Open thread May 7, 2011 Dan Crawford | May 7, 2011 7:20 am Tags: open thread Comments (38) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Just spend the Six Hundred Thousand Million Dollars ($600,000,000,000!)
About all I can get from the House Armed Services Committee marks posted 3 and 4 May. The marks add and subtract from the already huge Obama defense authorization. No very serious deficit person is looking at the waste in the 20% of spending sliding through the pentagon. So much for voting for Ryan’s agenda.
To appear serious the mark seems to put a stake in the heart of a couple of already dead systems the Future Combat System vehicles and the Marines’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (also denying funds to improve the existing Amphibious Vehicle).
Their “sense” is to add more money to the never passed a test Ground-based Mid-course Missile Defense systems because it is failing tests and the subcommittee won’t let Boeing lose out to an Aegis alternative.
Then they want to split the new technology Catapult Launch System as a separate program so it won’t hold up the $35B spending on the two Ford class aircraft carriers even though the ships are helicopter platforms without the catapult.
They add a year to the multi-year program to acquire the LHA 7 second ship in the new America class of Amphibious Assault Ships, a boat with no “well deck” so it is for F-35 and MV 22. F-35 being on hold! Both aircraft are problems, and the ship is more money down that hole.
There is more, but it gets pretty wonky and I want to keep this short. The bottom line on manpower is 2.3M; 1.42M Active and .88M Guard and Reserve, about an 8000 soldier reduction.
The mark leaves the “force structure” intact. Just about twice the baseline spending that Bush senior and Clinton administrations left their successors. Still no match anywhere for the Clinton level military.
More when the numbers part comes out next week.
Record floods on Mississippi River, Lake Champlain; 3rd EF-5 tornado verified – The Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois continues to fall today, with a level of 59.3′, 2.5′ below the all-time peak of 61.8′ set on Monday night. On Monday night, the Army Corps of Engineers was forced to intentionally destroy a levee at Birds Point on the west bank of the Mississippi, just downstream from Cairo, Illinois, in order to relieve pressure on the levees in Cairo and save that city from a billion-dollar levee breach. The destruction of the Birds Point levee also helped slow the rise of the Mississippi River just south of its confluence with the Ohio River, but the river is still rising slowly, and has now set all-time records at New Madrid, Missouri, Tiptonville, Tennessee, and Caruthersville, Missouri–a 70-mile stretch of river downstream from Cairo. Currently, the Mississippi is expected to reach its 2nd highest level on record at Memphis on May 10, cresting at 48.0′. The all-time record at Memphis occurred during the great flood of 1937, when the river hit 48.7′. Downstream from Memphis, flood waters pouring in from the Arkansas River, Yazoo River, and other tributaries are expected to swell the Mississippi high enough to beat the all-time record at Vicksburg, Mississippi by 1.3′ on May 20, and smash the all-time record at Natchez, Mississippi by six feet on May 22, and by 3.2 feet at Red River Landing on May 23. Red River Landing is the site of the Old River Control Structure, the Army Corps’ massive engineering structure that keeps the Mississippi River from carving a new path to the Gulf of Mexico. I’ll have a detailed post talking about the Old River Control Structure next week. Its failure would be a serious blow to the U.S. economy, and the great Mississippi flood of 2011 will give the Old River Control Structure its most severe test ever. Also of concern is the forecast for the Mississippi to crest at 19.5 feet in New Orleans on May 24. The levees in New Orleans protect the city for a flood of 20.0 feet–that is not much breathing room.
Corn Planted, Selected States (table)
as of the most recent USDA report (monday), only 13% of the intended acreage was planted, vs. 66% the same date in 2010, mostly due to saturated fields…corn planted after the first week in may is likely to yield less than the optimum…
NASA proves one of Einstein’s theories.
A NASA satellite measures were predicted by Einstein’s Theory of Gravity.
From The Big Picture.
This one’s been around for a couple of days. If you are on the left you think Lawrence ODonnell bested Condi Rice. If on the right , well y’all know!
Video: Condi Rice and Lawrence O’Donnell argue about Iraq for 12 minutes
Go here to see the video: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/06/video-condi-rice-and-lawrence-odonnell-argue-about-iraq-for-12-minutes/
once again reads what he wants to believe.
let me help you out a bit CoRev. the “believers” in global warming are indeed mostly little people like you and me who are no more rational than you… well, maybe a little more…. and they indulge in magical thinking and don’t notice their own contradictions…
and all of this has not a damn thing to do with the science, and the scientists, who are professionally required to pay attention to contradictions and avoid magical thinking.
and please note, in the part you quote at least, Monbiot, a journalist, is not discrediting the need for an environmental movement… “how humanity can get out of this mess… break the atomising, planet-wrecking project.” He is talking about the “practical” … or lack of it… thinking of “we” environmentalists.
kind of like me saying the ‘liberals’ are following a self defeating strategy in defense of Social Security. that doesn’t make me against Social Security, or even liberals.
