OregonGuy Hits The Bigs In Czech Republic!

Actually, more of a footnote.

You've heard of an "Instalanch". That's what happens to a website that is referred to on Instapundit. I've had the Czech version. And it's been interesting. The things that you learn on the Intertubes!

It seems that the search for truth, liberty and freedom from the nanny state aren't simply the outmoded concerns of a few revanchanist Republicans. After 50 years of living under the perfect social system known as International Communism, there are folks in the Czech Republic who view a return to International Communism, or its new form, national socialism as something to be avoided,

I will admit to being surprised, if not shocked, to find out that a young woman who worked for me on a visit to the former Soviet Union told me that she wished the communists would return to power. College educated, bright, this woman had a real concern about the state of legal and moral confusion that had overtaken her country. Moscow of 1996 was a surreal experience. Seemingly, everyone was on the hustle. On the short stroll from hotel to Metro one would come across street vendors selling everything and anything they had.

Back in the day--when I was considered a Ph.D. candidate--I would refer to this as just a simple sign of the problems of capital formation. If you've never read Murray Wolfson's Book A Reappraisal of Marxian Economics, Columbia University Press, 1966, I encourage you to do so. The book is available at the link. (Amazing thing, the intertubes!)

A re-reading of the history of communism as played out by the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be mandatory for any child leaving secondary education. The problem is, there are few teachers who either have read the history of the FSU (former Soviet Union), or are conversant enough with the principles of economics to make sense of the experience.

Instead of a scholarly approach to communism, socialism, communitarianism, Leftyism, or the dreaded appelation Progressive, we have propaganda. And a fervent belief that we must help other people. That there exists whole classes of people who are victims of "the system"--writ large as capitalism. The whole reality of human experience, of course, would indicate that greater fealty to capitalism, laissez-faire and egalitarianism would be the modern prescription for the body politic. But we are a wealthy country, and there are some very rich men and women in the world. And this disparity of economic success generates the kind of populist rhetoric exhibited by the C/S/C/L/P adherents. Such disparity is unfair.

So, to be "more fair" we need to adopt the policies of the CSCLP.

An interesting article addressing the outcomes of this series of policies was written about a couple of days ago by Rob Kremer. As we adopt and begin to adhere to the CSCLP agenda, there are certain costs:

"Ted Kulongoski (Oregon's governor) is in the news today touting the job creating potential of "green energy." This is economic development Soviet style. Does it create jobs to give huge subsidies to alternative energy projects that don't make economic sense on their own? Sure. Just not as many jobs as the subsidies themselves destroy.

"But the jobs that get killed are opportunity costs. They are diffuse. The jobs that get created are wonderful ribbon-cutting-press-release material, which makes them perfect for politicians who misunderstand economics and want to pretend they are doing something."

It is not surprising, then, to find that those most recently freed from the oppression of central planning and state bureaucracy would fight against increasing state control of the individual--economic as well as political freedom.

Which is why I've recently had a Czechalanche. It seems the Left in the Czech Republic are a little sore with their former Premier hiring American loudmouth Michael Moore. In this article a Czech blogger brings to task their former Premier. According to a nice commentor,

"Article is about Michael Moore and his new stunt: taking job as an advisor for Czech former prime minister Jiri Paroubek as well as some older stuff he made. This reference is related to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" being only a propagandistic book. This was just an example of other people taking over Moore's style of work.Site dfens-cz is dealing with problems in (not only) Czech society, politics and other related or unrelated things.PS sorry for my bad english, i have done my best... "

So, welcome to my site. And thanks for the comment. And we will continue to hold out hope for a common sense future, both for your country and for mine.

Trust: Iraq's Nuclear Programme

For some reason there is, on the Left, an oft repeated theme of deception that was perpetrated upon the unthinking masses--referred to as "sheeple"--in the run-up to our (the U.S.) invasion of Iraq. Living in a community with a school system that teaches our kids that Republicans and corporations are evil, it's comforting to the Left that they can simply turn to the "16 Words" in order to prove that Bush Lied. (The correlative is, People Died, or, Soldiers Died. Whatever.)

This argument, rather than statement of fact, was infamously advanced by a former employee of the State Department, Joe Wilson, in his New York Times editorial. (And it's "in-famous" as in "In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous." (Three Amigos, 1986.))

Click on the editorial link above and review what was written by this man. This is the seminal work that exposed the lying by the Bush Administration in its efforts to engage us in an unnecessary and illegal war. It resulted in an investigation of the Bush Administration refered to as the Plame Affair. (Please click on the link. If you're a Lefty, it will get your groove on. I mean, man, these guys are guilty of High Treason!)

There's only one small problem in the narrative proposed by the Left. Let's see is you can figure out what it is.

From CTV (Canadian Television): "The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, reached Montreal on Saturday to complete a top-secret U.S. operation."

Now, a little perspective before we move forward. Have you ever wondered how much a million dollars weighed? In hundred dollar bills, a million bucks weighs about 22 pounds. Pretty cool, huh? You could backpack around with a million bucks and hardly break a sweat.

So, how many pounds of yellowcake uranium would it take to make a million bucks? Well, at $120.00 per pound, about 8300 pounds. So if Canadian processors paid $145-million to buy Iraq's yellowcake uranium, how much yellowcake uranium was removed from Iraq?

Trust is one of those things that once lost is hard to regain. As in, do you trust your kids to put away the dishes when you ask them to do so? If you never make them accountable for their failure, you will teach them that they don't need to pay attention to your request. You bust them hard a few times, and they will learn that doing the right thing is important, and failing to do so has negative consequences.

It's the right thing to do. And just as there are children, there are Leftists.

So, the next time you hear some Leftist start to ramp up the "Bush Lied, People Died", it's important that you correct them.

First, get them on firm grounding. Ask the question, "How did Bush lie?" Within the recesses of memory are the kindling needed to get them started. "Was it about Valery Plame and Joe Wilson?" Still not focused? "How about those "16 Words" in the President's State of the Union Address?"

Then ask the question, "How much yellowcake would have to be found in Iraq to have made those "16 Words" true?

You, my friend are on firm ground. You need to wait for the response. I mean, think about it. How much yellowcake uranium is "a lot"? According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "(n)atural uranium contains approximately 0.7 percent uranium-235..." Seven-tenths of one percent. So, a little basic math. How much natural (yellowcake) uranium would you need to produce one pound of fissile material? Around 143 pounds.

Me? I think an explosion from one pound of U-235 would be enough to ruin my day.

So how much yellowcake was removed from Iraq? 550 metric tonnes. 606.271 US tons. Or, at two-thousand pounds to the ton, one-million one-hundred-twenty-five thousand five hundred forty-two pounds. (1,212,542.)

Exactly how much yellowcake has there to be, before it's considered a threat? Seems to me that 8,500 pounds of U-235 could be considered above the narrow line between not enough and too much.

Now, I don't expect to read reports of Canadian acceptance of Iraqi yellowcake in my local papers. Or, if there is an article, no explanation of what the simple facts of the matter are, and how they relate to those "16 Words."

Not much of a slogan: "Bush Truthed."

I only point this out in order to ask one simple question. "Who do you trust?"