Corporate Jets to Congress

Years back, I took a tour of Glessner House/ museum on Prairie Avenue, in Chicago. The house, designed for Glessner, one of the founders of International Harvester, had etchings showing his factory with smoke stack pouring out black smoke. If he were CEO today, he would never fill his study with pictures showing-off the large amount of waste-product his company was generating; but back in 1886, it was a status-symbol.
Times Change.........

JONATHAN BERR wrote about how he thought that
Wall Street Has Many Things to Be Sorry About -- Just Not Corporate Jets

[However, amenities aside, there is a sound business reason for big-shot executives to use corporate jets. Oftentimes, it's the most practical way for CEOs to get from one place to another. The aviation system used by most of the public is not always a suitable alternative for these fliers. It can't get them to the places they need to be in a timely manner. As a taxpayer, I would rather have Dimon and Moynihan show up at an important hearing than be stuck at an airport somewhere.]

Yes, I get the idea that CEOs of major corporations expect lavish perks, I understand the concept that if a corporation want's to compete for the "Best talent" they are going to have to compete against other companies willing to provide the perks. I even understand the argument that if you divide the CEO's seven-figure salary by the 50 hours they work per week, the saving in time more than offsets the cost of the chartered flight. What is being missed is the symbolism.

People are hurting. The economy, while improved from the dooms-day predictions" of a year ago; still has America facing 10% unemployment, and many small business in a "Life VS Death struggle" to survive. People understand the massive burden placed on our nation's future, our children's future, based on the mountain of debt we carry personally, and the government carries on our behalf. The American taxpayer, the American consumer remembers the unprecedented $750 Billion dollars of infusion capital the Bush Administration asked for and received and how that money was handed out to our largest banks and financial institutions.

O.K., If that is what it took to stabilize our economy; then so be it; but if your company was the precipitant of some of that money; DON"T SHOW UP TO CONGRESS IN A FRIGGIN PRIVATE JET.

On “Hannity’s America,” called-out Al Gore for flying on a private jet, while lecturing to all the world about the dangers of Global Climate

"In short, flying in a private jet does more than four times the carbon emission damage to the environment than flying a regular commercial jet. So if you were worried about your quote-unquote "carbon footprint" on the environment, and if you are concerned about carbon neutrality, the last thing that you should be doing is flying on private jets. Sit in coach, you might save a polar bear".
As I wrote in an earlier piece, If you are going to Congress, crying about how you are running out of money- don't go there in a private jet!
I understand compared to the scale of the problem, that Gore's flights have no impact, or that the cost of the private jets had no impact on the financial meltdown. Based on the large salaries these executives are making, it is not unreasonable to expect them to have the savvy to understand that showing up to congress in your Gulf Stream Jet; is like pulling up to work in a new Ferrari on the same day your laying-off 20% of your company’s work force. It is not enough just to make the case that corporations can justify giving their powerful wealthy executives enormous perks, or that they can construct the math in a way to prove the savings in time might justify the expense.

Larry Lubell
Urban News

Unique Insurance Rating

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACTS: Analysts Public Relations
Bob Podolski Jim Peavy
(908) 439-2200, ext. 5731 (908) 439-2200, ext. 5644
bob.podolski@ambest.com james.peavy@ambest.com
Joseph Burtone Rachelle Morrow
(908) 439-2200, ext. 5125 (908) 439-2200, ext. 5378
joseph.burtone@ambest.com rachelle.morrow@ambest.com

A.M. Best Upgrades Issuer Credit Rating of

Unique Insurance Company

OLDWICK, N.J., Nov. 2, 2009—A.M. Best Co. has upgraded the issuer credit rating (ICR) to “bb+” from “bb” and affirmed the financial strength rating (FSR) of B (Fair) of Unique Insurance Company (Unique) (Chicago, IL). The outlook for both ratings is stable.
The upgrading of Unique’s ICR reflects its consistently favorable operating results and surplus growth. The company’s FSR recognizes its elevated expense and underwriting leverage ratios and concentration of risk in Illinois, writing non-standard automobile insurance. The outlook is based on the long-term consistency of Unique’s operating results.

For Best’s Credit Ratings, an overview of the rating process and rating methodologies, please visit www.ambest.com/ratings.
The principal methodologies used in determining these ratings, including any additional methodologies and factors that may have been considered, can be found at www.ambest.com/ratings/methodology.
Founded in 1899, A.M. Best Company is a global full-service credit rating organization dedicated to serving the financial and health care service industries, including insurance companies, banks, hospitals and health care system providers. For more information, visit www.ambest.com.

