Breakthrough: Gamecocks Win National Championship in Baseball

Read More......

Gamecocks Face UCLA Bruins for CWS Championship

The Gamecock baseball team stands on the brink of a first-ever national championship. However, they are the underdogs as UCLA, the media darlings, has a decimating pitching staff.

Rob Rasmussen, Trevor Bauer, and Gerrit Cole are the big three starting pitchers for UCLA. Those three starters are arguably the best trio of starters in college baseball. All three of the UCLA starters have at least 11 wins, 117 strikeouts and an ERA under 3.30. The UCLA bullpen is also very strong and deep.

The Bruins have named right-handed pitcher, Gerrit Cole (11-3), as their starter against the Gamecocks on Monday night. He has an ERA of 3.26 in 116 innings. Opponents are batting just .194 against Cole on the year. Cole strikes out, on average, about 12 batters every nine innings.

Tanner has not yet announced his starter. Both of the Gamecock aces, Blake Cooper and Sam Dyson, will be unavailable to pitch on Monday. Tanner will most probably pick between Jay Brown and Tyler Webb. Both Brown (RHP) and Webb (LHP) have pitched gems this season against SEC opponents. Another outside possibility is Norman Nolan Belcher, a left handed starter who has pitched lights out at times, but against less than SEC competition.

Unlike the UCLA Bruins, the Gamecocks have battled their way through the CWS losers bracket on their half of the field. The toll on the Gamecocks to climb that mountain was its pitching staff. The Gamecock pitching staff needs time to rest. In fact, Sam Dyson has pitched so much in the CWS, he is unlikely able to pitch again as a Gamecock starter. Still, Wednesday is a ways off and Dyson is in great shape.

The UCLA lineup is solid, but it seems no better than a middle of the pack SEC offense. One thing that jumps out . . . UCLA has a lot of left-handed hitters in the middle of their lineup. See the chart below.



I predict lefty Tyler Webb (3-2), 4.00 ERA, will get the nod for Monday.

Webb has pitched very well as a starter at times this year. He won SEC Freshman of the Week after shutting down Tennessee to complete a Gamecock sweep on the road. In that game, Webb went 5.2 innings. He allowed just one hit, a bunt single, and struck out six batters while walking only three. In that early season appearance, Webb did not let Tennessee get a runner past second base.

Read More......

Analysis of Clemson's Lineup

The Gamecocks play Clemson tonight in the College World Series (CWS).

Clemson is 2-0 in the CWS while the Gamecocks are 2-1. Clemson and the Gamecocks are the last teams left in their half of the CWS bracket. The first team that loses two games will be sent home while the other will advance to face either UCLA or TCU for the college baseball 2010 championship. Clemson can lose tonight and stay alive, but the Gamecocks will be eliminated if they lose.

Both of the Gamecock ace pitchers, Blake Cooper and Sam Dyson, have pitched and are unavailable for the game tonight against Clemson. Coach Tanner indicated that Steven Neff or Michael Roth may start, but he admitted he really has not yet decided that issue. LINK

As is shown on the chart below, Clemson has a lineup heavily populated by left handed hitters.



In baseball, batters facing a pitcher who delivers the pitch from the same side of the plate as the batter have a statistical advantage. Most baseball pitchers are right handed. Thus, left-handed batters have a statistical advantage against right handed pitchers. The reason has to do with the ease with which a batter can pick up a pitched ball out of a pitchers hand, and also breaking balls. Curves tend to break away when delivered by pitchers from the same side of the plate, and curves and sliders are harder to read.

The only power hitter in Clemson's lineup that bats right handed is Kyle Parker. Other than Parker, none of the other right handed hitters--the few of them that there are--have hit more than 7 homeruns. Therefore, you can bet that the Gamecocks will send out a left handed pitcher to start. It would be interesting to know Clemson's overall record against left handed starters.

Tanner mentioned two lefties, Steven Neff and Michael Roth, when he was speculating about the starter (see link).

Neff is an intersting choice because he has only started one game all year, and only pitched 15.1 innings. He has been a reliever most of the season, and has a solid 4.11 ERA.

Roth has a sparkling 1.37 ERA over 26.1 innings, but he has yet to start a game.

Another potential left-handed starter is Nolan Belcher. Belcher has started 6 games and has a solid 2.43 ERA over 29.2 innings. However, unlike Roth's innings, most of Belcher's stats have been against nonconference opponents.

An additional collateral benefit of pitching a lefty is that it is harder to steal bases. Left handed pitchers face first base before delivery to homeplate, and it is hard for a baserunner to get a good jump toward second on a steal attempt. This is important too because Clemson loves to run.

Read More......

