According to Martin Feldstein, the Energy Reform Act that has passed in Congress (but not in the Senate) represents the equivalent of a 50% tax increase to the average American Family.
The Congressional Budget office predicts that passage of this bill will dramatically increase the cost of living for all Americans, by an average of $1,600 per year. Since the average family of four, with earnings of $50,000 per year, now pays approximately $3,000 in taxes, this represents a hidden tax increase of 50%.
Next on the agenda is a new health care tax, again under the guise of "reform." This will help create a new government health care bureacracy and greater taxes.If our president and Congress want to raise taxes and costs, that is their right as our duly elected leaders. However, they should do this in plain sight, not by hiding behind "change."
I am saddened that the mainstream media has done nothing to bring this information to light. This president campaigned on raising taxes only on the "wealthy," as defined as those making more than $250,000 per year. So far, we have seen tax after hidden tax, primarily on the little guy. These new energy taxes will affect all Americans, particularly those living on fixed and moderate incomes. I repeat, these taxes and cost increases do not hurt the wealthy anywhere near as much as they hurt the rest of us. Where is the outrage?
I encourage you to follow the attached hyperlink to Feldstein’s article discussing this. In case you don’t know, Mr. Feldstein’s qualifications, I have copied a brief excerpt from his website. He is a Harvard professor who has advised several presidents on economic policy. He is a member of Mr. Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/WELL.Feldstein.pdf
Short Bio:
Martin Feldstein is the George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He served as President and CEO of the NBER from 1977-82 and 1984-2008. He continues as a Research Associate of the NBER. The NBER is a private, nonprofit research organization that has specialized for more than 80 years in producing nonpartisan studies of the American economy.
From 1982 through 1984, Martin Feldstein was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and President Reagan's chief economic adviser. He served as President of the American Economic Association in 2004. In 2006, President Bush appointed him to be a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In 2009, President Obama appointed him to be a member of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Showing posts with label lumbert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lumbert. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
America 9/11
On this, the eve of the 4th of July, I want to share the lyrics one of the songs I have written about freedom. If you are reading this, you probably know that I cherish the freedom we have as Americans. I also feel that we are losing that freedom, bit by bit.
I first wrote this song in the early 1980s, when Japan was kicking our butts economically. At that time, Japan was buying up some of our greatest resources. So, the first version of these lyrics dealt with the loss of many of the landmarks we hold most dear. The same thing is happening with China today. They just bought the rights to Hummer. They bought the rights to IBM PCs. They control the Panama Canal. They bought Global Crossing, which controls much of our international communications.
I altered the lyrics in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. This is the version you will read below.
This song frames freedom in an historical context, denoting the sacrifices others have made, and the gradual erosion to our freedoms over time. 9/11 chipped away at our freedom even more.
Terrorism steals our freedom daily. Fighting it absorbs our resources. It spreads fear and robs us of our emotional well-being. If we do not address this issue today, while terrorism remains mostly off our shores, we may face it here, in ways that will make 9/11 seem like child’s play. Make not doubt, there are those that will try to detonate nuclear warheads in this country, just as they use car bombs today.
© Jay Lumbert
America 9/11
When I was just a boy
My dad would set me on his knee.
He'd say,
“Son, in this great land
You can be all you want to be.
Our nation's based on freedom,
Trust, and opportunity,
And there's nothing
That will hold you back,
From sea to shining sea.”
Our forefathers gave their lives
In the Revolutionary War.
And Abe Lincoln did the same
For the slaves we'd brought onto our shores.
They fought against the Kaiser,
And then Hitler and Japan.
And it was all so that their children
Could live in the Promised Land.
America the beautiful,
For amber waves of grain,
So giving and so dutiful,
Above thy fruited plains.
When I'd pledge allegiance to the flag
I would stand up tall and proud.
But America,
Where are you now?
It’s plain to see, democracy
Is envied by the world.
We raise our heads with pride
Whenever the Stars and Stripes unfurl
But our carefree way of life
Gets shaken to its very core
When terrorists use freedom
As their tool to wage a war.
What's happened to our liberty?
Did we let it slip away?
Or was it stolen while we
Chose to look the other way?
We used to be a beacon
Shining bright for all to see,
Not sifting through our ashes,
Looking back at Old Glory.
Today we face the choices
Our forefathers had to make
There are those that question if
We still have all it’s going to take.
The sacrifice, commitment
And the will to see it through
And the faith we will prevail
No matter what our foes may do.
America, stand up and fight,
Or we'll give it all away.
Freedom's earned,
It's not a right.
We must pay for it each day.
We can't earn freedom
Wishing things were as they used to be.
And then sitting back while terrorists
Take shots at liberty.
We all must band together
And there's so much to be done.
We must all declare a war until
Our victory is won.
Every worker, mother, father, child
Must sit down hand in hand,
And roll up their sleeves,
Together, we can resurrect our land!
America, stand up and fight,
Don't forfeit all you've won.
Our freedom’s running out of sight,
There's so much to be done.
But there's nothing that can stop us,
Don't believe the things they say.
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA!
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA!
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA! © Jay Lumbert
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
I first wrote this song in the early 1980s, when Japan was kicking our butts economically. At that time, Japan was buying up some of our greatest resources. So, the first version of these lyrics dealt with the loss of many of the landmarks we hold most dear. The same thing is happening with China today. They just bought the rights to Hummer. They bought the rights to IBM PCs. They control the Panama Canal. They bought Global Crossing, which controls much of our international communications.
