Jason Monastra

My life and thoughts out on the web

President Bush made his speech last week before the UN assembly.  Each and every time I hear of the time wasted in this endeavor, it never fails to amaze me how people in the world actually think something gets done there.  Lets look at the most recent meeting.  Bush speaks.  First and foremost, though Bush does hold the post of the most powerful country - should he be speaking there?  He has no international credibility and people frankly do not like him.  So what are we doing there?  All that said, Bush talks about international cooperation surrounding terrorism.  Let us be clear, the partnerships that are made and the deals behind the scenes are not conceived nor carried out from the UN.  The UN is for public approval only and that does not work.  We need a true united assembly that is dedicated to results, not talk to bring cooperation to the forefront and then hold those deals to oversight and accountability.

Right after Bush speaks, but our good friend from Iran gets up - Ahmadinejad.  Come on….this guy is under sanctions from the same assembly based on his lack of respect and direct defiance of the assembly’s demand for the ceasing of nuclear enrichment.  So instead of silencing a man known to not care for the international community, we give this man a forum into the hearts and minds of almost every household with a TV across the world.  Please.  He spends his time on the podium denouncing Bush and the US.  Lets finish this with some icing, shall we.  The one man show is met by a group consisting of left wing church members from the good ol US, asking him to take part in an interfaith dinner!  Only in America are such things tolerated.

In an unprecedented move by the US Congress, the House today actually did not pass a bill that spent money to bail out a flawed system.  The cries of people have been heard the world over and the shock-waves of the financial markets are being felt overseas as international trading is down the world over.  However, when looking at the situation in full scope, is this all bad?  The US has been the beacon for free trade for recent memory, at least in my life, and should continue to be so.  With that comes the responsibility of not only allowing the great times to be great but also to not rush in and save the falling markets when they are correcting themselves.  I am certain this will be met with differnet views, but I think the restraint showed by Congress, albeit more arguing and partisan bickering, did produce a striking blow to the socialist economics starting to take root in our country.

Conservatives previous to the vote were screaming of the socialist agenda being developed.  While democrats in their need for fairness, provided much debate over the compensation packages delivered to the executives within the financial firms effected.  Actually, I see into both of the parties complaints and agree.  I cannot see how purchasing the bad debt instruments of a failed system and then turning that system loose to its over agenda again make any sense.  The chairman has a made a fatal flaw, thinking that the people and Congress (yes those are two different agendas) have unlimited acceptance of the wasteful business practices that have crippled this country over the last 8 yrs. 

I agreed with the Washington Post, describing the need for not the purchase of the bad securities but rather the stock of the companies allowing the tax payers to benefit if the sector recovers from the bailout plans.  To simply strap the tax payer with bad debt, allow no benefit if the plan works, and to reward those that cause these issues yet again.  Come on, I am not a genius but let us be serious.  When is enough really enough.  This administration and most of Washington is covered with the business of money.  Who has it, who wants, and how to make more of it.  That is fine, this is business.   But when a bad call is made, let the people that make the decisions take the hit.  Do not throw it on to the common man, then tax him more to fund it.  That is garbage.

So the New York Times reports that President Bush has signed an order allowing Special Forces to conduct missions inside Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistan government.  Maybe it is just me, but why does this not sound like real reporting to me.  Is this news?  Is anyone surprised at this development?  Better yet, why does the freedom of press some how allow for our military actions to be under a microscope by people that want nothing more than to see our own missions fail?  The liberal media has taken aim at our military action for the last 8 yrs.  Long wars and rising budgets are giving free way for media leaders to tee off on each and every bit of information they receive.  But how far should that be allowed to proceed?

Military action must be taken with the best interest of the US in mind.  Not that of Pakistan or any other government which plays willfully or passively with terrorist or rogue groups that jeopardize our national interests.  But to what is this bold step met with, but ridicule by our arm chair quarterbacks such as Robert Breyfuss of Thenation.com (www.thenation.com) saying that it will only inflame a bad situation and that is boosts religious parties.  Are you kidding me?  Do you really think that the anti-US sentiment is not going to be there should the US not embark on missions across Pakistani lines.  The bottom line here is a non-coherent front from a country under duress.  The people and the government, not sure whom to believe, act within their parties and sects - fighting themselves continually while all running scared of their intelligence agency.  By the way, the same agency that is known to have supporters of Al Qaeda, and has been providing intelligence against our armed forces during the war.  So let me ask, how does including these people make sense for our national security?  It does not.  But does the media care about national security.  NO.  All they care about is bringing down what they consider the Republican regime, and bringing into order a new world where everyone gets along and all people are equal.  Hate to tell you guys - that will never happen.  What will happen is that other countries will feed you that line until the US becomes less powerful and more in line with other worldwide powers.  When that occurs and a sphere of influence and military power are diminished, they will seize the opportunity to oppress us as they have felt they have been oppressed and destroy a beautiful country due to jealously and anti-Christian sentiment.  That is the truth.

