The Trouble With Wind

May 1, 2011 12:00 PM
By George C. Loehr, Management Consultant 

Many of you will remember the original Star Trek episode, “The Trouble With Tribbles.” The Enterprise is transporting grain to a planet with the unlikely name of Sherman's Planet, which is in dispute between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. But Kirk et al discover their ship has been invaded by thousands of cute, furry, purring little critters called tribbles. They do no harm, except they eat voraciously and reproduce prodigiously. They're so cute that no one has the heart to do them any harm, but pretty soon, they've eaten all the grain and threaten to take over the ship. (Without going into plot details, Kirk and crew escape this predicament when Scotty, ever the resourceful engineer, beams the tribbles from the Enterprise onto a Klingon ship.)

Wind turbines are a little like tribbles. They're appealing, they can displace kilowatt-hours from carbon generators, and they seem to do no harm; but they consume prodigious amounts of money, and they're reproducing all over the countryside. Everybody seems to think they're wonderful, but are they going to contribute anything to our energy requirements? And, if they do, what are the downsides, if any?

Read more here...

I fully agree with George C. Loehr's basic thesis.  In fact, I think he's too kind to the wind turbine proponents.  I encourage you read it and take Mr. Loehr's warning to heart. 

I'm a big fan of alternative energy, but wind turbines are NOT the way to go. 

Anthony Weiner - More Diversion By The Democrats And Their LIB Media Allies

The President's daily failures continue to mount.  Yemen is imploding.   Syria is torturing its citizens in broad daylight proving our diplomatic impotence.  Libya screams in agony of civil war.  The price of gas is high.  The price of food is going up.  Unemployment won't go down no matter how many "stimulus" dollars we spend.

You'd think the news media would report these things and provide some novel solutions.  You'd think the President would work longer hours.  You'd think Congress would roll up their sleeves and work with a sense of urgency... and you'd be wrong.

Having played the "Israel card" to divert our attention away from the President's overwhelming failures, we now have Anthony Weiner.  Ah!  There's nuthin' like a good old fashioned SEX SCANDAL to commandeer our attention. 

I'm still not sure what this scandal is all about, but anyone with the name of Weiner emailing pictures of his dick on the internet really should have thought of a career path other than the U.S. Congress.  I mean... it's not like I have figured out "what it all means".  The simple conclusion that has long existed is that Americans are stupid and continue to elect scoundrels to lead our country.  I really hope that's not news to you.  If it is, you're either very young or... well... you know.

In the mean time, I think you should all look past the Weiner news articles and observe what is going on in the rest of the world.  It ain't a pretty picture.  Count your blessings and don't let all these silly Weiner news stories distract you.

TTFN,

There is NO Santa Claus

I'll meet you halfway

Since Jimmy Carter was elected President, the battle cry heard from Muslim nations has been "Death to America!".  Every President from Jimmy Carter onward replied: "We're willing to negotiate.  Certainly there is a compromise to be had.  We'll meet you halfway."

Carter
Reagan (Yes!  Reagan too!)
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.
O'Bama
<fill in the blank>

Would a "President McCain" have been any better?

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

NOPE!

Just in case you don't believe me, Accuracy in Media notes the following in an article dated May 17, 2011:

The Arab-funded Al-Jazeera is hosting a two-day inaugural “Al Jazeera U.S. Forum” in Washington, D.C., featuring Bob Woodward of The Washington Post among the celebrity journalists. But of particular interest is Politico’s revelation that Republican Senator John McCain showed up at the opening night of the forum to praise the channel’s coverage of the Middle East.

I don't know how fair this article is.  All I know is that John McCain's passionate words of support for Israel have always come with the asterisk that comes with cooperation with the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby.  If he's showing up to praise Al-Jazeera, what does that say about his confrontation of Barack O'Bama's proposed  U.S./Israel policy when he was running for President in 2008? 

While I'm at it, let's note that Senator McCain was a loud proponent of U.S. military intervention in the Libyan Civil War.  Who benefits from that war?  Let me give you a hint.

Upon the start of U.S. Armed Forces intervention against Libya, Saudi Arabia "re-assured" the U.S. and our allies that they would "make up" any deficit in petroleum production caused by the Libyan "unrest".  This might sound like a generous offer but think about it!  With prices for petroleum skyrocketing past $100/barrel, Saudi Arabia is CASHING IN on the war against Libya.  "Such a deal I have for you!"

