One Way Congress Could Be Useful...

Tina and I just finished playing one of our favorite games.  If you haven't tried "Ticket To Ride: Europe", you should.  We have a lot of fun and it's fairly easy to catch on to.  That's good if your mind works like mine.

As I was putting the game up in our front closet I had to confront the leaning tower of Pisa.  Every game's box is a different size!

And then it came to me!  If Congress were to consider and pass a bill creating standard dimensions for game boxes it would be great.  It's a law that would actually benefit everyone in America by reducing the cluttered look of game closets. 

It's a law that would not harm anyone.  In fact it could "create or save" (to use the blurry rhetoric of the most transparent administration in history) thousands of jobs as higher paid packaging designers are retrained to lower paying graphic arts work.  Kind of like the "Green Economy" where oil field workers are trained to assemble solar arrays and such. 

And it's a bill that would keep Congress busy so they couldn't screw up anything else in the country.

I'm calling my representative, Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), on Monday morning!

Join or Die...

Okay, I don't usually get all religious on you here.  And I don't think I'm going to do that today.  I just want to share some thoughts that are spurred by current events and my particular brand of religi-osity.

I see the radical environmental movement and the national-socialization of the US economy through banking, manufacturing, and health care as related.  In fact, they are part of the same scheme.  What is the desired end game of these activities?

The end of liberty in the United States of America.  The end of prosperity in the United States of America.  The increase of power for a few and the bondage of millions.

"Oh, come ON!" you say.  "Give me a break."

"But wait!" I say.  "It's all been done before."

If you'll take the time to read the books of Alma, Helaman, and Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon, you can see it plainly. 

The story tells of the ancient inhabitants of the American Continent.  These people lived much as we do today, but without cars or iPods.  They worked, they loved, they fought, they prayed.  Some were Christians, and some were not.  Some were honest and good.  Some were just plain evil.  Some wanted freedom and equality, while some wanted power and riches.

As things went along, certain people - mostly lawyers and judges - incited discontent in the people.  They invented problems and encouraged prejudices.  Eventually, a large portion of the people thought it would be a great idea to change their constitutional form of government in favor of a monarchy that would provide every needful thing.

This movement resulted in political arguments and even civil war.  The "kingmen", as they were called, accused the "freemen" of oppressing the people with their policies.  They claimed that the existing government was out of step with the needs of the country.  The insisted that legislating morality was not only wrong, but that it was impossible to legislate morality without infringing on the rights of the individual.

Outside enemies took advantage of the civil distractions and exploited the weakness that division brings.  War broke out across the land.  The people suffered terribly economically, socially, and militarily.  Ultimately their society disintigrated and they were split into tribes or factions looking out for their own welfare. 

In the end they found peace - or rather, they found the absence of war.  Thier society was a shadow of what it had been.  All confidence in commerce and security was gone.  Law was a thing of the past, and behavior was only regulated by the chief or leader of the tribe. 

Now, we face similar things in our country.  Lawyers and judges are inciting discontent in the people.  They are working to change the basis of law and constitutionality in the United States.  Others insist that the old way of doing things is not fit for our "new" times.  They seek to rewrite the basis of our government, teaching that individual rights flow from the state, rather than the state receiving any power it has by the consent of the people. 

Progressives accuse those who hold differing views of intolerance, closed-mindedness, and biggotry.  They say that we are out of step with the times.  As our enemies watch, we are weakened by soft-mindedness, immorality, decadence and strife.

An American revolutionary flag design sometimes credited to Benjamin Franklin declared "Join or Die!" 

Abraham Lincoln quoted Jesus when he said that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." 

They both were right.

The key, though, is that the people MUST unite around CORRECT principles and MUST be unified in GOODNESS.  The Book of Mormon hero Captain Moroni had an effective, if extreme, method of unifying people for a good cause.

Read about it.

Some Fun With CO2 and Math...

Okay, let’s do some math.

1% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gasses. 3.6% of those greenhouse gasses are CO2. That means that 0.036% of the whole atmosphere is CO2. 3.4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to man. That means that 0.0012% of the whole atmosphere is CO2 from man’s activities.

23.02% of all manmade CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the US. That means that 0.00028% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 from the United States.

The numbers are so small it is hard to wrap my mind around them. If I’m right (I struggle converting decimals of percents into fractions), that means that 28/10,000,000 of the atmosphere is the target we’re shooting at with any carbon tax or carbon cap in the US.

Further, the 17% reduction target (for the US) that President Obama plans to announce in Copenhagen this month comes to .000048% (or 48/100,000,000) of the atmosphere.

I don’t think that there is an instrument out there that can even measure that amount. We would have to rely on mathematical calculations to “verify” or predict the change.

And what would that yield? NOTHING!!!

Am I crazy, or is that irrelevant?

I’m not pro-pollution or anti-solar power. I’m not pro-excessive driving or anti-bicycle. I don’t hate birds or algae or polar bears.

We need to be sensitive to the needs of the earth and its creatures and act wisely. No question.

Chasing the red herring of CO2 is not wise.

So, what is the motive in forwarding false science and manipulating data as has been shown in the East Anglia/Penn State case? It seems that the motive in the “deniers’” case is that they are interested in determining the truth, assessing the severity of the problem, defining what man can do to abate the problem, and deciding if man’s actions can possibly counter the problem. If there is a possible solution, then we must assess the cost of the solution and, as rational beings, weigh it against any benefit and act reasonably.

Fight the urge to “do something” and stop to think it through. Once it’s thought through, let’s act prudently. That’s all I’m saying.

What would it cost? Trillions of dollars of productivity destroyed in the American economy. Witness Spain: unemployment around 20%; average wage for remaining employed workers down nearly 50%.

Just think this through.

How much more will a head of lettuce cost if American carbon is traded or taxed? How about a jar of peanut butter? The seed producer will have to pay for the carbon used in producing the seed. The farmer will pay for that as well as the carbon used in cultivation and harvest. The processor will add the cost of the carbon used in processing. The transporter will add his carbon costs. The grocer will add the carbon costs of handling, stocking and merchandising the food. And the consumer will pay them all. That $1.50 head of lettuce or the $3 jar of peanut butter will cost a LOT more. That means that people will have to devote a larger portion of their income to survival needs and will have less to use on consumer goods or to invest in growing their own businesses, lending to others, or anything else that might stimulate the economy.

How much will it cost to heat one’s home? Again, we have the cost of carbon associated with exploring for oil or natural gas added to the actual cost of the work. We add the cost of carbon for transporting the fuel to the point of use or conversion. We have the cost of carbon associated with transporting the processed fuel to the end user and the carbon cost for simply consuming the fuel or energy. So, how does that affect the quality of life for Americans.

