Say Anything Blog

Meat, Sugar Scarce in Venezuela Stores


By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON

The Associated Press

This is what Hillary has in store for us:

CARACAS, Venezuela—Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week, leaving only unsavory bits like chicken feet, while costly artificial sweeteners have increasingly replaced sugar, and many staples sell far above government-fixed prices.

President Hugo Chavez’s administration blames the food supply problems on unscrupulous speculators, but industry officials say government price controls that strangle profits are responsible. Authorities on Wednesday raided a warehouse in Caracas and seized seven tons of sugar hoarded by vendors unwilling to market the inventory at the official price.



A supermarket worker explains to a customer that their meat section is out of beef and chicken in Caracas, Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2007. President Hugo Chavez’s administration blames the scarcity of basic food products on unscrupulous speculators and government opponents, but industry officials blame government price controls which they say are strangling profits and causing distortions in the market. (AP Photo/Leslie Mazoch)

[...]

Shortages have sporadically appeared with items from milk to coffee since early 2003, when Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.

Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela.

[...]

Most items can still be found, but only by paying a hefty markup at grocery stores or on the black market. A glance at prices in several Caracas supermarkets this week showed milk, ground coffee, cheese and beans selling between 30 percent to 60 percent above regulated prices.

[...]

Read the whole thing.

This is the legacy of socialism: shortages coupled with inflation, and the necessity of black markets. I was standard issue in the old Soviet Union, and now in Venezuela.

When will we realize that this is how socialism “works”?

It doesn’t take an intellectual heavyweight to realize that Congressional Democrats have a serious comprehension problem.  Words don’t have the same meanings for liberals as they do for regular people.  Take the words “no pre-conditions” for example.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Back-channel efforts by the White House and Capitol Hill Democrats to begin trying to negotiate a solution to the fiscal problems of Social Security and other federal benefit programs appeared to collapse Wednesday.

At issue is a little-publicized attempt by the White House and members of Congress to set up a working group of lawmakers and top administration officials to fortify benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare for the severe future fiscal challenges due to the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Three-fourths of the group, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, would have had to agree on any solution.

But Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., accused the White House of acting in bad faith at a panel hearing that turned acrimonious over White House Budget Director Rob Portman’s unwillingness to acknowledge that tax increases should be part of any fix for the long-term problems of the huge federal benefit programs.

“We have an opportunity here to work together, but the only way I know in human relations for there to be resolution between parties who have different views is for both sides to compromise,” Conrad said. “Unfortunately I see virtually none on your side. And I regret that more than I can say.”

Conrad then gaveled the hearing to an end and immediately left.

Portman says the administration is willing to come to the negotiating table with no preconditions — a change from the stance President Bush took two years ago, when he ruled out hikes in Social Security payroll taxes. But Portman told reporters, “The first step shouldn’t prejudge where we end up.”

This is the second time in as many years that the Bush White House has tried to initiate meaningful negotiations with Democrats over the looming problem of unfunded entitlement liabilities.  When they tried a public approach, Democrats refused to even discuss the issue unless the White House agreed to a tax increase and took private accounts off the table.

We are now two years along, and the Social Security Commission announced late last year that the date of the “Trust Fund” demise is not two, but three years closer than previously estimated.

Perhaps someone can explain to me the logic behind the Democrats’ adamant addiction to tax increases… despite all the evidence that the revenue windfall is short-lived and the long-term effect on the economy and the Treasury, is deleterious.

Finally, a question:  Would the individual who earlier this evening voiced his grudging, comparative approval for ND’s Senators care to re-think that endorsement?

One argument against a creator and intelligent design rests upon the science restricted by the scientific method—methodological naturalism.  Wikipedia states it well:

... the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science

methodological naturalism is “the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it…

...but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.

The logic appears to be as follows:

Major Premise:.

.observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes,and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science

Minor Premise:

Natural causes sufficiently explain the all natural effects in the universe.

Conclusion: 

There are no supernatural causes necessary to explain natural [observable] effects [in nature]. (i.e. there is no creator or intelligent design).

Challenge:  Identify the fallacy.

