Unconventional Wisdom - Pakistan As Epicenter of Evil

Visit www.skewz.com

The axis of evil was asserted to be Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. If those countries are the axis then certainly Pakistan has long been the epicenter. This has become a new focus over the last 12 months. However, nothing has changed.

The media has only caught up with the most obvious of facts. These are: 1. Much of the 9-11 funding flowed through Pakistan from Saudi Arabia, 2. The ISI (Pakistan's intelligence services) are the main benefactors of the Taliban, 3. A.Q. Khan exported or shared some nuclear weapons knowledge with at least Lybia and North Korea, and 4. Pakistan has dozens of terrorist groups on its soil that receive all degrees of support from the central government.

So, let's run through the facts: 1. Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction, 2. Pakistan has exported WMD technology, 3. Pakistan has shown the will to harm the US, and 4. Pakistan is continuing to provide safe harbor to dozens of terrorist organizations. What's the unconventional wisdom here? We singled out Iraq which had not WMD, no meaningful link to Al Quaeda, and not near-term hostile activity toward the US. In contrast, we've kept as close friends both Pakistan and Saudia Arabis whose populations have shown a bit less love towards us. Sphere: Related Content

The Story They (The Media) Missed - Reagan As Christ Figure

Visit www.skewz.com

The Republican debates in Southern California earlier this week had an interesting theme running through them. That theme was the invocation of Reagan. Anderson Cooper of CNN was moderating the debate and facilitated the cult of personality theme with his questions. At one point he asked the candidates what they thought Reagan's impression of them as President would be.

Interestingly, the candidates were mythologizing a now dead president and party standard bearer because it was a nice diversion from the proximity from the incumbent. There were questions with regard to Bush, but these seemed diffused. Most all of the candidates (except for Ron Paul) embraced Bush and his policies yet bear hugged the image of Reagan as a refuge. Their even distracting embrace of Bush and his policies will likely be revisited with particular scrutiny during the general election when the mid 30 percent approval rating Bush now enjoys will lead candidates to pander differently.

Of course, the Democrats do this too. JFK was invoked in Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barrack Obama. Bill Clinton is a powerful image but he's diminished his standing by being part of the fray. His image can't be invoked to point back to better days. The muddying of his image was a tactical mistake for Democrats.

However, the cult of Reagan is important because it's a unifying factor for a party that is extremely divided about its support for the current president. Reagan represents a safe image and escape from still unsettled philosophical debates raging within the party. Returning to the "Age of Reagan" and the candidate's ability to get us there seems to be the theme. But with that being the theme, the use of Reagan's image begs the question...what current disturbia are we trying to escape from with a mythologized Reagan...is it an unspeakable discomfort with the current GOP standard bearer?...the unspoken spoken?...that implicit observation is what they missed. Sphere: Related Content

Unconventional Wisdom - The Global Warming Debate

There's the conventional wisdom which is easy to spout off and then there's the unconventional wisdom which may not be so obvious or requires research which the media is often loathe to do.

We get most of our ideas for this blog from our posters. A few folks had commented on the underpinnings of global warming theory. That got us to dig a little deeper. the concept is fairly simple it turns out.

1. Scientists believe that the composition of the earth's atmosphere was much more CO2 based in the late Jurassic age.
2. During that time the ice caps barely existed and large parts of today's continents were under water- including a lot of Saudi Arabia.
3. A particular type of plankton dominated the seas and gobbled up a lot of that CO2.
4. That plankton would use the CO2 as part of its energy production processes and when it died, that trapped CO2 would settle down on the sea bed. That trapped CO2 would become oil after years of geological pressure.
5. It's estimated that the plankton pulled about 3 trillion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. These particular plankton started to die off as the CO2 they needed was being pulled out.
6. Fast forward to 1859 when the first oil wells were drilled. After about 150 years of doing this, we've put about 1 trillion tons of C02 back into the atmosphere.
7. They type of phytoplankton that dominated the sea millions of years ago are starting to reappear as the environment is more conducive to their domination. Run off from river systems is rich in nutrients that are spawned from petroleum rich fertilizers. These areas get so over run by the plankton they create dead zones for other life forms.
8. So the basic idea is that the science suggests that temperatures are rising and that the last time the planet was hot it had certain characteristics. Now that conditions are reemerging, those characteristics appear to be coming back.
9. Seems to make some sense.

Now, the "global warming" crowd doesn't believe there's much credence to these assertions. The mantra is that global warming is a religion requiring a huge dose of faith. Our contention is that it seems like a lot of the theory hangs together better than the theology of many religions. However, no one in the media has seemed to bother to break this information down into simple terms for the information consuming public...and that's unconventional wisdom. Sphere: Related Content

The Story They (The Media) Missed - How Low Can They Go?

A few members of our community have been commenting actively on the state of the economy. An interesting theme that has emerged is the role of monetary policy in pulling us out of the down turn in the business cycle. At the same time there is interest in the role of fiscal policy in averting a recession as well.

The "economic stimulus" package has been touted in the general media as being a bipartisan victory that should provide a shot in the arm to drive consumer spending which, in turn, will prime the pump of the US economic engine. The flip-side narrative of this line of thinking is that the stimulus package is a horrible SOP that can never be properly timed to be helpful since economists can't call a recession accurately and it's unclear whether consumers will spend the money. There has also been some push back to Democrats wanting to include food stamp provisions and other mechanisms to help the poor. There seems to be balance in the pro and con narratives here. So...what did they miss? I think there has been little consideration to the fact that the entitlement system already has mechanisms that come into play during an economic downturn. As more people become under employed or unemployed, the economic support systems from welfare, unemployment insurance, WIC, etc. kick into place. What does the economic stimulus package do in addition? The real story here is the severe dependence on consumer spending in a debt ladened society. The dependence of the economy on one more trip to Best Buy. No introspection has been provided on this point whatsoever by the media. Mike Huckabee was correct in his debate answers on this point. The stimulus package funds will go to buy goods made in China and will only further force the treasury to borrow money from China in order to disburse them. His notion of instead using the money for a stimulating infrastructure program of similar value seemed more intelligent and less like a SOP during an election year. But again, no rigorous reporting was put forward on this subject...or as to why this seems to be the only thing both parties can agree on.

With regard to monetary policy, Ron Paul actually has some valid and interesting points. Lowering interests rates will reduce the debt burden of consumers and make them feel they have more to spend. At the same time it would arguable provide a spread in rates that does not accurately reflect the risk associated with the added liquidity put into the market. As such poor quality spending is what we'll get. We'll buy another iPod but not replace a needed bridge. At the same time, our currently will be weakened on two fronts: 1. a reduced return based on a lowered rate, and 2. a poorer return relative to risk based on increased spending in an alredy credit strapped environment. The fundamental question is that if all the banks in the US are fairly significantly mired in the subprime mess and have been forced to go to all sorts of unusual sources for desperate liquidity, then wouldn't their risk profile seemed to have increased? As such, wouldn't the rate at which you (the government) lend them money go up and not down? Instead, the media has focused on the demands of Wall Street to lower rates. It seems that Wall Street is issuing the mandates.

Again, these are some of the things they missed. Sphere: Related Content