AND… What if Chile, or China, or India decides NOT to levy a carbon tax or trading scheme on itself? Now it’s MUCH cheaper to import things like lettuce, peanut butter, and heating oil. So those jobs go away in our country and MORE “U.S. Americans” are out of work. And when they’re out of work they aren’t buying so much stuff. And when they stop buying so much stuff, even more of us lose our jobs. And the spiral continues.

But it’s okay, you may say, because you’re retired. You’re drawing down your 401k or 403b. Everything is looking good. Until the companies in your portfolio start to go under. Now when you sell 1,000 investment shares, instead of getting $120 a share you get $3. And you take your $3,000 and try to stretch it over the year.

But what about welfare? Sure, it’ll pay us not to work. But the money for the welfare check has to come from somewhere. With fewer people employed, fewer people will be paying taxes. So there’s not so much money to redistribute.

So, we call China and ask for another loan – I mean, “We float bonds on the international market.”

The market says, “Sure, we’ll loan you money, but because your debt ratio is so high, we want 25% interest; and because there’s a good chance you won’t be a viable entity in 5 years, we’ll only buy 3-year T-Bills.”

Or we just print more dollars. And the dollar loses its value because there is such a large supply out there. So, that loaf of bread (the American bread costs $25 a loaf, so we’re importing it from Mexico and paying $5) suddenly costs even more. Maybe the Mexican bread goes to $50 a loaf because the Fed increased the money supply by 10x. So, if I’m not on the government dole and can’t get a 1000% raise this year, I’m going to have to leave my job and get onto welfare that is adjusted annually for the cost of living.

This is a no-win. I can surrender my dignity and accept welfare and watch my family suffer, or I can retain my pride and watch my family suffer more.

At that point I might be tempted to curse a polar bear and a salt marsh mouse and wish that I had my life back.

We need to REALLY be sure we’re right before we destroy our way of life in pursuit of the unattainable. If it proves out that we CAN do something that will be effective and reasonable, I’ll be the first one in line to support it.

Islam: The Religion of Peace....

One Of These Days....

40 acres.
Spring and pond.
Woodlot.
Pasture.
Hay and grain.
Garden.
Tractor.
Pickup truck and Jeep.
Cows.
Chickens.
Cold winter and wet summer.
Barter.
Pigs.
Chainsaw and freedom.
Work.
Focus.
Wife and children.
Peace.

Can "Christianity" Cloud Your Judgement?

Mike Huckabee, former Republican presidential hopeful, displayed exceptionally bad judgement as the governor of Arkasnsas.  I'm referring specifically to his pardonning and commutation of sentencing for more than 1,000 convicted criminals in the state of Arkansas during his term as governor.  Many of them are violent criminals.  Two of them have killed 5 people since their release.

He is a Baptist Preacher.  Nothing wrong with that.  But when the head of state allows his personal views on mercy to interfere with his responsibility to safeguard the citizens of his state, there's a huge problem.  It shows a fundamental lack of consideration for the citizens of the state and a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian teachings.

Jesus taught many things.  Among them he said that we should forgive others who harm us if we would be forgiven by God.  It is essential for heads of state to understand that this injunction is delivered on a personal and individual level.  There is no mandate that society as a whole be forgiving.  In fact, with respect to the law, Jesus taught that we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and unto God that which is God's.  That is to say that when we are acting in a secular role, we must adhere to the secular "rules of the game". 

He also accused the leaders of Jewish society of continually ingnoring the rights of the widows and the fatherless in favor of the leaders' own personal agendas.  He condemned this in no uncertain terms, declaring that anyone who offended these "little ones", as he called them, would be better off having a mill stone hung around their necks and being drowned in the sea, than to face God's wrath at the judgement day.

Societal justice must be meted out without consideration of personal feelings.  Artistic portrayals of Justice personified consistently depict her blindfolded.  She hears only the facts and cannot look upon either party sympathetically.  Society must take the side of the innocent.

During the trial of Jesus, the leaders of the Jews requested that Barabas, a convicted murderer, receive clemency and that Jesus, who was innocent of any crimes, be crucified.  Mike Huckabee certainly followed the Jewish leaders' example in granting "mercy" to violent criminals and failing to respect the rights of the innocent. 

Mike Huckabee's pardons and clemencies were neither wise nor Christian.  They show him for what he is, a kind-hearted person with very bad judgement.  He is not qualified to be the head of any state, let alone the United States of America.

Mike Huckabee's Poor Judgement Continues To Terrorize Americans

Just As I Suspected...

This is an interesting piece of actual news! 

Evidently, the data base of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglica University was hacked and some documents and e-mails were stolen.

The thief then published them on the internet.

This article addresses some of the things revealed by the security breach.  I think the most interesting is how disingenuous the people are who purport to be saving the world.

I think this is an interesting modern spin on the "Robin Hood" story.  Here we have a criminal stealing from those who would be (and many already have been) made rich by the response to "Anthropogenic Global Warming".  He gives what he's stolen to those who would be (or already have been) impoverished by the same. 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

For My Dad... (and in many ways, for me, too)

I should be working.

My desk is covered with papers that need to be addressed, but I don’t want to face them.

I don’t want to face anything; I talked with my dad this weekend.

Five years ago he was diagnosed with a resurgence of the breast cancer he’d beat in the 1980s. It came back with a vengeance. He was given 6 months to live. That was 2004. He’s been running on borrowed time, the goodness of God, and a positive mental attitude ever since.

But now he’s in a lot of pain – constant pain. He’s lost his appetite and, despite his 6’3” frame, he weighs less than 190 lbs.

My mom is worried that he won’t be well enough to travel at Christmas.

They’re planning on coming to our house.

So….



There are a lot of things I want to say to him. Loudest and longest, I want to tell him I love him.

There are too many things to discuss here and now. As I think about it, that perception is probably why I haven’t made the time to talk about a lot of things with him. And now, I’m looking at a long separation with no opportunity to tell him what I feel, what I’ve felt, and what I want to feel.

When I was a small boy, my dad travelled a lot on business. When he was in town he was often gone, working with the Scouts, or helping at church. I never wanted him to leave, but I don’t think I ever told him that. I’m not sure why.

In my mind’s eye I can see the small me standing in the kitchen, watching my dad saying goodbye and getting ready to head out the door on another trip. He’s wearing his tan leather jacket with the fur collar and lining. He has his cream colored shirt on with a plaid tie. He’s wearing brown slacks and his hair is longer – in the style of the 1970s professional – and parted to one side. His eyes are still too young to need glasses.

I want to run to him and hold him. I want to throw all of my 47 lbs. against him to keep him from walking out the door. I want to beg him to stay. I hate the job and the other things that take him away from me so much of the time. But I stand there, not saying or doing anything.

And he leaves. He leaves because he is a man and men do whatever it takes to provide a living for their children.

But I don’t know that, yet. I won’t learn that until I’m a man.



