Border Wall - Some Cost Reality
- Details
- Created: Friday, 28 August 2015 14:43
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Jeb Bush has denounced the Trump idea of a permanent border wall saying it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This sounded hard to believe, and I thought it was worth while looking into.
For the record, in my real world life; I'm a General Contractor - and I do cost estimates on significant sized commercial construction work every day. It occurred to me that concrete, steel, and formwork are all known costs and that only the quantity would need to be adjusted to arrive at a reasonable "base price" for a border wall. So, here goes....
Lets assume a "typical" section of border wall to be concrete 8' high, with 6' of steel security fencing on top - for a total height of 14'. The section would look something like this.
Obviously there will be some variation over 1,900 miles of changing grade and conditions; but the quantities of concrete, steel, and labor should provide a reasonable basis to arrive at the range of cost to be anticipated. So, here's what the quantity survey and pricing looks like....
The above estimate itemizes the cost of construction of 1 mile of the the proposed border wall section, then multiplies that by the 1,900 mile Mexican / U.S. border. The costs for cubic yards of concrete and tons of steel are all verifiable. The math required to estimate the quantities required is shown. The result places the hard cost of the wall at about $2.6 Billion - not hundreds of billions.
Just for some perspective, what might we have to sacrifice to build a border wall?
Below is an excerpt of the Federal DOT budget for 2014...
Just for fun, if we simply for go the "Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program" we can have the wall. So, there you go. We can substitute a brain dead DOT Program that nobody ever heard of, and build a pretty darn good border wall.
There may be some good arguments against building this wall - but the cost argument just doesn't hold up. Come to think of it, the wall might do more to mitigate congestion than the original program anyway.
Add a commentTrump & the Presidential Electoral Model
- Details
- Created: Monday, 10 August 2015 11:51
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
It is commonly accepted that the nature of American Presidential politics changed dramatically with the first ever televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy was widely regarded to have won the debate by those that watched, while Nixon was largely favored by those who listened on the radio.
That was the moment that Presidential "Optics" were born, and they've played a significant role in every Presidential election since. Both parties have struggled mightily to have their candidate maintain the correct "look" at all opportunities. A moment of failed optics can doom a campaign - just ask Michael Dukakis.
We believe there was an equally significant event during the summer of 1992 when Bill Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and played the saxophone. This is the moment when U.S. Presidential politics moved directly into the pop culture media.
Until Clinton donned some blues brothers shades and hoisted his sax on the Arsenio show - Presidential candidates always attempted to appear distinguished and "Presidential" in public. Clinton purposefully broke that mold and succeeded in appealing directly to the dumbed down audience we now commonly call the "low information voter." Democrats have been broadly successful in going directly to the LIV's. Obama was a classic LIV candidate appearing often on pop culture media, and making numerous campaign appearances speaking in "community organizer" voice - not the soaring rhetorical cadence for which he became famous.
Donald Trump represents the GOP's first Presidential candidate with direct appeal to the LIV's. We've pointed out on numerous occasions that the political advantage of the Democrats is due to the added number of LIV's in Presidential elections vs. mid term elections. The Presidential turn out is almost 50% larger than the mid-term turn out. That number is disproportionately made up of LIV's and they vote disproportionately for Democrats.
The ratings of the first debate - approximately 10 fold the audience size of the first televised debate of 2012 - can be directly attibuted to Trump; and his appeal to LIV's. This is not to say that Trump is the ideal candidate, but to point out that he plays an important role in the GOP's effort to reach a broader market segment. It becomes increasingly troubling that the GOP seems intent on not only defeating Donald Trump in the primary, but to demean his very presence in the race. They GOP seems totally ignorant of the fact that they are demeaning not only the part of the GOP base that is unhappy with the current leadership, but that segment of the electorate that never considered voting for Mitt Romney - that think Trump is a cool dude worthy of consideration.
If the Democrats were dealing with an inexplicably popular pop culture figure leading their primary races, they would be all over the media explaining why that candidate is really substantive and serious despite their reputation as an ass clown. Does Al Franken ring a bell? Even now, the chair of the DNC goes out of her way to not offend supporters of wacko Bernie Sanders. But not the GOP. They have a candidate riding a wave of popularity unlike any since - well, Barack Obama, and they can't wait to trash him and make sure nobody mistakes them as being identified as "popular."
Trump may not make the best President. But lets be serious. Despite his reputation as a pop culture ass clown; it's impossible to deny that he's had significant accomplishments, and that he's transacted business dealings at a very high level. We've been quite critical of Trump here. We've even said he's more like Paris Hilton than Conrad Hilton.
But if he's such a terrible candidate, why not just allow him to compete and lose?
Why the insistence that he be "disqualified" because of statements or his "non pledge" to support the GOP?
Why would he pledge to support a group that is determined to conspire against his candidacy?
Why ostracize him to the point that he's practically forced to run as a third party to save face?
Such is the dysfunction that is currently the GOP.
