Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Bush never used the word,"Iraq" in his speech yesterday. Not one single reference to it.
Since his message and theme was "spreading democracy and freedom",would it not have been appropriate to reference Iraq?
Would it not have been appropriate and timely to offer a olive branch to nations alienated by our decision to go to war in Iraq?
Would it not have been appropriate to at least consider the desire to have called upon other nations to improve our status in Iraq?
The thought never crossed his mind...

I, like many people, have money invested in stock mutual funds. I take the usual precautions to protect myself from the risks inherent to exposure in equity funds: I diversify my portfolio with balanced(stocks and bonds), international and domestic funds. I am in it for the long haul.
The problem for me and many others like me is the rising costs of crude oil and the resulting decline of the stock market. One could argue the so-called January effect(ie as January goes so does the market which currently is taking a major dump)is being produced by decelerating growth in the economy and rising interest rates. The latter forces weigh heavily on the market but most economists blame the rising costs of crude oil.
The costs of crude oil was supposed to be at 40.00/barrel but currently rests at 48.00/barrel and may break 50.00.
The airlines are losing billions as a result of energy costs and some companies may go under. Gasoline prices, especially in California, are surging again to levels of two dollars per gallon.
Most of the increased costs of oil is due to speculation and fear versus actual shortages from the major producers.
How can the US decrease the cost of oil and gasoline quickly and expediently so that the stock market is partially satisfied?
One way is to increase the capacity of refineries. Note that I have stated the latter and not necessarily the number of refineries. The reason we would want to do this is because the supplies increase along with increased capacity of our refineries and when supplies go up costs go down. So how do we do this?
One simple expedient do it today way to go is: eliminate mid-grade fuel. If this were to occur today, our refinery capacity would increase(without adding new refineries) and our supplies of fuel and their costs would go down.
Can this really work and can it be implemented? The answer is yes because it already happens to a limited extent today. Costco sells only regular and premium fuel and sells it for about 20 cents per gallon less than the competition. The costs saved in refining and utilizing capacity of mid-grade fuel are enormous and the savings are passed along to the consumer. Most vehicles do not require mid-grade fuel and those that do can run safely on regular or premium fuel.
This is one simple solution that can substantially help to lower our energy costs. Does the Bush administration advocate or encourage it? Absolutely not. Their way: Dig up Pinedale Wyoming, the closest national forest or wherever else they think it might be.
I think it's going to be a tough sell for the president on his privatization plan for social security when he adovates putting your money in equity funds as the markets take a dump. The public is opposed to the idea by substantial numbers in the polls anyway so cutting energy costs and reducing the costs of oil makes sense as the markets would likely respond favorably but it's all lost on dubya...

Since some of the Bush supporters on this forum expressed their dismay regarding the comments of the locals on the Bush speech, I thought I would include a sampling of world opinion on the matter.
Let's start with our allies, the Brits. Seems they were a bunch of befiddled blokes after listening to and watching the Bush bash at the local pubs. From the conservative perspective, a pro Bush British newspaper had this to say,"The president's ambitions are admirable, but he has got to get Iraq right if they are to have a hope to be realized."That is unfinished business of his first term and will doubtless preoccupy through the second." The London Daily Star was more direct," The US president issued a blood-curling cry yesterday, warning America's enemies to expect an untamed fire of freedom." The paper urged prime minister Tony Blair to make sure the US defends freedom "with a cool head." The Daily mirror stated," Super zero Mr Un Credible goes on the warpath."
In France, WE also think about his economic policy based upon abysmal deficts puts the US and the rest of the world on the edge of a financial crash."
Other reports were similar from Italy and Russia.
Today, the White House brought-out Bush senior to attempt to explain and calm the fears generated by the Bush junior speech. Somehow, I don't think it's going to help...

That's another unfortunate piece of news on further reductions in our effort to explore our solar system.
Back in the '70s, there was an un-necessary duplication of efforts between the military and the space administration. Both produced similar rockets and instrumentation(reference:"O Leary, The Making of an Ex-Astronaut).
Today, the budget axe falls with spoils delegated to an equivocal effort in Iraq.
But, there's still hope, if some neo-cons in the Bush administration have their way, the funding for the war will be considered, "unknowable",and not figured as a deficit - and we will have a budget surplus so we can fund our programs.
Yeah, right...

Ms Rice was confirmed as our new secretary of state today.
Hmm, this is the same Dr Rice that was characterized as being "divisive" and "ruthless" in her role as a university president. Her answer to those characterizations was relatively succinct: people are always unhappy in a university, someone does not get tenure and they are upset. Oh, ok, that must explain it.
Dr Rice would not answer direct questioning from senator Boxer on her her mistakes in planning our liberation of Iraq. Oh, I almost forgot, Bush has a mandate from the people for the war in Iraq and nobody in his administration made any mistakes in Iraq. Oh, ok.
Today, according to MSNBC news, Bush apparently backed-off his rhetoric from his speech, due to world-wide criticism, by stating his visions would take "generations" to accomplish. I suppose it will take generations when you have a secretary of state with all the diplomatic flair of a pit viper as our diplomat to the world...

CNN is reporting yet another columnist was paid by taxpayer's money to promote Bush policies. Promoting propaganda with taxpayer's money is under ban by federal law.
Bush is fond of stating "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on it's own two feet."
It seems the columnist, a Mr Mcmanus, was compensated to train marriage counselors to promote family ties/values in accordance with Bush philosophy.
Too bad the Bush value system does not include the origin of the funding of the message and consideration of whether or not the public wants it crammed down it's throat...

Look, you guys got it all wrong, Lori Bush(with George at her side) told us all on national television that we are in Iraq because of September 11.
Mystery solved!

CNN reported that Bush thanked the European union for it's pledge of monetary relief in Iraq and Bush is also pushing foreign governments to support the new Iraqi government as it takes shape. Fine, how about Ms Rice following-up on it and requesting more "humanitarian aid" for Iraq?. What's the worst that could happen? Somebody could say no? Since Ms Rice is on her multi-nation tour, how about a request for more assistance for Iraq from our allies and an effort to build upon the success of the election? Can she not try? I suppose that might take innovation and creativity from the white house, so the chances are slim unless of course the allies take it upon themselves to contribute on their own volition, just as the european union did...

CNN is reporting it has documents that reveal the US government knew about and condoned embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein. Billions of dollars flowed to Iraq and far more than Saddam pocketed, according to the report. A committee looking at this asks," How is it that you stand on a moral footing to go after the UN when they're responsible for 15% maybe of the ill-gotten gains and we were part and complicit of him getting 85% of the money?".
And the cons throw stones at the UN!

Perhaps the europeans should be more like us and privately condone such things as 85% of the oil smuggling that SH got profits from during the UN oil embargo...