Today I know that life is finite. We will all leave. We are men, and that's what men do.

But that little boy in me is crying. The pain I feel in anticipation weighs me down. I ache and I want to throw all of my 47 lb. body against the mountain of my dad. I want to stop his momentum and keep him here with me. I don’t want him to go through that door.

I don’t want you to leave, Dad. I love you, and I’m going to miss you so much.

The Living Years...

The Living Years
by Mike Rutherford

Every generation
Blames the one before,
And all of their frustrations
Come beating on your door.

I know that I'm a prisoner
To all my father held so dear;
I know that I'm a hostage
To all his hopes and fears.

I just wish I could have told him in the living years.

Crumpled bits of paper
Filled with imperfect thought,
Stilted conversations,
I'm afraid that's all we've got.

You say you just don't see it.
He says it's perfect sense.
You just can't get agreement
In this present tense.
We all talk a different language
Talking in defence.

Say it loud, say it clear:
You can listen as well as you hear.
It's too late, when we die,
To admit we don't see eye to eye.

So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past.
We only sacrifice the future;
It's the bitterness that lasts.

So, don't yield to the fortunes
You sometimes see as fate.
It may have a new perspective
On a different day.
And if you don't give up, and don't give in,
You may just be O.K.

Say it loud, say it clear:
You can listen as well as you hear.
It's too late, when we die,
To admit we don't see eye to eye.

I wasn't there that morning
When my father passed away.
I didn't get to tell him
All the things I had to say.

I think I caught his spirit
Later that same year.
I'm sure I heard his echo
In my baby's new born tears.

I just wish I could have told him in the living years.

Say it loud, say it clear:
You can listen as well as you hear.
It's too late, when we die,
To admit we don't see eye to eye.

Ann Kirkpatrick Betrays the 1st Arizona Congressional District...

Mrs. Kirkpatrick:

You have revealed yourself to be a true liberal and a turncoat.

How could you have ignored the voice of so many of us, your constituents, with regard to health care reform? We told you loud and clear that we are opposed to this intrusion of government into the private sector.

You acted as if you'd heard us when you were, as Mrs. Clinton so articulately stated, "against it before you were for it."

And now, on the vote that really counted, you turned on us.

Do you understand how this will adversely impact the many senior citizens in your district? If you do, then you are a truly cruel person. If you don't, then you have no business representing us.

Be assured that I will do all I can to ensure that your betrayal is not forgotten and that you are not sent back to Washington for a second term.

Respectfully,

John N. Ellis

Facts About Global Warming

Scientific Facts About Global Warming

Follow this link, click on the "PowerPoint Presentation", to find out why THIS man is smiling so much!

The Battle Hymn of The Republic...

The Battle Hymn of The Republic
Julia Ward Howe

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.

Thoughts On Greed, Luck and Jesus...

My cousin Terry asked some questions that, I think, strike at some issues that are central to our nation's success.  Here they are, and here are my answers.

When does a legitimate concern for stockholder returns (or high management compensation) cross the line to greed?

Companies exist for one purpose – to generate profit. That’s hard for me to remember all the time, because I like to see people working and supporting themselves and their families.

I think that companies can cross the line to greed when they become focused on short-term returns or profits over the long-term viability of the company. It’s important to keep track of where the company is financially on a short-term basis, but when a company wants to exceed its profit goals every month or quarter or year, then managers and executives can be implicitly or explicitly encouraged to do things that are unethical or even illegal. When that happens the company sacrifices its potential for long-term profitability because the wrong things they’re doing will catch up to them and the company may not survive the consequences of short sighted actions.

The answer to the question, then, is building a corporate culture of vision and foundation building. The story was told to me that at Toyota the new employees are told not to think about the stock price of the company or even its profitability in the present. They are directed to focus on the stock price and profitability of the company 50 years in the future, because someone 50 years in the past took care of today’s numbers.

We can have accounting standards and investment regulations and audits and everything else. In the end it comes down to the individual morality of the people running the companies and the culture that they foster that will prevent crossing the line between good profitability and greed.

The same goes for management compensation. If managers and executives know that the company values them and their work and that there is some reasonable assurance of a future there, they will have less cause to seek the quick reward of high compensation. There is always the risk-reward function in relationships. When risk is low, then the acceptable reward is lower, as well. When there is a high risk that an employee will not be valued enough to remain employed next year, the reward required for work in the present year is higher.

It is a matter of respect. Respect runs counter to our human instinct, though. If people are raised without a reason to respect others, be it religion, ethics, or some other code of conduct, their natural tendency is manifest in what we call the corruption of capitalism. Unfortunately a socialist, communist, or fascist system – and any other economic system for that matter – is equally susceptible to human corruption.

What would Jesus think?

The Beatitudes are some of my favorite verses of scripture. In them Jesus mentions virtually all of the suffering of the human condition and gives comforting words and blessings. Why?

Because the suffering of the world can bring us to a humble and teachable point. And when we are humble enough to be taught the things of goodness and godliness then we are blessed. Our minds can be enlightened and we can gain understanding of our own condition and the world around us. We can be blessed in ways that the rest of the world cannot understand. So, what about the meek inheriting the earth?

When do we inherit things? When the rightful owners have passed away. Scripture tells us that evil is a strong force in the world. We even read that Satan is the god of this world. Jesus is the god of a higher world, as he explained in his questioning before his crucifixion. So, when evil “passes away” or loses the final battle with goodness then the meek, who have been taught of God and blessed by his goodness, will inherit the earth, a symbol or metaphor for all that God has.

In the meantime, the meek will enjoy the blessing of peace in their lives. Jesus said the peace he gives us is not the same peace the world would give us, but a peace that can’t be understood by those who don’t know it. It is an overriding sense of wellbeing regardless of the troubles we find ourselves in. Pretty valuable in this old world we live in.

I think that Jesus’ heart breaks when he looks at the world as it is. I think he is pained by the suffering of so many of us; and that he is angered by those of us who inflict suffering on our brothers and sisters in the human family.

I think Jesus is a realist, too. He recognizes that human nature is corruptible and that utopian society is an ideal, but cannot become a reality until all mankind surrenders their desire for carnal satisfaction at the expense of another person or the world itself.

I’m not sure if Jesus is a capitalist, but I’m sure he is a fan of individual moral agency – the freedom to choose actions. And because he is God, I’m sure he is a fan of natural consequences to choices. Laws govern the universe. Laws certainly govern happiness. Laws even govern God. No one is free of choice and accountability in this life or the next.

Is hard work enough?

No.  But neither is "luck".

I agree with you, Terry, that there is some other force acting on us. There are the consequences of our choices, the consequences of others’ choices, the culture we are raised in, the government under which we live, and myriad other factors that affect not only our ability, but our opportunity. I know many people who work hard and don’t “get ahead”. They seem to have been dealt a hard hand. Just “luck”.