I altered the lyrics in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. This is the version you will read below.
This song frames freedom in an historical context, denoting the sacrifices others have made, and the gradual erosion to our freedoms over time. 9/11 chipped away at our freedom even more.
Terrorism steals our freedom daily. Fighting it absorbs our resources. It spreads fear and robs us of our emotional well-being. If we do not address this issue today, while terrorism remains mostly off our shores, we may face it here, in ways that will make 9/11 seem like child’s play. Make not doubt, there are those that will try to detonate nuclear warheads in this country, just as they use car bombs today.
© Jay Lumbert
America 9/11
When I was just a boy
My dad would set me on his knee.
He'd say,
“Son, in this great land
You can be all you want to be.
Our nation's based on freedom,
Trust, and opportunity,
And there's nothing
That will hold you back,
From sea to shining sea.”
Our forefathers gave their lives
In the Revolutionary War.
And Abe Lincoln did the same
For the slaves we'd brought onto our shores.
They fought against the Kaiser,
And then Hitler and Japan.
And it was all so that their children
Could live in the Promised Land.
America the beautiful,
For amber waves of grain,
So giving and so dutiful,
Above thy fruited plains.
When I'd pledge allegiance to the flag
I would stand up tall and proud.
But America,
Where are you now?
It’s plain to see, democracy
Is envied by the world.
We raise our heads with pride
Whenever the Stars and Stripes unfurl
But our carefree way of life
Gets shaken to its very core
When terrorists use freedom
As their tool to wage a war.
What's happened to our liberty?
Did we let it slip away?
Or was it stolen while we
Chose to look the other way?
We used to be a beacon
Shining bright for all to see,
Not sifting through our ashes,
Looking back at Old Glory.
Today we face the choices
Our forefathers had to make
There are those that question if
We still have all it’s going to take.
The sacrifice, commitment
And the will to see it through
And the faith we will prevail
No matter what our foes may do.
America, stand up and fight,
Or we'll give it all away.
Freedom's earned,
It's not a right.
We must pay for it each day.
We can't earn freedom
Wishing things were as they used to be.
And then sitting back while terrorists
Take shots at liberty.
We all must band together
And there's so much to be done.
We must all declare a war until
Our victory is won.
Every worker, mother, father, child
Must sit down hand in hand,
And roll up their sleeves,
Together, we can resurrect our land!
America, stand up and fight,
Don't forfeit all you've won.
Our freedom’s running out of sight,
There's so much to be done.
But there's nothing that can stop us,
Don't believe the things they say.
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA!
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA!
We've overcome far greater odds,
We are the USA! © Jay Lumbert
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Can We Have Peace With Radical Islam?
I applaud Mr. Obama for taking initiatives to bridge the divide between the Muslim world and the West. If we don’t find a way to compromise in this matter, we will never live in a world without the fear of terrorism.
That said, I hope our president realizes that it doesn’t really matter what the majority of Muslim people say or do. The great majority of Iranian and Pakistani people could be solidly anti-terrorist. They could even be pro-west. But getting a government that joins the fight against terrorism (let alone a pro-west government) will be impossible without the blessing of their religious leaders.
The recent Iranian election is a good example of Arab politics in action. By most accounts, this was going to be a very close election. The hard-line, anti-west, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was being challenged by a far more conciliatory Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi’s candidacy was gaining momentum daily, fed by a kind of grassroots movement that literally propelled him into the national spotlight. It appeared that he might just overtake the incumbent leader, who was seen by many as an impediment to peace.
It comes as no surprise that a “close” election turned into a rout by the sitting president. Sixty million hand-written votes were “counted” in about twenty minutes, with the results being a resounding mandate for Ahmadinejad. When Iranians lined the streets in peaceful protest, Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “settled” the issue with one sermon and a crackdown ensued.
As Obama decried the crackdown, Khamenei cried that Obama was “just like Bush.” So much for conciliation.
The means to eliminating terrorism is not through government, but through religion. Terrorists do not care what their government leaders say; they answer to what they perceive as a higher leader – Allah.
If Muslim Imam’s ever told their “faithful” to stop terrorism, they would stop. If Muslim governments tell them to promote peace, the “faithful” laugh.
We are not in a war against Islam. We are in a war against a relatively small percentage that makes up radical Islam. These people are not directed or motivated by politicians.
The day that Islam’s “holy leaders” point to an enemy other than the United States and the “West,” our terrorism problem will be over. Until then, no amount of rhetoric, and no amount of political “peace-making” will make that change.
Exactly what do these radical leaders preach? And how do they get their power?
Many radical Imams preach for the eradication of the “Zionists,” Israel. Until Israel no longer exists, they will fight anyone that lends support to Israel. Khomeini was one of the most outspoken members of such clergy. His successor is much the same.
Many religious leaders adhere to the more extreme sections of the Qur’an that call for the murder of all non-believers. This extreme, literalism in their “Bible” is what Mr. Obama has to address. Just as the Christian Bible’s “Old Testament” preaches an “eye for an eye,” the Qur’an does much the same.
As Iran gets closer to producing nuclear weapons, the Middle East is growing more and more unstable. Iran already has the missiles that can deliver a warhead, and it wouldn’t take much to strap a warhead on one and launch it.
We have already seen that those in charge of nuclear programs can have radical beliefs that foment hate and destruction. The leader of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program gave (or sold) critical technology to several rogue, anti-west countries.