The Question of Afghanistan War Strategy

This week an article by an embedded Afghanistan reporter impacted policy-makers prosectuting the war.

In Michael Hastings, The Runaway General, The Rolling Stones (Jun. 22, 2010), article about General Stanley McCrystal, the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the reporter breaks down an atmosphere surrounding a failing military strategy. Unfortunately, in such an evironment, political appointees begin to cover their behinds and military commanders, politicians in their own right, don't like it. When a reporter tells the story, you are going to get some carping and griping, and even occasional angry outbursts.

Interestingly, the main thrust of the article was not about the personality conflicts, but instead, primarily about the United States war strategy. The strategy is not a secret, earlier this year Sebastian Junger's book Waraddressed the American war strategy in plain-spoken, neutral expressions.

The Hastings article defined it by name, counterinsurgency or COIN. That strategy has as one of its primary objectives the minimization of civilian Afghan casualties. Execution of this objective creates additional dangerous risks for American troops. For example, an enemy outpost might not be bulldozed, and enemy soldiers walk around freely as long as they do not carry weapons. The article reflected some criticism by troops in the field of the policy because of the additional dangers to their American brothers in arms.

Obama showed leadership in replacing General McChrystal. The reason President Obama sited was an evident insubordinate attitude toward civilian authorities. The comments made by the General and his staff within the hearing of an embedded reporter, did not reflect positively upon the mission, and therefore, were damaging to it and unacceptable.

That issue misses the main point of Hastings' article--the War strategy COIN. The Rules of Engagement are dangerous for the troops. The main thrust of Hastings piece is whether the Afghanistan strategy is right. It makes one wounder if the United States should continue a dangerous COIN strategy considering the Afghanistan's government's lack of credibility.

The article asserts the COIN strategy depends upon a viable local government. The Ḥāmid Karzay government in Afghanistan is decaying, at least according to Hastings. As the Afghanistan government falls apart, the COIN strategy also puts our troops at even greater risk of life. Is it wise? In fact, is the limited gain the U.S makes against terror worth the cost of life and capital of such a large deployment? You have to wonder if we are wise to be over there in Afghanistan at all.

Technorati Tags: general, mcchrystal, coin, counterinsurgency, strategy, afghanistan, rules, of, engagement, civilian, casualties, policy, government

Read More......

Federal District Court Checks Dept. Interior Drilling Ban

On May 28, 2010, the U.S. Department of the Interor (DOI) and Minerals Mangement Service (MMS) Ordered Six month moratorium against any oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific at depths of greater than 500 feet. A Louisiana federal lawsuit was filed by numerous Plaintiffs (Hornbeck is the lead party in the case) seeking a temporary restraining order halting the DOI moratorium.

The moratorium was issued in response to the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon blowout disaster.

In today's Order and Reasons, Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Kenneth Lee “Ken” Salazar, No. 10-1663 (E.D. La. Jun. 22, 2010), a federal court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and issued an injunction. The Order overturned the federal agencies' moratorium order finding it was an arbitrary and capricious decision. The gist of the court's decision was based upon an imbalance between the huge impact of the moratorium and its devastating impact on the economy in the Gulf as weighed against the scanty and flawed evidence supporting it.

The court's Order and Reasons noted that the moratorium has a huge impact. It threatens 150,000 high paying oil field jobs, and severely damaged the economies of local Gulf communities.

The court also exposed the foundation of the Secretary's summary report (which led to the moratorium). The summary report was based, in part, upon alleged findings by "seven peer reviewed experts." The summary report said the experts concurred in the recommended six-month blanket moratorium. However, the seven experts filed affidavits in support of the Plaintiff's lawsuit stating the DOI report's claim they agreed to a blanket moratorium recommendation was a “misrepresentation.” The blanket moratorium was added later by political appointees at DOI after the seven experts had reviewed an earlier draft of the summary report. The court concluded that the DOI lacked any scientific or rational basis for a blanket moratorium.

After reviewing the Secretary’s Report, the Moratorium Memorandum, and the Notice to Lessees, the Court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium.

The Court then blistered the DOI's unsubstantiated decision to extend the moratorium ban to drilling in greater than 500 feet of water as completely without any factual basis.

How these studies support a finding that shear equipment does not work consistently at 500 feet is incomprehensible. If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavyhanded, and rather overbearing.

The Order concludes the Deepwater Horizon disaster cannot justify the over-arching moratorium against all Gulf and Pacific drilling.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is an unprecedented, sad, ugly and inhuman disaster. What seems clear is that the federal government has been pressed by what happened on the Deepwater Horizon into an otherwise sweeping confirmation that all Gulf deepwater drilling activities put us all in a universal threat of irreparable harm. While the implementation of regulations and a new culture of safety are supportable by the Report and the documents presented, the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger. On the record now before the Court, the defendants have failed to cogently reflect the decision to issue a blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium with the facts developed during the thirty-day review. The plaintiffs have established a likelihood of successfully showing that the Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the moratorium.

