We evidently do not care if they have been lying to us. We do not care if they have been covering up data. We do not care if they took great care to distort data to hide findings. We do not care if a decade of temperatures are going the wrong way for global “warnists”. The crisis is too important to ignore, even if the theory of man caused global warming is a farce.
How do I know we do not care? Because now, for the first time, the world has been given the means to see the lying, cheating and distortion, and what do they do? The world gives a prodigious yawn. The New York Times tells us virtuously that they would not consider publishing such illegally obtained data. (Can you spell Pentagon Papers? Or can you remember all the classified data they “reported” last year in an attempt to embarrass Bush?) One must simply gaze in admiration and wonder at the new-found virtue of the grey lady.
The mainstream media is attempting to glide past the embarrassing disclosure. The skeptics of global warming are as gleeful as a fox locked in a henhouse. For years many scientists have touted their warning sirens being neglected by the major media. My personal favorite is Dr. Roy Spencer, but he, too, is neglected as Mr. Al Gore tells us that “debate is over” and “science is settled”.
Prying apart a belief system is next to impossible. PJTV has a great video from a leading skeptic here. It is ironic to me that as responsible scientists are trying to tell the whole story of global change, the side that wants to hide the facts stand on the side of big government and squarely against freedom of men and women to live.
But did not the word “grantstanding” get coined for these same scientists? The term was given to those who were given millions more for their shriller cries. I remember reading years ago that we had less than a decade to act before it would be too late to save the earth. And now we read the personal emails of these “scientists” and find that they do not know what to make of data and are trying to hide their uncertainty. This should be the biggest story of the decade.
I talked to a friend who is a global warmist who said he had not even heard of the email hack. He insisted that it would be like mankind to cause destruction to the earth, and seemed to intimate that was enough of a reason to believe in man caused global warming. What can one say to such faith? David Warren has posed the problem brilliantly here. Robert Tracinski has a great synopsis of the scandal here.
What the average person does not get is the fascism theory that lies behind all of this urgency in global warming. Mussolini taught that it was necessary to declare an emergency to get people to be willing to suspend normal freedom and law. The political beginnings of our global scare lies in a committee from the UN. The committee then began a grant program to scientists who would forecast problems with CO2. Scientists all over the world are being paid to find problems with CO2 production. Now governments everywhere are attempted to suborn total economies to harness production of what seems to be a harmless inert gas. The US, long standing against suppression of freedom, seems tempted to give in and suppress the greatness that has fashioned our country.
I am a Christian. I do have a “fantastic” belief system in which the God of the universe is returning to earth and judging us for our sins. My belief system states unequivocally that we are not destroying nature by global warming; rather we are destroying ourselves with our unrepentant rebellion against God Himself. My main contention here is that our “faith” needs to be placed in truth, something that, with the new scandal, seems to be “as far as the east is from the west”.
I am reminded of the words of the famous atheist, Bertrand Russell. He said that he has heard that it is said that man is a rational creature. and that he has vainly searched all of his life to find evidence of this. If there is not any regard for truth, how can we then maintain? In recent months the main stream media has wrongly ignored Acorn, tea partiers, and now a global “warnist” scandal. Our view of reality is slipping badly in America, and if it continues I ask how can we possibly continue as a citadel of freedom? We will be doomed to become that nation that Obama already sees- a nation that is not any longer exceptional, a country that is just as blind as any other, and a people that are just as lost as the world that we were given responsibility to redeem. Christ said that He is the truth, and that those who come to him must come to him in spirit and truth. If we will be learn again to look at our world through His lens we will understand so much more.
Other links of interest:
Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters, by Clarice Feldman
The Day Global Warming Stood Still
Editorial: From Copenhagen to Nopenhagen for climate treaty
Update:
Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud (PJM Exclusive)
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
On Statists and Christians
The statist always has the upper hand in our age for he uses morality as toilet paper; when it is clean, free of conflict, keep it around; but when dirty, conflicting or cumbersome, cast it aside. The Christian has not that prerogative; morality is handed him as one lump, dirty and clean together. Thus we see universally the governments with the most statism are the ones with the least religions; morals are the first inconvenience cast aside.
But optimism is used of both statists and Christians. The statist arranges new laws and orders in unceasing reformation. In my country education has undergone 100 years of reform and still has a marred image. But the statist believes that the next “reformation” will be the one which will bring salvation. The wise Christian who points out that this marred image of man is an example yet again of the fallen who are in need of redemption, and that our Redeemer draws nigh. Thus, both are optimistically believing in salvation; the former believing in his own wisdom to bring redemption; the latter believing God will send His Redeemer.
But optimism is used of both statists and Christians. The statist arranges new laws and orders in unceasing reformation. In my country education has undergone 100 years of reform and still has a marred image. But the statist believes that the next “reformation” will be the one which will bring salvation. The wise Christian who points out that this marred image of man is an example yet again of the fallen who are in need of redemption, and that our Redeemer draws nigh. Thus, both are optimistically believing in salvation; the former believing in his own wisdom to bring redemption; the latter believing God will send His Redeemer.