If I were leading Israel, I would not stand by and allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. No matter how remote the possibility of attack, the penalty of a “miscalculation of intent” is destruction. No leader wants to commit national suicide.
Iran has just re-elected a president (with the support of Khamenei) that wants to eliminate Israel. It won’t be long before the United States is thrust into the middle of this conflict.
We have a 60-year history of backing Israel, both in public and in private. We have made many unofficial promises to this nation, and they have acted as an important buffer for our interests in the region.
Our administration pretends that peace in the Middle East can be achieved if Israel gives more land to the HAMAS-led Palestinians. HAMAS is considered by much of the western world to be a terrorist organization. Their 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel with an Islamic State.
What Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge, or fails to realize, is that Israel’s land is simply the current focus of terrorist aggression. HAMAS leaders claim that there can be no peace until Israel surrenders all of the land they acquired during the Six Day War.
Should the United States surrender the land from Texas to California to Mexico because we took it in war? Should we return the nation to Great Britain because we took it in war? Why should Israel act differently than the Unites States? Israel was attacked and they fought back. History is written and controlled by the victor.
Obama seems to think that if Israel returns all of the land, peace can be achieved. The truth is, no matter how much land Israel gives up, it will not be enough. The anti-Zionists will not stop until Israel has been eliminated. As long as we are duped to believe that peace can come from a simple land exchange, we will remain the laughingstock of the Islamic world.
Some leaders think that the elimination of Israel is the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East. They are seeking to cut our ties with Israel, and allow the Islamic world to do the dirty work. These leaders think that a world without Israel means a world at peace. These people don’t understand that Israel is merely the current target of the religious zealots. The moment Israel is replaced by an Islamic State, the radical leaders will set their sights on another target, most likely, the United States. We have plenty of pornography, corporate greed and colonialist tendencies to keep every Imam happy and pointing fingers. Make no mistake about this, radical Islamic leaders lose their power without a demon to blame for all of their problems. If Israel is gone, we are next in line.
Please understand that I am not Jewish. I am simply an observer of history and a keen student of human behavior.
If one looks at the history of Northern Africa and the Middle East, one will find that the region is dominated by tribal affiliations dating back hundreds of years. They also have a way of thinking that we (westerners) could never fully understand. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was able to conquer Arabia (Saudi Arabia) with an “army” of less than a dozen men. All he needed to do was kill the current “king,” which he did by sneaking into the king’s mud palace at night and stabbing him. The moment this happened, the king’s former warriors, Saud’s former enemies, immediately switched their allegiance to him.
We saw a modern-day version of this when Iraqis fighting alongside American forces asked that captured Iraqi enemy soldiers be allowed to switch sides and fight alongside the U.S. led forces. Their personal ideologies are practical, not emotional. Most answer to a higher calling - Islam. Islam means to “submit” for the majority of followers. It is only the radical few that rule. These few rule with brutality and so-called “religious” fervor, claiming that they do the work of Allah. They believe that they are doing the work of their god.
Whether these religious zealots are elected or not doesn’t matter. The militant radicals in Islam do not follow their elected leaders. The follow their religious ones, and these men are usually the puppet-masters that control their politicians from behind the curtain.
As long as we continue to think that political treaties will have compliance by rogue terrorists we are doomed to failure. Thinking that political leaders will control terrorist activities in their respective nations is simply a farce. Look at Afghanistan. Their leaders have agreed to let us prosecute the war on terror within their country. We are sending more and more troops to try to stop the spread of terrorism and drug trafficking within the Afghan borders. This is taking enormous sums of money and a great toll on some of our finest individuals. We can be successful, to an extent, as long as we keep a large fighting force in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the minute we leave the country, terrorism will sprout again like weeds.
We do not have the financial or human resources to prosecute this battle across every Islamic nation. What we are doing in Afghanistan, and what we did in Iraq, was to demonstrate that there are severe consequences to fomenting terrorism.
To any rational person or government, this might make sense. But we are dealing with religious zealots who follow Imams that promise seventy virgins in the afterlife to any man who dies for the cause. Not long ago, an advertisement was put up at the University of Tehran asking for suicide-bomber volunteers. More than a thousand students offered their services.
The more we fight terrorism, the more it fights back. So, what do we do?
The first thing we should do is support Israel. This is the right thing to do. It is also the most practical. Whether we want to believe it or not, Israel acts like a big shield for the United States against terrorism. They are also willing to do the things that our current administration will not do—that is to fight terrorism in a way that it understands.
The ultimate end to this “war” may not occur for another fifty years or more. The radical Imams and their followers will not quit, no matter how great the traditional pain and political pressure. Our prosecuting a sanitary war, as we have in Iraq, will do little, if nothing to stop the terrorists. Saddam Hussein understood this. What it took for him to consolidate power in his country, and prevent great civil unrest, was the wholesale slaughter of 1.5 MILLION of his citizens.
At this point this kind of action is inconceivable to us. Yet, don’t think that this could never happen. It was only sixty years ago that we did such a thing to end World War II with the Japanese. We warned them. We dropped a nuke. We warned them again. We dropped another nuke. Finally, they capitulated.
As heinous as this might sound, this kind of solution may be the only thing that terrorists actually understand. If Islamic terrorism becomes as rampant in this country as it is in Israel today, the American people will begin to demand it.