I have been following this subject matter of oil and gas now as it has become the ever so present screen saver on each and every TV and newscast I turn to.  The economy, the faltering market, the ups and downs of oil/gas, and of course our good ole currency.  I wrote previously about the foundation of an energy policy that would allow for offshore drilling to compliment an expansion within the alternative fuel markets thus producing a long term plan in which we could free ourselves from imported oil.  As I continue to read, I find mounting facts that the reason for our oil dependence is far more our own fault than we would like to believe.  With increasing technologies and long term benefits already being leveraged by other companies….why are we not leading the way with this?

Lets take a look at some of the other countries out there, shall we:

Denmark:  The country has invested in wind technology thus producing more than 18% of their domestic energy supply from wind.  Here in the US, we produce less than 1%.

France:  Nuclear is their claim to fame.  I am surprised that that liberals keep bottle-necking this process when their great friends across the pond produce 78% of their energy from nuclear. 

Norway:  Now these guys have it together and I like their energy policy.  Norway has some of the largest reserves in the world.  Rather than wasting the precious money maker on themselves, they sit back and sell it to the world while producing nearly all of their country’s electricity from hydro. 

Alright, are you going to tell me that with all of the resources and talent here in the US, we cannot figure out how to make use of other energy sources.  I think that is bunch of garbage.  The fact remains that companies continue to push the oil agenda to keep the cost high and therefore squeeze additional profits.  Instead of innovation, we are fast becoming the lack luster pioneers of NOTHING, relying on crude and coal.  We are falling behind people and this is not an opinion but a fact in which all countries are steadily passing us by one by one while encouraging us to remain in the past.  The leaders are not stupid but rather are feeding the gluttony of the US machine, lulling us to sleep with the fat and satisfied.  When that comes to an end, and it will - someone will wake up and realize that we are so far behind that we cannot catch up.  Our universal influence has already left us and we are fast becoming less influential than other countries in overall policy development.  Energy is simply one pillar to that foundation which has been steadily chipped away at.  If we do not do something soon, things will be lost that are a lot more tangible than the words we throw around.

So in the one of the more anticipated Fed meetings recently, there was a decision to keep the key lending rate the same.  The article from www.cnn.com read the following:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The central bank left its fed funds rate at 2% despite increased hopes for a rate cut. Wall Street wanted a cut in order to help ease the pain in the financial sector and restore investor confidence.

The Fed’s policymakers acknowledged the deepening problems facing the nation’s financial markets in a statement. But the Fed added that it believes rates are already low enough to spur future economic growth and that despite recent declines in commodity prices, such as oil, the outlook for inflation remains uncertain.

I was in a general discussion yesterday concerning the Fed’s purpose and direction in their decision making.  It appears to me that the focus of the Fed has moved and somehow gotten off course.  The purpose of the Central Bank is simple, to head off and curb inflation.  With that being the case, how is it that the credit market has somehow become the Fed’s new baby?  Markets have a tendency to correct themselves as the basic fundamentals of business eventually balance causing the return of fair pricing and stability.  However with the movement of the Fed as a policy maker in the credit market, this causes a whole new ripple in the market. 

Government in the US has become far too reaching, and this is just an added piece to the building of the government intervention arm that will continue for years to come.  Fast forwarded if Obama is President.  When did “bail outs” and government funded acquisitions become part of our economic policy?  The model in which most financial companies used to evaluate their risk was wrong.  The weight and impact of an implosion on the credit market was undervalued and we are seeing, and reaping, the great effects that can be shown when solid business fundamentals are thrown out for the purposes of a short term buck.  It has, and will always, come back to cost more than the short term gain.  Our relief efforts to curb the implosion only go to show the errors of our ways.  Simply allowing for poor decisions to be masked in an attempt to keep things status quo.  Where are the ramifications?  Tighter credit markets?  Please.  The credit markets are too tight and frankly have been in certain areas for some time.  Lending in the housing sector was tilted, giving money to anyone and everyone with a hand out.  But lets look at small business?  Where are they in the mist of this?  Small business loans and growth in that sector are the life-blood of the US economy.   With the credit issues, the effect has tighted even the most successful of businesses.  And for what?  So our govenment can bail out the people that made the decisions that placed us here and punish those still trying to innovate.

Regulation is needed…more importantly risk management.  The ability to forsee issues is not a science but their are risk models that work and allow for a sobering picture of what could be should reckless behavior be allowed to penetrate all areas of our financial system.  However overall government intervention and the idea that Wall Street thinks someone should just bail them out is ridiculous.  Have a bite of that cake you guys have been serving for the last 7 yrs….