GM and America's Future

It was a little more than 10 years ago when walking down the street from my home in Chicago, that I saw a woman was opening a small "Wash your Own Dog" business. While I wished her well, I was concerned that the business would not last 3 months. I never could have guessed that her micro business would out last General Motors.

For many decades GM stood for all that was right with the American economy. http://urbaninsuranceagency.com/insurance-articles/241/too-big-to-fail%3f.html It was a shining symbol of the power of America and our dominance in the world. The problem with being a symbol; is when times change; you quickly find yourself represented as all that is wrong, and how far we have slid.

We can not compete by having the lowest priced work force. America will not benefit from a "Race to the Bottom";but gone are the days when we can kid ourselves in to thinking that we in some way above the global economy, or that we can survive just selling to each other, the goods other countries have produced.We need to actuality make something. We also need to understand the world markets, and produce cars that global market wants to buy.

I do believe GM will come out of bankruptcy and has a real chance of returning to profitability (albeit, a smaller company)

Help for Detroit's big 3 ?

Executives of Detroit's Big Three automakers marched over to Washington to plead for a $25 billion bridge loan from Congress. This was a long way fro the days when GM was the worlds largest company, and the saying went- "What is good for GM, is what's good for the nation. Today they came- hat-in-hand; with smell of blood in the water, sharks were swimming in tight circles- but showed little interest in biting. It was as if they knew this meal would leave a bad taste in their mouths. Yet there was Rick Wagoner, and his counter parts at Ford and Chrysler; desperate to save their once-proud companies from collapse.


"Our industry ... needs a bridge to span the financial chasm that has opened up before us," General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner read to Senate Banking Committee from a prepared test.

He explained how the "Dark- days" that the US Car Industry finds it's self, not the fault of management, but is the product of the convergence of factors, most beyond their control. All three explained that the combination of first $140 dollar oil killed demand for their "Hottest" and most profitable products. Just as the cost of fuel started to drop, setting up conditions for renewed interest in SUVs, the deepening global financial crisis, turned consumers into scared squirrels, stocking away nuts for a coming winter.

House and Senate Democrats unveiled competing plans, everyone recognizing the seriousness of the situation, however lawmakers from both parties and the Bush administration showed extreme reluctance to start funneling $25 billion in support, especially with-out demanding tough conditions be a part of any rescue. It seem clear that Congress was looking for assurances that they were not "Throwing good money after bad". Republicans and the Bush administration don't want to dip into the Treasury Department's $700 billion financial bailout program to come up with the $25 billion, If any help is given they want the industry to use the $25 billions that had previously been committed for the purpose of retooling. Many in the Democratic party, have expressed concern that if the original funds, designed to help the US Auto industry shift to produce more high-mileage and Hybrid cars, are used as a bridge loan, that we are "Stalling the problem- not solving it".

Ilene Lubell, an advertising executive stated " It's hard, I'm watching dealers I represent, that are doing everything right, but it's like they are being asked to swim up-stream with a boat anchor wrapped around their legs."


Many on the hill made it clear that their sympathy for the industry was tepid at best. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, the current Banking Committee Chairman, told Wagoner and his fellow leaders at Ford and Chrysler that the industry was "seeking treatment for wounds that were largely self-inflicted." At the same time he realized that "Hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs if the companies were allowed to collapse".

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., made it clear he felt that the current financial crisis "is not the only reason why the domestic auto industry is in trouble."
He brought up, what was clearly the 800 lbs gorilla in the room; that much of the problem lies with the "costly labor agreements" caused by The Big 3 allowing the unions to get too powerful, plus the high cost to fund pensions, that put the U.S. automakers at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors.

Wagoner said that despite some public perceptions that General Motors was not keeping pace with the times and technological changes, "We've moved aggressively in recent years to position GM for long-term success. And we were well on the road to turning our North American business around."

"What exposes us to failure now is the global financial crisis, which has severely restricted credit availability and reduced industry sales to the lowest per-capita level since World War II."

Failure of the auto industry "would be catastrophic," he said, resulting in three million jobs lost within the first year and "economic devastation (that) would far exceed the government support that our industry needs to weather the current crisis."