An equally likely “solution,” will be for us all to be controlled by Islam. This may sound ludicrous, but it is happening all over the world. Islam is now over 20% of the world’s population and growing. Since most religions do not have such a violent component, they tend to choose a path of peace, allowing the radicals to control more and more. This is what has happened in Islamic nations all around the world. It is beginning to happen in countries like France, were more than 20% of its population is now Muslim.
I pray that Mr. Obama is able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and bring about peace—just as the president does in my new book, The Presidential Pretender. Unfortunately, human nature is an awfully hard thing to fight.
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
That said, I hope our president realizes that it doesn’t really matter what the majority of Muslim people say or do. The great majority of Iranian and Pakistani people could be solidly anti-terrorist. They could even be pro-west. But getting a government that joins the fight against terrorism (let alone a pro-west government) will be impossible without the blessing of their religious leaders.
The recent Iranian election is a good example of Arab politics in action. By most accounts, this was going to be a very close election. The hard-line, anti-west, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was being challenged by a far more conciliatory Mir Hossein Mousavi. Mousavi’s candidacy was gaining momentum daily, fed by a kind of grassroots movement that literally propelled him into the national spotlight. It appeared that he might just overtake the incumbent leader, who was seen by many as an impediment to peace.
It comes as no surprise that a “close” election turned into a rout by the sitting president. Sixty million hand-written votes were “counted” in about twenty minutes, with the results being a resounding mandate for Ahmadinejad. When Iranians lined the streets in peaceful protest, Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “settled” the issue with one sermon and a crackdown ensued.
As Obama decried the crackdown, Khamenei cried that Obama was “just like Bush.” So much for conciliation.
The means to eliminating terrorism is not through government, but through religion. Terrorists do not care what their government leaders say; they answer to what they perceive as a higher leader – Allah.
If Muslim Imam’s ever told their “faithful” to stop terrorism, they would stop. If Muslim governments tell them to promote peace, the “faithful” laugh.
We are not in a war against Islam. We are in a war against a relatively small percentage that makes up radical Islam. These people are not directed or motivated by politicians.
The day that Islam’s “holy leaders” point to an enemy other than the United States and the “West,” our terrorism problem will be over. Until then, no amount of rhetoric, and no amount of political “peace-making” will make that change.
Exactly what do these radical leaders preach? And how do they get their power?
Many radical Imams preach for the eradication of the “Zionists,” Israel. Until Israel no longer exists, they will fight anyone that lends support to Israel. Khomeini was one of the most outspoken members of such clergy. His successor is much the same.
Many religious leaders adhere to the more extreme sections of the Qur’an that call for the murder of all non-believers. This extreme, literalism in their “Bible” is what Mr. Obama has to address. Just as the Christian Bible’s “Old Testament” preaches an “eye for an eye,” the Qur’an does much the same.
As Iran gets closer to producing nuclear weapons, the Middle East is growing more and more unstable. Iran already has the missiles that can deliver a warhead, and it wouldn’t take much to strap a warhead on one and launch it.
We have already seen that those in charge of nuclear programs can have radical beliefs that foment hate and destruction. The leader of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program gave (or sold) critical technology to several rogue, anti-west countries.
If I were leading Israel, I would not stand by and allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. No matter how remote the possibility of attack, the penalty of a “miscalculation of intent” is destruction. No leader wants to commit national suicide.
Iran has just re-elected a president (with the support of Khamenei) that wants to eliminate Israel. It won’t be long before the United States is thrust into the middle of this conflict.
We have a 60-year history of backing Israel, both in public and in private. We have made many unofficial promises to this nation, and they have acted as an important buffer for our interests in the region.
Our administration pretends that peace in the Middle East can be achieved if Israel gives more land to the HAMAS-led Palestinians. HAMAS is considered by much of the western world to be a terrorist organization. Their 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel with an Islamic State.
What Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge, or fails to realize, is that Israel’s land is simply the current focus of terrorist aggression. HAMAS leaders claim that there can be no peace until Israel surrenders all of the land they acquired during the Six Day War.
Should the United States surrender the land from Texas to California to Mexico because we took it in war? Should we return the nation to Great Britain because we took it in war? Why should Israel act differently than the Unites States? Israel was attacked and they fought back. History is written and controlled by the victor.
Obama seems to think that if Israel returns all of the land, peace can be achieved. The truth is, no matter how much land Israel gives up, it will not be enough. The anti-Zionists will not stop until Israel has been eliminated. As long as we are duped to believe that peace can come from a simple land exchange, we will remain the laughingstock of the Islamic world.
Some leaders think that the elimination of Israel is the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East. They are seeking to cut our ties with Israel, and allow the Islamic world to do the dirty work. These leaders think that a world without Israel means a world at peace. These people don’t understand that Israel is merely the current target of the religious zealots. The moment Israel is replaced by an Islamic State, the radical leaders will set their sights on another target, most likely, the United States. We have plenty of pornography, corporate greed and colonialist tendencies to keep every Imam happy and pointing fingers. Make no mistake about this, radical Islamic leaders lose their power without a demon to blame for all of their problems. If Israel is gone, we are next in line.
Please understand that I am not Jewish. I am simply an observer of history and a keen student of human behavior.
If one looks at the history of Northern Africa and the Middle East, one will find that the region is dominated by tribal affiliations dating back hundreds of years. They also have a way of thinking that we (westerners) could never fully understand. Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was able to conquer Arabia (Saudi Arabia) with an “army” of less than a dozen men. All he needed to do was kill the current “king,” which he did by sneaking into the king’s mud palace at night and stabbing him. The moment this happened, the king’s former warriors, Saud’s former enemies, immediately switched their allegiance to him.