. . . .

An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED. An Order consistent with this opinion will be entered.

Technorati Tags: oil, drilling, moratorium, order, and, reasons, hornbeck, federal, district, court, arbitrary, and, capricious

Read More......

Rogue FCC Seeks to Regulate the Internet

An April federal district court decision (Comcast)set back the Obama Administration's power grab over Internet regulation. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had sought to assert its regulatory muscle through the “net neutrality” doctrine.

A mere federal court decision finding the FCC lacked any legal authority to regulate the Internet will not stand in the way of the FCC. It continues to attempt to assert its jurisdiction over the Internet.

On June 17, 2010, the FCC Commission voted (3-2) to take the first steps in the path to  issuance of broadband regulations. The Notice of Inquiry  (NOI) seeking public comment and cited here is the first step in the federal agency gaining regulatory authority over the Net. FCC Press Release (June 17, 2010)

I am curious about the quoted statement below from the NOI. It states Congress has initiated some new law to give the FCC the authorization it lacked when the federal court rebuffed its earlier attempt to take over the Internet. Here is a quote from their meeting.

Congress has recently reaffirmed the FCC’s limited-but-vital role with respect to broadband; and the Commission has fulfilled Congress’s mandate to develop a National Broadband Plan recommending specific agency actions to encourage deployment and adoption.

FCC Open Commission Meeting – June 17, 2010 As far as I know, Congress has not given the FCC any new authority to regulate. However, in view of the several multi-thousand page bills nobody has time to read, who knows if the Obama Administration and the Democrats sneaked in some kind of FCC Internet regulation provision.

UPDATE
The 1,588-page Federal Stimulus Bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ) apparently contained a directive to the FCC. It was to establish a Commission that would implement a plan for legislation. Rich Boucher's YouTube Statement (3/18/10). Drawing up a plan for legislation is a long way from giving the agency the authorization to regulate the Net.

I also found the FCC Commission Chairman written response to Comcast, which is petulant. Statement of Julius Genachowski (Dem), Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (May 6, 2010).

The two Republicans on the five-person Commission issued a rebuttal warning the Democrat majority's attempt to exert authority was illegal. Here's the rebuttal letter. Joint Statement of Commissioners Robert M. Mcdowell and Meredith A. Baker (May 6, 2010)

Technorati Tags: FCC, Regulate, Internet, Commission, Vote, Broadband, Inquiry, Federal, Government, Power, Grab

Read More......

Army Training, Sir

My oldest son, Nathan, is at Fort Sill (Oklahoma) Army Basic Combat Training this summer. He is a rising Senior at Wade Hampton and joined the Army through the DEP program. He is already a member of a local reserve unit (Donaldson AFB) and makes some money drilling with the unit once a month.

He has been at BTC about four or five days and we do not know yet how to write to him. We expect a telephone call sometime soon with an address. Here is the best information I could find about what is happening at Fort Sill BTC.

Dear Parents, Family Members and Friends:

We want you to know that the cadre who are training your Soldier are a very dedicated group of professionals, genuinely concerned about the health, welfare, and training of your Soldier. We consider your Soldier to be the most important asset of the Army’s future.

During this training period your Soldier will learn the basic Soldier skills that are required on today’s modern battlefield. The training is very strenuous and both physically and emotionally demanding. Your Soldier will learn the Army Values: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage the moral principles which guide every Soldier’s actions.

Basic Training is broken down into three, three-week phases, red phase, white phase and blue phase. During red phase Soldiers are in the complete control of the Drill Sergeants. During the first week of red phase Soldiers are give classes on the Army Values, Army history, Army policies and how to march. They are also issued an M-16A2 rifle which they will have to learn to fire and maintain throughout Basic Training.

During week two Soldiers will learn first aid so they can take care of each other. They are also going to the gas chamber, where Soldiers will build confidence in their protective equipment.

In the last week of red phase we will be “camping” in the field and conducting Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM). During BRM your Soldier will learn safe range procedures; how to load, and unload their M-16A2 rifles; and how to fire from a foxhole, lying on their stomachs (the prone position) and the kneeling position.

In the unfortunate event that an emergency arises in your family which requires your Soldier’s presence please call our office at (580) 442-1230 during duty hours or (580)442-1273 after duty hours. You will also have to file a Red Cross Message through the hospital. Typically the only way a Soldier will be granted leave is in the event of a death or life threatening illness or injury of an immediate family member. Immediate family members are parents, children, and spouses.