[since this is an open thread and i can change the subject of my own comment if i want to:
my objection to “the liberals” is that they accept the framing of the Big Lie… they assume SS is welfare and that it needs to be fixed and the fix is higher taxes on the rich. In fact SS is not welfare and it does not need to be fixed, and certainly doesn’t need to “tax the rich” to pay for the workers benefits. The workers have always paid for their own benefits and can continue to do so forever. It the next generation lives longer than the last, they can keep their benefits at the same level without raising the retirement age by raising their OWN “tax” one half of one tenth of one percent per year…. that’s about forty cents per week in today’s terms.]
just in case anyone here cares about their own economic future.
It’s Saturday and another AB open thread has rolled around again. In keeping with my custom of inflicting videos of various animal subjects on you, here’s one that contains numerous instances of profanity and a very strange animal. He’s the African equivalent of a Tasmanian Devil, an animal with no cuteness at all. If you take the time to look, you’ll see what I mean. TTFN. NancyO
Krugman and other wild-eyed lefties think the administration could do something about unemployment. But, nooooooo! The interest rate on Treasuries may go up to…ummm…4%! Gack! Arrrrgghh! Yeewww! NancyO
And speaking of irritating subjects. Here’s a guy named Eskow commenting on points of comparison between Alice and Wonderland and current discussions about reforming Medicare.
& as if to add insult to injury, a bill proposed by the house GOP would allow states to use the unemployment funds extension received from the Federal government (as part of the mcconnell-obama tax cuts for the rich deal) for other purposes as to be determined by the state legislatures…
Just so NanO is not alone. Try this: http://www.youtube.com/profile?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_303012&user=klaatu42
Steve’s best butter brownies:
Start by melting 2 sticks of butter in the microwave. While the butter is melting sift together 1 cup flour 3/4 cup cocoa and 1/8 tsp baking powder in a small bowl, set aside. To the melted butter stir in 2 cups of sugar, then beat in 4 eggs one at a time, beating well after each egg. Add 1/4 tsp salt, 1 tsp vanilla extract and 1/8th tsp almond extract (optional but it is what makes them *the best*)
Stir in the flour/cocoa mixture, beating well by hand to combine all ingredients. Optionally add nuts of your choice and or chocolate chips (I call that variation *supreme*) Pour into a buttered 13×9 oblong pan and bake at 325 degrees for about 30-35 minutes until a toothpick comes out clean and they are pulling away from the edges. Cool completely before cutting.
If the flag waving hoopla of the triumph over OBL has grown tiresome check out this from Rachel Maddow on how we ended up killing him on his own terms: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#42889180
$3T in Iraq, who knows how much in Afghanistan not to mention the massive new homeland security apparatus, doubled budget for the pentagon etc. I’m glad the bastard is dead but wow that’s a steep price tag.
CoRev–Now, this one is one I considered but rejected. Why? Because it’s not nice to tease pretty sweet woozles of the GSD persuasion. Not nice at all. You will notice that MY video shows the animal rousing itself from being bit by a cobra! And, my animal is tough, tough, tough. Oh, yeah. Anyhow, Do better next time, Mr. CoRev. No fair making fun of woozles. NancyO
NanO, Eeeww, that’s disgusting. 😉
Very Serious Deficit Votes, never mind!
“When all logic and proportion fall sloppy dead”
HASC Chairman Buck Mc Keon 5 May speaking agitprop at Heritage (famous for spreading the “Endgame” which arson against poor people and the elder for deficit vigilantes) on cuts endangering the great republic’s war profits.
“It’s my sense that White House defense decisions are putting this great republic on the fast track for decline,” McKeon said.
In addition to these commitments, McKeon pointed to piracy, cybersecurity, humanitarian assistance, protecting space assets and deterring aggression from rising powers as areas where the military’s roles are growing. Nothing here about common defense or economical solutions to these anxieties.
“The logic has been simply baffling to me: expand our military commitments while cutting our armed forces,” McKeon said.
Nor does he support eliminating or reducing capabilities in lower priority mission areas.