First and foremost, let us place our prayers to all of those that suffered through the storm.  It was a terrible event for all of those that stayed, as well as those who have been displaced.  Our thoughts and prayers are with them during this time.  I cannot imagine the event myself as I never been through one.

Fortunately, more so than not, the reports of the damage and interruption of refining capabilities due to the storm have been moderate.  Hurricane IKE, though one of the largest storms in recent memory, did not bring the certain death and destruction our liberal friends in the media were so desperate to report.  I think that there real focus was somehow to disparage the current administration in a hope to bring down GOP’s recent surge in acceptance, somehow showing their inability to understand the common man and acting in similar step to the Bush’s blunder of the Hurricane Katrina situation.

Gas prices have been rising her locally at a feverish pace however with no economic basis for the rise.  Threat and fear have allowed the gas stations and their respective puppet masters to raise the costs per gallon to an extraordinary amount to secure increased profits.  Now I will be the first to say, I understand price and demand and have no issue with companies making money.  My issue with this current situation is the use of a weather condition that caused no substantional  impact to line the pockets of some of the most wealthy companies on the planet.  Oil has come down at an alarming rate with gas inching down so slow in comparison, no one really knows why.  Look at the price of oil, in overseas markets, trading below 100 dollars a barrel with gas still hovering around 4 dollars.  Come on people, if there was ever a manipulation of the market for the benefit of the big players - it is now.  I operate more in the tech space, so lets look at the guerrilla in our market.  Microsoft.  They have been under more legal litigation and scrutiny for locking out competition than anyone.   Yet their pricing is not that bad.  This monopoly that has been created by the oil companies is the same however impacts more people and drives the cost of living up.  Computers are optional at the home level, and if not - there are options for purchasing.  People need to go to work - and that requires gas in almost all cases. 

Lets look at the history.  Prices at the pump have hit everyone causing an economic slow down.  Oil prices dropping should reflect at the pump but have not.  The last time oil was below 100 dollars was March of this year.  At the time, the cost of oil was on the rise and gas with it.  Gas prices were set at a record of 3.22/gallon.  OK.  So lets say that is the base.  Why are we not at that level now?  Currently sitting nearly 25% higher due to no economic force other than the increased greed of oil/gas companies to reap a profit.  I am not one for government interference but I do think there needs to be some checks and balances to ensure that the customer is not overtly leveraged to a point of despair.  Most people are hurting from the current sector prices and are getting no relief.  And why should they?  Our President and his buddies have a vested interest in ensuring the cost does not come down as they have their hands heavily leveraged in such resources and companies.  So who is to blame?  Not sure but there needs to be a better way of figuring out fair pricing policy.

What if there was simply a % increase effected into law that let the price of oil determine the overall cost of gasoline to the customer.  If oil costs A, then the price of gas is B.  The key here would be to keep normal economic factors in play for oil, so that price increases were not distorted by companies trying to make more money.  One of the largest contributing factors to this issue is speculation and the fact that oil companies drive the cost through this medium.  The more people I speak to, the more I notice that do not understand the trading of these contracts and the cost associated.  The oil costs that we see in the news is not the cost of oil now, but down the road - months ahead.  These contracts are set in place to secure pricing, understand the need of the domestic and international community, and therefore determine a host of other logistical factors based upon those contracts.  The need for this sort of forecasting I appreciate.  However, it comes with a twist.  Guess who is buying the oil contracts and therefore increasing the demand - yes, that would be our good friends and the oil companies.  Purchasing their own product, showing high demand, limited production and therefore driving cost.  WOW.  If there was ever a manipulation of the market - well that is plain as day.

So where do we go from here.  The system is broken and it requires leadership at the micro and macro levels to put in place a market system that spurs innovation, keeps costs at a reasonable level, and allows companies to make a healthy bottom line.  What that exact model looks like - well I do not have the magic answer.  But I do believe that if people that lead these companies looked farther than one SEC report down the road, they could determine a way to make this work for everyone.

Most recently in my reading, the suggestion that the G-8 summit was a minor success with the commitments by some of the major industrialized nations to reduce emissions by more than 50% by the year 2050.  There are varying responses from the papers and online sites displaying support or condemnation on the proposed resolutions offering little insight into what the current status of the climate is.  So would someone please tell me what is going on?

The environmentalists are telling me that the world is baking, more like ending.  I believe one of the quotes made it equivalent to baking by the time the emissions cuts came to pass.  The other side masks the issue as if there was none.   So where does all of this leave us.  First and foremost, who in the world thinks the G-8 matters and even if it did, that the leaders of the civilized world could solve a problem of this magnitude.  It appears to me that the problem lies with the very individual that makes up the nation, not the nations that make up the world.