Friday, October 16, 2009
America
How is it that America can lay claim to greatness? I think that its greatness lies largely in this: that we have a large population of people with Christ. Our greatness lies then in His blessing, not in our wisdom; time and again God has intervened to stop our country from its inane stupidity. If indeed the Jews are the chosen people, then Americans are His adopted people; and their claim to favoritism is the same as that of the Jews. He chose us not because of our beauty, but rather because we are a “stiff-necked” people, and small among all the peoples of the world. This is our claim to exceptionalism—and the proof of it lies in the blessings of inventions and cures for diseases and luxuries to all that compares to no other nation on earth. How ironic it is, that in these last days, Obama gainsays all the blessings of our country to garner for himself a Nobel Prize. Liberal drivel for all its prose is still drivel. A man who cannot see his country’s greatness is small indeed!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Obama’s Biggest Mistake
We have a President who is unfortunately making some bad choices. One of his worst choices is his non-support of Israel. No president since Harry Truman, and I include Carter, has treated Israel in such a high handed cavalier fashion. Do you realize that Obama is the most unpopular American president as polled in Israel? He is absolutely feared and loathed by over 90% of Israel. At least he is scoring high in something.
No President has ever seemed to be able to foster such fear in Israel. In fact the record of our Presidents, both parties, has seemed rather stellar until now. Obama forbade us to talk even a bit of his “Muslim heritage” during the campaign, but now seems to turn at every opportunity to apologize to his Muslim brothers and offer peace at every chance. Terrorism was for the first months a forbidden term, and until public ridicule, was not returned to use.
I cannot remember any president making so many Mideast peace overtures in such a short time. How many trips, how many overtures has Obama made to the Middle East? It is obvious now that Obama’s feelings toward his fellow Muslims was a germaine issue in the campaign. Obama, like all of us, feels his roots. Only his roots are one half here, and one half in the Muslim world. How is that affecting his world outlook? Even Carter, the president who is most similar in this, took a long while to develop his peace talks and bring both sides to mutual agreement. Jews in America largely supported Obama’s campaign, but now must be moved to a bit of ‘self-reflection’ and wonder.
Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in Europe. I read today where the Swiss are being fed from a popular paper that Israel is murdering Palestinians to harvest their body organs. I am sickened by seeing the fires of bigotry against the Jews being stoked yet again, and by a people who are supposed to know better. Anti-Semitism is always on the rise in the Middle East. I fear that it will rise all too readily here in the United States again. I fear that our President is making such basic foreign policy mistakes that, even if unintentionally, the movement could be stoked yet here again.
I know my liberal brothers would be aghast at reading this, and would think that it could never happen here. But Democrats in the last two weeks have called those who dare to disagree with them about health care the following names. This list, I am sure, is not complete, but I was appalled by the number of leaders, who again should know better, that were spewing these appellatives.
“vandals” –thank you to Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak
“false witnesses” –thank you to our beloved BO
“evil mongers’ –thank you to Harry Reid
“racists” –thank you to news media
“un-American” –thank you to Nancy Pelosi
“hate mobs” –thank you Steven Crowder (great short film!)
“paranoid”
“astroturf”—thank you again, Nancy Pelosi (Does she ever get tired of hearing herself?)
“evil oil companies are funding health protesters” thank you, DNC
I know fully well that a similar list might be compiled from the other side; that is not the point. The point is that Democrat’s pride is in their alleged tolerance and respect of others and other people’s viewpoint. Yet the shrillest appellatives are from the leaders themselves.
I am saying, in the strongest terms I know how, beware America. If we turn not aside from our course we will find ourselves on the wrong side of the Middle East problem, and possibly, on the wrong side of Armeggeddon.
No President has ever seemed to be able to foster such fear in Israel. In fact the record of our Presidents, both parties, has seemed rather stellar until now. Obama forbade us to talk even a bit of his “Muslim heritage” during the campaign, but now seems to turn at every opportunity to apologize to his Muslim brothers and offer peace at every chance. Terrorism was for the first months a forbidden term, and until public ridicule, was not returned to use.
I cannot remember any president making so many Mideast peace overtures in such a short time. How many trips, how many overtures has Obama made to the Middle East? It is obvious now that Obama’s feelings toward his fellow Muslims was a germaine issue in the campaign. Obama, like all of us, feels his roots. Only his roots are one half here, and one half in the Muslim world. How is that affecting his world outlook? Even Carter, the president who is most similar in this, took a long while to develop his peace talks and bring both sides to mutual agreement. Jews in America largely supported Obama’s campaign, but now must be moved to a bit of ‘self-reflection’ and wonder.
Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in Europe. I read today where the Swiss are being fed from a popular paper that Israel is murdering Palestinians to harvest their body organs. I am sickened by seeing the fires of bigotry against the Jews being stoked yet again, and by a people who are supposed to know better. Anti-Semitism is always on the rise in the Middle East. I fear that it will rise all too readily here in the United States again. I fear that our President is making such basic foreign policy mistakes that, even if unintentionally, the movement could be stoked yet here again.
I know my liberal brothers would be aghast at reading this, and would think that it could never happen here. But Democrats in the last two weeks have called those who dare to disagree with them about health care the following names. This list, I am sure, is not complete, but I was appalled by the number of leaders, who again should know better, that were spewing these appellatives.
“vandals” –thank you to Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak
“false witnesses” –thank you to our beloved BO
“evil mongers’ –thank you to Harry Reid
“racists” –thank you to news media
“un-American” –thank you to Nancy Pelosi
“hate mobs” –thank you Steven Crowder (great short film!)
“paranoid”
“astroturf”—thank you again, Nancy Pelosi (Does she ever get tired of hearing herself?)
“evil oil companies are funding health protesters” thank you, DNC
I know fully well that a similar list might be compiled from the other side; that is not the point. The point is that Democrat’s pride is in their alleged tolerance and respect of others and other people’s viewpoint. Yet the shrillest appellatives are from the leaders themselves.