Auto industry facts:*3 million jobs lost in the first year*U.S. personal income reduced by 150.7 billion*Government tax loss over 3 years 156 billion*The level of economic devastation far exceeds the 25 billion of government support the US Auto industry is asking from Congress.
.
Paulson, testifying on the House side, defended the administration's handling of the massive $700 billion bailout for the financial industry and said it should remain off-limits for Detroit, no matter how badly the automakers need help.


In an e-mail marked "urgent" and sent to owners of GM vehicles, Troy A. Clarke, president of GM North America, pleaded with them to e-mail their representatives in the House and Senate in support of a "bridge loan" for the industry - and ask their friends and family to do the same. http://gmfactsandfiction.com/


"Despite what you may be hearing, we are not asking Congress for a bailout but rather a loan that will be repaid," Clarke said in the message.
But the prospect now of millions of unemployed workers is not pretty.
Congressional leaders were working behind the scenes in reach a compromise, but the new rescue plan,opposed by President Bush, appears stalled on Capitol Hill,
"My sense is that nothing's going to happen this week," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said at the opening of the hearing

With a $2,000./ vehicle legacy cost, it is difficult to call this a level playing field, something needs to be done to keep America's manufacturing industries viable.



Larry Lubell

Urban News Blog

A Fair Tax Code

Rich people pay the lions share of the taxes in the US. They don't just pay the most money, they pay the largest percentage of their income.

Then again they have a lot more money.

This could then lead to the question, Which is a Better Measure of financial Inequality: Wealth or Income?
In fact the real difference in wealth is not seen by comparing the yearly income of the to top 10% and the bottom 10%- its when you compare the "NET WORTH" of those two groups. The net worth difference is more than `10 times as great as the income difference.The bottom 60% of households possess only 4% of the nation's wealth while it earns 26.8% of all income. This means that the rich pay a larger percentage of their income then the bottom half, but they pay a smaller percentage of their wealth. It is this reality that in large part is responsible for why the "Rich keep getting richer"

If we put aside income and focus on the distribution of wealth,the research points to two quite different views of the amount of inequality in American society.
"Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume."
Alan Greenspan, Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank

It it easy to see why any question regarding the "Fairness" of any tax plan, is colored by the discussion of Wealth vs Income. Based on income, it is easy to make the point that the wealthiest Americans don't just pay the most money,they pay the largest percentage of their income, often while using the least amount of government services. Switch the discussion to talk about net wealth and the lower half see a system that favors the rich and one in which they are forever "Loosing ground". As property values increase, those who own property see their net wealth rise, where as those that do not, see the dream of home ownership get pulled further out of their reach.

From my own perspective, we have seen the foolishness of communism. The Soviet Union proved that if you try to eliminate the rich, you will not be able to distribute their wealth among the poor to make everyone "Middle-class", you just make everyone poor. Take away the incentive to achieve a higher standard of living, and you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The fact is, we need rich people.

For a country to prosper financially it needs the following:

1. A stable government.
2. A population that believes they have a vested interest in the country's success.
3. Insurance companies to protect both commercial as well as personal assets.
4. An educated work force.
5. Leaders that realize that it's the private sector that creates wealth and
Policies that provide conditions for that private sector to thrive.
6. Intellectual Property rights must be honored.
7. Taxes have to be enough to pay for the expectations of the citizens including
the infrastructure to be competitive in the global market- but low enough the
the majority of money is the control of the private sector.

Sure it helps if the country has a large amount of national resources, however Israel has created a standard of living dramatically higher than Saudi Arabia, and did so with out oil.
In fact there are many other conditions that can help or hurt the chances of any country's economy, but the seven above are critical.

So we need a tax system that levels the playing field enough to provide for a basic standard so even the poorest can maintain a reasonable standard of living, and feel vested in America; yet keeps enough wealth in the hands of the wealthy so as to provide conditions for the private sector to thrive and grow.
The truth is it can be very difficult to get that balance right.

Larry Lubell
www.UrbanInsuranceAgency.com

Global Warming… Fact or Fiction

When scientists look back over the 4.6 billion year history of Earth it is clear that the climate has changed many times, ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Throughout time, natural forces including major volcanic eruptions, small fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, solar cycles, and even asteroid impacts have affected the Earth's climate. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th late century, human actions have also changed the composition of the atmosphere. By burning Fossil fuels for energy man is increasing the amount of carbon and Methane in the atmosphere. and therefore likely are influencing the Earth's climate.