(Updates will be added and edited as necessary)

Militia Etheridge.

from tbogg

A fellow alumnus once wrote that “The only true measure of another man’s genius lies in how much he agrees with you.” This pithy quote was brought forcefully to mind yesterday when I found this piece by James Lileks:

James Lileks: Don’t underestimate Giuliani
By JAMES LILEKS
c.2007 Newhouse News Service

Rudy Giuliani is in. Suggested campaign slogan: “He dealt with Brooklyn. He can handle Baghdad.’’ He’s not a sure thing; he has enough baggage to fill the cargo hold of a cruise ship. His sundry personal-life issues bother social conservatives; the gun control stance dismays the Second Amendment wing of the party; the pro-choice opinions alarm the evangelicals. That leaves about 47 Republicans, right? After all, it’s just a party of cousin-marrying yahoos who’d sooner shoot up Planned Parenthood than vote for one of those fish-on-Friday types. Right?

No. Voters are more flexible and forgiving than you might expect. And none of the objections obscure the central appeal of the Rudy candidacy: He’ll nuke ‘em if he has to. That won’t be the central theme of his campaign, of course, but it’s the unstated strength of his candidacy. He’s not a wuss. Look at the rest of the field:

I pretty much agree.  I don’t like a lot of his policy positions.  But… He’s serious, he’s capable, and he has already comitted to judges of the strict Constitutionalist variety.

(more...)

Jack Kemp(not the politician)

Actions do have consequences:

Last week Hillary said she should “take” all of Exxon-Mobil’s profits and put it in a special alternative energy fund. Now if this were to happen, many union pension plans would be harmed. Heck, they would be raped. CalPERS lists Exxon-Mobil as its second largest holding, having shares worth $1.784 Billion - with a “B” dollars.

The loss of all profits would throw Exxon-Mobil into a spin, causing its shares to drop to a fraction of their current worth, and probably cause a stock market crash, wiping a large percentage of American’s (and foreigners’ savings.

Wait a minute. Didn’t I see this in a British comedy in the early 1960s? A rich widow decides to sell all of her late husband’s stocks to help the poor - and she causes a worldwide financial depression. Even for a comedy, that scene turned it into a grim, black comedy.

[...]

Read the whole thing.

This is just another illustration of how naive Marxists are when it comes to the real world consequences of their ignorant socioeconomic ramblings.

Below is part of a response made by “Aaron” to my global warming post that was quoted on another blog:

Global warming is a fact, an undeniable fact, as recognized by every reputable scientist on the planet.

I suggest you all watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and see if you can refute just one of the facts presented their, just one. But I imagine you’re afraid to even watch, because it might make you face the reality that every other thinking person on the planet is being forced to face.

Or try reading the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers which all come to the same conclusion that the disasters warming of the planet is the direct result of human folly and greed.

The entirety of this comment can be found here.

Since it has been slow blogging for me this week, and because I think people really need to consider this issue very carefully, I’ll post my response:

Aaron the dispute is over anthropogenic global warming. Do you know what that means? It is the claim that human beings are the cause of changes in the earth’s climate. The evidence does not support this claim. The evidence does show that the earth’s climate has gone through changes similar to what we are experiencing now in the past.

“Or try reading the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers which all come to the same conclusion that the disasters warming of the planet is the direct result of human folly and greed.”

What am I to think of this when you say it right after admonishing us all to watch Al Gore’s silly movie? And no I will not watch it. My time and yours would be better spent reading a geology text book. You’d learn a hell of a lot more. In fact, I challenge you to drag yourself away from worshiping at the throne of Gore and go read up a little on earth geology. You won’t even have to step away from the computer. Google is your friend. And when you’re done with that, just for kicks, I suggest you compare earth’s climate and geology with that of our closest neighbours in the solar system.

If anthropogenic global warming really was a fact there would be no need for a consensus on it. There is no consensus on the earth being round. It simply is and that fact has been verified over and over again by observation and experimentation. There is no consensus that gravity exists. We may not understand why it works but we know it exists. The fact of its existence has been verified by observation and experimentation. There is no consensus that iron is necessary for the formation of hemoglobin. It simply is and that fact has been verified by observation and experimentation.

I could go on and on but the simple fact is that anthropogenic global warming has yet to be verified by observation or repeated experimentation. I am of the opinion, based on the facts of earth’s geological and climate history, that the global warming we are currently experiencing is a naturally occurring phenomenon beyond human control. It has happened before and it will happen again, no matter what Al Gore or the UN says.

I was annoyed, can you tell? Note the use of the “reputable scientist” qualifier. Where reputable seems to mean only that the scientist’s conclusion agrees with what you already believe. This of course allows you to ignore all evidence that contradicts your theory because you don’t recognize it as “reputable”.

Sam of Uncle Sam’s Cabin.

...when the US Army knocks on your door.

With the arrest of Deputy Health Minister al-Zamili, a suspected collaborator with the Mehdi Army, it looks like the US forces have begun an important purge of the Iraqi government. 