I am saying, in the strongest terms I know how, beware America. If we turn not aside from our course we will find ourselves on the wrong side of the Middle East problem, and possibly, on the wrong side of Armeggeddon.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Death Panels
Much has been said about death panels in the news since the twitters of Sarah Palin. I find it appalling that many conservatives seem to so quickly diss idea of death panels. Perhaps it is because the end of the life discussions that were mandated under several of the plans were plainly not worded to include diabolical plans to “abort” someone’s life span. They could be read to see that courageous conversations took place between a doctor and his patient in crisis. I did read Palin’s followup to her initial response to the outrage over her death panel remark, and it was remarkably lucid and well argued. She cites provisions of the bills under consideration, and proves her case remarkably well.
So well did she prove her case that the language from the bill was removed within two days. I do find it strange that few commentators remark on this removal. I do find it more appalling that conservatives have not seen that she had a valid point, which liberals said that they removed such language, “because it might prove confusing to someone misinterpreting it.” Match, set and game to Palin.
But more fundamentally I want to look at the idea of “rationed” care. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a very different system now than we would have under the public option. Each and every day, in every way, we would discriminate against older people. No doubt the fine young bureaucrat would insist quite properly that America needs to spend its resources responsibly, and it would make more sense to spend money on a 22 year old junkie’s rehabilitation than on a hip replacement for an 83 year old. The 83 year old would not be told to shrivel up and die; they would just be left without needed care and shrivel up and die. No one will actually be killing him; they just will not give him needed care.
It is an Orwellian difference- but one that looms very largely before us. I am not aware of any system of public health care that does as good a job of trying to maintain quality life for our seniors. Obama tacitly admits this Orwellian twist when he talks about operations that can be avoided. He used the example of tonsils being removed unnecessarily. Unfortunately for him, my grandson was under one health plan that refused to remove tonsils. My grandson was sick and myopic all the time, until my daughter changed plans and had his tonsils removed.
He instantly improved! I realize that anecdotes can be too easily used to justify anything, but the question I have is: Do we really want to have a third party bureaucrat telling us what is right and what is not right? My daughter was able to change her doctor, find needed care and resolve the situation in the best interests of my grandson. This would not be possible under public health care.
Obama tells us that we can do this and save money. He says we can insure 40 million people, keep our same doctor, keep our same health plan, and still spend less on health care. My Dad used to tell me that if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Obama is on record in 2003, stating plainly that he desires for us to stair step our way into public health care. Evidently he feels we are too stupid to pay attention to what he has said. The video has been saved and floats around the internet. If the man states his plain plan, and we refuse to believe he is implementing his plan, then maybe we are too stupid.
I have one question for you. Are we stupid enough to let him get away with this? We have the best health care system in the world. The only problem is that it does not cover everyone. We do need to make some reform to make it more easily available. We do not need the public option. Our system needs tweaking, not reformation.
In the 1960’s medicare was presented as a public option. We were told it would not take private insurance’s place, and that it would “compete” with all the other choices. We were told it would not cost (politicians miscalculated its costs by a factor of 10) more, and what is the result? Today it has taken over health care for all seniors, who are rationed as to the care that they can get. More and more doctors are refusing medicare patients because they cannot afford the charity. The government, not the market, determines the price of needed treatments, and more doctors are refusing to do the treatments than ever before. This is the “successful program” Obama touts. He wants everyone to end in this kind of program.
We do not need to go down this Orwellian road. Refuse the public option, and demand that the best health system in the world be preserved. Or else live with the idea of a young person someday telling you that “quality of life” decisions have been made and left you behind.
So well did she prove her case that the language from the bill was removed within two days. I do find it strange that few commentators remark on this removal. I do find it more appalling that conservatives have not seen that she had a valid point, which liberals said that they removed such language, “because it might prove confusing to someone misinterpreting it.” Match, set and game to Palin.
But more fundamentally I want to look at the idea of “rationed” care. There is no doubt in my mind that we have a very different system now than we would have under the public option. Each and every day, in every way, we would discriminate against older people. No doubt the fine young bureaucrat would insist quite properly that America needs to spend its resources responsibly, and it would make more sense to spend money on a 22 year old junkie’s rehabilitation than on a hip replacement for an 83 year old. The 83 year old would not be told to shrivel up and die; they would just be left without needed care and shrivel up and die. No one will actually be killing him; they just will not give him needed care.
It is an Orwellian difference- but one that looms very largely before us. I am not aware of any system of public health care that does as good a job of trying to maintain quality life for our seniors. Obama tacitly admits this Orwellian twist when he talks about operations that can be avoided. He used the example of tonsils being removed unnecessarily. Unfortunately for him, my grandson was under one health plan that refused to remove tonsils. My grandson was sick and myopic all the time, until my daughter changed plans and had his tonsils removed.
He instantly improved! I realize that anecdotes can be too easily used to justify anything, but the question I have is: Do we really want to have a third party bureaucrat telling us what is right and what is not right? My daughter was able to change her doctor, find needed care and resolve the situation in the best interests of my grandson. This would not be possible under public health care.
Obama tells us that we can do this and save money. He says we can insure 40 million people, keep our same doctor, keep our same health plan, and still spend less on health care. My Dad used to tell me that if something sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Obama is on record in 2003, stating plainly that he desires for us to stair step our way into public health care. Evidently he feels we are too stupid to pay attention to what he has said. The video has been saved and floats around the internet. If the man states his plain plan, and we refuse to believe he is implementing his plan, then maybe we are too stupid.