We know that many of you want to attend your Soldier’s graduation from basic training. The schedules to graduate are important and we hope that all of you will attend and share this special event with your Soldier. In order to graduate, your Soldier must pass quite a few tests. On occasion, Soldiers fail to meet the standards and are unable to graduate with their class. Please make sure that you stay in touch with your Soldier and that he is meeting the criteria to graduate. We will make every effort to ensure Soldiers have the retesting opportunities prior to graduation. We have scheduled time during graduation week for Soldiers to spend with their families; however, this time is not guaranteed. During the last class many Soldiers failed to clean their equipment to the standard necessary for turn-in on the day equipment turn-in was scheduled. As a result, the only time available for them to get their equipment turned-in was during the family day pass.

Welcome to the Army family and thank you for your support and patriotism.

434th FA BD, Family Page

Read More......

New Start Treaty: Clouded By Lack of Transparency

On April 8, 2010, the Obama Administration entered the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia limiting nuclear arms. The Democrat Congress must ratify the Treaty before it becomes law.

This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted hearings on the Treaty. The hearings revealed frustration by some members because the Obama Administration refused to release the negotiating record related to the Russian-American agreement.

The problem here is a disagreement over interpretation of an extremely important issue--the U.S. right to build a strategic missile defense system.

The Russians have reason to be worried about the United States technical ability to construct such a missile defense system. Data about the newest test firing of Aegis Missiles show these defensive weapons connected with their targets on 20 of 24 shots. Aegis Missile Hit Records, Missile Defense Agency (Nov. 24, 2009).

The Russians believe New START agreement signed by the Obama Administration completely limits the United States capability to deploy and develop defensive missile systems designed to shoot down incoming ballistic nuclear missiles.

The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

Statement by the Russian Federation on Missile Defence (April 10, 2010). The Russian statement goes on to assert that Russia has the right to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. develops or deploys a missile defense shield.

The Hearing revealed a fascinating philosophical difference of opinion between Ronald Reagan's vision of a star wars missile defense system and the Obama Administration's negotiators.

The Obama Chief Negotiator, Rose E. Gottemoeller, essentially admitted the Obama Administration was abandoning Reagan's vision and returning to the Cold War concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction." That concept means that both sides of the Cold War would have the capability of destroying the other in the event of a first strike. The idea is deterrence. Video of Treaty Hearings at Minutes 76 to 81.

Reagan's vision of a missile defense means that the United States could protect its population from such an attack or counter-attack. Obviously, the idea of developing a missile defense system seems to be a totally logical goal. The possibility the Obama Administration would willingly negotiate away the right of America to defend its people will not sit well with us.

The Administration, however, sent witnesses to the Congressional hearings that argued the new START Treaty will not interfere in anyway with current planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems. The Administration's witnesses did admit that the Treaty (Article V) specifically prohibits use of existing silos as part of such a defensive system. However, they said the military currently has no such plans and that the restriction is not a burden.

More problematic, however, is the Russian interpretation that "quantitative or qualitative" improvement (i.e., any improvement) in U.S. missile defense technology would allow the Russians to back out of New START Treaty.

In view of the disagreement revealed by the two parties, the actual intent of the agreement becomes of critical importance.

In contract law, when there is an ambiguity to a written agreement, the courts will permit parites to introduce outside evidence to figure out the parties intent. The same is true when courts construe ambiguous statutes. The courts will look at legislative history to figure out the intent of the law.

Some of the Committee which is charged with recommending or declining to recommend ratification of Obama Administration's New START Treaty, need to know exactly what was negotiated by the United States officials. The Committee requested the Obama Administration provide the negotiating record. The Committee does not intend to publish the negotiating record, but the Committee needs to see it to figure out the intent of the agreement, which is certainly ambiguous on the most critical issue of the United States right to defend itself.

It makes no sense for the Obama Administration to withhold the negotiating record. Yet, the Administration has erected a stone wall. The Administration at first asserted release of the negotiating record is unprecedented. It turns out that treaty negotiating records are sometimes provided to Congress.

Under the circumstances of such an important disagreement as to the meaning of the New START Treaty there is little real justification for withholding release of the negotiating record to the Committee.

Technorati Tags: New, START, Treaty, Star, Wars, Missile, Defense, System, Negotiating, Record, Intent, Disagreement, Russian, United, States, Rose, E., Gottemoeller

Read More......

Conference Committee House Dems Quietly Vote to Drop Audit the Fed Provision

The financial regulatory reform law now in Conference Committee will apparently exclude an amendment to require the Federal Reserve undergo a full audit. The Federal Reserve, a quasi-governmental entity run by wealthy bankers, enjoys total secrecy in its operations to control the American money supply. In other words, the Federal Reserve operates the American printing press and Congress has no oversight of its operations.