Individual lust and greed are a keen driver in the world economy.  Most developed nations provide luxury and support not seen in other areas of the world.  The major abusers, including the US, are all made up of individual people - mostly ones that do not see the importance of making some small changes and reducing their emission waste.  Leadership begins at the smallest levels, the individual soul, the family, the house, the house, town, city and so forth.  Until the leaders at those levels take a stand and develop a spirit to reduce the emissions, there will be no change.

The G-8, they should be looking at more influential strategies to change the mind and souls of the people they represent.  Objectives that they discuss are fine, but to do so little and speak only of change and offer little in the way of movement is being met more and more with diminished respect from the national public and international community.  So where to start, how about right here at home?  For the US, each and every international display of commitment should be met with more stringent domestic standards to set the stage for the US to lead in the efforts communicated on the international stage.   This will bring not only more respect for our nation, but re-establish the G-8 as a leadership forum in which we might actually pay attention to.  Until then……

I have read continually over the past weeks about the reluctance of democrats to remove the ban on offshore drilling.  They tout the fact that even with offshore drilling, the benefits will not be seen for 3-5 yrs and it will not fix the cost of gas today.  How short sighted can one side be?  We are not talking about 3-5 yrs, we are talking the next 10-20 yrs where this country continues to be held hostage to the foreign oil countries and their desire to unseat us as a world power.  Offshore drilling as a pillar in the foundation to remove our sole dependence on foreign oil is certainly a strong pillar to employ.

President Bush today removed the ban from offshore drilling leaving the Congress to make the final decision to allow for offshore drilling plus additional drilling in Alaska and in the Pacific MidWest.  Congress, democratic controlled, and with the national spotlight on their leader (Obama) will be certain to employ all blockades to keep the ban in place causing a stranglehold on our domestic economy and continuing to drive the US into deeper recession and reliance.

Let’s be serious, offshore drilling will not be the only way to relieve the cost of gas or the reliance on foreign oil, but as part of a broader strategy, it will be useful in the shaving of oil prices globally.  With an additional oil source provided domestically, the global cost would decrease as the demand here was met without the need of foreign supply.  In the immediate short term, deploy specific amounts of the national reserve in an effort to bring the cost per barrel down and penalize speculators that have profited from this ridiculous run up.  Third, strategic investment and tax incentives for alternative fuel research and development, coupled with economic incentives and government contracts for successful business in this area.  Lastly, raise the federal funds rate to reduce the weakening dollar, alleviating the rallying cost of oil as the commodity is traded in US currency.

I am not sure about you, but that seems the base for a plan…..

What is this?  In the LA Times, Tim wrote about the emerging perspective of some our far left friends that Donald should be brought up war crimes due his decision to allow techniques that have bordered on torture.  Well before I go off on the tangent that is sure to make me no friends, I will start with - are you kidding?  Prosecute a world leader on allowing the gathering of intelligence information that is combating people that want to kill us.   HMMMMM…..does that sound strange to anyone else.  That must be one of the craziest things I have heard.  People in leadership make decisions all of the time, and they cannot be thinking of a war crimes tribunal every time they make a hard decision on meeting head on with group of free radicals that are set on destroying us.

Torture….hate to say it and no I am not a war veteran and I have no experience.  But did anyone realize that the “rule book” are liberal friends and the EU would have us play by is the not the rules the rest of the world plays with.  People need information, and yes sometimes that information is garnered in ways that are not what people want to read about on the front page, but that information is critical to establishing strategies that safeguard us against the enemy.  The enemy is elusive and well equipped, fluid in their attacks and has no morale boundaries.  When killing children, pregnant women, and innocent people do not make these people blink an eye - I cannot see how employing all methods to extract information is wrong.  Yes, a blanket approach to where the tactics are used as a first form of interrogation -  I can see the issues with that.  But in certain circumstances, I can also see the methods as being needed.  Now some will say, how do we regulate?  WE DON’T.  Wouldn’t it be nice to hold a consensus every-time we thought about interrogating someone.  We do not have that luxury.  Intelligence and counter-intelligence is gathered in real time without time for political interference.  We place the best people in charge to allow them to make the decisions as they see fit.  We trust and we vote…but we do not micro-manage and we certainly to do look at condemning our leaders for methods that might be considered harsh by world standards.

The world would love to see us go down in flames.  Our liberal friends seem to be on the same page as Hugo Chavez and our friends in Iran and N.Korea.  If we left the running of this country to them, we would be deflated in a matter of years to nothing more than a dumping ground for world issues, free citizenship with no accountability, and a socialist government that takes everything and distributes it equally.  Not sure if anyone has ever looked around…..but nothing is equal.  In the good ole liberal socialist movement, the leaders would be rich and the people would be poor….no middle class at all.

Off my soap box for a minute and no to charges for our leaders.  This is no Stalin or Hitler.  Get in line, vote your decision and if you want change - elect someone else.