I have one question for you. Are we stupid enough to let him get away with this? We have the best health care system in the world. The only problem is that it does not cover everyone. We do need to make some reform to make it more easily available. We do not need the public option. Our system needs tweaking, not reformation.
In the 1960’s medicare was presented as a public option. We were told it would not take private insurance’s place, and that it would “compete” with all the other choices. We were told it would not cost (politicians miscalculated its costs by a factor of 10) more, and what is the result? Today it has taken over health care for all seniors, who are rationed as to the care that they can get. More and more doctors are refusing medicare patients because they cannot afford the charity. The government, not the market, determines the price of needed treatments, and more doctors are refusing to do the treatments than ever before. This is the “successful program” Obama touts. He wants everyone to end in this kind of program.
We do not need to go down this Orwellian road. Refuse the public option, and demand that the best health system in the world be preserved. Or else live with the idea of a young person someday telling you that “quality of life” decisions have been made and left you behind.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Tort Reform
Health care anyone? Only if you can get past the insurance costs. I read this last week where doctors are paying annual insurance premiums of 300,000 dollars. Who do you think pays for those costs? Hint: it is not the insurance companies or the doctors who pay it.
Lawyers are waiting in the emergency room hallways for “tickets to riches”. Many times the costs are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars out of court. When they do go through the courts, it can quickly add to millions in fees. Many times most of these fees are prorated enormously in the lawyer’s favor, not in the sick defendant’s favor. Who do you think pays the lawyers fees? Hint: it is not the sick patients paying the fees.
One of my biggest concerns is in all this talk of reform no one, not one responsible spokesman, is talking about ways of limiting these costs. Why isn’t there one person talking about the crime of lawyers enriching their coffers from the sick and the dead? It is a crime to allow the moneysuckers to drain the health system without any safety checks. Who do you think pays for extra costs? Hint: it is not the doctors or the insurance companies who pay litigation costs.
Obama is correct in one respect; many times today doctors order tests for patients that they really do not think are needed. The doctors are afraid not to order these tests because they fear being sued. If they are successfully sued, their insurance costs can rise dramatically. Our health system is bogged down with all sorts of testing which does not need to take place. Who do you think pays for all the tests? Hint: it is not the doctor.
However, what we do not need is public rationing of health care. I lost my father and my father in law recently, but in both cases, the health system was working and spending to prolong their lives. With rationed care, the federal bureaucrat will cut off the most expensive expenditures; the older patient in the last year of his life, is the most expensive.
Further, I have had two brothers with aggressive cancers (both are in remission). I am concerned with any system change which will be great at covering basic ailment care, but will not provide for drastic needs. Drastic needs are the “all consuming cost” of health care. Under a centralized system, drastic needs are the first to be cut. The proof is in the people from those systems in other countries who come to the United States to get care not offered in rationed systems.
In any case, I will be a lot more likely to believe the reformers if they were serious about removing the hideous-lawyer-leech that is sucking the lifeblood out of the best health care system in the world. Until that time, this citizen will remain dubious about “reform”. After all, I am an expert on reform—I am an educator—and we have been “reforming” education for more than 100 years. To the politicians who want change I would say, look where it took public schools before you choose to send our health system there.
Lawyers are waiting in the emergency room hallways for “tickets to riches”. Many times the costs are settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars out of court. When they do go through the courts, it can quickly add to millions in fees. Many times most of these fees are prorated enormously in the lawyer’s favor, not in the sick defendant’s favor. Who do you think pays the lawyers fees? Hint: it is not the sick patients paying the fees.
One of my biggest concerns is in all this talk of reform no one, not one responsible spokesman, is talking about ways of limiting these costs. Why isn’t there one person talking about the crime of lawyers enriching their coffers from the sick and the dead? It is a crime to allow the moneysuckers to drain the health system without any safety checks. Who do you think pays for extra costs? Hint: it is not the doctors or the insurance companies who pay litigation costs.
Obama is correct in one respect; many times today doctors order tests for patients that they really do not think are needed. The doctors are afraid not to order these tests because they fear being sued. If they are successfully sued, their insurance costs can rise dramatically. Our health system is bogged down with all sorts of testing which does not need to take place. Who do you think pays for all the tests? Hint: it is not the doctor.
However, what we do not need is public rationing of health care. I lost my father and my father in law recently, but in both cases, the health system was working and spending to prolong their lives. With rationed care, the federal bureaucrat will cut off the most expensive expenditures; the older patient in the last year of his life, is the most expensive.
Further, I have had two brothers with aggressive cancers (both are in remission). I am concerned with any system change which will be great at covering basic ailment care, but will not provide for drastic needs. Drastic needs are the “all consuming cost” of health care. Under a centralized system, drastic needs are the first to be cut. The proof is in the people from those systems in other countries who come to the United States to get care not offered in rationed systems.
In any case, I will be a lot more likely to believe the reformers if they were serious about removing the hideous-lawyer-leech that is sucking the lifeblood out of the best health care system in the world. Until that time, this citizen will remain dubious about “reform”. After all, I am an expert on reform—I am an educator—and we have been “reforming” education for more than 100 years. To the politicians who want change I would say, look where it took public schools before you choose to send our health system there.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
2010 Health Care
Customer: I have to say there is no better place to eat than here at McD’s.
McD’s: How can I help you today sir?
Customer: I would like to order a double burger. Make that a meal. You know with fries and a big Coke.
McD’s: (Blows big whistle) Okay you guys! We have another one!
Two big football player sized men come in and place arms on customer.
McD’s: Sir, can you step this way?
Customer: Hey you guys! What are you doing?