Carbon is called a “Greenhouse” gas because it works in the atmosphere in a similar way that the panes of glass work in a greenhouse. They allow the sunlight (Ultra-violet rays) to enter warming the ground and air. Then the resulting inferred energy is trapped inside causing the room (or planet) to heat up. Global warming is the result of more energy coming in, than what is able to leave. If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 2.5 to 10.4ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet’s climate. We all have a vested interest in the “Status Quo”

I have to laugh when I hear people talk about “Saving the Planet”, with the exception of an Everest sized asteroid hitting Earth; our planet is pretty safe form the next few billion years. The Earth does not care if the oceans are 30 feet higher or 10 degrees warmer. For more than one billion years the earth had no oxygen. The simple truth is we all have a vested interest in the “Status Quo.” The Earth does not care what the coastline is but if you just paid $900,000.00 for a condo in South Beach, you do not want to see it washed out to sea.

Every scientist working in climatology will tell you just how complicated and difficult it is to create a climate model. Even the most advanced super computers with thousands of parallel processors are only able to scratch the surface of the data required to generate a complete picture. So anyone who says they “Know” the precise future of the Earths next 100 years of climate in delusional, but history and reasonable projections give us insight into the direction we appear to be headed.In the film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth”, the former Vice President, Al Gore lays out a tail of Earth’s recent past and possible near term future. The question is how accurate are some of the scientific claims made in the documentary?

In an attempt to clear the air, National Geographic News checked in with Eric Steig, an earth scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, who saw An Inconvenient Truth at a preview screening.He says the documentary handles the science well.“I was looking for errors,” he said.“But nothing much struck me as overblown or wrong.”Claim: Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense as temperatures rise.“There’s no question about this,” the University of Washington»s Steig said. “If the average is going up, the extremes have to go up as well.”2005 was the hottest year on Earth since the late 19th century, when scientists began collecting temperature data. And Britain»s Meteorological Office said there was a 60 percent probability that 2007 would break that record. The past decade featured five of the warmest years ever recorded, with the second hottest year being 1998. (Article continues below)

_______________________________________________________

We Proudly Offer:
Same day SR22 Filing
No Credit Check
Low Down Payments
Low Monthly Payments Call 1-800-680-0707 or get a Free Quote.
_______________________________________________________

Claim: Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet (6 meters) with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.There is little doubt that sea levels would rise by that much if Greenland melted.Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast.All over Greenland and the Arctic, rising temperatures are not simply melting ice; they are changing the very geography of coastlines.“We are already in a new era of geography,” said the Arctic explorer Will Steger. “This phenomenon — of an island all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere and the ice melting around it — is a real common phenomenon now.”The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.
Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.
“That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps,” Dr. Boggild said. “If you lose that much volume you»d definitely see new islands appear.”
“Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.
On low-lying and gently sloping land like coastal river deltas, a sea-level rise of just one foot would send water thousands of feet inland. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide make their homes in such deltas; virtually all of coastal Bangladesh lies in the delta of the Ganges River. Over the long term, much larger sea-level rises would render the world’s coastlines unrecognizable, creating a whole new series of islands.
“Here in Miami,” Dr. Leatherman said, “we»re going to have an ocean on both sides of us.”
Claim: The Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by 2050.Some climate models are more conservative, suggesting that there will be no summer ice in the Arctic by the year 2100.But new research shows it could take as little as 20 years for the sea ice to disappear.“Since the advent of remote satellite imaging, we»ve lost about 20 percent of sea-ice cover,” said Mark Serreze, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.“We»re setting ourselves up for very big losses this year.”“We think of the Arctic as the heat sink to the climate system,” Serreze said.“We»re fundamentally changing this heat sink, and we don’t know how the rest of the climate system is going to respond.”There is no doubt that as sea ice continues to melt, habitat for animals like polar bears will continue to shrink.
In addition to the legitimate complexity of environmental models, you also have some companies funding reseach explicitly for the purpose of “Throwing up smoke,” in order to create the illusion that the scientific community is more divided than is actually the case. Of these companies Exxon has been the largest funding source for data contrary to the main wave of the scientific community.Therefore it was noteworthy when Exxon announced it had stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that last year ran television ads saying that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is helpful. After funding them previously, Exxon decided in late 2005 not to fund for 2006 CEI and “five or six” other groups active in the global-warming debate,said Kenneth Cohen, Exxon»s vice president for public affairs.Exxon says important questions remain about the degree to which fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to global warming. But “the modeling has gotten better” analyzing the probabilities of how rising greenhouse-gas emissions will affect global temperatures, Mr. Cohen said. Exxon continues to stress the modeling is imperfect; it is “helpful to an analysis, but it»s not a predictor,” he said. But he added, “we know enough now - or, society knows enough now - that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”
Call 1-800-680-0707 or click to get a Free Quote on any of your insurance needs.