Let me get this right. The Federal Reserve does not have to tell Congress when it makes secret deals with foreign governments and central banks, nor does it have to explain how it manipulates our money supply.

Economics is a dry subject for many. Let me sum up why this is important. The supply of money in our economy determines the value of the dollar. The more dollars, the less each dollar is worth. Thus, printing massive amounts of dollars will cause inflationary pressure. Our savings and retirement funds depreciate as inflation eats away at the value of the dollar.

A law to change the right of unelected bankers to secretly manipulate our economy was HR 1207. Although the three-page law should be passed as a stand alone law, it was not brought to the floor for a vote by the Democrat leadership. It was, however, added to the House finreg bill, and after overcoming efforts by Federal Reserve lackeys to change it, it was approved in full and inserted into the House version of the proposed financial regulation law. I wrote about the battle between the House and Senate versions with regard to this audit language here.

The Conference Committee may soon vote on whether to adopt the strict HR1207 audit language approved by the House, or the very watered-down version that passed through the Senate.   Judging Dr. Paul's comments, however, it appears that the Committee may not even vote on the audit the fed language.  The proposed law will likely just be quietly watered down and the politicians will avoid even a vote.

A May 27, 2010, Rasmussen poll indicated 80 percent of the American people favor a full audit. A list of links to the Senators and Representatives on the Conference Committee are linked in this sentence. If you care about this issue, it might be a good time to send your representative a message to audit the fed.

Here is Congressman Ron Paul's statement about the Conference vote:



Technorati Tags: audit, the, fed, conference, committee, vote, HR1207, Dodd, Frank, Financial, Regulatory, Reform

Read More......

Gamecock Baseball Versus Oklahoma in Rosenblatt

The Gamecocks face the Oklahoma Sooners in game one of the college world series beginning Saturday. (The Gamecocks play their first game on Sunday.)

The Sooners have jacked 100 homeruns on the year. Their team is built for power.

Some say that the Gamecocks should have an advantage because of the wide open outfield spaces at Rosenblatt Ballpark where the games will be played.  The Gamecocks do have an extremely fast and skilled set of outfielders so that should give them a good advantage in the Rosenblatt stadium.

However, before we get too excited, be aware that the Sooners play in a ballpark with very similar dimensions.

Below is the best data I could find about the dimensions. Set out above and just below are two photographs of the Satellite images from Google of the ballparks.

The obvious conclusion is that it is doubtful the distant fences of Rosenblatt will deter the Sooners from taking their hacks.  Gamecock pitchers are going to need to keep the ball down against this bunch.

Oklahoma ballpark dimensions: LF: 335; CF: 411; RF: 335

Rosenblatt ballpark dimensions: LF: 335; Left Center: 375; CF: 408; Right Center: 375; and RF: 335


Technorati Tags: gamecocks, sooners, baseball, rosenblatt, home, runs, outfields, dimensions, analysis

Read More......

Of The Dutch Skimmers and Stupid EPA Regulations

On May 4, 2010, we started writing about the slow Obama Administration response to the Gulf Oil disaster. However, it was not until earlier this week that I vaguely heard in general about the Dutch skimmer ship offer the United States rejected. Ironically, the Environmental Protection Agency regulations prohibited use of high-capacity Dutch skimmer systems.

Get that irony? The EPA regulations greatly enhanced the environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico.

It is time to close the EPA, uproot years of regulation, and totally re-write environmental statutes so they will make common sense, return manufacturing to the USA, and properly balance protecting the American environment against the need for good American jobs.

The problem here with the Dutch Skimmer example is that it shows government regulation does not work effectively. Technology and times change, but outdated regulations and stupid bureaucrats remain the same.

Want a simple, time-tested solution. The American jury is the best regulatory body ever invented by man in the history of the world.

Let juries determine corporate responsibility for damages using common law standards of reasonableness. Eliminate corporate loopholes that permit corporations to evade responsibility through procedural instruments like summary judgment. Over the past three decades, the standard for granting corporations summary judgment in civil court cases, particularly in federal court, has expanded so much that the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases is all but dead.

The jury system, coupled with real court enforcement of law against irresponsible parties, would work better than a million government regulators.

The U.S. Government has apparently reconsidered a Dutch offer to supply 4 oil skimmers. These are large arms that are attached to oil tankers that pump oil and water from the surface of the ocean into the tanker. Water pumped into the tanker will settle to the bottom of the tanker and is then pumped back into the ocean to make room for more oil. Each system will collect 5,000 tons of oil each day.