As the Libyan war drags on and the Saudis get richer from it, Americans continue to struggle with rising gasoline prices.  American politicians from both parties run to make kissy-face with the Saudis and their Persian Gulf OPEC conspirators.  Just to make sure you don't notice, the President offers a "bold new policy" dealing with the War Against Israel.
 

See how it works?  

*UPDATE* 

My friend Debbie Schlussel has informed me that Accuracy in Media is anything but.  I've known Debbie for a long time and I trust her judgment on this.  Debbie's views aside, the nature of the headlines on their website are too loaded to be automatically accepted as objective. That is why I made sure to qualify my column with "I don't know how fair this article is."

If someone can confirm that Sen. McCain and Nancy Pelosi attended the Al-Jazeera U.S. Forum and offered praise for that news organization, please let me know.  It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but for now, I have to question the accuracy of the claim and seek additional confirmation that Sen. McCain's participation actually occurred as it was described by Accuracy in Media.  

*UPDATE* 
In retrospect, I have to be fair so let me extend my comments a little to clarify one point that came up yesterday during a lunchtime conversation with some Friends of Israel.  While it seems likely that Sen. McCain's diplomacy would have been very similar to President O'Bama's had the former been elected, I believe there would be one significant difference.  That difference becomes clear when you go down to the column below to read my entry regarding the President O'Bama's scapegoating of Israel.

President Bush pressured Israel for political and territorial concessions.  That much was made clear by his Sec. of State Condeleeza Rice.  However, when President Bush spoke of Israel, he always presented the Jewish State in the most positive terms.  President Bush routinely acknowledged Israel's past territorial concessions and the risks it had taken for peace.  Moreover, President Bush was willing to acknowledge that these risks often failed to bring about the expected results.  President Bush routinely rallied American public support for Israel. 

In observing Sen. McCain, I can say that I've personally witnessed him doing the same thing.  Had John McCain been elected President, the policies probably would have been much the same.   The difference would be that the President's "bully pulpit" would rally public support behind Israel and avoid scapegoating Jews for his diplomatic failures throughout the Muslim world.   

I won't elaborate on how this differs from President O'Bama's public presentation of the War Against Israel.  I've already done that in a column below.   I just thought I'd take a moment to put my comments in perspective regarding Sen. McCain. 

 

Scapegoating Israel

There are some who say that President O'Bama is "pressuring Israel" for more concessions.  I disagree. The President is not pressuring Israel. He is scapegoating the Jewish State.

Any sentence the President utters that includes "Israel" and "borders" is problematic to Israel's enemies. Israel's enemies will resent it.   President O'Bama knows that.  Thus, he has incited additional enmity toward the Jewish State by its enemies.  He has not advanced the cause of peace between Israel and its enemies.  That might be a problem for Jews, but there's a bigger problem for America. 

You see, the real problem is that U.S./Pakistani relations are in free-fall. A quick look at a map should tell you (or anyone) what that means to U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Last year, the Administration gave a $500 Million aid package to Pakistan only to find Osama bin Laden (i.e. "Public Enemy Number One") enjoying safe haven there. The "Arab Spring" has resulted in Arab regimes (either existing or in-waiting) losing trust in America.  As the euphoria of the bin Laden assassination quickly wears off the U.S. public in an election season, it is only natural for the President's domestic political adversaries to criticize the Administration's handling of affairs in that region.

In order to deflect attention away from these problems, the O'Bama Administration has decided to direct attention away from their mis-management of the ongoing turmoil in Arab/Muslim nations and focused on  Israel.  This is being done with the knowledge that the news media will quickly respond in knee-jerk reaction and take the ongoing turmoil in Arab/Muslim nations off the front pages of their news reports. 

Scapegoating Israel deflects attention away from mounting problems in Pakistan (quite unrelated to the War Against Israel) and throughout the region before they bite the American public. The established governments throughout the Muslim world are being de-stabilized with little hope that any of these countries will be  more friendly toward the United States under new management.  This is all happening on President O'Bama's watch.  Many of these situations are bringing the O'Bama Administration under severe criticism from its political opponents (and even amongst its allies).  Faced with this criticism, President O'Bama has returned to his "Plan A" thesis established on day two of his Administration: "Solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict and 'all these other problems' go away." Since President Nixon resigned from office, virtually every one-term President has applied this thesis. 