We saw a modern-day version of this when Iraqis fighting alongside American forces asked that captured Iraqi enemy soldiers be allowed to switch sides and fight alongside the U.S. led forces. Their personal ideologies are practical, not emotional. Most answer to a higher calling - Islam. Islam means to “submit” for the majority of followers. It is only the radical few that rule. These few rule with brutality and so-called “religious” fervor, claiming that they do the work of Allah. They believe that they are doing the work of their god.
Whether these religious zealots are elected or not doesn’t matter. The militant radicals in Islam do not follow their elected leaders. The follow their religious ones, and these men are usually the puppet-masters that control their politicians from behind the curtain.
As long as we continue to think that political treaties will have compliance by rogue terrorists we are doomed to failure. Thinking that political leaders will control terrorist activities in their respective nations is simply a farce. Look at Afghanistan. Their leaders have agreed to let us prosecute the war on terror within their country. We are sending more and more troops to try to stop the spread of terrorism and drug trafficking within the Afghan borders. This is taking enormous sums of money and a great toll on some of our finest individuals. We can be successful, to an extent, as long as we keep a large fighting force in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the minute we leave the country, terrorism will sprout again like weeds.
We do not have the financial or human resources to prosecute this battle across every Islamic nation. What we are doing in Afghanistan, and what we did in Iraq, was to demonstrate that there are severe consequences to fomenting terrorism.
To any rational person or government, this might make sense. But we are dealing with religious zealots who follow Imams that promise seventy virgins in the afterlife to any man who dies for the cause. Not long ago, an advertisement was put up at the University of Tehran asking for suicide-bomber volunteers. More than a thousand students offered their services.
The more we fight terrorism, the more it fights back. So, what do we do?
The first thing we should do is support Israel. This is the right thing to do. It is also the most practical. Whether we want to believe it or not, Israel acts like a big shield for the United States against terrorism. They are also willing to do the things that our current administration will not do—that is to fight terrorism in a way that it understands.
The ultimate end to this “war” may not occur for another fifty years or more. The radical Imams and their followers will not quit, no matter how great the traditional pain and political pressure. Our prosecuting a sanitary war, as we have in Iraq, will do little, if nothing to stop the terrorists. Saddam Hussein understood this. What it took for him to consolidate power in his country, and prevent great civil unrest, was the wholesale slaughter of 1.5 MILLION of his citizens.
At this point this kind of action is inconceivable to us. Yet, don’t think that this could never happen. It was only sixty years ago that we did such a thing to end World War II with the Japanese. We warned them. We dropped a nuke. We warned them again. We dropped another nuke. Finally, they capitulated.
As heinous as this might sound, this kind of solution may be the only thing that terrorists actually understand. If Islamic terrorism becomes as rampant in this country as it is in Israel today, the American people will begin to demand it.
An equally likely “solution,” will be for us all to be controlled by Islam. This may sound ludicrous, but it is happening all over the world. Islam is now over 20% of the world’s population and growing. Since most religions do not have such a violent component, they tend to choose a path of peace, allowing the radicals to control more and more. This is what has happened in Islamic nations all around the world. It is beginning to happen in countries like France, were more than 20% of its population is now Muslim.
I pray that Mr. Obama is able to pull a rabbit out of his hat and bring about peace—just as the president does in my new book, The Presidential Pretender. Unfortunately, human nature is an awfully hard thing to fight.
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Cloud Computing: The Next Tech Revolution
There is a new technological revolution underway that will dramatically change our lives, much as the PC and the Internet did. It is called cloud computing.
There is a fierce battle over control of this turf, with trillions of dollars at stake. With the growth of computer usage, the explosion of app software, the increasing speed of the Internet and the ubiquitous use of wireless devices, the world is primed for this revolution, with unlimited potential demand, with fortune to the victors and failure to the losers.
Cloud computing allows us all to access superfast computer from anywhere. Just as I am writing this blog from a theater in Brockton, Mass, as I wait to see my daughters dance, I could be crunching numbers on a supercomputer with my Blackberry, using my voice like a keyboard. No more waiting for my computer to boot up, no more backing up my data, no more having to load new software, no more having to purchase faster and faster hardware. Everything will be automated. Like Jack Trance in The Alchemist Conspiracy, The Varicose Vigilantes and The Presidential Pretender, we will all have access to unlimited speed and power. We can have eyeglasses that provide the screen and connection. Everything can be voice activated. No more having to carry around these bulky laptops. We will still have screens that are as big as our laptops, but they will be holographic and will fit into a container no bigger and no more bulky than a small pen.
Needless to say, the battle for dominance in this arena is fierce. As the industry struggles to create standards and mobility between providers, the dominant early players are resisting. I see a new epic battle brewing, like Apple vs. Microsoft, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy or the Red Sox vs. the Yankees.
As I write this, the early leaders are Microsoft (no surprise) and Amazon. Look for companies like IBM, Google, AT&T and Verizon to join the fight in some way or another.
This is like the early days of the personal computer, when there were dozens of players, or automobiles, where there were more than a thousand car makers. In the end, though, only a few players, maybe even one, will matter.
This will all be happening at light speed, and it will usher in a whole new wave of business productivity. That’s good, because the way our government is removing business freedom, we're going to need it.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
There is a fierce battle over control of this turf, with trillions of dollars at stake. With the growth of computer usage, the explosion of app software, the increasing speed of the Internet and the ubiquitous use of wireless devices, the world is primed for this revolution, with unlimited potential demand, with fortune to the victors and failure to the losers.