One ton of oil is about 7.3 barrels. 5,000 tons per day is 36,500 barrels per day. 4 skimmers have a capacity of 146,000 barrels per day. That is much greater than the high end estimate of the leak. The skimmers work best in calm water, which is the usual condition this time of year in the gulf.

These systems were developed by the Dutch as a safety system in case of oil spills from either wells or tankers. The Dutch have off shore oil development and also import oil in tankers. Their economy, just like ours, runs on oil. They understand that the production and use of oil has dangers and they wanted to be ready to cope with problems like spills. The Dutch system has been used successfully in Europe.

The Dutch offered to fly their skimmer arm systems to the Gulf 3 days after the oil spill started. The offer was apparently turned down because EPA regulations do not allow water with oil to be pumped back into the ocean. If all the oily water was retained in the tanker, the capacity of the system would be greatly diminished because most of what is pumped into the tanker is sea water.

As of June 8th, BP reported that they have collected 64,650 barrels of oil in the Gulf. That is only a fraction of the amount of oil spilled from the well. That is less than one day’s rated capacity of the Dutch oil skimmers.

Turning down the Dutch skimmers just shows a total lack of leadership in the oil spill. To just leave the oil in the water because regulations do not allow you to pump slightly polluted oil back into the ocean is just plain stupid. The small amount of oil pumped back into the ocean with the Dutch system is tiny droplets of suspended oil that will be quickly broken down by naturally occurring bacteria.

Using the Dutch skimmers should have prevented most of the oil from ever getting even close to shore. The Dutch skimmers work best close to the source of the spill where the oil is more concentrated. Outside of that circle, dispersants could be used. Additional smaller skimmers could be used closer to shore to pick up patches that might get through the first 2 rings. The less oil that reaches shore, the less there is to clean up. The less oil that reaches shore, the faster the environment will restored by natural cleaning processes.

Having technology like the Dutch skimmers should also allow us to feel more comfortable about allowing deepwater drilling. If the skimmers work then it greatly lowers the environmental risks from future oil leaks in deep water. One advantage to deepwater wells is they are typically very far from shore, giving a long response time to clean up the problem. There would be no need to have a moratorium on deepwater drilling and having 50,000 people loose their jobs.

This incident with the skimmers just shows the lack of leadership by the President and other government officials. Most people, certainly the local residents, recognized that the government systems to deal with the oil spill were inadequate. It took over 6 weeks for the government to allow the state of Louisiana to build sand berms to protect the marshes, after oil has already entered the marshes. Decisions need to be made, often without full information and sometimes conflicting rules and regulations. The oil well did not stop spilling oil as the government tried to study the problems and make recommendations. There was no one with the authority to make the fast decisions necessary to combat the spill.

John Ryden, Global Warming Examiner (June 12, 2010).
Technorati Tags: dutch, skimmers, epa, regulation, safety, jobs, bureaucracy, juries, seventh, amendment, oil, disaster, gulf, mexico, obama, administration, slow

Read More......

FTC Memo Proposes Government Regulation of News

A June 15, 47-page, FTC Memorandum,  FTC Office of Policy Planning, Reinvention of Journalism (June 15, 2010), details the federal plan to take over the news industry and prop up the failing print media corporations.

The large print newspapers are losing readership and advertising revenues. The FTC memorandum does not acknowledge this phenomenon might be caused by the slanted statist journalism nearly all the print media organs publish. A cynic would think that because the print media tends to favor government statists, the government statists who now control the federal government are planning policies to help their friends in the print journalism media out. The idea here seems pretty obvious. Create FTC policies to save the print media companies before they completely collapse.

The FTC Memorandum, which is just for "discussion" purposes, states: “There are reasons for concern that [newspaper] experimentation may not create a robust and sustainable business model for commercial journalism. . . . Therefore, it is not too soon to start considering policies that might encourage innovations to help support journalism into the future.”

The First Amendment is in peril. The government plans in this memorandum sidestep free press concerns by implementing measures designed to give the government subtle control.

The FTC policy ideas in this scary memorandum attack the perceived problem faced by newspapers in four ways: anti-trust laws, government subsidies and funding, tax policies, and government-facilitated technology to aid investigative journalism.

The first element, intellectual property rights, would allow the government favored institutions to sue writers who allegedly infringe their stories. The memorandum refers to citizen journalists by the term, “news aggregators.”

In other words, the FTC would have the government enact law that would allow newspapers (and other government-favored organs) to sue bloggers and citizen journaists when alleged infringement occurs. In this way, the large government sponsored media outlets could crush Internet blogger competition and squelch the loss of readership away from the favored media outlet.

The FTC memorandum also discussed the idea of requiring fee-based licenses before citizen reporters could publish “news.”

