Various other sources such as Iraq Body Count place the documented civilian casualty at about 100,000.

The US and British mainstream media has been careful to not blatantly discuss the Iraqi civilian casualty for obvious reasons. But there are many lessons to be learned by Bush’s Iraq War.

Whatever Saddam may have been, Iraq under Saddam was a safe country for most Iraqis, and Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist groups had no place in the country.

I think the American people were fooled by the Right Wing Conservatives under Bush, and America made a great and very embarrassing blunder that cannot be erased from the history of the USA.

These conservatives are the same people who claim to follow the word of God. I do not see anything remotely godlike in the behavior of the right wing. If you speak with some of them today, they will talk about how bad Saddam was and how justified the war was for helping the Iraqis. These are the same people who hate generally anyone else not on board with their agenda.

Its supremely important for the USA to realize that war is not a solution for anything and the misery wrongly inflicted on the Iraqis over 9/11 is an indirect equivalent to genocide.

Now that US troops are finally coming home, we should all ask ourselves whether the Iraqi deaths, US troop deaths, coalition troop deaths, economic waste and destruction of a country – was it all worth it?

Is the behavior displayed by the US what the founding fathers intended for the country?

Does the average Iraqi like the USA? I doubt it. I think every home in Iraq probably knows someone who died due to the war and they all now collectively suffer due to an ill advised war. I think while leaving Iraq at this time is not a decent thing to do, it is however a logical move by President Obama as there is no short term solution for Iraq’s stability and there is also no more money to fight anymore wars.  Iraq will be a mess for a long time to come.

Iraqi Civilian Toll Rising:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-10-iraq-dead_x.htm

Iraq Body Count:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

So between Continental and Emirates, I had to pick an airline.

Now, Emirates has an exceptional cabin crew who seem to come from all parts of the world and seem very nice. Their on-demand in-flight entertainment system is second to none.

Their aircraft look new. Upgrading to business class is easy if you have the points. Unlike other airlines who make a stop at some outdated airport, Dubai International is among the top airports with everything from free WiFi to great coffee conveniently located all over the airport. No wonder I flew with Emirates, and will continue to consider them where possible.

At Dubai, I was able to send a proposal out to a client from the airport while enjoying a Costa coffee (Everything from Starbucks to Panera is also available at the airport). After speaking to a few people on their way to South Africa for the Soccer World Cup, I realized that many people did not fly British Airways due to strike concerns and picked Emirates due to their reputation for punctuality.

I hope that for their own good, airlines crews around the world should realize that operators like Emirates will eat their lunch and dinner in a few years (right now it may just be lunch). But all striking unions seem to do is encourage the demise of organizations who already are unable to globally compete.

In situations where a company has to compete globally, unions have no place and serve no purpose because costs and in turn remuneration will be driven by market forces and not collective negotiation.

Emirates uses a global pool of people for its cabin crew and pilots. Its airport is maintained by Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Filipino labor (cheaper I assume). I doubt strikes are much of an issue for them.

Some more food for thought:
$1 US = $3.67 UAE Dirhams
$1 US at JFK International Airport will NOT get you a bottle of water ($1 will not get you a bottle of water outside the airport easily either, unless you find a vending machine).
At Dubai International Airport, you can get 3 bottles of water and .67 Dirhams in change is yours to keep.

Dubai is in a desert?

While anger towards BP is a localized and short term emotion and likely to dissipate in a few years just like anger towards Exxon, America should be angry at the government who collectively has done very little towards really creating a blueprint for the future of energy and transportation. Americans should also blame themselves as most people seem to think that everyone is entitled to cheap gas. With cheap gas comes a huge demand for it and along with that comes powerful lobbies who make sure that restrictions on oil companies are as weak as they can possibly get.