McD’s: Pay no attention to those fellows. They are just part of our new national health care force. Please step this way, Sir!
Customer: All I wanted was a meal!
McD’s: I know, Sir. We will get you the meal you need after you step this way.
Customer hesitantly is pulled to back room.
McD’s: Now, Sir, hold your arm out here. We need to take your blood pressure.
Blood pressure so high McD’s man whistles.
McD’s: I gotta tell you Sir. There will be no salt with those fries.
Customer: Hey I am hungry here. What happened to the customer is always right?
McD’s: National Health Care happens! Patience Sir. Just a couple of more measurements and we’ll be through. First, let me put this tape around you. If I can reach around you. What is that? A 37? And you are what- 56 years old?
Customer: I did not come for clothes. I came for a meal.
McD’s: Now you know what the two big guys are for. Settle down. Let’s see. Height is 5’ 10” tall. What was that first measurement? Oh yeah! A whopper! 37 inches. 56 years old.
Looks down at measurements.
McD’s: Your body fat index is 35.9. That may be a record of the day! No way you are getting a double burger and fries. Can we talk diet Coke and maybe a piece of salad?
Customer: I am not sure I like this new national health care.
McD’s: Oh a statement of displeasure with your life? Let me make a quick call on that.
McD’s makes a quick phone call.
McD’s: Okay Sir! I have some good news for you! Since you are over 50 years old and made a statement of displeasure with your life, we are going to give you everything you asked for. Would you like extra salt with those fries?
Customer: I don’t get it.
McD’s: Sir, we are over budget for you already anyway. If you can just step over to the pickup line, we will get your food for you. I do have some good news. The food will be free for you.
Customer: I like free, but I don’t get why.
McD’s: Well I don’t like to say it Sir. This should be between you and your doctor. And, of course, now your fast food server. Anyway, your doctor has prescribed this meal for you. And you can sign right here for getting a meal everyday.
Customer: Everyday?
McD’s: Well, everyday for the rest of your life.
Customer: Wow! Thanks, I think.
McD’s: Here’s your meal, Sir. I threw in a few extra fries and salt with that. Have a nice day.
Customer on his way out muttering to himself, throws meal in garbage and yells at wife:
I am walking home honey! See you in a couple of hours.
McD’s: (to big guys) Hey you guys! I like our new job, don’t you?
Guys: It sure beats working at DMV.
McD’s: For sure. Now we are helping our country with reasonable health care.
McD’s: How can I help you today sir?
Customer: I would like to order a double burger. Make that a meal. You know with fries and a big Coke.
McD’s: (Blows big whistle) Okay you guys! We have another one!
Two big football player sized men come in and place arms on customer.
McD’s: Sir, can you step this way?
Customer: Hey you guys! What are you doing?
McD’s: Pay no attention to those fellows. They are just part of our new national health care force. Please step this way, Sir!
Customer: All I wanted was a meal!
McD’s: I know, Sir. We will get you the meal you need after you step this way.
Customer hesitantly is pulled to back room.
McD’s: Now, Sir, hold your arm out here. We need to take your blood pressure.
Blood pressure so high McD’s man whistles.
McD’s: I gotta tell you Sir. There will be no salt with those fries.
Customer: Hey I am hungry here. What happened to the customer is always right?
McD’s: National Health Care happens! Patience Sir. Just a couple of more measurements and we’ll be through. First, let me put this tape around you. If I can reach around you. What is that? A 37? And you are what- 56 years old?
Customer: I did not come for clothes. I came for a meal.
McD’s: Now you know what the two big guys are for. Settle down. Let’s see. Height is 5’ 10” tall. What was that first measurement? Oh yeah! A whopper! 37 inches. 56 years old.
Looks down at measurements.
McD’s: Your body fat index is 35.9. That may be a record of the day! No way you are getting a double burger and fries. Can we talk diet Coke and maybe a piece of salad?
Customer: I am not sure I like this new national health care.
McD’s: Oh a statement of displeasure with your life? Let me make a quick call on that.
McD’s makes a quick phone call.
McD’s: Okay Sir! I have some good news for you! Since you are over 50 years old and made a statement of displeasure with your life, we are going to give you everything you asked for. Would you like extra salt with those fries?
Customer: I don’t get it.
McD’s: Sir, we are over budget for you already anyway. If you can just step over to the pickup line, we will get your food for you. I do have some good news. The food will be free for you.
Customer: I like free, but I don’t get why.
McD’s: Well I don’t like to say it Sir. This should be between you and your doctor. And, of course, now your fast food server. Anyway, your doctor has prescribed this meal for you. And you can sign right here for getting a meal everyday.
Customer: Everyday?
McD’s: Well, everyday for the rest of your life.
Customer: Wow! Thanks, I think.
McD’s: Here’s your meal, Sir. I threw in a few extra fries and salt with that. Have a nice day.
Customer on his way out muttering to himself, throws meal in garbage and yells at wife:
I am walking home honey! See you in a couple of hours.
McD’s: (to big guys) Hey you guys! I like our new job, don’t you?
Guys: It sure beats working at DMV.
McD’s: For sure. Now we are helping our country with reasonable health care.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Gates’ Controversy
The President is a slow learner in some areas; in others I admire the fact that he appears to bow to reality and learn from facts. A president of the United States has no business commenting on something criminal especially when he himself admits ignorance of all the facts. It seems evident to me that police officers come a “bit thin-skinned” when it comes to encountering loud abusive behavior.
I had two brothers who served as police officers for some years (in the interest of full disclosure). I also watched police officers casually abuse the homeless years ago. I know fully well there are two sides to each story. What seems evident from the facts that have come out so far is that Gates lost his temper and his cool, evidently calling the officer names and being specifically insulting.
