The U.S. credit downgrade: Who's to blame?

 Standard and Poor's strips the federal government of its AAA status, and a fingerpointing epidemic breaks out in Washington

Standard and Poor's controversial announcement on Friday that it would downgrade the U.S. government's credit rating — from AAA to AA+ — shook up global financial markets. As soon as American markets opened Monday morning, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged more than 200 points. And predictably, the first credit downgrade in U.S. history ignited a heated blame game in Washington. S&P said it lowered the rating because Congress and the White House had failed to come up with a credible plan to get the national debt under control. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) branded the move the "Tea Party downgrade," while conservatives blamed President Obama's "reckless spending." Whose fault is it really? Here, five possible culprits:

1. The Tea PartyDuring the debt-ceiling battle, Tea Party leaders made it clear they were willing to let the nation default on its debts and "cause a full-fledged economic disaster" if they didn't get all the spending cuts they wanted, says Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. They held the U.S. economy hostage while demanding massive cuts and no new revenues, and that made the federal government look so unreliable and dangerous that Tea Party Republicans effectively forced "the first U.S. credit downgrade in history, and that's not too shabby. Maybe next time, the apocalypse."

2. President Obama and Democrats The Left is in full spin mode to hide the downgrade's obvious cause — the "massive two-year binge of deficit spending embarked on by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid," says Robert Stacy McCain at The Other McCain. During the debt-ceiling debate, instead of dealing honestly with the debt problem, Obama insisted Republicans were trying to "steal Granny's Social Security check" so the rich could keep their corporate jets. "Democrats don't want to fix the problem, they want to score political points against Republicans."

3. President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner"The bond rating drop unequivocally is a direct result of the Barack Obama-John Boehner national-debt deal," says Gregg Easterbrook at Reuters. The last-minute agreement is "as phony as a three-dollar-bill," with no real effort to reduce our ballooning debt. Everybody knows we can't balance our finances without trimming Social Security and other entitlement programs, and raising taxes. But "both parties, and both the White House and Congress, are more interested in blowing smoke than in firm action."

4. Standard and Poor'sThe analysts at S&P are supposed to base their decisions on an "honest appraisal" of the nation's financial health, says Chris Rupkey, the chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, as quoted by Bloomberg. Instead, they got entangled in the partisan political fight over the national debt, sticking to the downgrade even after the government pointed out an error in S&P's calculations that caused a massive $2 trillion overestimation of next decade's debt. "The U.S. is not out of money, it has the financial resources to make good on its debt, and it should not have been downgraded."

5. Every politician in Washington"Ultimately, S&P didn't only downgrade the U.S. credit rating. It downgraded the whole political system," says Jonathan Allen at Politico. Democrats would only consider minor changes to entitlement programs; Republicans flatly ruled out new revenues without which there is no solution. "In the eyes of the raters, both parties punted the tough decisions"

Americans, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!

 

Fastest drones for Racing in 2021

 

The past few years have witnessed drone racing flourish into a popular sport practiced all over the globe. Players who horn their skills to a professional level even get to participate in internationally held competitions such as The Drone Racing League, with a chance to face off against the best in the business. 

As a result of the growing love for drone races, manufacturers are turning their focus towards features that make their drones more race-worthy. Thanks to this, the choice of FPV racing quads in the market has significantly increased. 

The only challenge is that choosing the best option from a growing list of fast drones can be a tall order. If you’re looking to get into drone racing, we are here to save you the trouble that is due diligence. In this post, we consider the fastest racing drones for 2021...buckle up.

In a hurry?

After 10 hours of research, the fastest drone is the Walkera F210 Professional Deluxe. This drone can achieve a top speed of 50mph thanks to the powerful 2500KV brushless motors that propel it. You also get 10 minutes of flight time and its carbon-fiber made body delivers a tough machine that can survive crashes and collisions.

Visit the site.

5 Best RC Cars That Are Insanely Fast! in 2021

 

 Ande here's the fastest production car on the planet.