I don’t know why these things are the way they are. I think that each of us has to look at the hand we’re dealt and make some choices about how we will treat others and ourselves. We have to examine what our opportunities are and see what our blessings, if you will, are too.

Then we need to feel and accept the sense of responsibility that comes with privilege or blessing to help others less fortunate. To contribute to the larger society and the individual needs of our neighbors around the world.

Part of that obligation is hard work.

How many people do you and I know who have been given talent, ability, and opportunity, yet squander all three? It happens every day. And how many people do you and I know who have limited talent, ability and opportunity, yet work their hearts out, giving 100% of what they have? It happens every day, too.

Luck, fortune, providence, whatever people want to call it, plays a large part in our personal outcomes in life. Our personal morality will play a larger part in the outcomes we deal to others and in our final outcome, as well.

I think you’re wise to discount the idea that we are at a station in life because we earned it or deserve it. Granted there are things we can control by our choices, but largely we are where we are because someone else put us here. I am not a raging drunk because I choose not to use alcohol. I have $10 more in my pocket because I don’t smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a week. I have a clean driving record because I drive within the legal limits of safe vehicle operation. I am married to my wife because I choose not to leave her. My children are not abused or neglected because I choose to treat them well.

But other things are different. I have a job that pays well because…. I have reasonably good health because…. I was born in the United States of America and not the United Arab Emirates because…. I had the opportunity of a good education because…. I was in the Army, but not sent to the Persian Gulf War because…. These are things that I can’t explain, but for which I owe two debts. First, I owe a debt of gratitude to parents, to ancestors, to friends, to Providence or God. Second, I owe a debt of service to others. Because of the advantages I have I MUST share.

If I can give work to someone, I must. If I can use my healthy body to help someone, I must. If I can use the liberties I enjoy as an American to benefit others, I must. If I can use my education to teach someone, I must. If I can use my life to bless another life, I must.

The root of the issue – and almost all issues – is the individual. If we will learn and exercise respect for ourselves, each other, society, nature, and whatever higher power we believe in, then the larger problems will dissolve. Some people call it “personal righteousness”. I think of it as “personal rightness”. When our mind and our hearts are right – and in the right place – then our actions follow and they are right, too. No right thought, feeling or act will harm another.

How’s that for idealism?

If we live our lives in that path, the “peaceful path”, as one of my professors called it, then we will be prepared for all of our interactions and decisions. We will even be prepared for interactions with others who are not on the “peaceful path” and our actions toward them will be guided by exceptional insight and compassion.

Unfortunately, the solution is one that must be found and implemented individually, as no government or law can make me think or feel a certain way. Government influence is limited to regulating behavior.

I think about the 55mph speed limit of the late 1970s. What was needed was for people to get 4 things into their heads: 1) Fast driving contributes to accidents; 2) it makes injuries exponentially more severe; 3) it wastes fuel; and 4) it has an adverse effect on the environment. But government couldn’t bring everyone to that point of realization. So they regulated behavior. So we ask ourselves, “What is the speed limit on this road?” We don’t often ask, “How fast should I be driving now?” But how much more powerful is the heart and mind?

Some May Be Surprised....

Some of you - especially who know me - might be surprised that I have a presence in the blogosphere.

I am anti-Facebook and anti-Twitter.  I don't belong to a great following and the most useful things I do via the Internet are finding phone numbers, driving directions, and e-mail.

But some time earlier this year I realized that if I did not find an appropriate outlet for my frustration about the direction our country is going, and some way to voice what I think is right, I was going to go crazy.

I can't believe the changes that are happening via government and the change in the general opinion of people in the United States!  I remember my father-in-law, who grew up in the 1940s, telling me in the early 1990s that I was delusional if I thought I lived in a free country.  He said that if a person from the 1950s were dropped into the USA of the 1990s he would likely think he'd been transported to some Soviet satellite state.

What would that same person think today?

It seems that at least two forces are working against our individual liberties as Americans.  First, we are succumbing to the natural temptation to shirk responsiblility.  Second, scheming and self-interested people in government are seeking to consolidate power in themselves and in the system.

Bart Simpson is the embodiment of the natural and instinctive will to avoid the negative consequences of our actions when he says, "Who, me?  I didn't do it!  Nobody saw me!  You can't prove anything!"  Funny.  But more and more of us ("U.S. Americans", as Miss South Carolina calls them) want to avoid the outcomes of our bad decisions.

The pro-abortion movement is a classic example of this.  By couching their argument as "pro-choice" they seek to ignare the fact that in the vast majority of pregnancies, the "choice" was made before two people took off their clothes.  Now they want to dodge the consequence.  The lost freedom.  The increased responsibility.  The morphing body.  The physical discomfort.  The financial obligation. 

Now we see the financial crisis.  Many firms made risky decisions which turned out to be bad ones.  Executives in banking, investing, manufacturing, and other industries risked losing everything for their companies, their employees and themselves.  Do you think they wanted to dodge that responsibility?

You betcha!

And, just as in the abortion issue, government is there to "help".

Laws restricting the natural consequence of sex have been in place since Roe v. Wade in 1973.  The "Troubled Asset Relief Plan" and "Stimulus Package" were introduced in 2008 and 2009.  The last two shield not only companies, but individuals from consequences of their own decisions and those of others.

We are moving away from individual responsibility to a state in which the State assumes more and more responsibility for our actions.  Of course, in doing this, the State takes more and more control OF our actions.

And the State is right in doing that, given a few assumptions.  I don't agree with the assumptions, but they are rational.

Let's look at motorcycle helmet laws.  How can the state have the right to tell an individual he or she must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle?  (Forget the fact that a helmet makes perfect sense.)  If a person wants to ride, wreck, and turn themself into a vegetable it is their natural right. 

But what do we as a society expect the State to do?  When that person's medical insurance stops paying we look to some sort of welfare to help out, right?  So, the State now has a stake in the motorcycle rider's well being.  And as a stakeholder, the State now has a RIGHT to dictate some of the behaviors of the rider.

You see how easy it is to abdicate responsiblity and abandon freedom?

Now look at General Motors.  Previously a non-governmental organization, GM was free to select its own leadership and to negotiate its own labor agreements.  It could also select its own product mix and reward its workers' success as liberally as it wanted to.

Now the State has stepped in to rescue GM from almost certain failure.  GM is no longer free to select its corporate leadership.  The President of The United States was unhappy with GM's former president and requested that he be replaced.  He was!  Under the new ownership of GM, the federal government and the autoworkers' union are the principal owners and have a controlling interest in the company.  The federal government has established a super-executive position  which sits in review of all compensation for leaders of companies receiving "assistance".  And the new GM product line is being guided largely by conditions attached to the "assistance" funds.

So, if motorcycle riders and car company executives can give up their liberties so easily, how much closer should we watch ours?  How much closer MUST we watch ours?