“It must be our top priority to field the forces and the hardware necessary to stave off even the most unlikely of contingencies,” McKeon said.
Nonsense! Imperial libertarians!
A common phenomenon in the Climate Community is to see a new paper released then the other side skeptics/believers attack it. The current example is a paper by FKM, which in its abstract says:
“A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent, 1784–2009
Oliver W. Frauenfeld,1 Paul C. Knappenberger,2 and Patrick J. Michaels3
Received 17 August 2010; revised 21 December 2010; accepted 31 January 2011; published 19 April 2011.
The total extent of ice melt on the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing during the last three decades. The melt extent observed in 2007 in particular was the greatest on record according to several satellite‐derived records of total Greenland melt extent. Total annual observed melt extent across the Greenland ice sheet has been shown to be strongly related to summer temperature measurements from stations located along Greenland’s coast, as well as to variations in atmospheric circulation across the North Atlantic. We make use of these relationships along with historical temperature and circulation observations to develop a near‐continuous 226 year reconstructed history of annual Greenland melt extent dating from 2009 back into the late eighteenth century. We find that the recent period of high‐melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s. ( CoRev here: translation, Not Exceptional) The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961.”
Surprisingly, the other side is represented by one of the peer reviewers who claims that the results would be obsolete if they used the 2010 data. Only one minor problem with that argument, the 2010 data is not yet released, so such a claim is … well, umh, err, nothing more than personal opinion.
go here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/will-2010-melt-data-change-conclusions-of-fkm2011/#more-14950
For an interesting analysis of whether 2010 data, one year, could actually impact a study of long term data.
In recognition of the debates about to take place in the congress I like this theme:
Yeah, honey badgers are just like Crabby Appleton, rotten to the core! I consulted with my former self to pick him. Ain’t he awful?? And he still has all his teeth! 😀 NancyO
Another OMG moment in the Global Warming discussions. Its these kinds of realizations that are making the difference for voters to decide/influence elections. The most recent example was in Canada where the conservatives just won a major election.
The example below shows the differences between the reality as measured by new high quality sensors, in this case thousands of free floating Argo buoys, and climate model predictions. Much of the climate hysteria originates from these failed estimates.
Reference is from here: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/first-quarter-2011-update-of-nodc-ocean-heat-content-0-700meters/
From a high school buddy…………
Economic theories of voting?
ILSM’s defense spending sensitivities not withstanding, is the Dutch Healthcare model what is possible with the Ryan budget proposal? Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-dutch-model-for-medicare/2011/04/29/AFQPNICG_story.html
There are so many wholes in what comes from republicans in the house………..
We do know what HASC chmn Mc Keon says:
“Prepare for the most unlikely war,” with the most expensive stuff Profit!!
Which is my new tag line, no more ilsm will not change.
No doubt an apt comparison between a nation of less than 17 million and one of a bit more than 300 million. Other comaprisons, especially income distribution, are even more enlightening. Let’s see. In the Netherlands the top 20 % earn about 38% of the income. In the US that same top 20% earn nearly 46% of all income. Then there’s health care spending per capita and its results. Netherlannds per capita spending approximately $2,300 annually. Life expectancy at about 79 years. US figures on the other hand: spending near $4,500 annually and life expectancy a little under 78 years.
Jack, from your comparative numbers I will guess you think we should consider following the path of the Netherlands? Or, did you have an alternative meaning?
let me remind you that from time to time a commenter at Angry Bear who signs himself “CoRev” has said that “global warming is real, it just isn’t man made.” Now you are telling us it isn’t real.
In case you missed the point, I replied to your first comment on this subject on this thread that the “believers” were almost as irrational as the “deniers,” but that’s a given, given the limits of human intelligence. That’s why we had to invent science. And so far the science on global warming is saying, “ah, Houston, we have a problem.”
statistical significance is a bit tricky
but just on common sense grounds, wouldn’t you expect a gradually changing variable subject to large variations to show less variation between points at one end of the time scale than between points at opposite ends of the time scale?
