate deal unless you pay us billions of Dollars'

2009-12-02T10:00:00.005-05:00

While the Obama Presidency has been trying to take advantage of the slogan 'never let a good crisis go to waste', leave it to the Russians to show how to do it right.

Take the urgent call to act to prevent disaster from uncontrolled runaway global warming. The Russians are fully willing to 'do their part' to avert global calamity, as long as they profit in the process:

NEW YORK – A long simmering but infrequently discussed issue over carbon credits that Russia has amassed under its Kyoto Protocol obligations threatens to erupt at Copenhagen and possibly scuttle chances for a politically viable agreement to emerge from the talks, American and foeign analysts have said.

The Kremlin has recently begun to apply pressure that it be allowed to hold on to it Kyoto carbon credits in the run up to Copenhagen. But environmentalists insist that allowing this roll over would hobble any treaty by making it far cheaper to buy up surplus Russian credits than to actually undertake efforts in energy efficiency, renewable energy and technologies to abate global warming. - Charles Digges, 01/12-2009, Bellona Foundation

The Russians know a good scam when they see one. 'ClimateGate' is not the only global warming conspiracy out there. There are a couple of green conspiracies floating around and the reward of billions of dollars in carbon credits to Russia is one of them.

Russia's credits of course were due to the combination of the Soviet Union being both a very dirty polluter, setting the bar high for them and the resulting collapse of the Soviet Union which took down much of their dirty industry with them.

The whole point of giving 'carbon credits' based on how much pollution a country was responsible for was to permit each country a non-destructive path from their current industrial situation to one that was greener without causing complete havoc in the process. However, in the case of the Soviet Union, these dirty factories were closed anyway, leaving in their wake a massive pile of permits of pollute, which Russia has been selling to businesses around the world subverting other country's attempts to push industry to greener alternatives.

Simply put, the Kyoto Treaty enabled Russia to profit from the environmental damage the Soviet Union was responsible for. Now that Kyoto is ending, they want to ensure that they can continue to profit, even though Russia's CO2 output is growing like crazy. They have good reason to demand a continuation of the past agreement given how much it was worth to them:

In futures trading for contracts maturing next year in Europe, prices are about €15 per carbon credit, the Financial Times reported earlier this month. One carbon credit offsets one ton of carbon emissions.

At current prices, the total value for Russian carbon credits could be between €30 billion and €45 billion, ($40 billion to $60 billion) said the Financial Times. The downside is that, should Copenhagen talks to devise a replacement agreement for Kyoto, the carbon credits could become a poof of air. - Bellona

Ideally, if any similar process to Kyoto is put in place, then there needs to have a new benchmark to measure each country's emissions from. It makes no sense at all to continue using emission numbers from 1990 which were already inaccurate when Kyoto was signed in the late 1990's.

Even better would be to get rid of the 'cap and trade' system. It actually undoes green activity.

One reason for this is that in many cases when a company does something to make their output 'greener' they have to completely redo their operations which results in a much greater lowering of their greenhouse gas emissions than is required. (i.e., putting in a CO2 scrubber in a smokestack might reduce emissions by 60% but the company only had to reduce by 10%.) So the environment actually gained by the conversion. So it makes no sense to then take that gain and use it as permission for others not to make their companies greener.

Worse, in the case of the Russian Carbon credits, the reduced emissions came free. So every Russian carbon credit sold actually makes the planet a little less green because there is no Russian factory that otherwise would be spewing greenhouse gasses. It would be like me demanding carbon credits for a third child that I decide not to have. After all, it is not like I am going to have the third child if I am not compensated.

What other global warming madness is out there? (Besides the big question of whether the planet actually is warming or not and if so what is the cause for it!)

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 190 Posted at gCaptain (My Last)

2009-11-30T09:45:00.000-05:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 190

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 140 here. (Published 15 December 2008).

Note: This was my last regular edition of Maritime Monday. After almost 4 years I am ready for a break from the weekly routine. I look forward to reading the upcoming editions instead of writing them for a change!