For My Dad and Eric...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtoujYOWw0

Self-Governance

You know, as I read Thomas Payne's "Common Sense" and David McCullough's "John Adams" and the Declaration of Independence I see a common thread.

The Colonies wanted autonomy, or the opportunity - and the responsibility - of self-governance.  Further, the idea that Nature had endowed all men with equality and with the right to detemine their own destiny was put forth clearly.

The premise of self-governance, both of states and of men, was one of the foundational notions of our country's beginning.  And at the root of it all, it was the right of man that was unalienable. 

As we know, and as members of the spectrum politic agree, where much is given much is required. 

Where much is given to individuals in the way of Natural Rights much is required in the way of self-governance.

We see what freedom of conscience can lead to if it is unchecked by individual morality.  White supremacism and Black nationalism are simple philosophies, or ways of looking at life.  In the absence of a moral compass, these belief systems can - and often do - lead to violence.  This violates the Natural Rights of others.

The right to keep and bear arms in the absence of moral restraint can facilitate violence on a shocking scale.

Dishonesty will lead one to bend the protections of the 4th and 5th amendments to avoid responsibility for crimes.  We see criminals escape justice on "technicalities" almost every day.

Now "government" seeks to regulate behavior.  To govern something can mean to control the speed at which a process happens or to limit the bounds within which a process occurs.  Let's think about limiting bounds for a moment.

Picture the local bowling alley.  There are 20, 30, or more lanes.  Bowlers roll a ball at a set of ten pins standing at the end of their lane.  For young or otherwise desirous bowlers some lanes have bumpers or rails that can be raised to keep the balls on the lane and out of the gutter.

Professional bowlers, league bowlers, and even frequent casual bowlers don't use the bumpers.  They have developed enough control to rarely if ever have a ball leave the lane.  But young, handicapped, or inexperienced bowlers frequently find their ball in the gutter.  They have not learned sufficient control to bowl successfully, so the bumpers are raised.

Government is the bowling alley manager.  The gutters in the bowling alley are natural consequences.  The bumpers are the legal consequences. 

For citizens who have control of themselves via a moral compass, governmental restraint is irrelevant because they will almost never bump up against societal limits of behavior.  Citizens (and illegal aliens) who cannot operate within the "lane" of acceptable behavior will find themselves in the "gutter" and running into "the Law". 

Imagine if a well-meaning bowling alley manager decided that he wanted to help all bowlers score better, so he permanently raised the bumpers on all lanes at the alley.  That would probably amuse the better bowlers, but they wouldn't be too put out.  But think about what it would do for the "out of control" bowlers.  It would take away the incentive to do better.  Because of the bumpers they would not have to learn to control their own ball, the alley manager would do it for them.

We see things like this as government - from local to federal - seeks to enact "moral" laws.  It is not enough that unwarranted violent acts against others are illegal, now we must make a special class of unwarranted violent acts called "hate crimes".  We do not need to look far to find other examples of "legislated behavior".

Government has put up the bumpers.  For years those of us who lived our lives down the "center of the lane" were amused that we "had to" make rules like that.  But those rules removed the responsibility of personal restraint from the deviant in our society.  I remember even as a kid, we would call to each other, "You don't have the right to" do this or that....  We had the bumpers up in our pre-adolescent minds already.

Now imagine the bowling alley manager moving the bumpers into the lane so that the ball is funneled into the same spot on the pins - you know the one you aim for to get a strike.  The good bowlers are irritated now because there are actually a number of places you can aim for and a number of routes to take within the lane to get a strike.  The bowlers' individual leeway has been squeezed out of the game and everyone who plays at that bowling alley is getting the same score now.  300 has become meaningless.

As Statism expands in our governments and as citizens become the proverbial sheeple the bumpers are being moved in.  We are being funneled to the same mediocre point where even success becomes meaningless.  Our moral compass, we are told, is irrelevant because the State will tell us what behavior is acceptable and what is taboo.  Our individual leeway to achieve a desired outcome is being taken away.

Now picture the team that practices at our imaginary bowling alley going across town to compete in a different alley with another team in the league.  Because their skills have atrophied and their ability to control their ball has deteriorated in the artificially supportive environment of their home alley, they will fail.  They will have become weak and dependent and, because they are strangers to failure, they will not know success.

If we allow governments to infringe on our Natural Rights and obligations to self-governance we, too, will see our skills of self control atrophy.  Our abilities to succeed will deteriorate and, when we are out of the artificial constructs of governmental control - for example in our own homes - we will fail.  We will have become weak and dependent and, when faced with a choice for which there is no hard and fast rule we will not know success because we have never been allowed to see failure.

For Kaylene....

I figured out how to fix the "comments" thing.

Aren't you glad you married Daniel?

Values And The Civil Society

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, but won't spend a lot writing tonight.

We see so many people and groups seeking to force or enforce good or right behavior. There are laws passed and proposed that seek to discipline the thoughts of people. There are laws and rules that seek to regulate the actions of people.

When I think about it, there are far too many things that are good or bad. In fact, it would be impossible to catalog all the virtuous acts we should do and all the vicious acts we should avoid.

I think of Moses delivering the Ten Commandments to Israel. Is it to reasonably be expected that a list of ten items would regulate all the behaviors?

I remember an ancient king who imparted his wisdom in a farewell address to his people. He started to list the things he wanted them to do to be happy. Suddenly he caught himself and said, basically, "Look, I can't tell you all the things to do and to avoid. But I can tell you this much: If you want to be happy you have to govern yourselves. You have to discipline your thoughts and your words and your deeds. You have to do what you know is right."

The controversial, but immensely successful Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was asked how he controlled so many new converts to his religion in the early 1800s. His reply was simple, but striking. He said, "I teach them correct principles; and they govern themselves!"

A civil society, a society of well-behaved people who look out for each other, must be founded on individual morality. It must be protected from external destruction by the rule of law. It will be ultimately preserved from internal decay by the virtue of its citizens.

The "leaders" of our country seem to be afraid today to remind us of OUR OWN civic responsibility. They instead seek to substitute a state-enforced code of conduct for each citizen's own moral compass.

I'm Just Sayin'...

Does everyone understand why experience is relevant, now?

President Obama had never "managed" or "directed" or "headed" anyone or anything in his short and sheltered life before 21 January 2009. He had no experience executing a plan, or even formulating a detailed plan.

His only even slightly relevant experience was that of "community organizer" (read "street agitator") and he distanced himself from the unsavory part of that work during his campaign. But that, in fact, consisted of simply steering the anger of ignorant and sympathetic stooges to loosely focus on some amorphos and ambiguous oppressor know as "The Man".

Child's play when contrasted with influencing firm-minded, determined, accomplished leaders of the world.