Click me

Home Theater Installation

 

Home Theatre Installation

This is a DIY Home Theatre Installation wiring guide. You’re a successful man, you’ve worked hard and built a home for yourself, but there’s something missing… something just for you. What you need is a man cave – a space all your own, designed by you, for you to enjoy whenever you feel the need to get away and relax with COD on your 8K 120” Dolby Atmos. Just imagine it, a room decked out with the latest gadgets, the best sound, and lighting where you don’t have to worry about using coasters or wearing pants. We guys know the importance of time out from the women in our lives and the man cave provides the environment we need. Man caves are not a new concept, men have created versions of them for thousands of years, as far back as when we lived in actual caves. Since then there have been many types of male-only spaces, including – bathhouses, smoking rooms, libraries, and male-only clubs. In these spaces, men would retreat together and spend time apart from women, often smoking cigars and drinking brandy. So, the man cave is really just the evolution of thousands of years of tradition with the added benefit of surround sound and razor-sharp HD resolution images. I know what you’re thinking – it sounds expensive. That’s where I come in, I will give you the all the hints and tips and advice you need to create your own man cave without breaking the bank. I’m going to show you how to build everything you’ve ever wanted into your man cave, all the bells and whistles, so you’ll be the envy of all your mates. In this blog I’m going to give you the 5 essentials to home theatre installation, this will get you started on your journey towards building your own Ultimate Man Cave.

The planning process of installing a Home Theatre

Picture this, you are about to embark on building your first home, you have worked so hard throughout your adult life to get to this point where you are successful enough to be a part of the dream, the dream of owning your own home, and you’re going to do it with style! I bet in many cases you (the man) may not have much say in the styling of the home, the kitchen, the paint color, all the pretty trimmings, and decor – that has now been taken over by your overly optimistic wife or partner. Which means your budget has also been taken over. But this doesn’t mean you can’t have your very own exclamation of manhood, the pinnacle of your hard work, your sanctuary when all you want to do is play COD on your 8K 120” Dolby Atmos Dude Dungeon! What I am giving you here is all the hints, tips and advice you need to execute this perfectly yourself without breaking the bank (or if you’re not handy, you could always call up one of your tradie mates and use this guide and get them to help you on the weekend). Perhaps this is not your first home, but this is the first time you are going all out and building the space you have always desired so you’ll want all the bells and whistles that go along with building the ultimate man cave. The experience should start as you walk into your soundproofed, expertly lit, man cave – while you make yourself comfortable on your vibrating La-Z-Boy Cinema couch, a motorized drop-down screen is activated at the touch of a button on your smartphone and the magic begins! If you like the sound of this, keep reading, I’m going to tell you how to do it. Building a man cave from scratch is easier than you may think, how to retrofit a man cave is a different story, but I will explain that later. First things first, what are the ultimate man cave essentials?

• A Large Screen

• A Good Speaker System

• Fast Internet

• Big Bass

• Comfortable Seating

• Wife-proof Operation (absolutely essential for budget allocation)

• Soundproofing

• Future-proofing

Wiring Diagrams

Now, let’s break down the importance of these essentials and look at the various options to consider. A Large Screen: Bigger isn’t always better, I’m afraid to be the one to tell you this, you need to work with the size you have. What I mean by this is that you need to work out the best way to utilize the space you have for your man cave by choosing a screen size that will give you the maximum viewing pleasure. I want you to cast your mind back to the last time you went to the cinema to see a hot new film and as you walked into the screening room to see that all around you the good seats were taken. How did you feel at this moment, were you thrilled or disappointed that you couldn’t have the best seat in the house and were forced to sit too close to the screen? Sitting too close to the screen means your focus has to be all around the screen at once, and your eyes become tired. This might be fine during the odd few occasions you have to sit at the front at the cinema but next time around you learn your lesson and arrive early. Now, if you go and put a 130” screen inside a small space, with your two seater sofa only two meters away, you will have the same experience as you would in the cinema, and my experience shows that these home theatres rarely get used as a result of this tiresome viewing experience. A general rule of thumb here is to take the distance from your seating position to the screen and divide by 2.5 to arrive at the ideal screen height. For example, let’s say your shopping at your local Hardly Normal and they have a special on a 75” Television the height of the screen should be around 93cm (see Screen Dimensions) now you multiply this by 2.5 (93 x 2.5 = 232.5) and ensure that you have 2.325m between you and the screen. Expert Tip: When choosing a screen work off image height: The closest you want to sit is – SD = 3x but no farther than 4x HD =2x and no farther than 4x and 2.5 being preferred. UHD 0.8x with 1.5x being preferred.