The second element was government sponsorships to favored media outlets through direct and indirect subsidies. The FTC memorandum argued that subsidies for newspapers have a long history until the 1980s. Therefore, the FTC figures they should bring back subsidies and be more blatant in permitting the government to pay favored media outlets so they will continue to survive.

Some of the specific ideas that FTC would consider implementing in this regard are as follows:

* A journalism division of AmeriCorp;
* Increased funding for public broadcasting;
* Use of a national fund (created by fees and taxes) for local news;
* Tax credits for organizations employing journalists;
* A news voucher system implemented through tax returns; and
* Grants to universities for investigative journalism.

The FTC memorandum also discusses a wide litany of other federal tax incentives to prop up and support the dying print journalism corporations. The FTC is considering implementing increased taxes on consumer electronics, the electronic spectrum used by broadcast journalists, and cell phone taxes to stifle competition.

The tax incentives included giving media corporations the status of 501(c)(3) companies, such as religious or charitable organizations.

Finally, the FTC memorandum recommends the federal and state governments expend tax resources to create media centers whereby journalists could conduct searches and investigative research for stories. These government sponsored networks would make the cost of journalism less expensive since the government would provide the access to licensed journalists.

Each of the ideas bandied about in the FTC memorandum creates a signficant risk to free speech. A cynic would percieve of the strong hand of central government could greatly influence the speech of news organizations under the FTC authority. For example, would news organization's speech be chilled—as it is in the pulpits—if they are restricted from endorsement of political parties and candidates? Would failure to endorse a particular party's candidates result in investigations and questions about tax exempt status? Is investigative reporting by Universities likely to be of a conservative bent . . . or would it tilt wildly toward statist agendas? Could the government monitor journalists as they gather data at the government information centers?

Technorati Tags: FTC, Memorandum, Free, Speech, Newspapers, Regulate, Tax, Government, Control, News

Read More......

Sebastian Junger Book Review: War

I finished up Sebastian Junger's book WAR while on our weekend beach vacation this week.

Junger is a war correspondent. The book War is about a five month, 2008, experience with a platoon in U.S. 2nd Battalion in the Korengal valley, Afghanistan.

Junger is right in the midst of bullets and bombs. For example, at one point, Junger describes the sound of a bullet passing overhead as a snapping noise made by a small object breaking the sound barrier at 2000 miles per hour. He describes how once exposed to it the noise creates an involuntary flinch reaction by the combat soldiers who hear it.

Junger's description of the men manning remote outposts within the jurisdiction of Battle Company brings to life the stark reality of the United States' military operation in Afghanistan.

Junger is respectful of the Taliban, which he mostly refers to as "The Enemy" in the book. He gives the impression that the young men fighting for The Enemy face mostly the same motivation as the young American soldiers.

One of the points in Junger's book is that men fight not so much for ideology as for love for one another.  Junger believes humans are characterized a tribal magnetism that unites the group. He analyzes why men risk their lives for each other, and concludes courage is love.

Junger also delves into the issue of what makes the adrenalin rush associated with combat so appealing to the American soldiers.

War is mainly apolitical. It does not attempt to justify American policy, or the Taliban insurgency. It is just a straight forward report about the psychology of men in combat, and the day to day trial they face.

War is a very good read. I cannot wait to see the documentary, Restrepo, The Movie.

Technorati Tags: Sebastian, Junger, War, Correspondent, Afghanistan, Second, Battalion, psychology

Read More......

Sestak Coverup Analysis

This post examines the legal issues created by the alleged Obama Administration interference in the Democrat Pennsylvania Senate primary involving Arlan Specter. Before I get into the legal nitty gritty, a bit of background.

This issue all revolves around the Pennsylvania Senate race and outgoing Senator Arlan Specter.

After Obama's election, Specter, who was elected to the Senate as a Republican, switched to the Democrat party. In 2010, Specter faced faced a severe Republican primary challenge. It turned out that Kharma caught up to Specter because he lost to Joe Sestak in the Democrat primary.

Because of his moderate votes as a Republican, Specter had virtually no chance to win the Republican primary. Thus, the switch to the Democrat party increased his chances of relection.

At the time, Specter's switch to the Democrat Party was huge victory for Harry Reid. It gave the Senate Democrats 60 votes, enough to guarantee cloture of any legislation the Democrat Senate sought to enact. Specter was allowed to retain seniority and got some good Committee positions. In addition, he may have been promised an uncontested Democrat primary:

NO DEM OPPONENT PROMISED: Specter was promised that the Democratic Party would fully support his candidacy as a Democrat and would not back any other Democrat seeking the seat. "In money and message," the party will be behind Specter. Any other Democrat who intends to run will "not have the blessing of the party."