The blinders you wear obscure your view of the wider perspective. Maybe I was being too subtle in pointing out that the Netherlands have little in common with the USofA in regards to economics and health care. The article you reference from the Washington Post provides little of the substance of the 267 page report of a study of the Netherlands system conducted by The European Observatory On Heath Systems and Policies. The differences between the Netherlands economy and health care system and our own is so great as to provide little basis for comparison. It is noe worthy, however, to note the conclusion from that report, as it makes clear that Paul Ryan’s asinine approach has little to do with what the Dutch are doing. Starting at page 227 of the report:
“The health care system in the Netherlands is in transition. A structural
health care reform in 2006, after almost two decades of attempts to
merge the dual system of sickness funds and private insurers, introduced
completely new regulatory mechanisms and structures to the Dutch health care
system. The reform introduced a single compulsory SHI scheme, in which
multiple private health insurers compete for insured persons. Health insurers act
as purchasers of care and negotiate with providers on price, volume and quality
of care; they are allowed to make a profit and pay dividends to shareholders.
They are obliged to accept all new applicants and are not allowed to differentiate their premiums towards the risk profile of the applicants. The government changed its role from directly steering the system to safeguarding the process from a distance. Responsibilities have been transferred to insurers, providers and patients. New “watchdog” agencies in the health sector are put in place to avoid undesired market effects in the new system. The reforms are still ongoing; many of the measures introduced since 2006 have sought to make the transition from the old to the new system as smooth as possible and aimed at the proper functioning of the health markets. In addition, new measures are adjusted if in practice problems arise in their implementation, as seen with for instance the DBC financing system”
I suggest reading the full conclusion section, if not the entire report. The Dutch approach may be fine in a small scale economic system. There is no evidence that such an approach can transition to an system as enormous as our own.
Dales’ complete misunderstanding of what the message was and what I have in the past said reminded me of another part of Eisenhower’s farewell speech.
‘ President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous 1960 farewell address contained more than an admonition about the danger of an expanding “military-industrial complex.” That speech was also an early warning of the current unholy alliance between the government and a scientific community dependent on the government for its funding.
Americans have steadfastly recalled Eisenhower’s initial clarion call, especially in political debates concerning the size of annual defense budgets:…It is uncanny that Eisenhower practically predicted the current results we are experiencing from the past thirty years of multimillion dollar grants to study earth’s climate. From the recent revelations of intellectual fraud and deceit, we have seen a perfect example of a “government contract” that has become a substitute for “intellectual curiosity.”
The millions of dollars for continuing climate research and the dazzling possibilities for expanding government policies and social controls have provided the necessary components to allow trusted scientists to cheat their way into scaring the public into letting them have their way with us. Thousands of researchers now depend on these grants for their livelihood, and the movement pushes forward under its own momentum, regardless of the underlying facts.”
We’ve been beat to death by ILSM over Ike’s famous “military-industrial complex comment” Now, let’s pay some attention to the other government-scientific community complex, because the impact is clear and alarming in the AGW debates.
Bloomberg Business Week weighs in on the GOP’s budget war on Children:
are you trying to imply that was what Eisenhower said?
are you proposing we “get government out of science”?
It’s not likely that Ike was worried about government funded basic research warning us that certain technologies pose a threat to people and the planet, which I think is the interpretation made by the author of your quote from American Thinker. Just the opposite–Ike probably was concerned that the “scientific elite” increasingly could, with government support, become powerful organized political proponents of scientific and technological advances (beyond basic research) that would threaten people and the planet despite assurances to the contrary. Nuclear power and radiation were perhaps the primary examples at the time, but there were others (thalidimide also was a hot topic at the time of the speech). AAAS published a short but thoughtful essay on the subject last February, on the 50th anniversary of the speech, at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/0211eisenhower.shtml
I don’t believe the AGW debate fits the model that concerned Ike in his warning, so either side has to “stretch” a great deal to employ his warning to support their position. He favored government-funded basic research, but he was quite wary of reassuring science regarding technologies that would flow from it. Until Ike clarifies from the grave (perhaps through Scalia), I wouldn’t apply his quote to the AGW debate.
PJR said: “ I wouldn’t apply his quote to the AGW debate.” And I obviously do/just did. For me and the American Thinker article’s author AGW, especially with its policy ramifications is exemplary of Ike’s concern.
Ravi Batra economics professor at SMU in Dallas articulates the case for a return to 1950s era tax rates here: http://www.truth-out.org/weapons-mass-exploitation/1304696645
Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz advocates employment as proper response to the deficit here in an interview on Morning Edition here: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/09/136129747/deficit-solution-get-americans-back-to-work
just so you know… thanks for the explanation,
Percentage of the GDP that will be taken as federal revenue this year: 14.8
Last year in which the percentage was this low: 1950
-Courtesy Harper’s Index, May 2011
and he does this without a net.
taxed so hard we cannot stand
let my people go
go down Moses tell ol Pharaoh
let my people go.