I can sort of see myself in Gates’ position—he is surprised by a stranger in the confines of his own home, a place that should be safe for every homeowner. But he is supposed to be an adult, capable of reigning himself in, not giving himself to ranting diatribes. The policeman was doing his job. What was his job? Protecting the home and property of Gates himself.
Police officers are subjected to casual abuse all too frequently by the lower echelons of our society. The casual abuse often turns to violence or implied harm to the officer himself. I suspect this is why we observe the “thin-skinned behavior” of so many officers. They themselves fear for their safety.
Even if the above observation were not true (as it very probably is), Gates found himself opposing the very man whose job it was to protect his own life and property. Now I think there are two probable outcomes that are bad for Gates, and perhaps bad for fellow professors that live in that neighborhood.
The first problem seems to be one of what I call advertising for criminals. Every burglar in the world now has official notification of open season in this neighborhood. What civic minded neighbor will now call the police when they see a door being broken into?
The second problem is even worse. What policeman will quickly respond to calls from this neighborhood, knowing they might face ridicule from the president of the United States.
Occam’s razor, applied here, seems to draw two easy conclusions, contrary to what our president concluded. Was there sufficient reason for the neighbor to report a possible burglary? Was there sufficient reason for the policeman to want to verify Gates’ id?
It is obvious that the answer is yes to both questions. For either Gates or the president to assume that skin color was a primary inducement is forcing unnecessary conclusions to the event.
Both the president and Gates owe a profound apology to the officer involved. As a country, we have better things to get on to.
I had two brothers who served as police officers for some years (in the interest of full disclosure). I also watched police officers casually abuse the homeless years ago. I know fully well there are two sides to each story. What seems evident from the facts that have come out so far is that Gates lost his temper and his cool, evidently calling the officer names and being specifically insulting.
I can sort of see myself in Gates’ position—he is surprised by a stranger in the confines of his own home, a place that should be safe for every homeowner. But he is supposed to be an adult, capable of reigning himself in, not giving himself to ranting diatribes. The policeman was doing his job. What was his job? Protecting the home and property of Gates himself.
Police officers are subjected to casual abuse all too frequently by the lower echelons of our society. The casual abuse often turns to violence or implied harm to the officer himself. I suspect this is why we observe the “thin-skinned behavior” of so many officers. They themselves fear for their safety.
Even if the above observation were not true (as it very probably is), Gates found himself opposing the very man whose job it was to protect his own life and property. Now I think there are two probable outcomes that are bad for Gates, and perhaps bad for fellow professors that live in that neighborhood.
The first problem seems to be one of what I call advertising for criminals. Every burglar in the world now has official notification of open season in this neighborhood. What civic minded neighbor will now call the police when they see a door being broken into?
The second problem is even worse. What policeman will quickly respond to calls from this neighborhood, knowing they might face ridicule from the president of the United States.
Occam’s razor, applied here, seems to draw two easy conclusions, contrary to what our president concluded. Was there sufficient reason for the neighbor to report a possible burglary? Was there sufficient reason for the policeman to want to verify Gates’ id?
It is obvious that the answer is yes to both questions. For either Gates or the president to assume that skin color was a primary inducement is forcing unnecessary conclusions to the event.
Both the president and Gates owe a profound apology to the officer involved. As a country, we have better things to get on to.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Syllogisms to Ponder
Roosevelt deepened and prolonged the depression.
Obama is following Roosevelt's model.
Therefore, our depression will be deepened and prolonged.
Reagan cut taxes to rid us of depression.
Obama raised taxes to rid us of depression.
One of the two actions must be wrong.
Roosevelt's raising taxes ruined our economy.
Obama is hugely raising taxes.
Therefore Obama will ruin our economy.
People are generally ignorant about economics
They seldom know how to fact check.
The possibility is good that Obama will not be held accountable.
A lack of private investment causes recessions.
Private investment is falling drastically.
Therefore our recession will deepen.
Obama is following Roosevelt's model.
Therefore, our depression will be deepened and prolonged.
Reagan cut taxes to rid us of depression.
Obama raised taxes to rid us of depression.
One of the two actions must be wrong.
Roosevelt's raising taxes ruined our economy.
Obama is hugely raising taxes.
Therefore Obama will ruin our economy.
People are generally ignorant about economics
They seldom know how to fact check.
The possibility is good that Obama will not be held accountable.
A lack of private investment causes recessions.
Private investment is falling drastically.
Therefore our recession will deepen.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Minority Politics
Yesterday I read a column that tried desperately to defend Sotomayor's blatantly racist remark about the superiority of "Wise Latina Women". To know beyond doubt that this remark is intrinsically racist, one only has to substitute "Wise White Male" for Sotomayor's term. Imagine how livid and righteous people would be if someone actually dared to insist that white men were superior.
I laughed at the Democrat's well deserved predicament this past election cycle. Hillary and Obama were fighting over which minority's time had come. In California, voters generally aligned with the philosophy that woman's time had finally come, but to their disgust, they found that they were trumped by a (half) black man. Which leads me to the observation that the only thing worse than the minority parity shuffle is the lack of realization of the idiots running the shuffle. Or perhaps they started a machine that they no longer know how to stop. In any case, it only hurts our country.
Martin Luther King famously talked about a place where children, no matter of what color, could play together without regard to skin color. We will not achieve parity until we are willing to begin judging people by who they are, not what they look like. It seems to me that the Democrats (and many Republicans) just do not get this. It is never a black or a female who deserves the presidency; it is, and will remain, a candidate who convinces voters of his or her ability to lead. Shame on us for thinking anything else!