One thing that the increased US troop presence allows is the ability to act with impunity against the Mehdi Army.  What people were interpreting as a former lack of will on Maliki’s part may, in fact, have been simply a political calculation that he lacked the means to rein these thugs in.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture…

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief…

Nearly a century and a half ago, at a site not far from here, an American president wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war—a civil war—in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it.

“We here highly resolve…”—that was Lincoln’s message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution, of conviction against adversity, of hope against despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom, which is America’s cause.

Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. That is the debate we should have—but it is not the debate that this resolution would bring.

The sixty vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to stop the passions of the moment from sweeping across our country and through Congress in a way that will jeopardize our future. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture.

More Nanny State nonsense.

“Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry,” Kruger said in a telephone interview from Albany, the state capital.

“This electronic gadgetry is reaching the point where it’s becoming not only endemic but it’s creating an atmosphere where we have a major public safety crisis at hand.”

Tech-consuming New Yorkers trudge to work on sidewalks and subways like an army of drones, appearing to talk to themselves on wireless devices or swaying to seemingly silent tunes.

“I’m not trying to intrude on that,” Kruger said. “But what’s happening is when they’re tuning into their iPod or Blackberry or cell phone or video game, they’re walking into speeding buses and moving automobiles. It’s becoming a nationwide problem.”

Now I’m still relatively young so I can’t pinpoint the day that Walkmans were all the rage. But was there a similar push to ban the usage of Walkmans while crossing the street because of a similar endemic?

Look, some people just don’t have much common sense. Taking away their iPod isn’t going to solve that problem.

First off, let me start this by stating a simple fact:

The much touted “war on drugs” isn’t working. Never has. Never will. We spend billions of dollars each year enforcing our drug laws but marijuana still continues to pour across our borders by the truck load. And as we speak it is right now the country’s largest cash crop, easily eclipsing corn or wheat.

We put people in prison at a rate very few countries in the world match and many, many of them are there for simple drug offenses. A sad fact is that I will most likely do less jail time for hitting you in the head with a hammer than I will for selling an ounce of marijuana. Our priorities in things like this have become totally skewed.

And, no, no, I’m not endorsing the dealing of any drug, up to and including marijuana. We’re our own worst enemy when it comes to this, though. By keeping marijuana illegal we empower and enrich the dealers who smuggle and/or grow the stuff. Dealing large quantities of any drug is a high stakes game. Just this week two police stations in Aculpulco, Mexico were raided by dealers and policemen were killed. If profits are threatened in this deadly game somebody gets killed.

We can take that power away from those dealers. How? We have to re-think our strategy. And here is one possible answer.

First off the legalization of marijuana should be a state’s-rights issue. The federal government should butt out and leave it up to individual states whether or not marijuana should be a criminal offense.

Second off posession of a reasonable amount of marijuana should be decriminalized if not legalized. What’s reasonable? Each state could set those parameters by deciding the quantity that can qualify as “personal use”.

Third, it should be legal to cultivate your own marijuana, again with individual quantity limits in mind.

And, fourth, up the penalties for dealing. Make it just not worth it.

Would this not cut the dealers completely out of the loop? With no profit to consider wouldn’t that part of the drug world’s business dry up along with the accompanying violence and death?

Drugs are not going to go away simply because they are illegal. And more draconian laws aren't the answer. In countries such as China drug dealing is a capital offense. They still do it. Like Dennis Miller once said, if all drugs were to disappear people would go outside and spin around and around until they fell down.

We just need to re-think this whole thing, as I said. Is it a perfect answer? Probably not, but something, anything is better than the status quo. I’m tired of all the death and violence and the disruption of lives our “war on drugs” causes. Anybody have any other ideas?

Interesting post via The Corner:

From the Republican Study Committee:

As you may have heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed the Department of Defense to provide her a military aircraft for flights - including trips back to San Francisco.  But Did You Know Who Pays for Speaker Pelosi’s travel?  You do.

Speaker Pelosi is driven by a government owned SUV that is exempt from the gas tax when used for business related travel.  Thus, Speaker Pelosi not only avoids paying for auto travel (paid for by Capitol Police) she doesn’t even pay the gas tax that millions of Americans pay each day.  (Internal Revenue Code Section 6421E).

Rep. Pelosi has voted to raise gasoline taxes at least five times.

