Something’s got to be done

Brent over at Weekend Pundit has a quick discussion about tax reform, citing Ed Feulner over at TownHall.  The money quote from Brent:

I like the story of one of NH’s senators Judd Gregg, who has special training beyond law school in tax law. Yet he can’t even do his own taxes, it’s just too complex

The original purpose of a tax is to  raise money for a given level of government.  With all of the additions and changes (with very few deletions) over the years, they are both right -> this is nothing more than a hodgepodge of rules to favor a given entity over another.  In short, it is the easiest and fastest way to manipulate the public into certain behaviors and to be used by companies against each other (or industries for that matter).  At the same time, it has provided braces and college educations to the offspring of those that benefit the most – tax accountants, lawyers, and lobbyists.

For the rest of us, it is either having to employ our own accountants and lawyers, sweating and uttering choice words before, on, and shortly after April 15th.  And given the rising cut of government taxes, perhaps fewer braces and lesser college education than if we were able to keep more of our hard earned money.

Here’s what should be done:

Read more

Family matters

I’ve been kinda busy lately with our other blog (GilfordGrok) in our blog family and getting ready for budget season for our town.  However, I did have a moment to do a little surfing and found this new NH based blog, NH State of Mind,  with a good Post on the more important part of … Read more

Economics 101 – Big Oil Style

The laws of economics are not as certain as the laws of physics, but if we ignore them and substitute liberal political rhetoric instead,  we remain ignorant of the cause-effect relationships that effect our lives.  Supply-demand, the costs of regulation, labor, and capital infrastructure, market uncertainty…all of these go into the price we pay at the pump.  Too bad so few Americans understand this.  Link is here.

Big Oil reinvests big profits to tap costlier reserves

By Patrice Hill
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
August 8, 2006

Big Oil’s record profits attract attention and outrage, but an independent study has found that oil companies do exactly what economic textbooks say they should do with all that money: They invest it in oil exploration and development efforts that eventually should relieve pressure on prices.

The top 20 U.S. and Canadian oil companies actually invested 50 percent more than they earned in the past 10 years in efforts to produce more oil, but adverse geopolitical developments conspired to give them fewer opportunities to expand production while fading oil fields in the U.S. and elsewhere forced them to spend substantially more just to maintain current production, according to the study by the Ernst & Young accounting firm.

"Reinvestment is under way, and it’s strong," said Charles Swanson, an energy analyst at the firm, but "average costs to find and develop oil and gas reserves have tripled since 1997, while total reserve-replacement costs have more than doubled."

The study found that the top companies — including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, among others — took in a mind-numbing $5 trillion in revenue from sales of oil and related products between 1995 and 2005. After subtracting the cost of equipment, leases, labor and other operating expenses, the companies posted whopping profits of $336 billion.

Read more

Dope of the Week Honorable Mention

In this previous posting, Skip discussed the meltdown of the mainline Protestant churches: Much has been written here in NH, due to the ascendancy of Gene Robinson to bishop of the NH Episcopalian church (openly gay, recently admitted to a rehap facility for alcohol abuse). As an Evangelical Baptist, I have glumly watched, sometimes in horror, … Read more

Excusing a child abuser

This could take place in a lot of places – it has now happened in our small village of Gilford, NH. 

Doug has addressed the case of Matt McGonagle here – now convicted, he plead guilty to abusing a 14 year old female student at his school when he was 30 years old – almost old enough to be her father. He has received, in my opinion, a relatively light sentence for someone who has abused his power of authority and standing as a teacher – but I will leave that in Doug’s hands to follow up on that aspect.

My problem?  What has drawn my ire is yet another circumstance when a bleeding heart liberal is upset ("troubled" is the word he used) with the way that the abuser was treated by the court system.  In one of the local papers (The Citizen) came this Letter to the Editor (8/5/06) from (Dr. William Zechhausen, a United Church of Christ Pastor and frequent writer in psychological and counseling journals.

On Friday, July 28, I attended the sentencing hearing of Matt McGonagle.

I found instances of insensitivity and even humiliation troubling. An official within the county legal system said what I perceived is what happens daily in court, and nothing can be done about it. A lawyer told me that what I observed is why he’s leaving the profession. He added, someone should write about this. I wish he were doing so. Though perhaps it takes someone outside the system, to speak up about what happened. I believe most insensitivity, mine and others, is through lack of awareness, and conversation about it can produce change in people of good will.

Taken in total, Dr. Zechhausen is setting the stage that we should be showing as much concern and compassion for Matt McGonagle as we should for the actual victim.  After all, Mr. Zeckhausen is troubled by the insensitivity and humiliation undergone by Mr. McGonagle – “troubling” is the word he used.