LED TV or Projector? By considering the screen size guidance above you should be able to answer the question ‘should I buy a TV or a projector and screen’. While it feels much more like the ultimate man cave when you have a projector beaming light across the room to a lovely velour framed white screen remember that viewing comfort is key. Expert Tip: Light And Dark If your man cave is likely to be in a bright area subject to daylight a TV has far better benefits than the basic projector (although you can choose to pay more for a high Lumens projector). If the majority of your viewing will be free-to-air programming then fewer components are required, simply switch on and you’re away. The same goes for Smart TV content (or internet based viewing), which is all built into television and not into a projector. Although the sole purpose of most projectors is to display a picture, and not for any of the above-mentioned content (Free-to-air or Internet streaming) when you choose a projector for one of the many benefits you are usually purchasing it bundled together with the necessary peripherals to make all content viewing possible. This usually requires a slightly bigger budget, here’s a quick comparison: 75” Samsung Smart TV = $3999 16:9 110” Fixed Screen = $899 3D HD Projector= $2149  Yamaha 7.2 channel Amplifier= $1049  PANASONIC DMP-UB300GNK 4K ULTRA HD BLURAY PLAYER = $249 Total = $8345 So, in this comparison, I would choose a popular 75” Model TV, which is more expensive than the cheapest model, but you can see here that you can easily spend twice the amount on a TV than on an entry level projection system. To be perfectly honest, you can inverse these figures with higher grade projection systems and a lesser quality TV, but I think you get the picture. (Note: Get in contact if you want to find out how best to use your budget)

A Good Speaker System: The following will probably upset any audiophile enthusiasts out there, mainly because I will not be going into the depth necessary to ensure absolute sound perfection. However, for the purposes of building the ultimate man cave, you should select the best speaker package possible within your budget. When I’m visiting the house of a client and they show me the size of their room, they normally ask me – “How much would speakers cost for this room?” but this is truly a loaded question. In response, I usually ask them how much they want to spend, not because I‘m reaching into their pockets, because it’s possible to spend $1000 or $100,000 on speakers but it depends on what you want to achieve. Therefore setting a budget is the first thing you should do, then you can fill the room as best as possible within that budget. Things to consider within your budget:

Which one of the following can my room size accommodate: 5.1 Surround Sound (2x Fronts, 2x Surrounds, 1x Center, 1x Sub – The Sub is the .1 in 5.1) 6.1 Surround Sound (2x Fronts, 2x Surrounds, 1x Surround Back, 1x Sub) 7.1 Surround Sound (2x Fronts, 2x Surrounds, 2x Surround Back, 1x Sub) 9.1 Surround Sound (2x Fronts, 4x Surrounds, 2x Surround Back, 1x Sub) 11.1 Surround Sound (2x Fronts, 2x Front Presence, 4x Surrounds, 2x Surround Back, 1x Sub) Expert Tip: (Adequate Bass) Bass is about moving air.  Loud bass is about moving lots of air, so you need big cone or piston areas or you can use multiple smaller cones that sum to the same area. In the industry today the 10” subwoofer seems to be commonplace. Picture 1.0 An example of Front Presence speakers in a traditional 11.1 System In the everyday living or family room (4mx5m) a simple 5.1 to 7.1 system still produces a very nice home theatre experience, to deliver a fuller sound you should allocate the majority of your budget to a good pair of Floor Standing tower speakers and a bookshelf center. For an affordable system with decent quality expect to pay up to $4k (Yamaha YHT-9940)   If you have a larger room, with more of a rectangular layout, you can start to introduce an additional set of surround speakers with a 9.1 System and build up to an 11.1 System providing your AVR has the capability to do so. The addition of overhead speakers to an existing for 5.1 or 7.1 layouts is an expansion of that system creating a 3-dimensional space as opposed to the 2-dimensional space that the standard home theatre represents. The sound will now move up down or around you as opposed to describing back left or right. In this case, you need to decide between a traditional Dolby 11.1 system vs a Dolby Atmos 7.4.1. See picture   Expert Tip: Perhaps you are building your man cave over an extended period of time and you choose to add the additional pair of speakers to make a 9.2.1/11.4.2 at a later date. Run 4x pairs of speaker cable to the ceiling near some downlights for future proofing and ease of access to the cable.

Traditional 11.1 Let’s say you have a 7.1 system cranking and you decide to fill the room with some more ‘Front Presence’, you simply add a pair of small satellite speakers or in-wall speakers above your Front Tower/In-Wall speakers (insert picture of Roy’s House) making the system now 9.1, and then adding another pair of surrounds between your existing surrounds and surround backs effectively completing the 11.1 system.

Dolby Atmos 7.4.1 (11.1) One of the most recent developments in Home Theatre is the Dolby Atmos configuration (more on this later) Which is still an 11.1 system despite the labeling of 7.4.1. Essentially the additional 4 speakers are placed in a unique position in the ceiling giving the added ‘Front Presence’ and ‘Rear Presence’, however, this requires a dedicated Dolby Atmos AVR so remember to keep this in mind if you choose this configuration.   Hot tip! If you’re sticking to a budget, most basic AVRs are 7.1 as a minimum, you can pre-wire your man cave planning on adding the Atmos speakers over time.   This is the perfect segway into discussing the selection of your AVR…

Complete Article

The United States and the Status Quo: Is Hegemonic Satisfaction Innate?