We saw the extent of his naivete when he hopped across the Atlantic Ocean to deliver a short autobiographical sketch to the International Olympic Committee. He was confident that his charm and good looks would woo the IOC and convince them that, absent substance, detail, or definition, the Olympic Games should come to Chicago in 2016.

Heck, it had worked on the American People in 2008, right?

President Obama embodied the American arrogance and entitlement for which he has spent his presidency apologizing!

Here's a question for you: Has the USA taught people here that they deserve whatever they want? Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama - arguably three of the smartest people in the country - walked onto the international stage and assumed that, with no relationships, no proposal, and no substance they would walk away with a plum like the Olympic Games? What's with that?

Now, assuming the IOC was neutral to the USA - which is probably true - and given the instant failure of "talking to them", how does Mr. Obama expect to be received in the gladiator's arena that is the world of international politics?

A classic strategy of weak, but determined opponents is to bide for time. Picture the fatigued boxer who hangs on his opponent until he is pulled away and the two are separated. What did he gain? Time.

Remember the talks in Paris during the Viet Nam war. What did the North Vietnamese gain? Time.

Think about the battered Palestinians. What have their many cease fires gained them? Time.

Time to build, to train, to equip, to re-arm, to rest, to plan.

Think about North Korea and Iran. What have the multi-party talks yielded for them? The same thing - time.

Is the Experience Thing a little more clear now?

No Olympics for Chicago!

What a shocker! Chicago was eliminated from the running for the Summer 2016 Olympic Games in the FIRST round of voting.

Will this teach Mr. Obama that it takes more than good looks and a teleprompter to get things done on the international stage?

He failed miserably to convince the IOC to give the games to his "hometown". How much more difficult will it be for him to talk Iran and North Korea out of nuclear weapons? How much more difficult will it be for him to convince Russia to stay "in the box"? How much more difficult will it be for him to lead the free world?

Good luck, Mr. President! You have a tough row to hoe.

Now maybe he'll have time to read the recommendations of General McChrystal on Afghanistan....

Justice and Mercy...

The recent capture of Roman Polanski, a convicted and admitted rapist, in Europe, and the subsequent debate over whether or not he should be extradited to the United States in order to serve the remainder of his life in prison, has me disturbed.



The most disturbing thing is that there is any debate at all. The second most disturbing thing is that those opposing his incarceration argue for forgiveness.



Mr. Polanski lured his victim under false pretenses and used drugs and alcohol to incapacitate a 13-year old girl in the home of one of his friends. He then proceeded to sexually assault and rape her.



He was arrested for his crime and confessed to it. He was sentenced to prison and, before he served a day of his time he fled to Europe.



That was 30 years ago.



His victim, now in her 40s, has said publicly and repeatedly that she forgives Mr. Polanski and wishes him no malice. That is an exceptional example for all of us to strive to follow. The world would be a much more peaceful place if we could.



So, why am I so upset about the debate?



Mercy and forgiveness are things extended by INDIVIDUALS to individuals. They may only come legitimately from a PERSON of his own volition.



Governments and courts may NOT dispense mercy or forgiveness. They MUST dispense justice in the protection of the innocent and the punishing of the guilty. Society must NEVER forgive a person who violates another, who murders another, who abuses another.

When we allow our personal feelings to interfere with the order of the civil society we are setting the civil society up for failure.

Scary?

Okay, it's a given that President Obama leans to the left. I'd argue that he has socialist, communist, and totalitarian ideas that help guide his actions.

Socialist - government ownership and control of banks and control of executive compensation.

Communist - UAW ownership of General Motors enforced by government.

Totalitarian - proposed and supports "preventive detention" of people that government feels may be dangerous.

Now look at the President's assertion as a candidate that national security requires more than a military response. He says that we need a civilian security force that is trained and equipped in a manner similar to our military!

That is eerie! That is really, really scary.

Obama WANTS a Single-Payer Healthcare System...

Obama Proposes Civilian Security Force...

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt Coal Industry...

 

It's interesting that the video of this interview was removed from YouTube because of a copyright violation asserted by Hearst Publishing.

 

How deep does this conspiracy go?

Rachel Maddow is RIGHT ON!

Flaming Liberal Wants Obama OUT!!!

Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign...

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted May 29, 2009 @ 12:02 AM

MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes).

As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

“Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

“Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.

What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.

Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

Ted Rall is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

What In The World???

Follow the link below. It will lead you to a scene that should NEVER happen in a public school.

Can you imagine the reaction on the LEFT if this chant and song had been taught to elementary kids about George W. Bush?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

The Star Spangled Banner....

The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key

O! say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

A Conversation With My ACLU-Boardmember-Cousin...

Here’s a conversation with my dad’s cousin Terry. Terry works with the ACLU, but strangely is an advocate of the 2nd Amendment….

T: Congress has gotten so polarized and dogmatic that they put the next election ahead of anything that might be good for the country. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this mentality, but (forgive the bias) the ultra-conservatives don’t have any compunction about checking their brains and honesty at the door in order to present a unified opposition. So who is lying??? Do you believe that:

· There are death panels that will determine which old people get treatment and which ones don’t?
· That Obama wasn’t born in the United States?
· That the world is only 6,000 years old?
· That Obama is a socialist and/or communist and/or nazi?
· That maybe it’s time for some of the states to succeed from the union and that the constitution supports this position?


J: Let me answer your questions first, just so you can get the lay of the political land in my head.

1. "Death Panel" is certainly an exaggeration. The focus of any bureaucratic review of recipients of government healthcare will certainly not be on any individual. Rather the review will be a rational and objective one that compares the economic benefit of the treatment in question with the viability of the patient.
2. I don't know. Do you?
3. I don't care. Why do you?
4. President Obama certainly has expressed views that are not capitalist in nature. He has railed against "profit" and has moved to bring several large companies including banks and manufacturers into government and union ownership. That lies somewhere between socialist (state ownership) and communist (worker ownership). He has supported an ousted would-be socialist dictator in Honduras over the country's legitimate constitution and the actions of its Supreme Court and military. That is at very least tacit endorsement of socialist aggression.
5. While it certainly is the right of states to secede from the Union, I do not believe that is a good idea. States have a long history of yielding their rights under the 10th Amendment, going back at least to Reconstruction. If the States want to, they must understand that teaching the federal government that the 10th Amendment is as important as the 1st or the 14th is going to take time.

T: And CAN you believe that the same Republicans that are opposed to the government interfering with end-of-life decisions are the ones who supported the government intervention in the end-of-life family decision for Terry Schaivo?


J: So, with the Terri Schaivo case, are you saying that government will interfere with end-of-life choices; and we should be okay with that because (and you must forgive me - I was busy that summer and didn't pay much attention to the whole Schaivo thing...) some Republicans thought it was okay? (There are plenty of "Republicans" who think that government is the answer.) Do you think it's okay for government to do that? You see, on one hand I hear liberals protesting that the government will not make those decisions for us, and on the other I hear them saying we shouldn't complain about the government making those decisions for us.

