NEW ABI SEMESTER ALERT

Source: NEW ABI SEMESTER ALERT

Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War

Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer,
Mr. Bosma is obviously a very experienced and informed individual, who brings great knowledge with him when he writes this article. I beg you to closely read it and realize the possibly of an all-out nuclear war in the Middle East if the nuclear deal with Iran is approved. That is why I’m asking you to vote against the deal, and go back to more sanctions on Iran.

Richard A Fletcher
rfletch2@san.rr.com
11558 Carowind Lane
San Diego, CA 92131-4273
858-693-6099

Are We Thinking Clearly About the Iran Deal? Or Fooling Ourselves?

Tags

Congressional Confirmation, Iran Nuclear Breakout Timeframe

Senator Feinstein, and Congressman Peters,
I’m not sure if Sen. Boxer informed you of what happened in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but here is a quick summary:

David Albright, President of the Institute for Science and International Security testified about the Breakout Timelines Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? (JCPOA) suggested that the likely breakout for a nuclear weapon for Iran is seven months.

Fellow Democratic Senator Menendez responded: ” [Six-to-seven months] would be concerning to me, because I already am a little concerned that what we bought here was a very expensive alarm system … [S]ix or seven months is not going to be helpful if they decide to break out, because by the time we re-impose sanctions … it [wouldn’t] be meaningful. The next president of the United States … will only have one choice: to accept Iran as a nuclear weapons state or to have a military strike.

The Institute analyzed the imprudent assumption on which the Obama administration bases its one-year contention:
The bare-boned limits on Iran’s centrifuge program provide for at least a 12-month breakout period. However, based on ISIS analyses the agreed limits do not guarantee a 12-month breakout timeline during the first ten years of the agreement, if Iran can relatively quickly re-deploy its already manufactured IR-2m centrifuges.

Another witness was Gary Samore, executive director for research in Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He said:
Senator, I don’t think re-imposition of sanctions is an effective response to breakout. I think the only effective response to breakout is military force. I mean, if the Iranians have decided to run the risk of openly dashing for a nuclear weapon, I don’t think sanctions are going to deter them or stop them.
Again, Senator Menendez responded: So it seems to me that if Iran makes a political decision to move forward because it believes it’s the preservation of the regime, the revolution, or its place in the region, then ultimately … we are just kicking the ball down the road, but we will have a stronger, resurgent Iran with more money and greater defense capabilities than it has today.
http://bit.ly/1I0BPno

This is likely be the reason that Sen. Menendez is not going to support the Treaty. I request both of you, as well as Sen. Boxer, to strongly consider also voting against the treaty.

President Obama would be better off leaving a legacy of peace in the Middle East with additional sanctions on Iran, rather than having every nation wanting nuclear weapons of their own (Egypt,  Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE,)