I, on the other hand, have a real hard time with this sentiment, and it is a lot harsher than "troubling". He continues on…

 

Read more

Edwards Visits NH- Recalls Cooler Days of Yore

Democratic vice presidential nominee took time out from campaigning against WalMart to stop here in the Lakes Region of NH over the weekend. A report from the Citizen newspaper provides some details of the probable presidential candidate’s visit. First up, global warming (at least I think that’s what he was talking about): He began by … Read more

You can spend it, but you’re not getting it

(H/T: Lucianne.com)

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a story about George Soros, and I learned a couple of new things.  First, and I did know this much, that this is a guy that puts his money where his mouth is – I can respect that although I don’t agree with his why:

T FIRST, George Soros thought that the problem with America was its President, George Bush. That’s why the New York multibillionaire threw himself into the campaign to bring Bush down.

He gave $US27.5 million to a range of campaigns to bring regime change to Washington in the 2004 election, according to his staff. This pales in comparison with his philanthropic work – he has donated an estimated $US5 billion at least to worthy causes in the past quarter century, especially in promoting open societies in the former communist bloc.

I just didn’t realize how much he spent – 27 mil is a really good chunk of change.

When Bush was re-elected, Soros was forced to rethink. "I tried to pin the blame on the Bush Administration," he writes. "I called the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq temporary aberrations that would be corrected in the next elections. But President Bush was re-elected."

Ah, another person not understanding the American public.  Others have made that bad decision in the past, much to their chagrin (think Pearl Harbor, think Taliban) and cost.

An expensive lesson to learn, eh?  But I think he’s making an even bigger mistake.  He isn’t getting the results he wants, so just as many others in the political arena have done, who does he want to blame?

 

So Soros has concluded Bush is not the problem: "I must now dig deeper and explore what is wrong with contemporary American society. What is wrong with us?" he says.

Well guy, right question, just got to change your focus a tad. 

 

Read more

An entitlement parsonage?

(H/T: Lucianne.com)

The New Orlean Times-Picayune has a story about a 23 year old single mom who appeared on the Oprah show, destitute from Katrina.  A church in the Chicago area offered her their parsonage for free for her and her two daughters and son (now 5, 1, and 4 months). and she moved into it in September.

She had a job back in October, which seemed to end soon after she got it.  She subsequently said no to several other jobs (as the article states):

She has since stayed home to raise the children.

A year has effectively gone by, and the church wants its parsonage (a house usually owned by a church for use by its clergy) back.  She doesn’t want to go. Complicating the matter a bit, there seems to be a "church said / she said" disagreement about her leaving – was it June (the church) or December (the mom).  She says that she has no money to go anywhere.

The story does say a single mom – no mention of a boyfriend coming up with her from New Orleans. So I will ask the hard question:  Where’s the Dad?   The answer is "Who knows?" (certainly not from the story – no mention at all).  So I will assume the worst – he skipped out.

Oh, but Skip, you’re being judgemental, you mean spirited conservative Republican who, in this case, REALLY wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater for bringing it up. 

My answer is that this question is not being asked enough; the discussion on this has been put away too many times because it is too sensitive.  It is judgemental and rightfully so, this affects kids.  I applaud Bill Cosby (still love his "Noah" bit after all these years) for causing a ruckus in the black community about the problems in the black community, among them unwed mothers and men refusing to be fathers (and yes, I am stereotyping here based based on the names of the mother and offsprings – the story doesn’t say but they certainly aren’t from my Irish or Swedish background).

So why isn’t Dad in the picture, providing for his family?  What is it about a lot of men (or should I just call them kids?) that they feel that they do not have to provide for what they have created?  Is it just a "all about me" mentality, or is it just a lack of maturity and a willingness to take responsibility for one’s actions (and their results)?

Andy why do we let them get away with it? 

 

Read more

So what’s wrong with taking sides

The Muslim community is upset at yet another politician that publicly has not yet prostrated himself to their point of view – so what else is new? I’m not happy with LA Mayor Villaraigosa for his stance on illegal immigration.  However, he is now taking it on the chin.  Why?  This story from the San … Read more

How To End a War: Win. Happy A-Bomb Day!