T: I am easily convinced that Democrats can stretch the truth and revise history. But the outrageous allegations made by Republicans who can’t stand being out of power for 8 months outclasses anything I have witnessed before.

Given the fact that the Republicans believe that if they defeat health care reform, then it will be “Obama’s Waterloo,” I have no doubt about who is willing to lie in order to accomplish that lofty objective. And… One final question that has been niggling at me for the last couple of weeks… Why are so many Americans, even those on the extreme right, so darned concerned about preserving the fantastic profits of the insurance companies??? They are actually concerned about the company’s well-being if they are faced with… get this… competition. Please explain to me why. I await with bated breath.


J: As for "Obama's Waterloo", this is the first time I've heard healthcare reform called that. But let's look at the context of Waterloo. It was not that Napoleon's enemy was superior. The reason Napoleon lost at Waterloo was a series of mistakes he made. Waterloo is synonymous with a self-inflicted defeat. Napoleon had bad timing, a bad plan, and a set of poor leaders. He failed to execute; failed to exploit his advantages. In short, he overestimated his own forces' capabilities and underestimated his enemy. Further, he failed to see the possibility of 50,000 Prussian reinforcements arriving on the scene. In that context, whoever came up with the "Waterloo" analogy may be right.

President Obama missed the wave of popular support. He used that time to pass a stimulus package that is still largely impossible to track. That was a big withdrawal from the fledgling emotional bank account he had with the American people. It left him trying to paddle up the backside of the wave. President Obama still has not articulated a plan for healthcare reform which leaves many wondering if there is a plan at all. The extraordinarily poor quality of appointees he has made - ranging from tax avoiders to conflicts of interest - has been a distraction.

He has failed to execute; failed to exploit his advantages. In short, he overestimated his own election. Rather than reading it as the rejection of a spineless and double-dealing Republican president he read it as a whole-hearted mandate of his socialist agenda - which was largely hidden from the ignorant voting population that numbs its mind on CNN and the Today Show. That misreading caused him to fail to see the possibility of really upsetting a large number of people who would take time off work and travel long distances to express their disappointment (and some contempt) to their elected representatives.

Anyone who paints those folks (of which I am part) as "astroturf" is living in denial.

Your final niggling question about why we Americans are concerned about preserving the profits of insurance companies has a simple answer that ought to be crystal clear to any of you who are drawing down a 401k, 403b, or IRA. All of our financial futures are tied to the profitability and the future profitability of large companies, not just insurance companies or auto makers. Take away the profit potential for any company and what is the investment value? Zero. Now, go try to cash in your investments so that you can live with dignity in retirement when the profit potential for even a small portion of your portfolio has been taken away. You WILL be eating dog food, as the fearmongers in the 1980s asserted.

Competing with the government never was competition, Terry.

Don't point to UPS and FedEx, either. They are not allowed to play in the first-class postage arena. If they were, we might see some very interesting things happen at the USPS. You see, government writes the rules and, as is the case in parcel post, government writes them in its favor.

If you want to open up competition in healthcare, let's deregulate the market and allow companies to practice in all 50 states. I'd love to have the Kaiser Permanente option here in Arizona, but becaus the market is so tightly regulated Kaiser is locked out. Level the playing field, as the liberals say.

And let's get some tort reform going here. When I try to understand what trial lawyers add to the cost of medical care in the country my head swims. I think back to Tina's OB in Ohio who paid $500,000 per year in malpractice premiums - although she'd never lost a case and was only sued 2 or 3 times per year.

I return to my assertion: We do not understand the root problems of healthcare in this country. Therefore we cannot fix them by addressing the symptoms of cost and availability.

The REASON to Cut Carbon Emissions!

Here's the reason - or one of them - we should all reduce our carbon emissions: So that the more enlightened among us, our Glorious Leaders, can do things like THIS!

And so that my aunt Sally can cruise the Pacific Northwest in her boyfriend's diesel powered yacht and so that my aunt Mary can live 35 miles from the nearest organic market and drive there several times a week for fresh produce and so that my cousin Mark can make surfboards out of foam and fiberglas that contain and emit VOCs like they're going out of style and on and on and on.

By the way, my entire family of seven's ANNUAL carbon footprint is just under 7.5 tons. This single trip generated 7 tons of carbon!

Hi-Ho, the Derry-O
By Dana Milbank

Friday, September 18, 2009

Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?

Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:
The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. "Now it's time to buy some food," she told several hundred people who came to watch. "Let's shop!"

Cowbells were rung. Somebody put a lei of marigolds around Obama's neck. The first lady picked up a straw basket and headed for the "Farm at Sunnyside" tent, where she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and, yes, two bunches of Tuscan kale. She left the produce with an aide, who paid the cashier as Obama made her way back to the limousine.

There's nothing like the simple pleasures of a farm stand to return us to our agrarian roots.
The first lady had encouraged Freshfarm Markets, the group that runs popular farmers markets in Dupont Circle and elsewhere, to set up near the White House, and she helped get the approvals to shut down Vermont Avenue during rush hour on Thursdays. But the result was quite the opposite of a quaint farmers market. Considering all the logistics, each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons.

The promotion of organic and locally grown food, though an admirable cause, is a risky one for the Obamas, because there's a fine line between promoting healthful eating and sounding like a snob. The president, when he was a candidate in 2007, got in trouble in Iowa when he asked a crowd, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Iowans didn't have a Whole Foods.

For that reason, it's probably just as well that the first lady didn't stop by the Endless Summer Harvest tent yesterday. The Virginia farm had a sign offering "tender baby arugula" -- hydroponically grown, pesticide free -- and $5 for four ounces, which is $20 a pound.

Obama, in her brief speech to the vendors and patrons, handled the affordability issue by pointing out that people who pay with food stamps would get double the coupon value at the market. Even then, though, it's hard to imagine somebody using food stamps to buy what the market offered: $19 bison steak from Gunpowder Bison, organic dandelion greens for $12 per pound from Blueberry Hill Vegetables, the Piedmont Reserve cheese from Everson Dairy at $29 a pound. Rounding out the potential shopping cart: $4 for a piece of "walnut dacquoise" from the Praline Bakery, $9 for a jumbo crab cake at Chris's Marketplace, $8 for a loaf of cranberry-walnut bread and $32 for a bolt of yarn.

The first lady said the market would particularly appeal to federal employees in nearby buildings to "pick up some good stuff for dinner." Yet even they might think twice about spending $3 for a pint of potatoes when potatoes are on sale for 40 cents a pound at Giant. They could get nearly five dozen eggs at Giant for the $5 Obama spent for her dozen.