Speaker Pelosi has requested an Air Force C-32 - a plane from a fleet that that typically carries the vice president, the first lady, and Cabinet officials.  Operating Costs are approximately $15,000 an hour.  Speaker Pelosi is not responsible for paying for the use of her “personal” Department of Defense jet - which will be used to transport not just herself, but staff, family, other members and friends.  That bill is paid for by taxpayer dollars allotted to the Department of Defense.

“...For one of those planes to fly the speaker home to San Francisco, drop her off, and fly back and get her, would cost taxpayers around $300,000 - while round-trip commercial fares start at $233.” (DC Examiner, 2/5/2007)

The larger plane requested by Speaker Pelosi would include 42 business class seats, a fully-enclosed state room, an entertainment center, a private bed, state-of-the-art communications system and a crew of 16. (CNN, 2/5/07)

In contrast, Speaker Hastert “...used a smaller jet that seats 12 and has five crew members and none of the amenities.” (CNN, 2/5/07)

“U.S. Air Force travel for VIPs such as members of Congress is first-rate. The planes are staffed with stewards who serve meals and tend an open bar.” (Washington Times, 2/1/2007)

To borrow her own words, it’s time for Speaker Pelosi to “Walk the Walk” on her beliefs and priorities: Speaker Pelosi maintains that that, “The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming and unequivocal.” (Boston Globe, 1/22/07).  “It’s an issue that the speaker thinks is critical to address,” said Pelosi spokeswoman Jennifer Crider. (AP, 1/18/2007)

In his State of the Union this year, President Bush proposed tackling the issue by aiming to cut gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years… And Democrats remained skeptical about his commitment. “It’s not just about what he says. It’s about what he does.” [Speaker] Pelosi said. “In the past ... he has talked the talk on climate change.  But he hasn’t walked the walk.” (Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2007)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the motives behind Mrs. Pelosi’s landmark request - including some within her own office.  But, Defense Officials seem to have an answer. 

“.... [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast.... “There’s a certain amount of inefficiency and risk involved in stopping and having to refuel,” said Dew Hammill, Spokesman for the Speaker. (Roll Call, 2/5/2007)

“...sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation.” (Washington Times, 2/1/2007

“...According to reports, Speaker Pelosi requested the use of a military plane to attend a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia, last week. That’s 150 miles or a two-hour drive from Washington, D.C. That request, by all accounts, was denied.” (CNN, 2/5/07)

“The Department of Defense offered Speaker Pelosi the same aircraft’ as the one used by Hastert....” “She found it was not big enough for staff, supporters and other Members.” (Roll Call, 2/5/2007)

The defense source, who asked not to be named, termed her request “carte blanche,” saying “she wanted a plane that could carry an entourage just like President Bush, who flies on Air Force One, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also always flies on military planes.” (Washington Times, 2/7/2007)

(emphasis mine)

I liked the part where she reaffirms her belief in "global warming" then asks for a bigger plane than the last Republican Speaker had.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

More anit-Americanism from the Washington Post a company of GE which owns NBC. Interesting Bill O’Reilly has been covering this topic on his show. Some have accused O’Reilly of being anti NBC. I think it’s pretty evident that some of his claims about NBC and the MSM are starting to prove true and come to fruition.

Bill O’Reilly

In my opinion Arkin is a disgrace. The man is a left wing extremist loon that belongs to Greenpeace, Human Rights watch and some how believes he has the right to think he can be an objective military analyst. That is an utter joke in my opinion.
Arkin Blog Article Read this.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don’t see very many “baby killer” epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don’t get it, that they don’t understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren’t about the United States, I’d say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don’t believe that anymore.

I’ll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that’s where their frustrations come in. I’ll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don’t believe America needs a draft though I imagine we’d be having a different discussion if we had one.

CABLE NEWS RACE

MONDAY, FEB 5, 2007

VIEWERS - via Drudge

FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,579,000

FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,852,000

FNC GRETA 1,572,000

FNC SHEP SMITH 1,390,000

FNC HUME 1,297,000

CNN DOBBS 818,000

CNN BLITZER 675,000

CNN COOPER 636,000

CNN KING 624,000

MSNBC OLBERMANN 610,000

CNNHN GRACE 476,000

CNN ZAHN 451,000

I bring this up because of a TV ad running on some cable systems, boasting that both Fox and CNN have lost viewers lately, but MSNBC was up 14%. The ad tried to imply that MSNBC was blowing the doors off both Fox and CNN, so get on the bandwagon!

As you can see from Drudge, MSNBC only had one show in the top ten. When you have a small audience, any increase tends to show up as a large percentage.

Not much of a bandwagon...