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47 - 48 - 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 - 55 - 56 - 57 - 58 - 59 - 60 - 61 - 62 - 63 - 64 - 65 - 66 - 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 - 71 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 86 - 87 - 88 - 89 - 90 - 91 - 92 - 93 - 94 - 95 - 96 - 97 - 98

gCaptain editions: 99 - 100 - 101 - 102 - 103 - 104 - 105 - 106 - 107 - 108 - 109 - 110 - 111 - 112 - 113 - 114 - 115 - 116 - 117 - 118 - 119 - 120 - 121 - 122 - 123 - 123a - 124 - 125 - 126 - 127 - 128 - 129 - 130 - 131 - 132 - 133 - 134 - 135 - 136 - 137 - 138 - 139 - 140 - 141 - 142 - 143 - 144 - 145 - 146 - 147 - 148 - 149 - 150 - 151 - 152 - 153 - 154 - 155 - 156 - 157 - 158 - 159 - 160 - 161 - 162 - 163 - 164 - 165 - 166 - 167 - 168 - 169 - 170 - 171 - 172 - 173 - 174 - 175 - 176 - 177 - 178 - 179 - 180 - 181 - 182 - 183 - 184 - 185 - 186 - 187 - 188 - 189 - 190

-------------------- --------------------

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T11:55:00.001-05:00

Staying home this year for Thanksgiving.

So no traffic to deal with, a plus in itself.

Best to all.

-------------------- --------------------

Bogus Public Health Care Insurance Option Ad - 'Competition'

2009-11-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

I saw this ad from an organization that calls itself 'Health Care for America Now'.
--------------------

--------------------
Link

My first reaction to this ad was that these people are full of bullsh*t.

It is not that they don't identify a real problem, because they do. This organization is full of bull sh*t because of their endorsement of the Democrat solution of a 'public' health care option. Really, for a state with only one or two health care insurance providers, adding a Government-run public option is only going to add one more player to the market. And that one additional service provider will be a Government-run insurance provider that has the ability to offer a competing product at below-cost rates. (Taxpayers then pay the difference from the rates charged and the actual cost of the care provided.) That is not the addition of a competitor but a path to single payer. This is because the 'public' option will drive the competition out of business. The ad give example of the current lack of competition in parts of the US given how some areas have only one or two insurance companies active in those markets.

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

Not mentioned in the ad is the reason behind this problem. That being the ban on the purchase of health insurance across state lines. This is another reason these people are full of bull is that if they were serious in solving this problem of a lack of competition, they they would be pushing for an end to the ban on buying health insurance across state lines.

If this limitation was removed, then Congress would achieve their goal of increasing competition across the whole United States without the need of a 'Public' option. However, this is not their goal. Their goal has always been Government-controlled health care. And if they get their way, there will be only one health care organization allowed to offer health care across state lines and that will be the Federal Government.

Another thing about the 'Public Option' is that the current bills in Congress will only permit a small population of Americans eligible to enroll, so for almost all Americans the public option will not change the availability of additional health insurance providers at all, which is the main argument of this commercial. So for most people the situation above will remain even if Congress approves health care reform.

Assuming that those behind the ad are relatively smart and informed people, what exactly are they trying to accomplish with this ad?

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 189 Posted at gCaptain

2009-11-23T13:00:00.003-05:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 189

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 139 here. (Published 8 December 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------

Good News About What's Not in the Climate Warmist's Emails

2009-11-21T11:25:00.001-05:00

Surely you have now seen news of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit which seem to point to all sorts of action by scientists investigating 'Climate change' to support their theory that the world is warming and warming due to human activity. (See 'Warmist conspiracy exposed?' for a great summary of what some of the emails say.)

While others concentrate on what the emails say, I noticed at least two major points that the emails do not say. I have the database of the stolen data and have read a number of emails based on some search words that I was looking for. Here is what does not seem to be in the messages:

Any sort of conspiracy to conceal that we are too late to stop the planet from burning up due to global warming. (You know the end of the world scenario where world governments are secretly building shelters to save a select few from an unstoppable global calamity)
Any sort of concern on the part of scientists that we will eventually be doomed to die from global warming. No fear of rising waters drowning them all or discussions on the best place to survive the catastrophe that they are publicly pushing.
In fact, there seems to be no signs of fear that we must act now as is being called for by scientists and many world leaders.