I laughed at the Democrat's well deserved predicament this past election cycle. Hillary and Obama were fighting over which minority's time had come. In California, voters generally aligned with the philosophy that woman's time had finally come, but to their disgust, they found that they were trumped by a (half) black man. Which leads me to the observation that the only thing worse than the minority parity shuffle is the lack of realization of the idiots running the shuffle. Or perhaps they started a machine that they no longer know how to stop. In any case, it only hurts our country.
Martin Luther King famously talked about a place where children, no matter of what color, could play together without regard to skin color. We will not achieve parity until we are willing to begin judging people by who they are, not what they look like. It seems to me that the Democrats (and many Republicans) just do not get this. It is never a black or a female who deserves the presidency; it is, and will remain, a candidate who convinces voters of his or her ability to lead. Shame on us for thinking anything else!
Sunday, July 05, 2009
An Idea which seems Nonsensical to this Writer
Imagine that you find yourself with a house now mortgaged at twice its approximate real value. Let’s say that you owe 300,000 dollars on a house that is now worth 170,000 dollars. You are stretched to make payments month after month for an asset that is almost 50% devalued. So far, this should not require too much imagination. I know of two families that fit this description.
Now comes the harder part to imagine. Let’s say the housewife decides she knows how to fix the problem. Owing too much money and being stretched is not nice. So she applies for every credit card she can: Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. Let no credit card be unused. Max every card to the limit.
What happens? The poor struggling household that couldn’t find a way to make ends meet finds itself awash in cash. Suddenly there is stimulus everywhere. Goods such as new cars, new furniture and pools are added as opulence dictates. Let no purchase be unattempted.
Of course you see the problem with such a household. (I know of more than one that has followed this pattern.) What is the end of such a household? The interest will eat them alive. I remember many years ago adding my own annual interest on cards—the amount I paid in interest exceeded the cost of a high end desktop computer each year. Needless to say I took steps to stop the profligate usage of cards and have never returned.
So why is our nation any different? When Reagan stimulated the economy, he did so with returning taxes in healthy amounts to the people. When Obama speaks of stimulus, what we need to remember, is that he is doing the exact opposite of Reagan. He is taking the “credit card” and charging ahead. No purchase is too big to be attempted. Banks and car companies, people and their inflated mortgages, health care and government programs—all can be paid for with the trusty credit card.
What will be the outcome? The government will find itself awash, just as the imaginary household above, in all sorts of wonderful, opulent goods. But the piper must be paid in the end. Everything that we are adding now, it seems to me, will have a cost that has to be paid for later. We purchase credit-card prosperity now, but the bill will more than take that away. This must result in higher taxes.
The most alarming item to me in this imagining is that government will become much bigger; the citizen will become poorer by a greater factor because such money will be encumbered with interest. Obama, declaring war on the small businessman, has declared that he will take the taxes only from this group. So this group naturally restrains its spending (no more new business started—unemployment results). But simple math tells us that even if Obama confiscated the entire income of this group he could not pay for his envisioned grandiose schemes. Taxes or inflation (this favorite way for government to increase taxes) is the result.
The whole plan seems, to this homespun economist, to be nonsensical. Unless of course, Obama’s real plan is to grow government. Damn the people! Full speed ahead!
Now comes the harder part to imagine. Let’s say the housewife decides she knows how to fix the problem. Owing too much money and being stretched is not nice. So she applies for every credit card she can: Visa, Mastercard, and American Express. Let no credit card be unused. Max every card to the limit.
What happens? The poor struggling household that couldn’t find a way to make ends meet finds itself awash in cash. Suddenly there is stimulus everywhere. Goods such as new cars, new furniture and pools are added as opulence dictates. Let no purchase be unattempted.
Of course you see the problem with such a household. (I know of more than one that has followed this pattern.) What is the end of such a household? The interest will eat them alive. I remember many years ago adding my own annual interest on cards—the amount I paid in interest exceeded the cost of a high end desktop computer each year. Needless to say I took steps to stop the profligate usage of cards and have never returned.
So why is our nation any different? When Reagan stimulated the economy, he did so with returning taxes in healthy amounts to the people. When Obama speaks of stimulus, what we need to remember, is that he is doing the exact opposite of Reagan. He is taking the “credit card” and charging ahead. No purchase is too big to be attempted. Banks and car companies, people and their inflated mortgages, health care and government programs—all can be paid for with the trusty credit card.
What will be the outcome? The government will find itself awash, just as the imaginary household above, in all sorts of wonderful, opulent goods. But the piper must be paid in the end. Everything that we are adding now, it seems to me, will have a cost that has to be paid for later. We purchase credit-card prosperity now, but the bill will more than take that away. This must result in higher taxes.
The most alarming item to me in this imagining is that government will become much bigger; the citizen will become poorer by a greater factor because such money will be encumbered with interest. Obama, declaring war on the small businessman, has declared that he will take the taxes only from this group. So this group naturally restrains its spending (no more new business started—unemployment results). But simple math tells us that even if Obama confiscated the entire income of this group he could not pay for his envisioned grandiose schemes. Taxes or inflation (this favorite way for government to increase taxes) is the result.
The whole plan seems, to this homespun economist, to be nonsensical. Unless of course, Obama’s real plan is to grow government. Damn the people! Full speed ahead!