But whatever the socioeconomics, there can be no doubt that Obama brought some serious attention to her cause. Hundreds of people crowded the market entrance on I Street as police directed pedestrians to alternative subway entrances. Hundreds braved a light rain and gave a hearty cheer when Obama and her entourage took the stage. "I can't imagine there's been a day in the history of our country when people have been more excited about farmers markets," Mayor Adrian Fenty, Obama's warm-up act, told the crowd.

The first lady, in gray slacks and blue sweater, marveled that the people were "so pumped up" despite the rain. "I have never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" she said. (Must be the tender baby arugula.)

She spoke of the global reach of her cause: "The first thing world leaders, prime ministers, kings, queens ask me about is the White House garden. And then they ask about Bo."

She spoke of the fuel fed to the world's most powerful man: "I've learned that when my family eats fresh food, healthy food, that it really affects how we feel, how we get through the day . . . whether there's a Cabinet meeting or whether we're just walking the dog."

And she spoke of her own culinary efforts: "There are times when putting together a healthy meal is harder than you might imagine."

Particularly when it involves a soundstage, an interpreter for the deaf, three TV satellite trucks and the closing of part of downtown Washington.

More From the AP on America's Health "Crisis"

By SCOTT HARRINGTON
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."

Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.

Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.

This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.

To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."

The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."

The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).

If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.

Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."

In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.

Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.

In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.

Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.

Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Why Don't They Get It?

Here's a great example of the ego-centric "me" projecting my reasons to people around me.

I hear commentators spanning the political spectrum analyzing why people (like me) went to tea parties on 15 April 09. They discuss the outrage expressed by people (like me) over the first stimulus package. Others (like me) were angered with the bailouts given to large companies in America. Pundits banter about people (like me) who rage over the healthcare "reforms" that are proposed.

The consensus seems to be split. One group believes that these groups of people are "astroturf". That we are a fabrication of some corporate/rightwing/naziesque/fringe entity. That is wrong. The other group believes that we are "Republicans" who are finally voicing our support for the Republican Party. That is wrong, too.

I know I cannot speak for others, but I will tell you why I am getting involved.

I grew up believing that the United States of America was a fundamentally good country. I believed that its leaders wanted the best for the people and that they would act in defense of the principles of the Constitution. I thought that if I worked hard I could succeed and that if I did not want to work hard enough I would be allowed, likewise, to fail. I thought that if I met with ruin I would have a chance to rebuild. I thought that if I had an idea, a thought or a belief I could hold it and express it without fear and without reprisal. I thought that we Americans were a free and independent people who shared a vision of opportunity.

I have learned that there is a significant portion of Americans who are content to surrender freedom and independence in exchange for some sense of security. I have learned that there are beliefs, thoughts and ideas that are "politically incorrect". That is not to say that they are bad or antisocial, but expressing them often leads to derrision and social isolation. I have learned that if some Americans meet with financial or other ruin they expect the government to support them in perpetuity. And in many cases the government will do just that. I have learned that there are some in government and others in the population who support them who, regardless of the input or the outcome of my efforts, would not allow me to fail, but would force me to attain some level of mediocrity in housing, in healthcare, in education. I have learned that there are some - and I say now, "many" - in government whose efforts are not expended in the interest of the country. They would compromise the liberty of their constituents and national security in an effort to curry favor with special interests and large financial contributors.

But at the root of it all still stands the Constitution of the United States of America. It is still good. The principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are still sound. The ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence are still ideals.

That is why I attended my local tea party. That is why I have been calling my representatives in Congress and in the state legislature to express my views.

I am disgusted by the mealymouthed Republican Party. I am repulsed by the radical leftleaning Democrat Party. I am terrified that both of their policies lead to the same place: An increasingly powerful federal government and further restriction of individual liberties. One claims to lead in the interest of Security. The other claims to lead in the interest of Equality. Both will lead us to Slavery.

But no one gets it.

I, for one, am mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

This is not a Republican v. Democrat thing. This is not a Right v. Left thing. This is not a Religious v. Atheist thing.

This is nothing but a Libery v. Tyranny thing!

That is the line in the sand. Those who favor individual liberty and believe that man has a natural right to his liberty must gather to oppose those who believe that man has no inherent rights and that the State gives or takes rights as it seems appropriate to the State to do.

Which side are you on?

Then lay aside your petty "politics" and join us in fighting to save all of our liberties. You need to understand that we are fighting to preserve your right to have a homosexual relationship as avidly as we are fighting to preserve our right to have a heterosexual "marriage". We are working as hard to ensure your right to oppose wars as we are to ensure our right to live without fear. We are struggling to provide you relief from poverty as well as to allow us to retain the just fruits of our labors.

It's not about parties or politics, this is about people and preserving possibilities.

This May Not Be For Kids...

Second Video Shows ACORN Officials Helping 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' in Washington Office - Local News News Articles National News US News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

I thought that this was a good snapshot of the mental and moral orientation of the good people at ACORN.

Now ACORN stands to get BILLIONS of stimulus dollars for their community work.

Give me a break!

Thoughts on 11 September....

It feels like it's been a lifetime since I was walking in the hall at graduate school and Karen stopped me. It was 6:30am and we walked into the lounge where a handful of other students were watching the twin towers of the World Trade Center burning. The scene was surreal.

We must never forget that there are people and groups of people who hate us because of who we are. There are those who resent the liberties of the American way of life so much that they would kill us.

Their hatred does not stop at hijacking airliners and killing faceless thousands. They delight in the very personal killing of defenseless individuals, too. Do not forget Nick Berg and Danny Pearl and the many others who suffered torture, disfigurement, and beheading in the most painful and sadistic ways.

Their sadism is not reserved only for the unbeliever. They endorse and enjoy mutilating, torturing, humiliating, and degrading Muslim women. The lifelong abuse of women in Islamic culture breeds a mother that is capable of desiring her offspring become martyrs by blowing themselves to pieces in the process of murdering innocent and unsuspecting people.

Their stated objective is to kill all infidels and create an Islamic state ruled under sharia law.

While for you and me it seems a lifetime since 9/11, for the Muslim terrorist it has only been a short while in which he has worked and trained and gathered in preparation for his next action.

We must never lose sight of the fact that whether or not we are at war with terrorists, they are at war with us. The horrific and cowardly attacks we saw on 9/11 were not the beginning and they were not the end. This is a fight that will continue as long as good and evil coexist on earth. We cannot opt out of it. We can choose sides or sides will be chosen for us.

Checking the Facts with AP

FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge
By CALVIN WOODWARD and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers Thu Sep 10, 3:15 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation's health care system without adding "one dime" to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars.
The president's speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.
A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:
___
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.
House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.
Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.
That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
___
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.
___
OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.
___
OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.
___
OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.
___
OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."
THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.
In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.
He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.
"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.
Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.
___
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.
___
Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.