The only fear that I can see is their concern that actual weather patterns are not supporting their claims that the planet is warming and the fear that the voices of global warming skeptics are getting a foothold in countering their message.

So, this rather unfortunate crime of hacked messages (it is a crime after all) does bear some good news after all. For me, I have always seen the issue of 'climate change' as a two part question:

Is the planet warming? (The answer appeared to be yes)
Why? (Human action, sun spots, water vapor, other, all together...)

These supposedly sharp scientists have for years automatically blamed us and I have always had a hard time with the careless assumption of theirs. Now with this release of questionable activity, I would like to see a genuine attempt to properly answer the two questions above. I would also like to see these 'scientists' thoroughly investigated and prosecuted if they seems to have acted in a criminal fashion. For me, collusion to destroy data would seem to be a criminal act in it's own right.

One more thing. The planet's climate has always been changing. It is idiotic to think that we can stop it. That is just asinine.

-------------------- --------------------

World's Most Expensive Whore - Works in Congress

2009-11-19T21:30:00.000-05:00

Nothing like stealing from taxpayers to further your own social agenda. And nothing like whoring out your state's vote for some extra cash:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million. - ABC News

Not that this type of game playing has not been done before and surely Congressmen have traded their votes for a little extra for their own state. However, this might be the most expensive vote purchase ever.

This one section of the bill will cost each American 33 cents. That is $1.32 for a family of four and if you take into account that half of all Americans pay no taxes, that comes out to $2.64 out of your pocket to Louisiana's pockets, in order to get her to vote for the health care monstrosity. Of course the money in itself is trivial, but the result is priceless.

And of course, the 33 cents is just a down payment on our entrance fee for this Government-mandated shakedown.

-------------------- --------------------

Interesting - I am Registered to Vote in at Least Two States...

2009-11-17T22:50:00.001-05:00

Over the weekend my brother asked me if I was still voting absentee in NY. I told him no. He then proceeded to tell me that I am still on the voter rolls in New York. I went to the New York State Voter Search (here) and sure enough my registration remains active.

This is crazy and a perfect example of how screwed up the US voter registration rolls are. The last time I voted in New York State was the Presidential Elections in 2000. I voted absentee as I was living in Finland at the time. In 2001 I moved back to the US and registered to vote in Virginia. In 2002 I moved to Washington, DC and Registered to vote there. Then at the end of 2005 I moved back to Virginia and registered to vote there that December. I have voted in each election and have only voted in the district where I was living. I checked to see if I was still registered to vote in DC (here) and it turns out that I am not.

It would be very simple to make voter rolls in the US much more accurate and eliminate the possibility of people being registered to vote in more than one state. All that is needed is to create a single national database based off of the Social Security database of only those who are citizens as only citizens are eligible to vote. When you go to register in a state, that state updates your registration. When a person dies, the database is updated and that person can no longer vote. This will put an end to relatives voting absentee for their recently departed family members.

If you really want to get fancy, the database can link to photos from each state's Motor Vehicle office. Bring in registration terminals to the voting locations and there is no longer a need for most people to produce photo IDs as you can check directly against the DMV photo.

Of course this does not really address many problems related to absentee ballot fraud, but it will certainly limit the possibilities for it.
-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 188 Posted at gCaptain

2009-11-16T10:20:00.000-05:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 188

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 138 here. (Published 1 December 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 187 Posted at gCaptain

2009-11-09T10:05:00.000-05:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 187

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 137 here. (Published 24 November 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 186 Posted at gCaptain

2009-11-02T10:25:00.000-05:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 186

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 136 here. (Published 17 November 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------

Congress: "To allow the government to operate in competition with private enterprise was unthinkable as a long-range solution"

2009-10-30T10:40:00.002-04:00

This recent talk of having a Government-run 'public-option' for health care to compete with private health insurance companies is not the first time that the US Government has come across the idea of running a business in direct competition against private businesses. The opinion at the time was that this was a very bad idea. Perhaps Congress should explain what has changed since then:

In the years from 1921 to 1923, the world was glutted by a surplus of Shipping; the vast fleet built to carry world trade during the war drove down shipping rates and an already cutthroat business became even more competitive. To shipowners, the social reforms and restrictions imposed by the Shipping Board became convenient explanations for a shrinking proportion of the world shipping revenue. It appeared that, ironically, the very laws intended to strengthen American shipping would weaken its competitive position and drive it from world trade. The classic conservative arguments against governmental regulation of business could be put to work; the 'do-gooder" meddling of reformers once again had been proven wrong.