Let's make peace with Trump. Let him run his race. When he loses of his own accord, he'll make an invaluable surrogate in the 2016 General Election. The GOP needs to decide, in 2016 - do they want Trump to be "with them," or "against them." Unfortunately, due to the prominence of LIV"s - that decision could alter the course of human history.
Add a comment
Did AP Alter the Cruz "Gun Photo?"
- Details
- Created: Tuesday, 23 June 2015 14:11
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Yesterday the AP published a photo of Ted Cruz with a large gun pointed directly at his forehead. The AP claims the positioning of the gun to Cruz's head was inadvertent and no ill will was intended.
The AP image looks out of proportion. It appears that there is more than just angle and positioning involved. It seems that the image of Cruz has been cut and pasted over a background picture of the gun image.
In a photo from the Des Moines Register, the gun poster seems relatively modest in size, 16:9 format, and mounted at what would appear to be about eye level. A good guess would be the actual image dimension to be something around 32" x 18". In the AP photo, the gun image is huge - something like a full wall mural - yet the distance of the camera from Cruz appears to be about the same as the Register photo.
Below are comparisons of the two images. It seems impossible to me that the AP image was created without "photo-shopping" two distinct images to create one.
Perhaps there are some better photo experts out there to explain why I'm wrong, but to me, this looks bogus.
Add a commentSurrendering Reality - How Gay Activism Won
- Details
- Created: Friday, 03 April 2015 11:32
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
We are well on our way to codifying same sex relationships as superior to traditional Marriages.
Yes - Superior.
Gays demand not only to be equal, but to be held as a "protected class" based on their behavior.
The Supreme Court of the United States has become and open joke. The chances that they will act as Jurists applying law rather than social engineering master minds - is close to zero.
The question is: Where was this issue lost?
The objective truth and reality clearly fall on the side of the traditionalist. Yet the traditionalist finds himself overwhelmed by a tsunami of gay activism demanding not just equality - but heroic exaltation. Yes, if a professional male athlete publicly proclaims his practice of sexual gratification via another mans anus - he can expect a call from Barack Obama praising his heroic actions.
Objective reality suggests that having ones anus routinely penetrated by a male seeking to achieve orgasm - isn't the highest and best use of that orifice.
Yet, to suggest such a thing is now considered the height of bigotry. In liberal revisionist reality, a male anus, and a vagina are indistinguishable sexual organs - and don't you dare suggest otherwise.
Even now, prior to anyone speaking in favor of "Religious Liberty," they must recite a preamble of sorts that declare "They are not opposed to Gays."
It is this writers belief that by ceding the fundamental argument of homosexuals - that is - that homosexual behavior is equal or preferred to heterosexual behavior - every succeeding argument is lost.
Can we not state the obvious?
-Society has a compelling interest in maintaining at least a replacement birth rate.
-Same sex relationships cannot produce offspring.
-Society has a compelling interest in promoting heterosexual relationships.
-Accordingly, society has a compelling interest in discouraging homosexual relationships.
Yes, despite the assertions of Federal Judiciary that it is only hatred and bigotry that deny those practicing same sex anal relations equal recognition under the law; there is actually sound basis in the morays and traditions of the past 6,000 years.
At the core of all major moral constructs, is the desire to propagate the species, and the recognition that we, as a species, have evolved to the point where our behavior is largely "learned" rather than "instinctive." That is, while we retain a primitive desire for sexual gratification, we don't have a "mating season" where instinct takes over and we engage in reproductive acts like deer, dogs, salmon, etc. Rather, we are largely "taught" our sexual / reproductive practices.
(Side Bar - Yes, I know there are those that contend some men are "born" with the undeniable need to sexually gratify themselves via another mans anus. It's likely that such "born" characteristics exist. The existence of such in born traits are insignificant to the validity of the argument of creating public policy discouraging such behavior.)
For about 6,000 years, morality has taught human beings that sexual desires should be channeled toward productive acts. It is the same morality that discouraged masturbation. It was not that it was inherently evil or dangerous, simply that it was a misdirected application of sexual energy that could lead to no end - other than gratification itself. Similarly, it was taught that achieving sexual gratification via the orifices of people of the same sex could never produce off-spring and were likewise to be discouraged.
It may be argued that reproduction is not a desirable goal. Of course to do so would be to argue that extinction is desired - and perhaps by some it is. But it cannot be argued that only heterosexual actions produce offspring, and there is a compelling reason to encourage that behavior.
Accordingly, there is a compelling rationale behind public policy that discourages homosexual behavior. It is simply a fundamental objective reality that needs no apology. If the case for the objective truth - that public policy encouraging the fruitful coupling of the species is of benefit to society is clearly stated; then the basis for declining to participate in a homosexual coupling, or to sanction it as equal to a heterosexual coupling - is firmly grounded.
Conversely; if one argues there is no objective difference between one male seeking sexual gratification via another male anus, and a male seeking gratification via a female; but adherence to an arcane religious moray dictates you act otherwise - ones argument is already lost.
As I'm afraid this one is
...at least for now.
Add a comment