Free, after rebate and other myths

Bought a HP laptop for my youngest as a combination birthday, graduation and "needed next year in college" present. The deal at Circuit City was pretty good and the computer was less than comparably ordered from HP. Then the fun started. Part of the deal was rebates. Nine of them. Circuit City, HP, Canon, D-Link have a real maze of rebates. some of the forms can't be easily found. I've got about 8 hours into sorting this mess out.

Rebates reduce prices and make money for the company, you are, in effect, loaning them money for a couple of months. And they are betting you won't send in the form. Circuit City makes it easy not to send in the form. Other companies are easier. I betcha that his is a sure-fire way to lose at least one future customer.

Cotton industry running down myths and misinformation

Cotton industry running down myths and misinformation, A story about myths surrounding organic cotton's reduction of pesticide use. the myth overstates pesticides by 500x and seems to go unchallenged by anyone, except Cotton Incorporated. I'd wonder why the media doesn't challenge fallacious statements such as the amount of pesticides used and allows the myths to grow. It is either that they are too lazy to check sources or that they have some political point to make, or both. It's beginning to be believe half of what you see and nothing you read that you cannot verify from multiple independent sources.

Found on Junkscience

Anti-tax cut silliness

The great debate over reducing taxes ends up with the yap of "tax cuts for the rich." The left seems to be unfazed by real data that the rich pay a higher percentage of the total tax burden and the more on the lower end pay no taxes. We seem to want to make sure that the rich pay more taxes because they should feel great guilt at having money.

Never mentioned is the simple fact that if you feel guilty about the amount of taxes pay and think you should pay more, then you can do so. For simpletons like me, it seems very easy to increase your taxes by simply not taking all allowable deductions, doing your 401k contributions as "after tax," and for the rich who hire accountants to avoid taxes, simply putting their money into things that take more taxes.

We don't hear the rich folks who get elected by railing at "tax breaks" for the rich, offering to pay more in taxes for themselves. It is always someone else who should pay more. No one every askes the likes of Kerry, Reid, Pelosi and Dean if they are paying more than the minimum required taxes.

Definitions

I just read a post on http://www.powerline.blog.com concerning the use of the word "social justice" at Brandeis University. Not being very bright, I decided to look up social justice. It can be defined as the philosophy of giving people what they are "due" by society. However, reading various sites on social justice I don't thing the simple definition works. Like most of the terms the left is so agog over, social justice seems to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. If social justice meant giving terrorists what I think they are "due", then I'd be all for it. I don't think the left and I would agree with what they are due, however. So, my definitions.

"social justice" some feeling of guilt by those who think they are among the haves and privileged that results in the desire to transfer wealth and power to people who may not deserve either. Only the intellectual elite can decide who is deserving and who is not.

"environmental justice" the practice, enacted into law, of ensuring that activities that may pollute by any amount not be undertaken in blighted areas that may benefit economically from that activity.

"multiculturalism" the practice of not accepting differences in cultural backgroud, but elevating select cultures and denigrating others. Again, only the intellectual elite are capable of the very discerning task of deciding which cultures to elevate and which cultures to trash.

"diversity" preferential treatment of one group over others.

McCain Gets Cantankerous Reception at Commencement - New York Times

McCain Gets Cantankerous Reception at Commencement - New York Times The "New School" has enlightened progressives. Given the reception of someone with different ideas, when do these lovers and defenders of civil rights and intellectual discourse start burning books and wearing brown shirts. Can the New School Krystal Nacht be far away?

Pay more for Gas? Just what congress wants!

News from The Associated Press Check who voted against expanding US oil supply during a time of high prices from short supply. Also, listen to the same folks decrying America's dependence of foreign oil. This is absolute hyprocisy. Our elected leaders sure aren't looking out for us. I betcha they will all blame Bush for high gas prices, too. If your rep voted for increasing your fuel prices by voting against increasing domestic supply, you ought to vote for an extended vacation for that idiot. Castro can drill and we can't. Maybe he will give us a good deal on oil.

Real Immigration Reform or Straw Man?

Without teeth for non-compliance, the proposal is a straw man.

Bush's speech tonight was several years late. However, I believe he is right on not deporting all illegal aliens. I get pictures of people being packed into box cars.
Unfortunately, our elected leadership has failed to insist that immigration laws for two decades and we think there are about 12 million illegals in the country.

By default, then, I'm for some temporary worker program. However, the one thing that seems to be missing is "What are the penalties for failing to register as a temporary workers?" In the speech, no penalties were mentioned. Why not have a temporary worker program that requires registration by a certain date. Anyone who does not register should be immediately deported. No excuses.