The question of how to reconcile the apparently incompatible goals of the Progressive era-nationalism and social justice-had plagued the Progressive movement itself and helped lead to its demise. In the 1920'S, the conflict of these two ideological slants in maritime policy led to heated debates over several alternate solutions, of which the ship subsidy idea was one. If the government could subsidize shipping, American working conditions could be met, and ships might operate at rates competitive with foreign shipping. Several efforts to pass a comprehensive subsidy system failed since they appeared to be pure special-interest legislation. But in 1928, Congress enacted a mail subsidy plan that provided aid to regular cargo liners but not to tramp steamers, tankers, or so-called proprietary vessels owned by companies such as Standard Oil or United Fruit for the transport of their own products. Another partial remedy was the continued exclusion of alien flags from American coastal routes - the traditional enforcement of "cabotage" first established in the United States in 1789. Still another solution could be found in the retention of ships directly owned by the government through the Emergency Fleet Corporation established during the war and operated by the Shipping board. Such ships could operate at a loss, supported from general revenues, if necessary. This system, however, resembled state socialism, and Congress instructed the board to sell off those ships as soon as possible. To allow the government to operate in competition with private enterprise was unthinkable as a long-range solution. - Sovereignty for Sale (pages 4-5)

Of course this did not make sense for shipping then and it certainly makes no sense for health care today either. Especially if you consider that for the 'public option' to foster competition as the Democrats claim, then it has to offer lower rates than private industry. This it can do with no regard for the actual cost of covering people enrolled in their plans. That will result in the killing of private health insurance. And what kind of competition will that bring?

CONGRESS PROGRAM FOR OUR TRADING FLEET - NY Times, 1919

-------------------- --------------------

PelosiCare's Death Panel (Pages 111-118)

2009-10-30T09:00:00.005-04:00

The newest Health Care reform bill presented by Nancy Pelosi Thursday includes a 'death panel'.

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
and premium plans. - Page 111, HR's ‘Affordable Health Care for America Act'

The job of this panel would be to define acceptable treatment standards and I would suspect that would include who gets what treatment. So guess who does not get treatment that they otherwise would. The very old and also the very young. The people who support this can argue all they want about this, however, this is that they have in the UK and other countries with socialist health care systems and this is exactly what happens.

The last time around, the 'Death Panel' argument somehow got mixed up in the end of life counseling. That was not the Death Panel provision. It is this one that plans to define care that is.

A couple of quick comments:

- Pelosi proclaimed that this bill will bring medical coverage to 36 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Not said was that millions of them can get insurance now but opt not to, mainly because they are young and healthy and do not see the need to overpay for health care in relation to the risk of not having it.

- Pelosi also failed to note that many of those 36 million are being force to get health care because they will be over-billed in order to fund care for others. This in effect is a tax on the young.

- See my post on this issue here:
"Mr. President. If Mandatory Health Insurance is not a Tax..."

- Also see my comments on better reform for health care here:
"Real Health Care Insurance Reform (and it does not take 1,000+ Pages!)"

UPDATE:

Seems that the other death panel provision is in this bill as well:

The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to "death panels" for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.

The provision allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. - Fox News

-------------------- --------------------

Save the Planet - Kill The Animals

2009-10-29T08:35:00.000-04:00

So the news this week spent lots of time covering the suggestion that humans give up meat as part of actions to save the planet from ~~global warming~~Climate Change.

If that sounds familiar it's because the U.N. brought it up before, but this time it comes from the U.K.'s climate chief Lord Stern of Brentford, who told The Times of London: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better." - Fox News

The reason being that raising livestock is wasteful of nateral resources such as water and grains, resulting in a massive carbon footprint just for you to be able to enjoy that hamburger or steak.