 This content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master's program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books.

Considering the vicissitudinal character of the current U.S. Administration, the plethora of academic analyses it has elicited is hardly surprising. Irrespective of the numerous issues already and potentially affected by Trump; that his appointment exemplifies the erosion of the liberal world order has become a discernible leitmotif. What is less obvious however, is why? ‘Make America great again’ was a simple and effective rallying call that mobilised Trump’s populist constituency – yet its inferred articulation of dissatisfaction exposes incongruities within Organski’s Power Transition Theory (hereafter PTT).[1] If one accepts the precepts of PTT, the dominant state atop the international power hierarchy – i.e. the United States of America – should, by definition, be satisfied. U.S. dissatisfaction per se is not a new phenomenon – but it has previously pertained to ancillary elements or particular incidents occurring within the parameters of the extant order, rather than with the actual order itself. An aggregate of indicators suggests that contemporary U.S. dissatisfaction, as evinced by Trump’s election and his administration’s rhetoric and action, is unprecedented in its magnitude. The significance of this is twofold; theoretically, it exposes lacunae within the PTT literature that assumes hegemonic satisfaction as innate; and practically, it poses novel questions regarding the potential malleability of the extant liberal global order, absent a staunch incumbent defender.

This paper is divided into four sections, the first of which comprises a literature review of PTT and its progenies, with emphasis on the function and measurement of state satisfaction. The second part is a critique of the literature’s assumptions and appraisal of satisfaction, and an elucidation of this paper’s hypothesis. In the third section, U.S. satisfaction is analysed in three spheres, namely globalised trade, security architecture, and institutional participation and international norm adherence. The theoretical implications of hegemonic dissatisfaction, and the practical implications of U.S. dissatisfaction are then analysed in the fourth section.

Within the wider International Relations discipline, PTT has carved out an appreciable and conspicuous niche since it was first articulated by A. F. K. Organski in 1958. Conceptually, the lineage of PTT can be traced back to the fifth century BC. Robert Gilpin’s Theory of Hegemonic War credits Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War as the forebear of international relations theories whose logic stems from differential and dynamic state power distributions.[2] Whereas the majority of wars are said to result from escalation in a self-help international milieu, i.e. “one thing leads to another until war is the consequence”;[3] wars involving actual and aspiring hegemonic powers, according to Thucydides, have implications for both the structure and the leadership of the international system.[4] Underpinning Gilpin’s Theory of Hegemonic War is an “incompatibility between crucial elements of the existing international system[,] and the changing distribution of power among the states within the system”.[5] Viewed through a classical realist lens that holds pessimistic assumptions of human nature and motivation, and that ascribes significance to structural dynamics; the resultant disequilibrium inexorably produces war. In this sense, while the Theory of Hegemonic War is explanatory; it lacks predictive utility given the homogeneity of its fatalistic conclusions.[6]

Although it predates Gilpin’s theory, Organski’s PTT represents a refinement of the wider, somewhat deterministic Thucydidean perspective; clearly conveying the endogenous origins of changing power distributions, and introducing the concept of state satisfaction to the literature. Borne from a critique of the contemporary political orthodoxy, PTT’s act of “academic heresy”[7] was to essentially invert the balance-of-power logic of stability – specifically, the correspondence of parity with peace and asymmetry with war. Hence, while PTT and balance-of-power share select “basic realist assumptions”, as DiCicco and Levy argue, they nonetheless “generate mutually contradictory propositions”[8] on the relationship between concentrations of power and systemic stability. Organski’s original theory rests upon two core tenets: firstly, that the relative power distribution among states is in constant flux, with intersecting trajectories at the apex of the international hierarchy periodically eliciting power transitions; and secondly, that the level of an ascendant states’ dissatisfaction with the status quo will determine if that transition occurs peacefully or otherwise.[9] In other words, parity is the prerequisite, and dissatisfaction the determinant of war.[10]

As is the case with quantifying any subjective trait, empirical measurements of dissatisfaction are problematic.[11] Organski initially advocated 1) the lack of an alliance with the dominant power; and 2) the absence of input in creating the existing order, as apposite indicators of a given state’s dissatisfaction.[12] Although heuristic, such qualifications were nevertheless broad and underdeveloped; serving a preliminary rather than a definitive purpose.[13] Acknowledging this inchoateness, Organksi’s invitation for further academic refinement of the nascent PTT framework has led to substantive and robust scholarship.[14] Ensuing attempts to conceptualise and operationalise state satisfaction have focused on various aspects of state agency; some prominent examples being military build-ups, alliance portfolio concurrence, economic and security coordination, domestic structures, and trust.[15] As Chan astutely observes, “[although none is individually perfect, one can imagine an ensemble of indicators attempting to gauge a state’s satisfaction with its status in the international system”.[16] Yet despite this growing body of work, a uniform definition of state satisfaction as it pertains to PTT has yet to emerge.