President Bush's policy toward Israel was hardly any better.  However, President Bush always had the basic courtesy to mention that Israel had taken MANY risks for peace (i.e. one-sided concessions).  In doing so, President Bush avoided the stigma that he was scapegoating Israel.   

President O'Bama rarely (if ever) acknowledges past Israeli concessions in the Jewish State's search for peace.  Both Administrations demanded more concessions.  While I did not appreciate Bush Administration policy on the War Against Israel, at least I appreciated his personal statements acknowledging that Israel was making an effort to pursue peace.  President O'Bama's personal statements are void of these acknowledgments.  That is why I believe President O'Bama's statements, including his comments last week, scapegoat Israel.  

President O'Bama and his recent comments on the War Against Israel

Over the next few days, I hope to share with you some of my thoughts and comments regarding President O'Bama's policy speech last Thursday (May 19 2011) and some of the media/political frakus that has followed.  This is the first of a series of comments.

Well! Wadda ya know! The news media LIED.

Sunday morning, May 22 2011, President O’Bama addressed the AIPAC policy conference. It contained statements that were insincere and untrue, but one thing he made certain: He did not use the words “1967 borders” in his Thursday 5/19/11 policy speech. He used the words “1967 LINES” [emphasis mine] in his speech last Thursday.

I haven’t read an exact transcript of last Thursday’s speech, but I’ve listened to President O’Bama’s speech this morning to AIPAC and believe he stated his words exactly as he made them on Thursday.

OK. That’s the good news. The bad news is that President O’Bama continues to call for a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders”. I think we know what that means. This condition was unilaterally INSERTED by the Bush Administration and was never agreed to by the Israelis. Certainly, arrangements for travel between Gaza and the West Bank were discussed during the Clinton Administration, but a Palestinian State with “contiguous borders” was never an ingredient in public U.S. Policy until the Bush Administration. I believe this element has stalled peace talks more than any other American policy.

Lastly, the statement in President O’Bama’s AIPAC speech that he will prevent Israel from being “singled out at the U.N. or any other international forum” is a bold-faced LIE. Time and time again, this President has singled Israel out as the soul source of failure in peace talks. The constant harangue that “Israel must act boldly to advance a lasting peace” is the routine line. The numerous territorial and political concessions  by Israel, have been met with no reciprocation, end-of-violence, end of incitement, or even continuing negotiations.  The obvious conclusion that these calls on Israel to "act boldly to advance a lasting peace"  are demands for one-sided concessions. 

And frankly, I’ve grown tired of people who are not Israeli citizens routinely saying that “Israel should….”, or worse, “Israel must….”. 

As an American, I believe my President needs to stop making policy statements that he knows (darn well) the news media will deliberately interpret as demands on Israel, one-sided or otherwise. The news media clearly mis-reported his speech. 

Public opinion drives public policy. News reporting shapes public opinion. If the President stops making these kinds of policy statements, few will question his claim of support for Israel.

SUNDOWN!

 Passover is OVER. Time for BEER!

NEW TSA COMMERCIAL TO AIR NATIONWIDE

Watch it HERE

What the LIB Media Won't Tell You About Elizabeth Taylor

Legendary actress Elizabeth Taylor died yesterday, March 23, 2011.  In the 24 hours of eulogies that went non-stop through the day, there was one constant throughout Taylor's life that was never mentioned: Elizabeth Taylor was an ardent Zionist.

Elizabeth Taylor was a fickle woman for sure.  She fell in and out of love with men; 8 husbands.  She fell off and on the wagon.  She gained, dropped and gained back weight.  Yet the one constant throughout her life was her support of Israel and (I believe) a sincere commitment to Reform Judaism and love of Gd.

The LIB media won't tell you this.  It's an embarrassment to the Saudi petro-dollar stockholders and advertisers. 

I just thought you should know.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

P.S.  Don't hold your breath waiting for conservative news media (i.e. FOX News) to tell you this either.   Same stockholders; same advertisers.

Japan Quake/Tsunami; Iran Nukes

If you're like me, you've probably been following the rescue effort being mounted in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan recently.  I encourage you to donate money to the rescue effort.  The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee has established a Japan/Pacific Disaster Relief fund.  I encourage you to make a donation immediately.