Cloud computing allows us all to access superfast computer from anywhere. Just as I am writing this blog from a theater in Brockton, Mass, as I wait to see my daughters dance, I could be crunching numbers on a supercomputer with my Blackberry, using my voice like a keyboard. No more waiting for my computer to boot up, no more backing up my data, no more having to load new software, no more having to purchase faster and faster hardware. Everything will be automated. Like Jack Trance in The Alchemist Conspiracy, The Varicose Vigilantes and The Presidential Pretender, we will all have access to unlimited speed and power. We can have eyeglasses that provide the screen and connection. Everything can be voice activated. No more having to carry around these bulky laptops. We will still have screens that are as big as our laptops, but they will be holographic and will fit into a container no bigger and no more bulky than a small pen.
Needless to say, the battle for dominance in this arena is fierce. As the industry struggles to create standards and mobility between providers, the dominant early players are resisting. I see a new epic battle brewing, like Apple vs. Microsoft, Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy or the Red Sox vs. the Yankees.
As I write this, the early leaders are Microsoft (no surprise) and Amazon. Look for companies like IBM, Google, AT&T and Verizon to join the fight in some way or another.
This is like the early days of the personal computer, when there were dozens of players, or automobiles, where there were more than a thousand car makers. In the end, though, only a few players, maybe even one, will matter.
This will all be happening at light speed, and it will usher in a whole new wave of business productivity. That’s good, because the way our government is removing business freedom, we're going to need it.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama Cap-and-Trade: A Tax We Can’t Afford
The Obama administration is backing a bill going through Congress (Waxman-Markey) that would cap U.S. Co2 emissions at 83% of 2005 levels by the year 2020.
While this is an idea that sounds good to the politician, it is a policy move that will severely tax the American people, it will cost American jobs and it will do little to reduce global carbon emissions.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost the average American household $1,600 per year to reduce CO2 emissions by 15%. American families are struggling as it is. It will increase the prices of American-made goods, causing us to lose more jobs. It will shift production overseas to countries (like China) that have no restrictions on CO2 emissions. It may even increase overall global Co2 emissions, the opposite of its intent.
At this time, U.S. carbon emissions represent about 25% of global emissions. A 15% reduction represents about a 4% drop in world CO2 emissions, assuming the products are still made in this country. However, the tax (yes, it is a tax) would cause more overseas production, in areas that pollute many times more than we do for the same output. The net result will be a lower U.S. wage base, more unemployment and no less global pollution.
In reality, this bill represents little more than a power grab by Washington, giving politicians the ability to trade CO2 credits for votes. Nothing more.
While this is an idea that sounds good to the politician, it is a policy move that will severely tax the American people, it will cost American jobs and it will do little to reduce global carbon emissions.
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has estimated that it will cost the average American household $1,600 per year to reduce CO2 emissions by 15%. American families are struggling as it is. It will increase the prices of American-made goods, causing us to lose more jobs. It will shift production overseas to countries (like China) that have no restrictions on CO2 emissions. It may even increase overall global Co2 emissions, the opposite of its intent.
At this time, U.S. carbon emissions represent about 25% of global emissions. A 15% reduction represents about a 4% drop in world CO2 emissions, assuming the products are still made in this country. However, the tax (yes, it is a tax) would cause more overseas production, in areas that pollute many times more than we do for the same output. The net result will be a lower U.S. wage base, more unemployment and no less global pollution.
In reality, this bill represents little more than a power grab by Washington, giving politicians the ability to trade CO2 credits for votes. Nothing more.
Monday, June 1, 2009
GM Bankruptcy Another Union Payoff
General Motors went into a controlled bankruptcy today, with the government pledging another $30 Billion of our tax dollars to subsidize union labor. The unions have also become the company’s largest (apart from the government) shareholders.
GM’s union workers still receive close to $50,000 per year in higher pay (including benefits) than Honda, Toyota, Nissan & BMW, etc. workers in non-union states. I see nothing in the current negotiations that is going to significantly reduce that union labor cost below $150,000 per worker.
Anyone who buys a car, both new and used, must pay more because of this. We also need to pay more in taxes because of this. That’s where the bailout money comes from. And this $30 Billion will grow into $100 Billion (or more) before it is over.
What the government should do is to allow GM to hire non-union labor without the threat of a strike. This way, they will pay a fair wage, as determined by market forces, and they will once-again become competitive.
Each U.S. automaker must pay somewhere between $1,500 and $2,500 for each car in “legacy” and excess-labor costs, before the car even hits the assembly line. No wonder the U.S. makers can’t compete. If they were the only producers, they could pass the cost along and no one would be the wiser. Unfortunately for them, they must compete with other car makers, who don’t have these costs. When a car retails for $18,000 there is no profit margin when you add $2,500 to your costs.
The hidden plan is to bring about government health insurance. If the taxpayer picks up the insurance cost, the auto makers can reduce their legacy costs by about $1,000 per car.
While nationalized health care is being put forward as a “cost cutting” measure, it will do no such thing. Nothing done by the government is done at a lesser cost than the competitive, private sector.
While the rhetoric for nationalized medicine sounds good, the practice will be devastating to many Americans.