Whether owing to Organski’s initial conceptual ambiguity, or the tendency for scholars to employ satisfaction as an independent variable, or both;[17] it remains “underdeveloped from a theoretical, conceptual and methodological [standpoint]”,[18] and requires further refinement.[19] The most obvious indication of this is the array of sometimes divergent measurements of satisfaction,[20] and the tendency for scholars to ascribe dichotomy to it.[21] These factors will be touched upon in this paper, but more detailed analyses are beyond its scope, and have been undertaken elsewhere.[22] The focus here is on the much less discussed, almost unanimous – but ultimately erroneous – assumption of dominant state satisfaction.

A significant proportion of the indicators used by scholars to determine satisfaction are comparative to the hegemon, reflecting an underlying “a priori stipulation”[23] that the dominant state is, by definition, satisfied. Indeed, PTT explicitly makes such an assertion.[24] Should not all states’ satisfaction – including that of the dominant state – be empirically measured rather than asserted or assumed?[25] Steve Chan adroitly illuminates this point using offensive realism and its logic of power maximisation – if every state is offensively minded and constantly seeking relative power gains, why would the dominant state arbitrarily be satisfied with the status quo?[26] Similarly extrapolating from PTT logic, should not the “reasoning that gaining more power does not necessarily make a rising state more satisfied … also be equally applicable to a dominant power”?[27] Even from a purely non-theoretical perspective, would epistemological integrity not be better served through enquiry rather than facile assertion? By exempting dominant state satisfaction from scrutiny, PTT betrays an inconsistency that limits its theoretical accuracy and, in turn, its analytical utility.[28]

Such shortfalls become patent when seeking to determine the satisfaction of the United States. Indicators whose purchase relies on comparison – such as alliance portfolio or domestic policy similarity – become redundant when the benchmark and assessed state are indistinguishable. Under these conditions, dominant state satisfaction results simply because it is the only possible outcome. A caveat is therefore appropriate, in that these findings will not be translatable to other studies that exclusively utilise indicators of satisfaction that are comparative to the dominant state. Rather than a weakness however, this impediment to academic interchangeability corroborates the core argument presented here; that PTT is encumbered by assumptive theoretical limitations concerning the dominant state. This paper does not claim to be a comprehensive study of the United States’ dissatisfaction, much less a detailed framework of how to qualify or quantify it. Rather, the following is a preliminary foray intended to provoke further debate by challenging the theoretical assumptions of satisfaction so prevalent within the PTT literature, and exploring the ensuing practical implications.

The indicators of U.S. satisfaction used in this study – namely globalised trade, security architecture, and international norm adherence and institutional participation – can be justified on two grounds. Firstly, they cast a wide net over the International Relations paradigmatic field; with security architecture, globalised trade and institutional participation, and norm adherence respectively reflecting the primary concerns of broader realist, liberalist and constructivist schools. This breadth helps to paint a more comprehensive picture, whilst mitigating against any biases that could arise from taking a narrower approach. Secondly, that these aspects of state agency can be indicative of satisfaction is not under dispute – rather, it is the assumption of hegemonic satisfaction, and the subsequent tendency toward comparative analyses with the dominant state that is critiqued here. Conflation of the dominant state with the status quo can incorrectly construe bilateral differences as systemic challenges.[29] Accordingly, the justifications used by other scholars focusing on these areas apply, albeit tweaked to a temporally contrastive or prevailing systemic comparative, rather than purely state-to-state comparative logic. Put another way, by evaluating a state’s contemporary agency against the predominating norms of the extant order, as well as its own past behaviour – rather than merely against one predetermined state – one can discern satisfaction more accurately. With that in mind, the next section will gauge current U.S. dissatisfaction.

Full Article

Why Do I Have So Much Contempt For America / Must Read

  In America, when a young man or woman becomes 18 years of age they are allowed to vote. I'm well educated, Mensa invited, yet I can not tell you about all the individuals listed in a voting booth.

 "In my opinion", until there is a test or quiz to convey the minimal standards that a person has to exhibit in order to vote, America will remain a country guided by damned fools. NDJ

And I served honorably.

And in the DoD.