Getting Older

Okay, so if you need a good laugh today, read each of these. I am still chuckling.
~~~

I very quietly confided to my best friend that I was having an affair.

She turned to me and asked, ‘Are you having it catered’?

And that, my friend,

Is the definition of ‘OLD’!

~ ~ ~

Just before the funeral services, the undertaker

Came up to the very elderly widow and asked,

‘How old was your husband?’

’96,’ she replied: ‘Two years younger than me’

‘So you’re 98,’ the undertaker commented.

She responded, ‘Not hardly worth going home, is it?’

~ ~ ~

Reporters interviewing a 104-year-old woman:

‘And what do you think is the best thing

About being 104?’ the reporter asked.

She simply replied,

‘No peer pressure.’

~ ~ ~

I’ve sure gotten old!

I’ve had two bypass surgeries, a hip replacement,

New knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes

I’m half blind, can’t hear anything quieter than a jet engine,

Take 40 different medications that

Make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts.

Have bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation;

Hardly feel my hands and feet anymore.

Can’t remember if I’m 85 or 92.

Have lost all my friends. But, thank God,

I still have my Florida driver’s license.

~ ~ ~

I feel like my body has gotten totally out of shape,

So I got my doctor’s permission to join a fitness club and start exercising.

I decided to take an aerobics class for seniors.

I bent, twisted, gyrated, jumped up and down, and perspired for an hour..

But, by the time I got my leotards on,

The class was over.

~ ~ ~

An elderly woman decided to prepare her will and told her preacher she had two final requests.

First, she wanted to be cremated, and second,

She wanted her ashes scattered over Wal-Mart.

‘Wal-Mart?’ the preacher exclaimed. ‘Why Wal-Mart?’

‘Then I’ll be sure my daughters visit me twice a week.’

~ ~ ~

My memory’s not as sharp as it used to be.

Also, my memory’s not as sharp as it used to be.

~ ~ ~

Know how to prevent sagging?

Just eat till the wrinkles fill out.

~ ~ ~

It’s scary when you start making the same noises As your coffee maker.

~ ~ ~

These days about half the stuff In my shopping cart says, ‘For fast relief.’

~ ~ ~

THE SENILITY PRAYER:

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway,

The good fortune to run into the ones I do, and

The eyesight to tell the difference.

~ ~ ~

Now, I think you’re supposed to share this with 5 or 6, maybe 10 others.

Oh heck, give it to a bunch of your friends if you can remember who they are!

~ ~ ~

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

I don’t want to brag or make anyone jealous or anything, but I can still fit into the earrings I wore in high school–

Minnesota Senate Rejects Stadium Funding

Tags

crony capitalism, more important city priorities, overextended city budget, public funding of sports stadiums

We won’t be the 1st to reject sports stadium funding, but it’s good to do it anyway,. ““I’m kind of tired of billionaire hucksters walking into the Capitol thinking that they can exploit the public resources for their own benefit,” state Sen. Brandon Petersen, R-Andover, said during floor debate on the proposal. Petersen sponsored the ban, which was included in a larger budget bill. The ban also prevents the state from borrowing money to fund the stadium, though it leaves open the possibility that local governments could fund a soccer stadium. The proposal received overwhelming bipartisan support and passed the Senate in a 41-6 vote The Senate vote is indicative of where public officials on both sides of the aisle stand on the issue of more tax dollars for sports arenas. Dayton has claimed to suffer from “stadium fatigue” after a series of expensive building projects in recent years, and lawmakers in St. Paul are now focused on raising public money for road and bridge projects. “ http://bit.ly/1OluOqJ Mr. Mayor, perhaps San Diego can focus on our own infrastructure projects, rather than paying much more than $1 billion (perhaps as much as $1.5 billion) for a new stadium which is used only 8 times a year for home games, putting the city right back in the same situation we’re in with QUALCOMM.

Why a New Charger Stadium Will Be a Bad Deal

Tags

crony capitalism, more important city priorities, overextended city budget, public funding of sports stadiums, reduced GDP

Lest I be considered a non-supporter of the Chargers, I want to make sure that you know that I love the Chargers, and root for them all the time, particularly at critical games in their season. Although I can’t afford attending any games at all, I sure cheer for them, and can recall when my neighbors used an air-driven boat-horns to signal when they scored.
My issue is not with the Chargers per se, but with the deal likely being cut with the owners being inherently unfair to the citizens of San Diego, and perhaps the San Diego County residents as well. It seems we should well aware of how poorly these negotiations go for the cities themselves and their residents. Owners play cities off against one another in order to get the best deal for themselves, and who can blame them, the NFL has monopoly power. (At least for football)
Mr. Mayor, in my mind, there doesn’t seem to be anyway that you can continue providing financially towards the “One San Diego” you have proposed, while still continuing to pay for a new Chargers’ stadium, not to mention continuing to pay off the remaining balance ( nearly $5 million) on the QUALCOMM Stadium.
That is why I’m asking you to consider the information in this blog, http://bit.ly/1yIJSau as well as information in this additional posting, http://bit.ly/1P8IIcK .

I only hope that San Diego can become the first decent-sized city to reject the politics of the NFL in playing cities against one another, rather than becoming a lamb led to the slaughter, like so many other cities have been.

Richard A Fletcher
rfletch2@san.rr.com
11558 Carowind Lane
San Diego, CA 92131-4273
858-693-6099