This got me thinking. Just how much do animals contribute to CO2 emissions? After a little investigation, it turns out that the animal world is responsible for over 20 times the CO2 that humans are responsible for. Here are some numbers that I got from the documentary 'The Global Warming Swindle'

150 Gigatons - From Animals and bacteria
006.5 Gigatons - From Humans

So maybe these environmentalists have it wrong. We should not be doing away with meat products. After all, they are providing a need. Instead they should be investigating the need to kill off the planet's animals that are providing nothing to human needs. Take the Polar bears. Environmentalists are crying for action to be taken to save them. Why? All they do is exhale CO2 and kill off fish. As the numbers above show, humans can eliminate 100% of their carbon emissions and it will barely make a dent in comparison to the damage that wild animals do.

Is this idea crazy? Yes it is and no I do not support it. I am merely pointing out how ridiculous the liberal's are in their fight against 'climate change'. And for any liberals who look to criticize this suggestion, do keep in mind that not only was there a call to stop eating meat, there was also a suggestion by other liberals in this very same crusade for people to consider eating their pets.

“A typical medium sized dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. This gives your dog a footprint of 0.84 hectares, more than twice that of a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser. Cats, meanwhile, have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf), hamsters come in at 0.014 hectares apiece (buy two, and you might as well have bought a plasma TV) and canaries half that. Even a goldfish requires 0.00034 hectares (3.4 square metres) of land to sustain it, giving it an ecological fin-print equal to two cellphones.” - Telegraph

So if pets are responsible for large carbon footprints, just imagine how much damage all these animals out in the wild are doing. At least pets are providing enjoyment of some kind. So maybe these so-called scientists are onto something. They just picked the wrong animals to target.

-------------------- --------------------

Another Obama Lie? "Will target Businesses that hire Illegal Aliens"

2009-10-27T12:15:00.002-04:00

The Obama Administration declared shortly after taking office that they were going to shift enforcement of immigration law away from targeting illegal aliens to instead concentrating on those who hire illegal aliens.

Unfortunately, I do not see their first high-profile case as anything useful in terms of being an example to others not to hire illegal aliens:

Two owners of a Bellingham engine-rebuilding company that was raided in January, raising questions about federal policies on illegal immigrants, were sentenced Monday to a year on probation and their business must pay a $100,000 fine.

Shafique Amirali Dhanani and Shirin Dhanani Makala, corporate directors, managers and two owners of family-owned Yamato Engine Specialists, were spared prison time, fines and restitution in plea agreements followed to the letter by U.S. District Judge James L. Robart.

A guilty plea was entered earlier Monday for Yamato, which agreed to pay half the fine immediately and the balance by Dec. 31. The company also must take out a half-page advertisement in The Bellingham Herald to describe how it got into hot water for hiring undocumented workers. - Seattle Times

One odd aspect of this case was that the illegal aliens employed by the company were given work permits to remain in the country legally so that they could testify against the owners of the company. So what the hell was the Government doing making a deal? They were guilty as hell and should have been headed to jail as an example to others not to hire illegals. Instead, they get off with a slap on the wrists. As for the ad, what on earth kind of punishment is that? Is that like writing 1,000 times on the blackboard that you promise not to do it again?

What a joke. But I can't say that I am surprised. This is worse than before. At least before INS was trying to catch and deport illegal aliens. Now they are not doing that, nor are they hunting down those who hire them. Really, where are the other busts of employers? There is nothing of any substance.

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 185 Posted at gCaptain

2009-10-26T10:20:00.000-04:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 185

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 135 here. (Published 10 November 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------

Mr. President. There is already a tax on Soda!

2009-10-22T09:30:00.000-04:00

Recently, President Obama has come out in favor of a new tax on soda.

The President, in an interview with Men's Health magazine released yesterday, said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform.

"It's an idea that we should be exploring," the President said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else." - Daily News

Tell me if there is such a thing as a tax that President Obama is against.

A tax on soda is a ridiculous idea. Even more-so when proposed by the President, who should both know better as well as have better things to occupy his time with.

First, the whole reason for proposing such a tax, to discourage consumption as part of encouraging Americans to lose weight, is frivolous. Soda is cheap. Even doubling the price of soda is not exactly going to cut consumption by those who need to drink less soda. It will only cut consumption by those who view the higher prices as a waste of money.

