Disqus - Latest Comments for blabman

Re: Letters to the Editor Ignorance has made county unfriendly to ag - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

blabman — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:33:34 -0000

J Buss, you are occasionally amusing, but seldom factual.

There is no such tax proposed in the US.

The greenhouse gas produced by livestock that is of concern is Methane, not Carbon Dioxide. The sources include enteric fermentation (mostly burps), and manure, which is a mostly insignificant source. http://www.epa.gov/methane/...

I also think it is disingenuous to proclaim that a imaginary "tax" will drive farmers out of business, without any mention of the hundreds of billions of dollars of agricultural subsidies already spent to support them.

And frankly, the diatribe on DDT is a classic example of your flawed thinking. Your assumptions overstate the malaria control effectiveness of DDT use before the ban, particularly in Africa. You also make statements about the health effects of this moderately toxic substance that have no relation to the real scientific evidence.

And finally, I do find your concern for African children laudable, but have you also considered the effect on children that live in areas with very low incidences of malaria? I can't imagine why you would hate them so much that you want to expose them to this persistent pesticide in their food supply? What have they done to you?!

Re: Either Washington or Lincoln a perfect pick - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

blabman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:05 -0000

I agree Cal.

Lincoln said "If I could keep the Union together by freeing all the slaves, I'd do that; if I could free none, I'd do that; and if I could free some, and not others, I'd do that." That is as plainly spoken as can be.

He was a great man, too great to be mythologized.

And Cal, it does appear the ECH would prefer I take my opinions elsewhere. I wish you the best, and bid you farewell!

Re: Federal stimulus proposal is flawed - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

blabman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:15:17 -0000

Hi Cal, it is always a pleasure to share ideas with you.

Perhaps my summary of the Newsweek article was incomplete. Only 5 of the 11 paragraphs followed the theme I paraphrased. I was just puzzled that you used the article to lead your point, but didn’t actually mention anything but the title.

You did, however, make a bold assertion like “borrowing and printing more money in one year than we’ve ever even thought of in the last 235!” I can’t simply ignore the $11 Trillion of debt we racked up in one generation to make a rhetorical point!

I respect that you have a strong view on our Nation’s direction, and I enjoy when you share it. I enjoy it even more when you articulate it factually.

The point I made was not whether you’ve railed against the debt. It was that it is Congress that has been consistently spending more than it takes in. The GOP is culpable for the doubling that debt in the last decade.

I am amused at how often the phrase “provides for the common defense.” Is quoted and used as justification for military spending. Perhaps you will acknowledge that the Preamble to the Constitution contains substantially higher hopes for our society.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

War has traditionally been a justification for deficit spending. By tradition, I cite examples like The Revolutionary War, The Spanish-American War, The Civil War, WWI and WWII. When our nation is under attack, we should use whatever resources we have available to devastate our enemy.

I’m sure thousands of Korean and Vietnam War veterans would be justified for taking umbrage with your assertion that the Soviet Union was the “one and only” threat from 1949 to 1991. I honor their sacrifice, and I know in my heart that you do too!

I’ve heard the assertion that SDI accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union. I think it is overstating the facts. National Defense spending under President Reagan was about $1.88 Trillion. Of that, approximately $500 Billion was for procurement, and $204 Billion for all R&D, of which SDI was only a small part. I assert that the weapons build-up that hurt the Soviet economy was mostly conventional. This was evident a few years later when the world’s fourth largest military (composed of mostly Soviet hardware) was savaged in the first Gulf War. That equipment used was created to enable us to mobilize to counter a conventional Soviet threat in Europe. Whether this was sufficient justification for $2 Trillion in deficits is debatable.

Another point on which we agree. The current Federal debt represents an obligation for my family of approximately $152,000. That is about what I paid for my home. That is also true for every American family, to the tune of about $38,000 per person.

From my perspective, the Iraq War hasn’t exactly been miraculous. Our Intelligence apparatus failed us in the run-up. Our servicemen and women, allies and contractors accomplished what is undoubtedly the most astounding military victory in world history. It will make our enemies quake in their boots for decades. But we didn’t have a good plan to fill the vacuum we created, and we gave the insurgency the foothold they needed. Would you consider yourself free if your country were occupied?

History shows that this is often the way it works when an overwhelming military force conquers, but does not secure the peace. Fortunately, our military brooks no self-delusion. They adapted their tactics, and the politicians eventually did too. In the not too distant future, our military will need to leave. Then, hopefully the Iraqi people will have the chance to be truly free.

As far as the statement that we “haven’t taken a barrel of Iraqi oil”, that seems implausible. About half of their oil exports are destined for the United States, and as many as 300,000 barrels a day are siphoned illegally. I’m not convinced that Americans are not receiving any direct or in-kind benefit from Iraqi oil.

I am also a proud American. I expect my political and military leadership to be responsible for their actions. There have been many avoidable mistakes. Despite (and because of) the mistakes, we have won the war. The purpose of our military is not to build other nations. We now need a graceful exit. That is not an un-patriotic view, nor does it dishonor the sacrifice of our servicemen.

Thanks for the reply. I do value your views. Maybe tomorrow I’ll have time to address your very interesting points on the economy/deficit/entitlements.

Re: Federal stimulus proposal is flawed - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

blabman — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:24:45 -0000

Hey! It's like old home week around here!

It’s not too much trouble to be civil, smart, on-topic and profanity-free. Is it?

And frankly, if those are the ECH’s “true colors”, then more power to them. There are 7 advertisements on this page. Since I didn’t pay to express my opinion, I’m guessing they are picking up the tab for all of us.

I have a lot of gripes with this Congress, but I’m not sure what you meant by “…refused to take a single stand on principle”. The 110th Congress had actually taken a stand against President Bush at least six times, even though they didn't have the votes to override vetoes. The President had only vetoed one bill prior.

Congress and the new Democratic administration are definitely going to own the results of this legislation. According to the WSJ, it breaks down as $308 Billion in supplemental discretionary spending, $288 Billion in tax reductions, and $190 Billion in aid (mostly to states for Medicare costs).

A CBO analysis of the Senate version concluded that over 10 years “…the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” One can hope.

I would prefer our government limit spending to what it raises in taxes. But since we the people are rich enough to spend $700 Billion to "free" the people of Iraq, and another $700 Billion to "rescue" the people of Wall Street, then maybe we can afford to spend $800 Billion at home.

I read the Newsweek article you referred to. It didn’t advocate Socialism, simply opined that it seems strange that the GOP started using “the S word” as a pejorative in the most recent presidential campaign, since it was plainly their leadership that were “the architect of this new era of big government.”

It is hard to ignore that the GOP controlled Congress from Jan 4, 1995 to Jan 4, 2007. In the 90s, they did a great job of getting deficit spending under control. Sadly, it didn't continue into the next decade. The President of the United States was also a Republican from Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009. During this time our nation's debt more than doubled. So, did this more than $4 Trillion in debt somehow contribute to this economic crisis? I think it probably did.

It seems that it has become fashionable to be a fiscal conservative again now that the mid-term election campaigns have begun. It is too bad that conservatives aren’t running on their record of leadership.