Does Al Gore deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Committee awarded Al Gore with it’s most prestigious prize. The Peace Prize. In explaining, what is clearly a controversial decision, the Nobel Committee said that Al Gore was the,

"[S]ingle individual" responsible for convincing world government's that climate change was real, caused by human activity, and posed a threat to society”.

This choice by the committee is going to be a lightning rod stuck right in the heart of the committee, for the following reasons.
Al Gore is a leading voice in the Democratic Party.
Conservatives for years have been raising the valid question of why President Ronald Reagan, or at least Pope John Paul II, did not receive an award for their work towards ending the cold war and bringing greater freedom throughout Eastern Europe.
Is Global Warming really the threat Al Gore, The Panel on Climate Change
and most scientists say it is?
Would it have been more appropriate to award Gore, let’s say an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize.”
My answers to the above questions are:

1. Every decision has a large “Value” component. Last time I checked the noble Committee is in Sweden, definitely not a “Red State.” I do think that the more objective and evenhanded the decisions are, the more powerful they become.
2. There is no question that all of that “Evil Empire” rhetoric, I sure did little to help his chance at the “Peace Prize” The case for Pope John Paul II is much stronger.
3. I have to assume that the most direr of the predictions regarding global warming, fall into the category of “Hysteria”. While I do believe most of the basic science and data, the earth is such a complex system that it becomes extremely difficult to extrapolate out very far with dependable results. There is also the question that even if you believe that Global Warming is a real threat, that still leaves the questions, is it caused by man, and is there anything Man can do to change the Global Temperature?
I find it difficult to go against the overwhelming tide of scientists that seem convinced that Global Warming is a genuine problem. Some times I feel my position can best be described as “Better safe than sorry”. If even half of the predictions turn out to be valid, there is reason for concern. I can’t think of any other time that this large a percentage of scientists have gathered this much evidence and been completely wrong. (True there was a time the vast % of people believed the world to be flat, but that was not science speaking) .
4. Truth be told, I find “Why not an award in science, rather that “The Peace Prize,” To be the most difficult question to answer. I assume the explanation would go something like:
If global warming causes floods and or draughts, or land get swallowed up by the sea, there will be mass displacement of population and that will result in great unrest and additional wars.

Was the committee sending a message, yes? Maybe they felt bad about not giving Gore an award for “Investing the Internet.”

Larry Lubell

Is China’s economic boom a threat?

Start picking up products at your home or office and count how many of them are “Made in China.”
It is impossible not to have recognized the startling growth of the Chinese economy. The question, “Is China’s economic boom a threat to the U.S.” is hotly debated and the answer quite unclear. The fact is a credible case can be made either way, with a substantial body of evidence backing the conclusions.

First the reasons for concern are obvious and include our loss of manufacturing jobs, China’s increasing economic influence, global environmental impact and an ever increasingly powerful military. Each, in it’s self a legitimate reason for our concern.

There was a time in American history when a person could graduate high school, get a job in a factory and earn enough money to buy a home, two cars, take a yearly vacation and maybe even share a set of season tickets to the bears. The number of good manufacturing jobs able to support the “American Dream” has dwindled, and clearly the availability of those jobs continues to fall. Some of these jobs have been lost to robotics, but the lions-share has simply moved to low wage markets; and China is the king of low cost manufacturing.

It is difficult to see how an American plant can complete against a plant in China, backed by the government, paying Seventy Five cents an hour, with no vacation or time off pay, using cheaper, at times dangerous materials banned in the U.S. China’s practice of keeping their currency artificially low, exacerbates the problem by giving them the ability to offer goods an unfair competitive price. The communist government also keeps the inflation rate low and keeps the workers poor. They are able to do so because of both their tight control as well as having an unlimited supply of low skill workers willing to take any job, making it almost impossible for workers to ask for higher wages.
The United States has benefited from being the worlds largest economy.
With size comes power and influence. We have been able to use the scale of our economy to attract foreign investment, have significant sway in the creation of international laws and have countries cater to the needs of our market. The same way a newspaper might be reluctant do a negative story about a company that is that papers largest advertiser, countries might let the importance of our market affect their political decisions. China’s economic stature has catapulted its ability to control world markets and has silenced, or at least lowered the volume of, complaints regarding their Human Rights violations.