The latest Time magazine says, that Dick Cheney was responsible for diluting some regulations against the oil industry. With Dick’s record I tend to believe this statement. But let me not pick on Dick, if ultra stringent regulations on the oil industry are not in place today, then the entire political system is to blame. A few months ago President Obama did approve offshore drilling (this decision may already have been reversed). It’s kind of sad to see that politicians really do not have a track record of looking after people that inspires confidence in democracy.

It’s ridiculous to see the number of people who get onto US highways each day. It’s inefficient, costly, environmentally unfriendly and just plain stupid to not have a good nationwide mass travel system in place. How about getting the best of intercity travel technology from Europe or Japan into the US? I would love to see two or three competitors to Amtrak in the country with TGV or Shinkansen type high speed trains.

I once used the TGV from Paris to Brussels and the trip was superb. I got some reading done and I doubt I could have made the trip faster if I drove all the way. The price obviously can’t be beat. But I realize that moving away from highways that now feed a whole industry of automobiles, fast food, gas, toll collectors etc. is not going to happen in one decade or maybe even two. But it needs to start now. So slowly, people can get off the road and into nice clean trains whenever possible.

So let us take this disaster to think about:

• Whether we really need to put the environment or cheap gas ahead in our list of priorities.
• Whether offshore drilling is a bad idea overall
• Whether god intended for oil to remain where he/she put it (i.e. underground)
• Whether all offshore drilling facilities should be scrapped overall
• Can I be happy driving a 4 cylinder automobile instead of a 6 cylinder automobile? Do I need an automobile at all?

I also think that for any broadcast medium to become some sort of a political mouthpiece (in this case the Republican party), leads to a general lack of credibility.

But, there is a wonderful Sci-Fi show called “Fringe” on Fox, that I think is absolutely fantastic and I am somewhat intrigued as to why a TV network embedded with Republican conservative ideology, would air a show that appeals to Sci-Fi enthusiasts who would question even the most basic tenets of the conservative base of the Republican party (Mixing human and animal DNA, Infinite Universes with differences being examples of  such ideas) .

Well, I think the makers of Fringe did realize that, and sprinkled some references to “God” in Walter Bishop’s explanation of what happened to him after he brought back a living version of his dead son from an alternate universe.

My conclusion is that the makers of Fringe wanted an additional season of Fringe on Fox and made a few strategic adjustments. Whether this idea is true or not, Fringe is a welcome addition to Fox.

Peter Schilling’s English Version of Major Tom (The original was in Deutsch)

The Shiny Toy Guns version which is quite awesome

One caller asked him whether Economics is an Art or a Science?

Bruce’s answer (paraphrased) was: “Economics is more of an art than a science. When you peel away all the mathemetical and scientific analysis layered on top of economic concepts, what you get is essentially a lot of judgement calls.”

Now this explanation is possibly the most honest and clear explanation on the fundamental nature of economics that I have heard from a knowledgeable person in a long time.

It’s also the reason why people should not believe the pseudo economical evidence supporting financial actions such as bank bailouts, stimulus packages and whatever else politicians come out with. They probably know as much about the result of such actions as you and I.

Would it not be logical to assume that people who are out of work need healthcare the most?

Over the last couple of weeks, I have been following the town hall meetings and the question and answer sessions between Americans and policy makers and I see so many people who vehemently oppose universal healthcare. These are the same people who will benefit from having an umbrella of protection rather than trusting free markets and capitalist forces to find solutions for their healthcare needs. Capitalism unfortunately is concerned about profitability rather than the health of individuals and when it comes to healthcare, the system has failed.

The successes of manufacturing in lowering costs cannot be applied as an analogy towards reducing healthcare costs. The reason is that while capitalism and free markets end up find the cheapest way to manufacture a product because the components that go into creating a product can be quantified, the services that go into healthcare is not so precise and the industry is very service intensive. A doctor can easily order up 20 tests instead of 5 and the average patient would never know the difference. Treating people also is different from one patient to another.  Therefore having more competition does not necessarily result in reducing costs.  Healthcare insurance providers tend to consolidate smaller businesses and invariably a couple of large companies control the entire system as is the case in the USA.