Chris Bowers, No Primary Part of Specter Deal, Open Left (Apr. 29, 2009).

Unfortunately for Specter, Joe Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative, did not go along with that promise, and Sestak engaged Specter in a primary challenge. The Obama Administration and Democrat Party threw its weight behind Specter. In addition, the Obama Administration, allegedly through former President Bill Clinton, sought to persuade Sestak to drop out of the Democrat Primary. That would have left Specter without a Democrat challenger as promised when he switched parties.

Sestak, however, used the Administration offers as a political weapon against Specter. He went public and told the press, "that he was offered a ‘job’ by ‘someone in the White House’ in exchange for leaving the Pennsylvania Senate race." Chris Bowers, Darrell Issa Press Release (May 28, 2010).

Despite the full backing of the Obama Administration and Democrat Party, Specter lost to Congressman Sestak. Kharma.

Since Sestak went public about the White House offer, the MSM has been nibbling at the Obama Administration about the issue. Many pundits have alleged it constituted a felony bribe in violation of several federal election laws. Congressman Issa (R. Cal) has been particularly vocal.

One of the bribery statutes cited by the pundits is 18 U.S.C § 595 (Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments).

This post analyzes that statute and the recent White House Statement about the Sestak issue. Unless more evidence is developed, there seems to be no federal law violation by the Obama Administration and the Republicans are wasting their time chasing down this rabbit trail.
Excerpts of the relevant part of the statute are quoted below. The government, to prove a violation, would have to establish each element of the offense to the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[1]Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States . . .

[2] uses his official authority . . .

[3] for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for . . .

[4] Member of the Senate . . .

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

[5] This section shall not prohibit or make unlawful any act by any officer or employee of any . . . system which is supported in whole or in part by any . . . political subdivision thereof . . . .

Above are the relevant elements the statute that the prosecution would need to prove. Quoted below is the White House statement, which one would presume would be supported by at least the testimony of former President Bill Clinton and perhaps Sestak.

Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory positions discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the Administration, would have been uncompensated.

White House staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. . . .

The Democratic Party leadership had a legitimate interest in averting a divisive primary fight and a similarly legitimate concern about the Congressman vacating his seat in the House.

Robert F. Bauer, Esq., Memorandum from White House Counsel Regarding the Review of Discussions Relating to Congressman Sestak (May 28, 2010). Based on the White House statement, it seems to me obtaining a conviction under this statute is going to be impossible.

Here we see the development of a powerful defense against successful prosecution. Almost all of the elements of the offense are strongly contested. In fact, the only uncontested element is that this issue involved alleged influence of a Senate primary. I will skip analysis of that one since it seems a given. Let's take the other contested elements piece by piece.

First, use of President Bill Clinton as an intermediary was clever. That means it is unlikely either of the first two elements could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Clinton is not directly employed (i.e., paid) by the Obama Administration for his work. Thus, it is questionable whether he used an "official position" to make induce Sestak out of the race. Neither of the first two elements of a crime can be proven without a lot more evidence of direct involvement by the Obama Administration. Maybe if Sestak was actually cooperating it might be possible . . . but Sestak needs the Democrat Party. He is off the bribery train now. Forget that idea absent subpoena power.

Element three above is a bit of a stretch for the defense. Apparently the Obama Administration, should it be charged with this crime, would contest the issue by arguing its purpose was to avoid a contentious Democrat primary fight. Such a fight, it would argue, could undermine the Democrat influence nationally. The defense to element three is subtle. However, maybe you could persuade some jurors the specific purpose here not to affecting a primary, which is the prosecution burden. Could the prosecutor get a unanamous jury to agree the intent here was to affect the primary?

In my opinion, this charge would not be prosecuted without more evidence of an actual deal with Specter as the true the actual motive. That could be hard unless Specter decides to play ball. That is certainly not very likely.

Finally, if this attempt to influence the Pennsylvania Senate Primary was really all part of a Democrat Party effort, 18 U.S.C § 595 may be out of the picture as a prosecution vehicle. I am not sure what this last proviso means, but I bet the defense team would assert the statute inapplicable to political party politics.

Read More......

California Republican Primary Campaign Advertisement

The California Republican primary is going to be interesting to watch. The establishment Republican candidate is Carly Fiorina. She is opposed by Chuck Devore. Here is a scary campaign ad by Devore highlighting Fiorina's neocon comments about the Internet and federal regulation of it.

Read More......

DixieCon 2010

Here is a three-picture slide show of our trip to Chapel Hill for the DixieCon Diplomacy tournament. Painters in the building tripped the fire alarm and we had to evacuate.

Read More......