China is currently the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. This is despite the fact that average person in China consumes only 10-15% of the energy an average used by a US citizen. Based on an objective analysis of the projected Growth of the Chinese gross national product, and the inevitable upward demand of their standard of living, one should expect China's total emissions to overtake America's by mid-century. This increase could more than offset any improvements and sacrifices made by Europe and the U.S. If one is to believe the “Doomsday predictions” of many environmentalists, the rise a energy consumption by China, and other developing nations is the greatest single threat to Mankind. Short of the most extreme, and least proven of the predictions, the general scientific community has come to recognize a connection between greenhouse gases and global temperatures. Even some of the most reluctant and conservative of the scientists, still view a large increase in CO2 as a point of concern. That said, it is difficult to see why this global condition would affect America more than China.

Think You're Paying Too Much For
Car Insurance?

Urban Insurance Agency has been saving people money
On their Car Insurance for over 45 years

Call 1-800-680-0707 or click to get a Free Quote.

There is no question that China’s military is becoming ever stronger and is interested in projecting its authority throughout the region and world. To date, they have not focused their might towards attacking their neighbors. But looming at the horizon is the ever-present reality that China considerers Taiwan a part of their country. One gets the impression that the communist government feels it has enough on it’s plate at the moment and can wait for the reunification. But China has made it clear not to mistake patience for a lack of resolve. America is in the awkward position of on one hand of formally recognizing the “One China” proposal, while at the same time having a pact to defend Taiwan against an attack from the mainland. This has the potential to draw the U.S. into a major war with the communistic regime. China military might also looms large over Japan, Korea and the whole south pacific. It is also well documented that China has Inter-continental ballistic missiles aimed at American cities -A fact that should concern every U.S. Citizen.
While we must keep a watchful eye towards Beijing, I can’t help but have some confidence in the pragmatic nature of its leaders. It appears clear that the leadership is determined to take their country forward and become a dominant force in the 21st century, while still maintaining its dictatorial control. The good news for us is that they will not be able keep control and bring the country forward. Up till this point their success has been based on manufacturing other peoples products, and doing so at near starvation wages. Even this amount of development has come at the expense of many of their communistic ideals. Chief among them is the Marxist mantra of “Each contributes according to his abilities, and receives according to his needs” This is in stark contrast to the fact that China is Ferrari’s fastest growing market (cars are priced at up to 3 million yuan ($A525,000) Ferrari and Maserati brands plans to open dealerships in 11 mainland cities over the next 18 months. Italian designer Giorgio Armani opened a Chinese flagship boutique last month in Shanghai, the country's business capital and richest city.
China is correct in recognizing the need to cater to those that have the skills and creativity to build a modern society, However in the long run they are wrong to believe that they will be able to control this new world the way they were able to manage the old agrarian country of Mao.

It is clear that Tiawan is banking on the idea that China starts to loose it’s dogmatic athority prior to it’s inevitable reunification. It is also clear that the comunists in power will fight to keep power. No one should ever forget the Tiananmen Square massacre Obviously, it is not the intention of leaders to ever surender power, but they are traveling down a path they do not truly understand. Shhh…. Don’t tell them, but they are supervising over the building of a society that will in the end not tollerate them. Yes they will fight tooth and nail to hold power, and yes we will see more incidences like Tiananmen Square. But in the end, they will fall because there is no place for them in a 21st century first world nation.


China, over the next 25 years is likely to become the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. There are many that believe that the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide would be, to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to improve China's energy efficiency. While there is a clear logic to such an investment, most in the U.S. believe Congress would never support such an approach, fearing it would undercut competitiveness of U.S. companies. The flip side is, one can view China’s need to generate large amounts of clean energy as an opportunity for American companies to sell products into China to meet these needs and perhaps reduce of trade deficit.A quick look at the coastlines in Asia point to the danger that rising oceans pose to China. While one can question some of the claims of environmentalists, there is no doubting the potential market for clean products.

Is Global Warming a Military threat?

Is Global Warming a Military threat?

For years it seemed easy to paint those people screaming about global Warming as a bunch of “liberal, tree-hugging, Latte drinking, Volvo driving, extremests. The truth be told, there are quite a few in the enviormental movement that fit that description. So it was with special interest that I read about the report being issued by a number of retired military leaders addressing Globan Warming as a major security threat.

