A personal note: Fifty-Four Years ago today, Elizabeth and I were married in California. I was in the navy, and it was during the Quemoy-Matsu crisis. I couldn't go on leave to Texas, so she came to California.
We have had many adventures since then, but it seems like yesterday.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Raising The House
A new tropical wave appeared today off the coast of Africa. Designated Invest 99, the new wave has the potential of developing into a tropical depression.
Which serves to remind us that it was about eleven months ago when Hurricane Irene descended upon Oriental, bringing the highest storm surge in recent memory. Some of us have not yet completed repairs and mitigation measures.
This afternoon a contractor elevated our house high enough to escape likely storm surges for the future. At least if sea level rises no more than a foot or two.
Which serves to remind us that it was about eleven months ago when Hurricane Irene descended upon Oriental, bringing the highest storm surge in recent memory. Some of us have not yet completed repairs and mitigation measures.
This afternoon a contractor elevated our house high enough to escape likely storm surges for the future. At least if sea level rises no more than a foot or two.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Let's Fix The Deficit?
Headline in today's Los Angeles Times tells you all you need to know about the so-called deficit problem:
Is it that the debate over when and how to cure the federal deficit has reached new heights of cartoonish inanity? That we are now being treated to finger-wagging about the need to get our fiscal house in order by corporate CEOs like JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon (trading loss $5.8 billion and counting, potential cost to ratepayers from alleged manipulation of the California electricity market $200 million and counting).
Or is it that the remedies for the deficit always seem to involve cutting taxes for the top 1% of U.S. income earners while cutting Social Security retirement benefits (average monthly check: $1,230) for everyone else?"
As I have said before, the real question in politics is, "who benefits and who pays?"
For the past four decades, the answer has been that the top 1% benefits and the rest of us pay. Time to wake up.
Deficit debate driven by the wealthy
The Simpson/Bowles plan bills itself as a road map to deficit reduction, but it's really a guide to cutting services and benefits for the working and middle class while protecting the interests of the wealthy.
I like the opening paragraph of the article by Michael Hiltzik, as well:
"There must be a reason that every time I hear the term "fiscal cliff," the image that comes to mind is of Wile E. Coyote pumping his feet in midair just before plunging into the valley below.
Is it that the debate over when and how to cure the federal deficit has reached new heights of cartoonish inanity? That we are now being treated to finger-wagging about the need to get our fiscal house in order by corporate CEOs like JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon (trading loss $5.8 billion and counting, potential cost to ratepayers from alleged manipulation of the California electricity market $200 million and counting).
Or is it that the remedies for the deficit always seem to involve cutting taxes for the top 1% of U.S. income earners while cutting Social Security retirement benefits (average monthly check: $1,230) for everyone else?"
As I have said before, the real question in politics is, "who benefits and who pays?"
For the past four decades, the answer has been that the top 1% benefits and the rest of us pay. Time to wake up.
Killing Oriental's Golden Egg Goose
I've been listening to a recording of the Town's public hearing of July 3rd concerning closure of streets and the related contract between the Town and Chris Fulcher. Very confusing.
There were some interesting passages during the discussion. At one point, Commissioner Summers observed:
What I believe Commissioner Summers is talking about is the Town Board's decision, several years ago, to abandon the public's riparian interests in a very attractive anchorage area that enticed many boaters to visit the Town, and to cede the area to use by the private developers of Oriental Harbor Marina.
The Town let marina developers steal the public's riparian waters, which the Town is supposed to protect in trust for the public.
Under normal riparian rules, the boundary between the public waters extending from the terminus of the South Water Street public right-or-way (ROW) and those of the marina developers is a line running at right angles to the center-line of the channel.
The developers plat below, however, shows the southerly limit of the marina's riparian rights as running along a line extended from the northern edge of South Water Street out into the harbor. On the plat this line it is labeled as "Riparian Line / Extension of Water Street Right of Way" - it is hard to read, so I have drawn a red dash-dot line over it, labelled "Extension of limit of Water St. ROW."
The Town Board either did not understand, or did not care, or (even worse) did care, that the Riparian border line platted by the developers was incorrect and bit heavily into the remaining riparian area extending from the public trust ROW.
About twenty of Oriental Harbor Marina's slips are actually within the public's riparian waters extending from the South Water Street terminus. About five more slips are within the "15' buffer zone," from which the Town could have excluded marina construction had the Town been willing to assert the public's riparian rights.
This was outright theft by the developers, aided and abetted by the collusion or gross negligence of the Town Board.
It is what can happen if the Town's citizens don't pay careful attention to how the Town Board manages public trust assets.
Who is protecting the public?
Here is the un-retouched detail (except for my pencil-marks) :
There were some interesting passages during the discussion. At one point, Commissioner Summers observed:
“Grace Evans brought up something that I think is really important here. One of the reasons we have a problem now, with our anchorage, is because of the five acres that was sent out there with Oriental Harbor Marina… We have killed the goose that laid the golden egg for Oriental… That’s what we did and I absolutely believe that."
What I believe Commissioner Summers is talking about is the Town Board's decision, several years ago, to abandon the public's riparian interests in a very attractive anchorage area that enticed many boaters to visit the Town, and to cede the area to use by the private developers of Oriental Harbor Marina.