I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants.  So far, so good!  The containment buildings haven't been breached.  Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term.  Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe.  While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.  

Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column.  Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter.   Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.

You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants.  Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice.  Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters.  Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.

For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program".  Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it.  Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.

Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants.  For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran.  If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!

Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America.  If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough.  When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan.  When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program.  If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.

So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks!  Just remember!  This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.

Sincerely,

There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

What the LIB media won't tell you about Egypt

While the LIB news media blares out that "the voice of the people" in Egypt have sent some kind of message to Hosni Mubarak, there's something they haven't told you.  Cairo has 2 million homeless people. 

If a few hundred Egyptians want to protest against the Mubarak government because of poverty, there's over a million men "on call" to join.  These are not influential people, but when joined in a mass protest against poverty, the news media can give the protest any message they want.  That's what the LIB media won't tell you.  They're too caught up in their sense of self-importance to give a protest of that magnitude any other message.

So what does this mean?

In time, the protest gathering will die down.  Homeless people gotta eat too.  Life will go back to normal and hopefully the 82 year old Mubarak will get serious about finding a successor who will enjoy support of the military (i.e. someone other than his son).

We're being told that the Muslim Brotherhood is destined to take over Egypt; they're the "largest opposition group" etc.  I don't think that's true.  Most Egyptians are nationalists and while they may support Sharia law, they are still nationalists.  The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) is a pan-Islamist organization that is imperialist in nature.  When Egypt tried its hand at hegemony under Nasser, they got burned so bad that Egyptians learned (eventually) to take care of Egypt first.  As such, while the Ikhwan might have a 20% popularity in Egypt, there are likely significant numbers of Egyptians who do not share their pan-Islamic view.  This certainly includes the numerous Coptic Christians but extends well into Egypt's Muslim society as well.  

A Unique View of the Egypt "Crisis" from Israel

Having been in Israel the past week, we've all been following the Egyptian protests in the news.  While I can easily watch CNN, FOX, Sky News etc, it's far more interesting to watch the Israeli news and commentary. 

Israel is one of those countries where people rarely agree on anything.  Yet there are two things Israelis agree on this week:

 1.  They don't know where these protests are going to lead.

 2.  Whatever Israelis offer in the way of advice to Egyptians will be resented and ignored.

The mood about is one of curiosity.  Nobody seems to be too worried.  Israeli tourists, businessmen and families of diplomats bailed out of Egypt the same night we arrived here (Jan 30, 2011).  There's nobody left to worry about. 

So don't listen to those talking heads on the so-called "News Networks".  They're all rather self absorbed and don't know what they're talking about.  All they know is that it's easier to milk an old story than to find a new one.

Regards,

TINSC

Why are you protesting against Israel?

I think this video is pretty cute.  Moreover, it points out the grotesque hypocrisy employed against Israel.

If I were reincarnated, I'd want to come back in another life as Jewzilla

o/o/ Jihad Bells! o/o/

ADL: Helen Thomas is a vulgar anti-Semite.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

Helen Thomas has clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite. Her suggestion that Zionists control government, finance and Hollywood is nothing less than classic, garden-variety anti-Semitism. This is a sad final chapter to an otherwise illustrious career. Unlike her previous, spontaneous remarks into a camera, these words were carefully thought out and conscious. It shows a prejudice that is deep-seated and obsessive.

The ADL's Press Release can be found here.

I love Hannukah

Hanukkah marks the last time the Jews won a war and nobody griped about it being "an injustice".

Thank you Prime Minister Harper. A mighty fine speech!

"Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.

We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is...when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - Is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the 3 D's, it is a responsibility to stand up to them.

I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations, or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of "honest broker."

There are, after all, a lot more votes - a lot more - in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But, as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the UN or the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand...Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us."

-- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Taxation without representation

Today is election day; a day that reminds us that our republic was founded on the slogan of: "Taxation without representation is tyranny". Indeed, no matter how you view Republicans, Democrats and their respective philosophies on taxation and spending, we get to vote them in and out of office every so often.

This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.

Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.

Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.

It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"

I can't wait til tomorrow (Election Day 2010)

All my deceased ancestors in Chicago miraculously come to life for the day.