In an article By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) he quotes Bush's former Middle East envoy, Gen. Anthony "Tony" Zinni, as saying : "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism."

"We will pay for this one way or another," wrote Zinni, former commander of U.S. Central Command. "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."

"Everybody needs to start paying attention to what's going on. I don't think this is a particularly hard sell in the Pentagon. ... We're paying attention to what those security implications are, stated " Gordon Sullivan the former U.S. Army chief of staff. He goes on to say that "Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations,"
The report looks at the geo-political fall-out that will likely occure when Global warming causes rivers to dry-up, resources that nations depent on, be come in short supply. Terry Root a Stanford scientist who contributed work for a report on the effects of global warming, added

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."
I think it is important to point out that this report “Assumes” global Warming, rather than offering any new data to answer whether Global Warming is Fact or Fiction. It is clear that the number of reports, documents, photos and data supporting a warming global climate grows each year, as do the number of once skeptical, now on board, scientists. Even many of the once loudest voices challenging the “Green House effect” have reluctantly acquiesced, and now speak in terms of uncertainty. They say thing like “the changes will Not be as quick “ or “Not as severe”. Interestingly, this is coming at the same time that some in the scientific community are questioning some of the scientific procedures and objectivity of some of the data being used to in their world “Prop-up the theory of man-made climate change.
In Geology class you study natural boundaries such as Rivers and mountains, in a political science class you will put out a map and discuss national boarders. Science might tell us that the amount farm land might remain level in a particular set of conditions, but a military strategist will remind us that it matters if the resource moves from one country to the next.

“Scientific consensus?”

In response to My posting on Global Warming Robert Rosenberg wrote the following reply. I must say that there is a great deal of Validity to his informed comments.
I am more convinced than ever that no trumpeting of “scientific consensus,” no UN press release and no press conference can obscure the fact that the theories on anthropogenic (human caused) climatic forcing are far from proved. Neither is the opposing case proved, however. The documentary to which you linked does a good job, not necessary illustrating a scientific case against global warming, but showing the case for uncertainty. The best analogy is a medical one. Hippocrates first dictum was to do no harm. The climate is so vastly complex, so little understood that, to me, the effect of any human intervention is unknowable. Thus we have roughly equal chances of doing harm or good (and probably vanishing little of either). And we’ll spend close to a half quadrillion dollars doing it (latest estimates $450,000,000,000,000) over the next 50-75 years. The law of unintended consequences is already beginning to rear its ugly head. Corn-based ethanol is all the rage in the US now. A perfect storm of nefarious political influence (corn state politicians, ConAgra, Archer Daniels Midland, etc) and environmental activism has generated huge interest from industry is making more ethanol and converting more automotive energy generation to this source. At first glance this appears wonderful. The net carbon effect on the environment of ethanol use appears to be zero. The carbon emitted from the exhaust pipe into the atmosphere came from the atmosphere just a season or two earlier. Let’s, for a moment, ignore that we may have to use more petroleum energy to cultivate, harvest and refine the ethanol than we obtain from it use. Good arguments have been made for and against this proposition. (No “scientific consensus” here). Even assuming massive subsidies from the government to bring the price of ethanol down to where it’s competitive with petroleum, it seems that the worst case is that we’re only hurting ourselves. A few more billion for ethanol subsidies, a couple less billion for the war in Iraq, or for Medicare, or for other corporate subsidies. Fine with me so far. Here’s the problem: all the ethanol generation has increased competition for corn supplies. The price of corn has more than doubled in the last year. This is not a huge factor in American food prices (little corn is actually eaten here; it is mostly used as animal feed, and constitutes a relatively small, but not inconsiderable factor in the cost of raising livestock). The price of corn meal throughout Latin America has skyrocketed, however. Corn meal is a staple food from Mexico south. People are starving right now as a consequence of our concern with carbon budgeting. I’ve read estimates that as many as 5,000 – 15,000 additional people will starve this year alone in Latin America as a consequence of increased corn prices. And for what? So we can feel self-righteous and pure? I call this the Prius effect.
The Prius is a neat car and a brilliant idea. It gets tremendous mileage using a very clever technological fix that holds great promise for the future of automotive transport. If someone would have the balls to manufacture a plug-in version, its effective mileage would approach 100 mpg. It also has a total energy footprint many times greater than that of a Hummer H1 due to the difficulty and cost of manufacturing its batteries. But I’d bet that each driver behind the wheel of one feels like an environmental saint. It’s hypocritical, but harmless. At least the cost of that particular sainthood isn’t the starvation of a few thousand poor brown people. The problem is that each particular energy trade-off we make, while inconvenient for us rich Americans, will be devastating to the world’s poor. This harkens back to a criticism made of the environmental movement in general and the anthropogenic global warming advocates in particular, by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. He accuses the movement of being, at its core, anti-human. Scratch a radical environmentalist and under the surface you’ll find someone who believes that the world would be better off with 90% of its human cargo dead. Of course the 90% doesn’t include any of his friends or family or any of the “right” people. In this regard the philosophy closely resembles the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I’ve personally encountered this mindset and explicit ideology at dinner parties. When I’ve explained that massive famines will be the inevitable result of the energy cutbacks contemplated by warming advocates, my friends have responded stoically that such a price must be paid. Just not paid by them or anyone they know. Black, yellow and brown people, preferably poor, would suit the bill just fine.
Robert info@arrelle.com
______________________________________________________
By Larry Lubell
I can’t help but come away with the idea that we are having an impact on our environment.
Has man changed the entire global climate, that has not been proven, but I still think the odds are better than 50/50 that we have impacted the Earth. But I absolutely agree that the computer models needed to attempt to to answer the question for sure, are beyond our present technology.I will also concur that politics are playing a role and at times are pushing the science.
The question is what steps can we take that will help our environment, reduce greenhouse gases without causing economic hardship. Is there technology that we can build in the US. that creates jobs and wealth and reduces our dependency on fossil fuels?
I refuse to apologize for being human! I always found it comical when people talk about “Saving The Planet” As far as I’m concerned- Man comes first. My concern for the planet is tied to what is best for us. But I will add, what is best for us includes what is best for future generations. ( at least as far in the future as my child and my child’s children). I don’t like the idea of animals being hurt in the name of research, and I will go out of my way to buy shampoo that is not tested on animals, but if testing on animals is necessary to find a cure that could save my child- Test away.
People come first.