Second, there is already a tax on soda. Take the main ingredient that should be in soda but is not, SUGAR. Why do they not put sugar in soda? It is too expensive to do so because Congress made sugar expensive. Generally, sugar prices in the US are twice the world price. Take a look at where most candy is being made these days. Much of what was traditionally US-made candy is now being made in Canada. Simply because the main ingredient, sugar, is much cheaper there.

As for soda, both Pepsi and Coke switched to corn syrup years ago because it is cheaper. But Congress likes corn farmers too and has been busy for years working to increase the price of corn products through increased demand. Corn syrup is one use. Then there is all the mandates to increase the use of ethanol, which is made mostly from corn. All of this raises the price of products that use corn ingredients. The ethanol mandate has been rather insidious as it has helped raise the price of corn around the globe. And as the cost of corn syrup rises, so does the price of soda. And when the price increases are a result of Government meddling, then that increased cost is a tax.

The sad fact in all of this is that due to the stupidity and frank dishonesty of Congress, the rest of us are basically denied better-tasting soda. Soda that by all common sense should be made from real sugar, not from inferior-tasting substitutes. Not only that, but it pushes people to switch to inferior products, only driving them away from the one that they want to consume.

Now comes news that the governor of New York is looking at the soda tax again, and this time he is not even pretending that this is anything other than a means of raising more cash for Government use:

Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax.

"I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it," Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. "But you can’t keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don’t want to make cuts." - NY Post

Finally, just to seal any doubt about how bogus a soda tax is, the CEO of CoCa-Cola slammed the idea of taxing soda to make Americans healthier:

Coke Didn't Make America Fat - Americans need more exercise, not another tax.

Our industry has become an easy target in this debate. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute. It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages.

Those pushing for this tax lack some essential facts, not to mention some basic common sense. Over the past 20 years, the average caloric content of soft drinks has dropped by nearly 25%. This is due in large part to a determined focus by our company and others on the diet/light category with brands like Diet Coke, Coca-Cola Zero and Powerade Zero. Even soft drinks with sugar, like Coca-Cola, contain no more calories (140 calories in a can) than some common snacks, breakfast foods and most desserts served up daily in millions of American homes. And while obesity rates have skyrocketed, sales of regular soft drinks decreased by nearly 10% from 2000 to 2008, according to the industry publication Beverage Digest. - WSJ

For more background on this mess, read the history of sugar price fixing here:

The Great Sugar Shaft - The Future of Freedom Foundation

Related:
Corn is Food - Not Fuel - 19 Aug 09

-------------------- --------------------

V-Bama

2009-10-09T08:00:00.006-04:00

ABC is remaking the classic series 'V'.

The series is set to air in November. The promo looks like it is going to be a good show. Funny how the alien invaders look to win over the population with claims of 'Hope and Change'.

Link

So that gave me an idea. Behold the V-Obama posters.

What timing. Just this morning comes news that the President has won the Nobel Peace Prize. See, Hope and Change are real powerful weapons. In some cases more powerful than actual accomplishments...

-------------------- --------------------

French Navy Captures More Somali Pirates - Photos

2009-10-08T22:30:00.001-04:00

Here is the story as reported in the Journal of Commerce:

Five Somali pirates were captured today after they mistook a French naval ship for a cargo vessel. The pirates were repelled in a night attack on the French refueling vessel La Somme, which is serving as the command ship for French forces in the Indian Ocean. - JOC (Click for the full story)

Here are the photos from the French Military Forces website:

Link to the report in French here:

Piraterie : le BCR Somme intercepte 5 pirates au large de la Somalie
(Note they delete these stories after a couple months)

More at EagleSpeak:
Somali Pirates: Mistaken Identity Attack
-------------------- --------------------

DC Monuments at Night - Photos

2009-10-06T21:10:00.000-04:00

Here are some photos from a recent evening tour I gave in Washington, DC.

-------------------- --------------------

Maritime Monday 182 Posted at gCaptain

2009-10-05T10:50:00.002-04:00

This week's edition of Maritime Monday has been posted at gCaptain.

Maritime Monday 182

You can find last week’s edition here.

You can find Maritime Monday 132 here. (Published 20 October 2008).

--------------------

--------------------

Previous Editions:
As linked below or click on the label ‘MaritimeMonday’:

-------------------- --------------------