The Town let marina developers steal the public's riparian waters, which the Town is supposed to protect in trust for the public.
Under normal riparian rules, the boundary between the public waters extending from the terminus of the South Water Street public right-or-way (ROW) and those of the marina developers is a line running at right angles to the center-line of the channel.
The developers plat below, however, shows the southerly limit of the marina's riparian rights as running along a line extended from the northern edge of South Water Street out into the harbor. On the plat this line it is labeled as "Riparian Line / Extension of Water Street Right of Way" - it is hard to read, so I have drawn a red dash-dot line over it, labelled "Extension of limit of Water St. ROW."
The Town Board either did not understand, or did not care, or (even worse) did care, that the Riparian border line platted by the developers was incorrect and bit heavily into the remaining riparian area extending from the public trust ROW.
About twenty of Oriental Harbor Marina's slips are actually within the public's riparian waters extending from the South Water Street terminus. About five more slips are within the "15' buffer zone," from which the Town could have excluded marina construction had the Town been willing to assert the public's riparian rights.
This was outright theft by the developers, aided and abetted by the collusion or gross negligence of the Town Board.
It is what can happen if the Town's citizens don't pay careful attention to how the Town Board manages public trust assets.
Who is protecting the public?
(Click on Map for Larger View)
Here is the un-retouched detail (except for my pencil-marks) :
(Click on plat for larger view)
Friday, July 27, 2012
Do We Really Want Government Off Our Backs?
A good, though by no means complete, history of the positive influence of government programs on American economic life can be viewed at the Boston Fed's web site. By the way, the web itself is one of the positive results of a government program.
Take a look at http://www.bostonfed.org/education/ledger/ledger.htm Click on "complete issue" for summer 2012. Younger readers may be surprised. Older ones should not be surprised, but maybe they just never paid attention.
Take a look at http://www.bostonfed.org/education/ledger/ledger.htm Click on "complete issue" for summer 2012. Younger readers may be surprised. Older ones should not be surprised, but maybe they just never paid attention.
London
The first time I saw London was 1955. The rubble of the blitz had been arranged in city blocks behind brick walls that stood waist high. The center of the city looked ok, but all around St. Paul's cathedral was a wasteland.
Rationing ended just the year before.
It was the second year of Queen Elizabeth's reign.
Rationing ended just the year before.
It was the second year of Queen Elizabeth's reign.
Ninety-Eight Years Ago: War Declared
July 28, 1914, the Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.
It was an entirely just war under international law. A month earlier, Serbian operatives had assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne, and the archduke's wife Sophia. Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia to turn over the miscreants. When Serbia failed to comply, Franz Joseph declared war.
Three days later, Russia, an ally of Serbia, mobilized. The next day, Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary, mobilized and declared war on Russia. France, allied with Russia, mobilized. On August 3, Germany declared war on France. The following day, Germany declared war on neutral Belgium and invaded that country. England declared war on Germany.
It was all very correct.
The ensuing war destroyed the German, Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires and left France and England in a shambles.
But it was correctly done.
It was an entirely just war under international law. A month earlier, Serbian operatives had assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the throne, and the archduke's wife Sophia. Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia to turn over the miscreants. When Serbia failed to comply, Franz Joseph declared war.
Three days later, Russia, an ally of Serbia, mobilized. The next day, Germany, allied to Austria-Hungary, mobilized and declared war on Russia. France, allied with Russia, mobilized. On August 3, Germany declared war on France. The following day, Germany declared war on neutral Belgium and invaded that country. England declared war on Germany.
It was all very correct.
The ensuing war destroyed the German, Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires and left France and England in a shambles.
But it was correctly done.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Economic Policy Debate - Entirely Political
Earlier this week an analysis in Bloomberg News assessed the current debate on economic policy as being entirely phony. I recommend the article.
Real economists, Bloomberg reported, are in remarkable agreement about economic conditions and about what should be done. The debate, the article contends, is entirely political. That is to say, it is being undertaken on the part of Republicans for entirely partisan ends.
The same could be said, by the way, about the phony "debate" on global warming and sea level rise and many other "debate" topics.
The problem is, so far as Congress is concerned, the "debate" is accompanied by entirely cynical efforts to obstruct any measures to make the economy better.
Republican businessmen understand as well as anyone else that the main problem with the economy at present is lack of aggregate demand for goods and services. We know how to fix that. But Republican politicians believe any improvement in the economy would only benefit the president's party, so Republicans in Congress oppose anything that might improve the job situation.
Is this the face of patriotism?
Real economists, Bloomberg reported, are in remarkable agreement about economic conditions and about what should be done. The debate, the article contends, is entirely political. That is to say, it is being undertaken on the part of Republicans for entirely partisan ends.
The same could be said, by the way, about the phony "debate" on global warming and sea level rise and many other "debate" topics.
The problem is, so far as Congress is concerned, the "debate" is accompanied by entirely cynical efforts to obstruct any measures to make the economy better.
Republican businessmen understand as well as anyone else that the main problem with the economy at present is lack of aggregate demand for goods and services. We know how to fix that. But Republican politicians believe any improvement in the economy would only benefit the president's party, so Republicans in Congress oppose anything that might improve the job situation.
Is this the face of patriotism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