Path to citizenship? Maybe. But fix the borders and then insist that laws be obeyed first.

A new passion

I've enjoyed shooting for many years, but never did a lot. I was always too busy. Over the past year, a couple of my kids have taken us to a firing range just for fun. My pistol-shooting was atrocious, in part because my advancing years and bifocals have dimmed my ability to see the front sight. A couple of months ago, I purchased an inexpensive .22 semi-automatic and have been a regular at a firing range. Trying to teach myself how to shoot with two-hand stances and how to get the right sight picture has been a hoot. .22 ammunition is inexpensive and I can bang away with 500 rounds for less than the price of gas to get me to the range. You meet lots of nice folks at the range. At least they are polite. But I guess if you are in a place where everyone has at least one firearm it tends to be a polite place.

Something to do when the fish aren't biting.

School Zone Gun Ban-An unintended problem?

Federal law prohibits firearms within 1000 feet of a school. You may own a firearm, but may not transport it from your house to your car if you live within the zone according to those now discussing it. I suppose this means that if you are going hunting or to a firing range and happen to drive within 1000 feet of a school, you are violating federal law. I hadn't thought of this. I wonder if the feds have ever decided to enforce this law? Is this concern an unintended consequence? Sounds like another reason to have a CCW so you will not inadvertantly violate some law.

Guard Faces Phase-Out of Combat Role - Los Angeles Times

Guard Faces Phase-Out of Combat Role - Los Angeles Times To quote Col. Potter (MASH 4077) "Horse Pucky" The active component has never liked the Guard and Reserves. If they are forced to reduce forces, it will always be to reduce active duty combat service support and retain, or increase, combat arms. This makes sense only when the Active Component Combart Arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery) forces are needed immediately. It does not make sense if those forces are needed in a follow-on mode.

Quite often, the Guard and Reserves, bring skill sets not found in the active components. I was a member of a Reserve Unit (3077 COSCOM) when, after being redisgnated as a COSCOM, the unit leaders went to the active duty 3rd COSCOM to learn and ended up teaching the active army about being a COSCOM. My artillery battalion was undergoing an Army training test required of all active and reserve units as the Iraqi's went into Kuwait. We passed the training test with flying colors, indicating that our training level was up to active army standards. Our "go to war" active component went to Desert Shield and Desert Storm. The Active Army elected not to send my unit and pulled people from the IRR for retraining. How could you not take an artillery battalion that sucessfully completed an ARTEP as the Iraqi's went into Kuwait and elect instead to pull your troops (fillers for active component units) from a group that had been away from artillery and military training for years? The only reason I can find for this is that the Active Component did not want a Reserve combat arms unit to look good, it would harm the grand plan to rid combat arms of us pesky reservists.

There is absolutely no reason that a reserve (Guard or Army Reserve unit) cannot be combat ready in a short time after activation. (Do you really think that the active components are all ready to go in 5 minutes?). The key is meaningful training and followup on readiness. I've heard some stories from mobiliation sites of Guard and Reserve units coming to the site, totally unprepared and lacking basic soldier skills. Correction of that is a command problem that absolutely must be addressed at all levels. Frankly, the Abu Ghraib mess was from a reserve unit that wasn't adequately trained by a leadership that wasn't capable of leading. This should never have happened and a bunch of folks should have been penalized for allowing it.

The Army is trying to consolidate what it thinks is exciting and pushing the dull stuff off to the guard and reserve forces. The idea is insulting, but it is just another turf war. All the arguments for this are simply fluff.

The Audacity of Elected Officials

The MSM's lauding of the CIA leakers would be funny if it didn't have great potential for getting people killed. The only good intelligence operations conducted by the CIA in two decades has been the disimformation campaign against an elected president. Their misses on lesser things doesn't count. I suppose you would be happy with longterm employees who supply you with great intelligence on your mortal enemy (Bush). As best I can surmise, the CIA longtimers are very unhappy at having to take directions from a president elected by the hoi-poloi. They remind me of some GS employees I've had to supervise. They didn't believe they were responsible for doing any assigned task they didn't want to because the supervisor was short term: I was here before you and will be here after you leave. The wrath of the civil service will fall heavily on any short timer who dares believe he actually has supervisory responsibility.

Read the "Yes, Minister Series" its true.

BREITBART.COM - House Panel Questions Exxon Mobil Payment

BREITBART.COM - House Panel Questions Exxon Mobil Payment The Senate wants to look into retirement pay of a publically held corporation? Its really none of their business.