If we want to insure everybody, that’s one thing. Maybe we want that. Put it to the voters to increase our taxes another few thousand dollars per year, because that’s what it will cost. If we want it, we’ll vote for it and pay for it. But trying to lull us all into thinking that a “one-payer” system will “save” us money is flat-out criminal. This is a lie and it should be exposed.
This isn't cruel-hearted. It's the plain truth. I do believe that a civilized society needs to provide care for all of its citizens and I am willing to help pay for it. But I don't want my government and trial lawyers in charge of it.
The other GM strategy is to force the non-union auto makers to unionize. This would push competitors’ costs up by at least $1,000 per car (in addition to the projected $1,300 per car that the new CAFÉ standards will cost), with escalating costs after that. This would make U.S. car makers competitive again. Unfortunately, we will all have to pay the cost.
There are bills making their way through Congress that will make it virtually impossible to avoid the unionization of auto makers in the south. We hear nothing about this in the media, but we should be.
The Obama GM solution is for us all to have nationalized health care and unionized workers for their competition. The end result is that we will all pay another $2,500 more per car. Is that what you want?
Where is the outrage here? When hundreds of thousands of people are losing jobs and cutting expenses to make ends meet, why should GM still pay $150,000 per year for a union worker without a college degree? Isn’t $100,000 enough?
I have no problem with union workers being paid a fair, competitive wage. But the unions need to understand that this is a global economy, and that what they do affects us all. They shouldn't ask us to pay for their excess wages and benefits. At some point, the normal American citizen is going to get fed up with the selfishness and pig-headedness by union bosses. Americans will finally see that there has been a $100 Billion payoff (by the government) to unions and say “enough.”
That day can’t come soon enough.
GM’s union workers still receive close to $50,000 per year in higher pay (including benefits) than Honda, Toyota, Nissan & BMW, etc. workers in non-union states. I see nothing in the current negotiations that is going to significantly reduce that union labor cost below $150,000 per worker.
Anyone who buys a car, both new and used, must pay more because of this. We also need to pay more in taxes because of this. That’s where the bailout money comes from. And this $30 Billion will grow into $100 Billion (or more) before it is over.
What the government should do is to allow GM to hire non-union labor without the threat of a strike. This way, they will pay a fair wage, as determined by market forces, and they will once-again become competitive.
Each U.S. automaker must pay somewhere between $1,500 and $2,500 for each car in “legacy” and excess-labor costs, before the car even hits the assembly line. No wonder the U.S. makers can’t compete. If they were the only producers, they could pass the cost along and no one would be the wiser. Unfortunately for them, they must compete with other car makers, who don’t have these costs. When a car retails for $18,000 there is no profit margin when you add $2,500 to your costs.
The hidden plan is to bring about government health insurance. If the taxpayer picks up the insurance cost, the auto makers can reduce their legacy costs by about $1,000 per car.
While nationalized health care is being put forward as a “cost cutting” measure, it will do no such thing. Nothing done by the government is done at a lesser cost than the competitive, private sector.
While the rhetoric for nationalized medicine sounds good, the practice will be devastating to many Americans.
If we want to insure everybody, that’s one thing. Maybe we want that. Put it to the voters to increase our taxes another few thousand dollars per year, because that’s what it will cost. If we want it, we’ll vote for it and pay for it. But trying to lull us all into thinking that a “one-payer” system will “save” us money is flat-out criminal. This is a lie and it should be exposed.
This isn't cruel-hearted. It's the plain truth. I do believe that a civilized society needs to provide care for all of its citizens and I am willing to help pay for it. But I don't want my government and trial lawyers in charge of it.
The other GM strategy is to force the non-union auto makers to unionize. This would push competitors’ costs up by at least $1,000 per car (in addition to the projected $1,300 per car that the new CAFÉ standards will cost), with escalating costs after that. This would make U.S. car makers competitive again. Unfortunately, we will all have to pay the cost.
There are bills making their way through Congress that will make it virtually impossible to avoid the unionization of auto makers in the south. We hear nothing about this in the media, but we should be.
The Obama GM solution is for us all to have nationalized health care and unionized workers for their competition. The end result is that we will all pay another $2,500 more per car. Is that what you want?
Where is the outrage here? When hundreds of thousands of people are losing jobs and cutting expenses to make ends meet, why should GM still pay $150,000 per year for a union worker without a college degree? Isn’t $100,000 enough?
I have no problem with union workers being paid a fair, competitive wage. But the unions need to understand that this is a global economy, and that what they do affects us all. They shouldn't ask us to pay for their excess wages and benefits. At some point, the normal American citizen is going to get fed up with the selfishness and pig-headedness by union bosses. Americans will finally see that there has been a $100 Billion payoff (by the government) to unions and say “enough.”
That day can’t come soon enough.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Next World War?
You may be wondering why Mr. Obama is allocating peacekeepers and money to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Here is why:
First, if Bin Laden is alive, this is where he is. For a politician who is keenly focused on public opinion and legacy, the capture of this terrorist is like finding the Grail.
Second, this is where the serious terrorist training camps are located. The Madras schools are teaching hatred of America to millions, Afghanistan and Pakistan is where they go to train. This is where they learn the killing skills.
In all probability, this area, where Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan all converge will be the epicenter of World War III. If we don't work to prevent this now, we may not be able to avoid it ten or fifteen years from now.
I hate to say this, but while mankind has advanced at light speed during the past two thousand years, our emotional development remains in the Stone Age. So do many societies in this region of the world.
If we don't do something about nuclear proliferation and development, as the president does in my upcoming book, The Presidential Pretender, this area will remain a nuclear tinderbox. This is the kind of situation where Jack Trance would be called to do his thing.