Friday, July 03, 2009
Stimulus
Any more stimulus and we will be caught in a depression. Like in Rooseveltan times taxes are not successful in stimulating the economy and Obama will only succeed in making the Leviathan bigger. The literature and studies on the failures of Rooselvelt are so complete that is difficult for me to see why Obama does not see this. Unless, of course, his aim is to grow the Leviathan. In that regard, Roosevelt was eminently successful.
If you are not familiar with the studies showing those failed policies a good book to start with is Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. Friedman won a Nobel prize in Economics for his analysis of Roosevelt. Too bad they do not seem to include this basic primer in Harvard today.
Declaring war on business was a favorite trick of Roosevelt; getting the folks angry at people who make "too much money" was something he all too often did. In our time, our unwise President declared not only that he was going to tax this high income group which gives most of the jobs that keep America employed, but also he was going to go after all those who were trying to evade their tax responsibility.
Make no mistake. Obama spoke and the stock market listened. Not only did the stock market go into free fall, but also consumers have become tight fisted with their spending because they believe these expenditures will have to be paid for, and the cost to our economy might yet be higher. Thus we have classic a economic depression spiral.
The Obama administration suggests we need more stimulus. I guess that is because it worked so well the first time. Roosevelt never quit trying to "stimulate" our way out of the depression--the depression that we would still be in had not war caused the economic surge out of the spiral.
More taxes will not stimulate the economy--it will stimulate the government, a long term statist goal.
Here is an interesting editorial that paints a grim future:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/june_jobs_tell_a_bad_story_97285.html
If you are not familiar with the studies showing those failed policies a good book to start with is Free to Choose, by Milton Friedman. Friedman won a Nobel prize in Economics for his analysis of Roosevelt. Too bad they do not seem to include this basic primer in Harvard today.
Declaring war on business was a favorite trick of Roosevelt; getting the folks angry at people who make "too much money" was something he all too often did. In our time, our unwise President declared not only that he was going to tax this high income group which gives most of the jobs that keep America employed, but also he was going to go after all those who were trying to evade their tax responsibility.
Make no mistake. Obama spoke and the stock market listened. Not only did the stock market go into free fall, but also consumers have become tight fisted with their spending because they believe these expenditures will have to be paid for, and the cost to our economy might yet be higher. Thus we have classic a economic depression spiral.
The Obama administration suggests we need more stimulus. I guess that is because it worked so well the first time. Roosevelt never quit trying to "stimulate" our way out of the depression--the depression that we would still be in had not war caused the economic surge out of the spiral.
More taxes will not stimulate the economy--it will stimulate the government, a long term statist goal.
Here is an interesting editorial that paints a grim future:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/june_jobs_tell_a_bad_story_97285.html
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Writing of History
There is a famous aphorism that history is always written by the victor. Imagine what history might read like had Hitler won his global conquest. Just maybe it would be a tad different than what we read today. Imagine reading a biography of Hitler’s archenemy, Churchill. Undoubtedly we would read of many vile and contemptible deeds done by this dastardly character.
It occurs to me that history, even as close as it is to culmination, has not yet been written. One of my private passions is the reading and understanding of history, but if my musing is correct, the real view of history, as told through the ultimate Victor, has yet to be written. I wonder how the stories of history will change when we see them through the hand of the Pattern-Maker.
It occurs to me that history, even as close as it is to culmination, has not yet been written. One of my private passions is the reading and understanding of history, but if my musing is correct, the real view of history, as told through the ultimate Victor, has yet to be written. I wonder how the stories of history will change when we see them through the hand of the Pattern-Maker.
Idle thoughts
Government is the steward of God meant to prepare the way of salvation, not to be the way of salvation; it shall never usher in the kingdom of God, for like the rest of us it has to wait for the kingdom.
Fear your government, worship your God, and know that in all things you will be held accountable.
Big government is like playing musical chairs; sooner or later they are going to stop the music and this time they might get your chair. No one else will care for they are too grateful for the chair the government has graciously given them.
Though as a Christian I do not believe we are directly under the law, or it’s penalties, it does seem to me clear that God’s coming judgment will be based not on grace but rather on justice for those who will not receive His Offered Grace. So, if I am correct, America’s coming judgment will be based, in part, on those things apart from grace.
This coming judgment is specifically for those Americans who picture God as a sort of Lady Justice with her balance scales in her hand, good weighed against evil. As long as my good outweighs my bad, so think many if not most Americans, I will be received into heaven. Of course this notion has been so thoroughly debased by Biblical scholars, and by the words of my Lord, who says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (NIV John 3:18) It is belief in God’s son which allows us to escape judgment; otherwise we are righteously condemned to that hell which awaits all those who spurn His Grace.
Fear your government, worship your God, and know that in all things you will be held accountable.
Big government is like playing musical chairs; sooner or later they are going to stop the music and this time they might get your chair. No one else will care for they are too grateful for the chair the government has graciously given them.
Though as a Christian I do not believe we are directly under the law, or it’s penalties, it does seem to me clear that God’s coming judgment will be based not on grace but rather on justice for those who will not receive His Offered Grace. So, if I am correct, America’s coming judgment will be based, in part, on those things apart from grace.
This coming judgment is specifically for those Americans who picture God as a sort of Lady Justice with her balance scales in her hand, good weighed against evil. As long as my good outweighs my bad, so think many if not most Americans, I will be received into heaven. Of course this notion has been so thoroughly debased by Biblical scholars, and by the words of my Lord, who says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (NIV John 3:18) It is belief in God’s son which allows us to escape judgment; otherwise we are righteously condemned to that hell which awaits all those who spurn His Grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)