Drudge

ESPN.com - NCB - Sources: Pistons' Lowe agrees to coach NC State

ESPN.com - NCB - Sources: Pistons' Lowe agrees to coach NC State. My alma mater became the butt of jokes because they couldn't find a big-name head coach to replace Herb Sendek. Sendek was a great guy and had built the team to 5 consecutive NCAA appearances. However, for Tobacco Road roundball, when you don't beat Duke and Carolina regularly, that is not good enough and some of the fan base hated him. State went out looking for a big-name coach, must have 5 years D1 experience. Lots of noise, attention and no takers.

They appear to have hired Sidney Lowe, no college coaching experience and a 0.257 winning average as a pro-head coach. He does have one advantage, point guard on Valvano's 1983 national championship team. He will be loved by the Pack faithful for at least a couple of years. If he doesn't produce by then, I'm sure the same fan base will give him the same treatment UNC gave one of its stars: Matt Doherty.

Good luck, Sidney.

No wonder he failed-add this one to the dumb thief file

Tonight's news had a story of a teenager who robbed a convenience store. In the struggle with the owner, he lost his report card. Didn't take the cops long to find him. Unsurprisingly, the kid's grades weren't too good.

Cost of Ethanol in Fuel-correction

If I read the EIA correctly, gasoline cost, pretax, is about 2.43 per gallon. Ethanol is 2.70 per gallon. At 10% ethanol, the extra cost of ethanol is about $0.03/gallon. The cost of the ethanol in the gas is $0.27 less the comparable cost of gasoline. Not as big a difference as I've read. However, should the price of gasoline decrease, then the cost/gallon of ethanol increases. Next time double check the sources.

$3/gallon and I lost my cool

I was watching the news tonight and lost my cool over the gas news. Yep, $3/gallon is painful, 48 bucks to fill up my Ranger. I really lost it when I hear our leaders, who ought to know better give some combination of "big oil" and "speculators" as the problem, not anything they have done in the past decade. The idea that they can buy us off for $100 is also insulting. The media, bless their pointy heads, seems to want to give the pols a pass.

Take the mantra "we need eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Do we do this by increasing supply under our control by drilling known reserves (Anwar) and pretty sure reserves off our coasts? Nope, we get a dose of "alternative fuels." The Democrats are very proud of years of preventing drilling known reserves. They have saved the planet. We also haven't increased capacity and infrastructure to keep up with growing demand.

I admit that conservation is a great way to reduce dependence and price of a commodity. However, the holy grail of conservation will not do what "they" seem to want. So, how do you keep the economy going and get out of foreign oil dependence? Increase domestic supply. If we had started in 2000 as Bush Proposed, Anwar would be producing ~1 million bbl/day. Domestic oil production is about 5 million bbl/day (25% of consumption). Anwar would ad another 5%. I'm not sure what expanding the Gulf and Cal coast would do, but it would decrease outside dependence.

The shock of gasoline prices is a function of supply, demand and government meddling. Supply is adequate until you get to refining and distribution. Demand is increasing. Prices go up when that happens. Government meddling is a real culprit. First we go to ethanol, which adds costs due to added transprotation, storage and equipment at terminals. EtOH can't be put in gasoline in the pipelien. Guess who really pays for the added cost. Ethanol is in short supply and is still supported by subsidy and tariff's. Heaven forebid that we would be dependent on Brazil for ethanol. Ethanol adds about $0.13/gal to the price and has the added benefit of reducing fuel economy by ~5%. Do the calculations, ethanol gives 80,000 Btu/gal on combustion and gasoline is gives 135,000 btu/gal. Since the engine works on energy released on burning, the addition of 10% EtOH gives about 5% fewer Btu's, so economy suffers.

Ethanol has another problem. It takes more energy to produce a gallon than you get back. I suppose we could make it up on volume, NOT. Great idea, but you have to know going in that EtOH will be energy negative. Remember, corn takes lots of nitrogen, from ammonia, which is made from natural gas and requires fuel to plant, harvest and energy to convert and distill. There isn't enough land in the US to supply a 100% replacement of gasoline by ethanol. Bad idea and the bulging brains in Congress mandated it. No one calls them to task for increasing the cost of fuel. They get a complete pass by the media.

Hydrogen is worse, from an energy standpoint than ethanol. And we have no infrastructure. So the pipedream of going to a hydrogen economy needs some stupendous breakthroughs to be feasible. Only Iceland, with free geothermal energy, can afford to go to hydrogen.

And forget nukes. We've spent years making nukes impossible and using up natural gas because it is "cleaner." Coal is in abundance, but we think it is too dirty to use. Also, the Syngas project flopped big time three decades ago.

When you chip in a blank check and 2 credit references to fill your tank, think about the good old boys and girls in Washington. They helped create this mess and they get a complete pass with no memory of where they stood on the issues.

Maybe its time to remember and send them home.