I must say I was upset the way Present Bush handled the Kyoto Accord. Not because he did not sign it ( I recognized it was a flawed proposal) but because he rejected it with out presenting an alterative. I always felt Kyoto was in part a “Game of Chicken”, by the US saying no, it safely let most of Europe say yes for free.

The question is what should we do. By ”We” I mean the average consumer, as well as The US. and UN lawmakers and policy makers? Do we do nothing till we have super computers capable of creating valid models. Do we just cross our fingers and wait? Does complexity mandate inaction?
Is there anything we can or should do that fits with my concept that people come first?

Boy, it sure is easier to ask questions, or to find fault with other peoples answers, then to come up with answers your self. I must admit, I have far more questions than answers.
Larry Lubell

Warmest Winter on Record

March 16th, 2007
By Larry Lubell



Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Reported that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was at its highest since they began keeping records back in 1880.
Those that believe that global Warming is real will point to this as well as the fact that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. Not everyone is convinced that A. Global Warming is more than just a standard fluctuation, or B. that even if real that the rise is caused by man.Last week, the UK’s Channel 4 premiered a 75-minute film entitled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Through interviews with prize-winning climate experts and others, this masterful documentary explains the origins of global warming alarmism; debunks claims of man-made global climate change; exposes the motivations of organizations, scientists and activists sounding the alarm; and explains why it’s been extremely difficult, if not downright dangerous, for climate scientists to question global warming orthodoxy publicly.The entire film, which is creating quite a stir among tens of thousands of web viewers, can be viewed online at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831. From Fox Nexs- The world’s climate scientists meeting in Paris on February 2nd reported unequivocally that the Earth’s climate system is increasingly heating up and that it likely has not been this warm for at least 1300 years. The fourth report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that evidence for this includes more than increases in global average air and ocean temperatures.With much stronger language and more assurance than in previous reports, the IPCC members said there was less than 10 percent chance that this global warming was natural — they pinned it directly on human greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of CO2 spewed out per year from fossil fuel burning is 12 percent greater now than in the 1990s, their report indicated, and the amount of the greenhouse effect is the greatest in 10,000 years.
The Earth, and it’s weather are extremely complex systems. Scientists have been working for years with “Super computers” trying to build the most accurate model possible. It is that very complexity that opens the door for conflicting opinions.

Weather and insurance premiums
Global Warming Robert Rosenberg


Posted in Uncategorized, Current events and politics, Stories of Interest