There are patriotic men and women who actually do this sort of thing, risking their lives in the shadows, without fanfare or public recognition. They face high odds of death and do it with pride, just so we can be safe.
The next time you go to sleep without worrying that a bomb or bullet is going to kill you in the night, give thanks to these silent peacekeepers that toil and die for us every day.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
First, if Bin Laden is alive, this is where he is. For a politician who is keenly focused on public opinion and legacy, the capture of this terrorist is like finding the Grail.
Second, this is where the serious terrorist training camps are located. The Madras schools are teaching hatred of America to millions, Afghanistan and Pakistan is where they go to train. This is where they learn the killing skills.
In all probability, this area, where Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan all converge will be the epicenter of World War III. If we don't work to prevent this now, we may not be able to avoid it ten or fifteen years from now.
I hate to say this, but while mankind has advanced at light speed during the past two thousand years, our emotional development remains in the Stone Age. So do many societies in this region of the world.
If we don't do something about nuclear proliferation and development, as the president does in my upcoming book, The Presidential Pretender, this area will remain a nuclear tinderbox. This is the kind of situation where Jack Trance would be called to do his thing.
There are patriotic men and women who actually do this sort of thing, risking their lives in the shadows, without fanfare or public recognition. They face high odds of death and do it with pride, just so we can be safe.
The next time you go to sleep without worrying that a bomb or bullet is going to kill you in the night, give thanks to these silent peacekeepers that toil and die for us every day.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Good News: New Medical Advances Are Extraordinary
We haven’t been seeing a lot of good news these days, so I thought I might brighten things up by focusing on some good things that are happening.
There are extraordinary advances occurring in medical technologies that will dramatically change the face of medicine.
Robot assisted surgery now allows top surgeons to operate from half a world away, with minimally invasive techniques that let heart patients return to the activities of living within days, not weeks or months.
Metamaterials are allowing us to see single cell organisms (like viruses) I high definition color, not the X-Ray type images we see with electron microscopes. This will allow researchers to actually "see" the results of new cures.
It won’t be long before nanobots will be programmed and injected to perform heart or brain surgery, or to clean up clogged arteries. We may also use them to remove the calcification of Alzheimer' patients.
Researchers are perfecting ways to grow us new hearts and lungs and kidneys from our own DNA. This is already being done, particularly with bones and joints.
We will begin to debate the ethical dilemma that will come with this, just how far we should go with playing God. I won't deal with this here. I would rather focus on the good things coming in our lives.
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
There are extraordinary advances occurring in medical technologies that will dramatically change the face of medicine.
Robot assisted surgery now allows top surgeons to operate from half a world away, with minimally invasive techniques that let heart patients return to the activities of living within days, not weeks or months.
Metamaterials are allowing us to see single cell organisms (like viruses) I high definition color, not the X-Ray type images we see with electron microscopes. This will allow researchers to actually "see" the results of new cures.
It won’t be long before nanobots will be programmed and injected to perform heart or brain surgery, or to clean up clogged arteries. We may also use them to remove the calcification of Alzheimer' patients.
Researchers are perfecting ways to grow us new hearts and lungs and kidneys from our own DNA. This is already being done, particularly with bones and joints.
We will begin to debate the ethical dilemma that will come with this, just how far we should go with playing God. I won't deal with this here. I would rather focus on the good things coming in our lives.
www.lumbert.com
www.jaylumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
Monday, May 4, 2009
Good News for Varicose Vigilante Seniors on Alzheimer’s
Last week I read about a promising new treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease. It involves some ground-breaking work by Mark Pepsys, professor of medicine at University College in London.
For the past 30 years, Mr. Pepsys has been working on curing diseases that are caused by the abnormal buildup of amyloid protein. This protein is a key cause in the development of Alzheimer’s, as it gums up the works of the brain. In the 1990s he developed a drug called CPHPC that removes SAP, a blood protein that sticks to amyloid and prevents enzymes from dissolving it. This allows a kind of crust to form in the brain cells, (think of it as hair filling up your shower drain) that eventually stops brain function in certain areas, such as memory.
Mr. Pspsys gave CPHPC to five Alzheimer’s patients and the results were quite encouraging, to the point where this might pose as a medical breakthrough. It appears that Mr. Pspsys is getting some major pharmaceutical companies to show interest in his (hoped for) clinical trial of 80-100 patients. This trial, should it get funded, may prove to be the first real breakthrough in Alzheimer’s treatment.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
For the past 30 years, Mr. Pepsys has been working on curing diseases that are caused by the abnormal buildup of amyloid protein. This protein is a key cause in the development of Alzheimer’s, as it gums up the works of the brain. In the 1990s he developed a drug called CPHPC that removes SAP, a blood protein that sticks to amyloid and prevents enzymes from dissolving it. This allows a kind of crust to form in the brain cells, (think of it as hair filling up your shower drain) that eventually stops brain function in certain areas, such as memory.
Mr. Pspsys gave CPHPC to five Alzheimer’s patients and the results were quite encouraging, to the point where this might pose as a medical breakthrough. It appears that Mr. Pspsys is getting some major pharmaceutical companies to show interest in his (hoped for) clinical trial of 80-100 patients. This trial, should it get funded, may prove to be the first real breakthrough in Alzheimer’s treatment.
www.lumbert.com
www.shaksperbooks.com
www.jaylumbert.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