Eliminate the NFL’s tax-free status

Congress should revoke Public Law 89-800, which gives the NFL a virtual monopoly on controlling professional football and not paying ANY TAXES while doing so.

How the NFL fleeces taxpayers

Tags

NFL tax-free status, public funding of sports stadiums

If my previous economic analyses were enough, you should read this article inThe Atlantic magazine, How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers, http://theatln.tc/1Hq92fM .  I believe that Mr. Easterbrook is correct, the NFL needs be taken down a peg or 2 by eliminating their tax-free status.

Comment on Union Tribune article “Can San Diego afford the luxury of a new stadium?”

Tags

public funding of sports stadiums

Below are some sample quotes from various references on the subject of publicly funding sports stadiums, like that being contemplated for the Chargers.

Results Our results indicate:
• The professional sports environment in the 37 metropolitan areas in our sample had no measurable impact on the growth rate of real per capita income in those areas.
• The professional sports environment has a statistically significant impact on the
level of real per capita income in our sample of metropolitan areas, and the overall impact is negative.
• The presence of professional sports teams, on average, reduces the level of real per capita income in metropolitan areas. This result differs from much of the existing literature, which generally has found no impact at all. However, we used a broader and longer panel of data and a richer set of variables reflecting the sports environment than previous studies….

For example, the arrival of a new basketball franchise in a metropolitan area increases real per capita income by about $67. But building a new arena for that basketball team reduces real per capita income by almost $73 in each of the 10 years following the construction of the arena, leading to a net loss of about $6 per person. Similarly, in cities that have baseball franchises, the net effect of an existing baseball team playing in a 37,000-seat baseball-only stadium (the average capacity of the baseball stadiums in our sample) is a $10 reduction of real per capita income….
The impact of an existing baseball franchise playing in a stadium of average size is a reduction in real per capita income of over $850 per year below the average level of income across the cities in our sample, based on the event study estimates. We tend to put more trust in the smaller estimated impact based on the reduced-form econometric models of income determination than in the larger impact implied by the event study regressions because the exclusion of city-specific trends…

CONCLUSIONS
The policy implications of our results are no different from those of the previous studies that found no relationship between the professional sports environment and local economies. Still, they bear repeating. The evidence suggests that attracting a professional sports franchise to a city and building that franchise a new stadium or arena will have no effect on the growth rate of real per capita income and may reduce the level of real per capita income in that city. Yet government decisionmakers and politicians continue to try to attract professional sports franchises to cities, or use public funds to construct elaborate new facilities in order to keep existing franchises from moving. According to public finance theory, the decisionmakers who attempt to attract a new franchise or build a new stadium or arena must value the total consumption benefits, including all nonpecuniary benefits, more than the total costs, including the opportunity costs. The total consumption benefits cannot be directly measured because of the nonpecuniary component of those benefits; in order for these policies to make sense, the total value of the consumption benefits associated with these policies must be larger than was previously imagined. However, regardless of the size of the nonpecuniary benefits, one thing is clear from the evidence on professional sports franchises: owners are reaping substantial benefits in the value of their teams because they are so skilled at the stadium gambit.”
http://bit.ly/1B1iJAz

““With more than four decades of evidence to back them up, economists almost uniformly agree that publicly financed stadiums rarely pay for themselves. …
“Stadiums are sold as enormous draws for events, but the economics are clear that they aren’t helping,” said Andrew Moylan, the director of government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union. “It’s another way to add insult to injury for taxpayers.” “
As Stadiums Vanish, Their Debt Lives On, New York Times, http://nyti.ms/1Q1VB9R
“Conclusion
In the last 20 years, billions of public and private dollars have been spent building sports stadiums across the United States. Proponents of a new stadium often cite economic development benefits that will be associated with the new stadium. Academic economists have not found statistically significant relationships between various measures of economic growth and stadium construction. The academic studies probably better capture the effects of a stadium because they are not subject to a number of errors that often occur in the economic development assessments done by pro-stadium advocates. However, throwing out the economic development argument does not necessarily lead to rejecting public spending on stadiums. Quality of life arguments may justify public subsidizing a sports facility.”
http://bit.ly/1G6gVrY

Given this obvious negative rationale for not building a stadium using public funds, how in God’s name can the Mayor and city Council justify subjecting the citizens of San Diego to subsidizing the building of a stadium using public funds?The city has many unfunded needs to attend to, plus the budget is scheduled to be a deficit next year, hardly a time to be incurring more debt.

Richard A Fletcher
rfletch2@san.rr.com
11558 Carowind Lane
San Diego, CA 92131-4273
858-693-6099