Insurance companies are hugely profitable and if you examine the profitability of any US operator, they are profitable in all economic climates. If this trend goes on, in a decade most  of these town hall protesters will not be able to afford healthcare themselves.

I happened to watch a documentary on PBS (Channel 13) on the uninsured in America and I saw the problems that many people in the US are facing every single day of their lives. Many people end up dead without access to adequate and timely healthcare.

These are average people who have held steady jobs and paid taxes all through their lives. While the documentary was enlightening, the fact that there are about 45 million or more people in the US without health insurance is real and well documented. If you add another 10% of the US population to this number due to the current unemployment scenario, we come to a figure that suggests that about 25% of the US population does not have health insurance and therefore little or no access to healthcare.

We see screaming and yelling at these town hall meetings with people making statements like they do not want to pay people to be lazy, their small businesses cannot face additional taxes and all sorts of other unreasonable comments without factual data to back up their arguments.

Think about this: would offering universal healthcare drive up or reduce healthcare costs in the country? I think costs would go down with more people participating in a system.  Aren’t we all already paying indirectly for all those people who land up at hospitals without health insurance?

Offering universal healthcare would be actually great for small businesses who right now find it difficult to offer a good healthcare plan to its employees. Something affordable for small business would be awesome.

There is another argument that I have seen from some quarters that “universal healthcare is unconstitutional”. This is the most profoundly idiotic statement I have ever heard. The constitution of the US was adopted on September 17, 1787. This was a long time ago. The constitution has been amended many times after this date and while the constitution is remarkable for any day and age, it is not all-encompassing. In my opinion, universal healthcare should be a right in a developed nation.

Another stupid argument made by Glenn Beck at Fox  is that people from all over the world come to the US for treatment and therefore the system here should be really great. We’ll its true – provided you have lots of money.  These people who visit the US to get treatment are the super rich.

The reality today is that health insurance providers can refuse to insure you for pre-existing conditions. This is fine – till you or someone you care about gets cancer or some other serious disease or health problem. Blindly trusting free markets and good old fashioned capitalism is pretty naive because it works sometimes and it fails quite often. It (healthcare) fails 100% if you do not have money.

Another reality is that healthcare costs in the US is the #1 reason for bankruptcy. Many people with health insurance can still not cope up with the bills due to a major health problem.

I think this is a great chance for the country to make progress on giving universal healthcare to all Americans. Let’s not lose it. Call up your Senator and Congressmen and let them know that you would like to see universal healthcare implemented soon.

We the People of the USA should not be so petty and cheap to not care about the fellow Americans who may not have access to healthcare due to whatever reason. Please support healthcare because the “benefit of the many is more valuable over the benefit of the few”. And your job may be the next one to be axed and shipped overseas.

I for one, am willing to pay more taxes or whatever it takes to make healthcare a universal right in this country.

I think all those ‘de-listed’ Chrysler dealers would do well to apply to become Alfa Romeo/Fiat dealers if they get the opportunity from whichever company ties up with Fiat.

Think about this:
Do you see gas lines? No.
Is the mortgage rate above 15% ? No.

This was the case under the Carter administration. So things are not so dire as politicians make it out to be. What all these warnings and dire predictions do is to further depress a nation and quite unnecessarily.

• Why is it so important to keep throwing money that a country does not have at a problem that may or may not exist and which may not even be solvable.
• Why should homeowners who do not bother to manage their finances or read the fine print be bailed out?
• Why should banks who cannot manage their loans and make good loan decisions be bailed out with tax payer money?
• Why should car companies who as per NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, are “Wealth destruction machines” be bailed out?

I think all of  these companies should fail if they cannot make it with their own resources. Let new companies take their place and learn from history.

I applaud President Obama’s initiative to cut the US deficit substantially by the end of his first term. But I think it would have been better to gain a handle on the spending right now instead of later. Spending on infrastructure is a good idea but spending money bailing out people and companies is a bad idea and is just not the American way.