This week’s events of 61 years ago should not go unnoticed, or unappreciated. On August 6th, 1945 and again on August 9th, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Prior to that, on July 26, 1945, the Allies, in setting the conditions for ending a war that they did not start, called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and their military forces. Absolutely fanatical, with a declared fight to the death, the Japanese refused. Years of war, and still, they would not stop. Then the bomb fell.
.
President Harry S. Truman, sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution and expected to do all possible to “provide for the common defense”, made the decision. The first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima, Japan August 6th, 1945. In his address to the nation, Truman spoke:
“Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT.”
.
“The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid manyfold. And the end is not yet.”
The bomb used in the attack, announced the President was
“an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.”
.
Imagine yourself to be alive at that time. Perhaps you were. I cannot believe that every American, to a person, would not have wanted their leaders to do EVERYTHING possible to end the war, and to make everybody safe. Imagine yourself a young GI at the time- twenty-something years old, training for yet more warfare. Having survived through to the end of the war in Europe, would you ultimately join those less fortunate, living only to see a later death in the Japanese theater? Imagine a young wife back in America- perhaps with children. What will happen to her husband? Where is their father? Imagine a mother. What will happen to her son? What of America’s brave soldiers? Will any survive the coming battles in the Pacific? Will they die storming through hellfire on the beach on some Pacific island, facing an enemy that will not stop? When will this war end? Then the first bomb fell.
.
The Commander-in Chief, again, from his speech to the Nation (and the World):
“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never before been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”

Read more

Update 4- A man’s home is his castle? Not quite…

Actually, maybe there is a faint ray of hope for the notion of a man’s home being his castle after all… . Regular readers will recall that I previously blogged a story about a Nashua NH man arrested and charged with illegally audiovideo taping police (saying some unpleasant things) as they stood on the porch of his home (in an attempt … Read more

Go see this and read that

More photo doctoring from Hezbullah?  Little Green Footballs is all over the story that Reuters is trying to pull wool again.  No comment needed from me. And Weekend Pundit nails another aspect of the entire this war that gets no play in our MSM.

Taking away freedom – next!

The Foundation  for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) notes a new speech code at CSU: Colorado State University’s Residence Hall Handbook bans “hate incidents,” which it defines as: [E]xpressions of hostility against a person or property because of a person’s race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, ability, age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. … Read more

Stopping the anti-freedom folks – PCRM

From The Center for Consumer Freedom comes this story: The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is probably hoping you didn’t catch the news this morning. The PETA-linked animal rights group, dedicated to eliminating animal products like meat, dairy, and fish from Americans’ diets, was handed a decisive defeat Wednesday in federal court. Judge Henry … Read more

Who’s in charge, and who’s country is it?

From the Washington Post comes this: UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 2 — Lebanon’s acting foreign minister, Tarek Mitri, said Wednesday he doubts that his government would agree to invite a European-led intervention force into southern Lebanon, citing fierce opposition from Hezbollah and its key foreign backers, Syria and Iran. Let’s see if I have this straight: … Read more

Setting ourselves up for another bank bailout?

From the Houston Chronicle is this story about illegal immigrants buying houses: Despite being in the U.S. illegally, undocumented immigrants can legally buy a house. OK, I can live with this without a problem at all.  Certain lenders don’t ask for immigration papers. And buyers using a special tax ID often don’t need a lengthy … Read more

Because Inquiring Minds Want to Know…

"How do you do it?" goes the question. "What’s the secret formula?" Some have speculated the black arts might be involved. Perhaps we analyze the entrails of a freshly slaughtered donkey? (What, you were thinkin’ a goat, right?) How many years of scientific analysis went into the method of selection? Many have sought the answer. Few have lived to know… Since the dawning of this blog, countless people (really, because we have no way of knowing) have asked, "How does Granitegrok.com select the prestigious Dope of the Week award?
.
Click the link just below to learn our secret. And see who else gets the mantle this week…

Read more

Good Question…

One of my employees posed an interesting question this morning… Living in a touristy area like we do here in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire, we have lots of service jobs- restaurants, hotels, etc. Many of the local businesses need to augment their workforce during the summer season. For whatever reason, they can’t find … Read more

Warm? You want warm?

From National Geographic, I found this:

An ancient period of global warming spurred the world’s first primates to spread from Asia to North America, new research shows.

The article then went on to discuss mammal migration across North America:

Gingerich’s team concludes that the tiny primates first appeared in China at the beginning of an ancient warming period that began 55 million years ago.

The animals appeared in Europe slightly later and then made their way to North America 20,000 years into the warming event.

"So you have a suggestion that it’s appearing earlier in China than in Europe, and earlier in Europe than in North America," Gingerich said.

In addition, he says, the Chinese animals appear to be more primitive than the European ones, which in turn appear more primitive than North American specimens.

Well, this blog is not generally in the topic of discussing mammalian migrations as a general theme, but one thing did catch my eye:

Ancient Global Warming

The ancient global warming period, known to scientists as the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, lasted approximately 100,000 years.

During the first 20,000 years, the Earth warmed by about 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) before returning to previous levels.

Gee, something positive from a warming trend happened? 

Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly