Sunday, December 27, 2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
NOTE: In case you're skimming--the chart at the linked sight is based on the faulty CBO accounting. It is not even close to reality.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
A satirist could not dream up Copenhagen. Icy-cold temperatures and snow descend on both Copenhagen and Washington at the time of the conference. It is preceded by one of the great scandals in recent academic history with Climategate and the fabrication of climate-change evidence. Al Gore has to cancel his pay-for-photo meet-and-greet session and then wildly misquotes one of his alleged experts. The world's creepiest thugs like Mugabe and Chavez are given air time — and even applause for their anti-Western communist rants. Obama flies in to do an Olympic-lobbying-type quickie, and even his sudden fire-in-the-belly sermons are of no avail. More and more details leak about global warming's international advocates and their green capitalist, conflict-of-interest profit-making. Carbon-spewing private jets dot the tarmac, while gas-guzzling limos line up outside the hotels. Who in their right-mind would give up any shred of autonomy to this bunch?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Yesterday Rush noted that high temperatures during the Medieval Period were refuted by climate scientists on the basis of only three trees in Siberia, and those were cherry-picked! Meanwhile, Obama & Co. continue their march toward wrecking the economy and placing America under the thumb of world governing bodies, unabated and deaf to any and all dissent.
Also, have a Happy Thanksgiving! Thank the Creator for making such a resilient planet for us to enjoy.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
First off, I am not a formally trained scientist. The literature of climate science gets very technical very quickly. This is not to say that scientists are always right. Even a cursory sifting of the available information reveals that opinions and theories differ widely between individual scientists, governmental agencies and international panels, as well as over time. To my eye (and to many other ordinary observers), climate science looks more like a work in progress than a masterpiece of scientific knowledge.
Second, the issue is about as politically charged as one can get. Conservatives cannot help but be skeptical when they hear avowed socialists proposing solutions to avoid a global warming doomsday that just happen to align perfectly with their dreams of ever-increasing social control. I suppose it is technically possible that the science does really indicate that our only hope for survival is to place our economic and individual freedoms in subservience to an international board of
I did manage to find this interesting site called Skeptical Science. It seems to be very damaging to my position, providing explanations for all the top arguments. I also found some interesting discussion in the comments section at the bottom of the article on that page. The number one argument against man-made global warming seems to be solar radiation. The standard answer seems to be that solar activity went flat around 1970 while global temperature continued to rise. This leaves CO2 as the only viable culprit. However, the estimates of solar activity might not be correct. The IPCC rates the Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) of solar irradiance as Low. NASA continues to learn more about the sun. Also, a recent study by Scafetta and Wilson (2009) suggests that solar radiation may account for nearly 65% of warming observed in the last 30-40 years.
Another promising argument seems to center around long-term hydrological cycles (see comment #6 on the Skeptical Science link above for more). These might also explain the past variations observed in Arctic ice. These would seem to be better predictors of droughts, etc., than global warming.
I will leave off with this. Sarah asked why I might object to global warming on theological grounds (as we are both Christians). In Genesis 8:22 (While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.), God promises that the earth will remain habitable until the end. God's promise to never again flood the earth follows soon after. I believe in a God that controls and maintains our planet. As a result, I'm not very worried about us damaging the planet in any significant way. I certainly don't think we should go around wasting and destroying for no reason, but it is clear from Scripture that the earth is here for us and not the other way around.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
"Global warming is a serious issue, even for just a 1 degree rise of temperature. Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is very worrisome as it most definitely will cause a rise in sea level, up to 7 meters. By some estimates, 1 meter rise in sea level is almost inevitable at this time. Consider, then, that 25% of the world's fertile growing regions are within 1 meter of sea level. Preventing 25% of our loss of food will take a huge effort and amount of money."
"On geological timescales (~400,000 yrs), yes the Earth does regulate climate. Solar luminosity (energy flux) has increased steadily since the formation of Earth yet the climate has been relatively constant. This is due to the Carbon-Silicate cycle which is controlled by biology and geology. So yes, in 400,000 the Earth should resolve whatever damage we cause now. But are you willing to wait that long? We need to do something now, as this issue will directly affect our children and grandchildren."
"I don't believe our planet will be 'destroyed' just that we are not being the best stewards of the resources and Earth God gave us. And we are causing ourselves undo harm. Ironically, the environmental movement was originally Republican and from Biblical teachings, I'd expect Christians to be the most staunch supporters of being 'green'. Materialism (which is a huge part of the Global Warming issue ) is sure not on Jesus' priority list."
"I would also like to mention that before I really understood more about climate science, I was also skeptical of Global Warming. Since it's become so politically charged, it's difficult to look at unbiased reports on it and everyone and their mother has their own opinion supposedly backed by 'science'. Climate is a very complex system, and there are many unresolved questions, such as the amount of predicted warming, the rate the ice sheets will melt etc. But there are a few things that remain sure 1) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It has in the past, it does so now, and it will warm the Earth and 2) human activity has added substantially to the carbon concentration since the industrial revolution. This is independent from volcanic activity or other non-human sources."
I have not included every argument here, but this makes a good jumping off point for a more public (front page) discussion. Again, I am forced to admit that I am not a scientist and have limited knowledge of climatology theory and research. As such, I depend on others to stay informed on the important and timely issue of global warming. The following sources are representative of those that have influenced my understanding of the science at hand:
Roy Spencer's website and blog - Spencer is a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and the official climatologist for Rush Limbaugh. He is the author of Climate Confusion.
The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science by John L. Daly - This is a thorough debunking of a chart made famous by Al Gore's venture into climate cinema.
The Great Global Warming Swindle - This documentary features quite a few scientists who doubt humanity's responsibility for global warming and discuss some of the non-science-related interests pushing the "conventional" view.
I will end this post by stating that, as a Christian, I am also opposed to the wholesale degradation of the earth with which God has entrusted us. I am also more than a little wary of the rampant materialism that seems to be choking our culture. However, I see the theory of man-made global warming as just another attempt by the left, making full use of alarmist scare-tactics, to usurp the rights and freedom of individuals and add yet more power to an ever-increasing government bureaucracy. I oppose materialism on a personal level; I do not wish to see our modern economy to collapse under the weight of arbitrary and onerous carbon limits and regulations. I also do not want our country to cede its sovereignty to the U.N. or any other world entity.
The environmental movement has produced very little of worth to our country, specifically, or to humanity at large. It has all but halted our ability to extract and refine fossil fuels, the life-blood of a modern standard of living. It has committed unspeakable harm to the third world by causing DDT to be banned. Malaria has killed millions since this dubious environmental "victory". Time and again, environmental regulations are used to punish one group while advancing the interests of others. They have kept the developing nations in their place, refusing them the basic tools of modernity, all the while propagating a false sense of guilt to further their aims. From celebrities who decry carbon footprints while flying their private jets to federal regulators blocking any attempt to become energy independent and punishing what little profits are made by energy producers, I simply don't have any confidence in them whatsoever. I believe man-made global warming is a terrible lie designed to destroy our economy and our place as the world's most powerful nation.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Telling your child he is smart will likely encourage less effort on his part. Instead, try praising specific achievements focusing on the effort applied. Self-esteem is a red herring.
Kids are getting somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour less sleep each night than they used to only a decade ago. Loss of sleep causes problems for adults but it absolutely destroys a child's ability to function academically, turning sixth-graders into fourth-graders. There is also an amazing correlation between sleep-loss and obesity in children (more so than between diet or exercise and obesity).
Kids lie many times a day, and parents can't always (or even usually) tell when. Smarter kids lie better than other kids. They mainly lie to please a parent or other adult, not to avoid punishment.
Tests to identify gifted kindergartners get it wrong about 73% of the time. IQ is not stable in children and testing is meaningless until at least the third grade.
A teenager's need for autonomy peaks around age 14 or 15. It is higher at 11 than at 18. When adults hear disturbing phrases like "swim with sharks" and "bite on a lightbulb" they experience an immediate emotional aversion. When teens hear these phrases, they weigh the decision in the cognitive parts of the brain--they actually have to think about it! Their brains do signal danger during experiments involving sharing their tastes and preferences with peers. Arguments between parents and teens tend to indicate a lower level of dishonesty in the relationship.
Children who watch educational TV shows (like Arthur and Clifford) exhibit a higher level of aggression--they're even worse than Power Rangers! 96% of all children's programming contains verbal insults and worse. Spanking, when done consistently and not as a "nuclear option" is effective (though the authors can't bring themselves to recommend it).
Infant language development is not driven by the number of words the baby hears, but by the number of times the baby gets a response for making sounds. Baby Einstein videos are useless at best and could even be harmful.
As you can see, the list of topics covered is large and diverse. Even so, parents or those who work with children are sure to benefit from the many insights provided.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The drama of the Balloon Boy, aka Falcon Heene, has thrown in sharp relief just how reality and make believe can collide. Yesterday, as news organizations breathlessly reported every new (and often not new) development in the story, everyone with any decency surely hoped and prayed for that family and that little boy. How terrible, how tragic, the story could have ended.
As it unfolded, I too prayed for the little boy and his parents. However, when it was reported that the balloon had landed and no one was in it and that Falcon's older brother had been the one to claim his younger brother had gone up in the balloon, I turned to my husband and told him, "That little boy is hiding in his backyard." (OK, I was off by a few feet.)
Why would I say such a cynical thing? Oh, maybe I just know something about human nature in general, and children in particular. It sounded to me like a childish prank gone awry. The story seemed to be resolved fairly quickly after that, as the six year old was found hiding in a box, and everyone was relieved (if chagrined) and that should be the end, right? Wrong.
When questioned, our young would-be adventurer piped up, "It was for the show". Show? What show? Here it becomes important to note that the Heene family are, ahem, a bit quirky. And they've managed to turn that quirkiness into profit by posting You Tube videos and appearing on the ABC reality show, "Wife Swap". (Side note: perhaps reality show ought also to be in quotation marks?)
Uh, oh. Did the Heene family lead the entirety of the U.S. media on a Wild Falcon Chase as a publicity stunt? Or is the young man just confused, and understandably so, about what is and isn't reality?
Whatever the answer may be, our media must share the blame. The lines between reality and make-believe, news and entertainment, have become hopelessly blurred. What did it benefit anyone that the news of October 15, 2009 was wall to wall "Boy Lost in Balloon" coverage? Would the reporting of the story in any way have helped the little boy if the story had been true? What exactly could all those reporters and camera men have done for the Heene family, anyway?
Falcon Heene, in his childish statement, has indicted his parents, the media, and, really, all of us. The media runs after a story for awhile, be it Anna Nicole Smith's death, Michael Jackson, Jaycee Duggard, "Octo-Mom" or really, anything that will sell papers and make interesting news coverage, until we're so saturated with all the sordid details, we just don't, and couldn't possibly, care any more.
Remember the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads"? "The play's the thing", to quote our old friend Shakespeare again. Maybe we should just substitute "reality show" for "the play" in our time.
For today, the Heene family and the media, all have egg on their faces. We can be relieved that no one was injured, including all those willing to sacrifice themselves to save a little boy. We can be relieved, but we ought to be chastened and sobered by what this story can teach us.
"It was for the show," is exactly right, no matter how young Mr. Heene meant it. And everyone knows, the show must go on.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
" . . . the problem is that so many Muslims want both stagnation and power: they want a return to the perfection of the seventh century and to dominate the twenty-first, as they believe is the birthright of their doctrine, the last testament of God to man. If they were content to exist in a seventh-century backwater, secure in a quietist philosophy, there would be no problem for them or us; their problem, and ours, is that they want the power that free inquiry confers, without either the free inquiry or the philosophy and institutions that guarantee that free inquiry. They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing, and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion on the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs. People grow angry when faced with an intractable dilemma; they lash out."
Monday, September 14, 2009
This doesn't happen because bureaucrats hate old people (not most of them anyway). It happens because no government on the face of the planet can afford to pay for every person's end of life care. Costs have to be trimmed just to keep the program afloat. These choices are tricky for individuals, too, but I'd still rather have my family make the tough call rather than my government. I bet you would, too.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Also, in an unrelated note, September 8 is an official skip day for those of you who send your kids to government schools. Yet another opportunity to protest high-handed, liberal indoctrination. Of course, my kids skip every day and thus avoid even the low-handed variety.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
"In an average day, at least 7,000 American teenagers experience sexual intercourse for the first time. Nearly every human being finds his or her way to it eventually, but few have by age 13 and most have by age 20. Some do so unwillingly. Without analyzing any data on adolescent sex, it is obvious that something significant is going on developmentally, biologically, socially, and culturally to make sexual intercourse attractive enough that roughly one-third to one-half of all young Americans try it for the first time--in spite of its physical and emotional risks--within the span of about two to three years (between ages 16 and 18)."
Regnerus draws upon two main sources: his own National Survey of Youth and Religion (conducted through a survey and selected follow-up interviews during 2002 and 2003) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, widely regarded as the most comprehensive study of its kind available. Regnerus seeks to examine what effect (if any) religion has on adolescent attitudes and behavior regarding sex. I will now list a few of the more interesting and potentially helpful findings:
Terminolology about sex has undergone significant change in the last few years. What used to be called "losing one's virginity" is often referred to as "first sex." Note the change of emphasis from virginity, a cherished commodity, to sex itself as a right of passage. The term "pre-marital sex" also needs to be examined. Traditionally, this has applied to sex between to people who intend to be married at some future date. However, most sexually active young people have multiple partners and see marriage as a distant possibility at best. As it now stands, sex has been decoupled; it is much more about the individual than about the couple.
Regnerus encountered a rigorous anti-judgmentalist sentiment among his participants. The value of tolerance is widespread and deeply-ingrained in today's youth. While this allows them to coexist with others in relative peace, it all but destroys their ability to condemn any action as wrong or to formulate a workable morality in any clear or consistent way.
The book finds that religiosity (how important religion truly is to a person) does seem to affect sexual attitudes and behaviors, whereas religious affiliation or even attendance largely does not.
Religious affiliation does affect attitudes much more than actual behavior. This is especially true of Evangelicals, who have an overwhelmingly conservative attitude about sex but who, nevertheless, demonstrate above-average levels of sexual activity. Regnerus conjectures that this may be the result of two opposing messages. Evangelicals have subscribed to American individualism and the prevailing consumerist culture while at the same time also truly value family and chastity. Thus, Evangelical youth are expected to abstain from sex until marriage but are also expected to marry only after securing such education and career attainments as to ensure their solid middle-class financial well-being (often not marrying until age 25-30). Clearly, there is a clash of cultures here. Regnerus discusses this in the article linked above.
The decision to commence sexual activity rests, in most cases, upon a shaky notion of one's "emotional readiness". This term excuses nearly any activity. What's more, teenagers admit that they cannot even know for sure if this flimsy standard has been met until after the first sexual encounter. One's positive or negative view of the experience tells the tale. A new morality has taken the place of the old. The worst taboo is having sex without adequate protection. This causes the closest reaction to shock as one can find. Other rules agreed upon by teenagers:
1. You should not pressure or feel pressured to have sex.
2. You should not sleep around too much, as this will reflect negatively on your reputation.
3. You are the only judge of your sexual decisions.
4. Sex belongs within a "long-term" (at least 3 months) relationship.
Regnerus also examined the trend of abstinence pledging. He found that pledging is of mixed benefit. Most pledgers are age 12 or 13--too young to realize the pressures that await them. Most pledgers break their pledge, 7 of 10 of these with someone other than their future spouse. However, pledging does have a small positive impact. Pledgers tend to delay their first intercourse and to have sex with fewer partners. This reduces their overall exposure to STDs.
While 8% of teens disapprove of contraception, fully 30%-40% fail to use it during their first time.
Finally, Regnerus pointed out that for all the mixed messages given and received about sex, the one and only clear message from religious instruction was, "Don't have sex until you are married." This message does not appear to be helping kids successfully negotiate the difficult challenges facing them.
Regnerus ends the book with what he calls his "unscientific postscript". He notes that, for all the rush to de-emphasize the religious and moral implications of sex, "there is no value-free perspective on sex." He asks, "Would we want to accept for our adolescents, then, something we adults tend to not wish for ourselves: sexual relationships largely divorced from real intimacy, security, love and commitment?"
Christians need to do some soul-searching on this issue, as well as what we teach about marriage and the family, and what we teach (or don't teach) about materialism and the culture. We must do more to encourage our young people to marry and to support them when they do. We must be clear about Biblical standards for sexual relationships. We must be consistent in our own lives as we live before our children and the community. And we must continue to proclaim the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
But, you say, Obama is no dictator (yet); he's just the president. Quite right. So are the joyful serfs thanking the right person? Who really bought all these needy kids new shiny lunchboxes (or whatever else the parents decided to spend the money on--there were no restrictions)? Exactly 20% of the credit goes to the most merciful George Soros who ponied up $35 million. I suppose that's almost as good as getting the money from Obama himself. And who was so generous as to provide the remaining $140 million? You were.
The rest of the money came from the great magical stimulus bill (not sure whether it's from Porkulus 1 or 2). Free money for all! Real economic stimulus for none. That Obama is some financial wizard . . . I can't wait until we get "free" health care, too! Obama has a pretty sweet setup: You pay the bills and he gets all the credit. At least Castro used his own (stolen) money to buy trinkets for his clamoring people. Obama just uses ours to do it. Don't expect any thank-you notes anytime soon.
But at least the economy was stimulated, right? Wrong. Nothing new was produced. No value was added. What do you bet those nifty 10-notebooks-for-a-dollar sales are suddenly over? This was a simple transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers scattered all over the country to "deserving" and "entitled", albeit grateful (to Obama), New York residents and to local New York businesses. There will be more dictator-like shell games in our future if we don't take a stand and oppose this nonsense. Let the "uncivil" shouting continue!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
This is what mob rule really looks like.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Despite being organized quickly by a liberal women's organization and held in a less than desirable part of town a good distance from the main body of westside constituents, the event was well-attended by the Cincinnati Tea Party and other like-minded conservatives. One liberal blog has already claimed that the meeting was "hijacked" by the conservatives. This is misleading. Yes, we were vocal at times. However, we were also interested in allowing the congressman and others to speak.
Driehaus is fairly adept at talking a long time without really saying anything, an important skill for any modern politician. However, no amount of stalling or double-speak could conceal the utter folly being considered by U.S. lawmakers. To his (little) credit, Driehaus did vote to delay the vote for a month. Beyond this small step, he seems unwilling to engage in further skepticism. He does seem extremely eager to assure voters that he is "deeply concerned." We'll soon get to see just how concerned he really is when the health care monstrosity comes up for a vote. My guess is that he's more concerned about Pelosi's cold, steely fingers jerking his funding away.
The health care debate seems to keep coming back to one fact: We don't have enough money to pay current health care prices. A single-payer system would require significantly higher taxes, printing lots of money or both while also lowering quality and availability of care. What we need to do is lower prices, not by mandating lower prices (leading to rampant shortages), but by limiting malpractice lawsuits. Another important step is to limit illegal immigration. No one wants to turn people away from emergency rooms, but we must take proper steps to avoid this situation in the firat place. Insurance premiums would decrease if companies could no longer hide behind state lines--give us true competition between the multitude of private plans, not a low-ball "public option" that doesn't have to worry about profit. Finally, we need to eliminate the massive fraud and waste associated with the current government health care program. Medicare enables over $70 billion in fraud each year.
When the meeting ended, the crowd broke into a rousing chant of "Vote For Chabot, Vote For Chabot!" I only hope that westsiders are awake enough to put Chabot back in his rightful place once the midterms roll around. Judging by the sweat pouring off Driehaus, I'd say we have more than a fighting chance. See this blog for another summary of the evening's event.
Friday, July 31, 2009
I also missed shocking development #2: The program ran out of money before the week was out. You know anybody else that can turn $500 into $4,500? That won't lead to incarceration? So, let's review: First, the government buys worthless loans. Now they're buying worthless cars. What other worthless items will be "invested in" next? Maybe they could buy my old sofa or my old lawnmower. What if we had this big yard sale for the whole country next Saturday? Special "expert" government shoppers could show up and start handing out $50s for all your junk.
You know it's bad when even the New York Times is getting in on the fun. This article contains several jewels:
"Barry Magnus, the general manager of DCH Paramus Honda, told us he was owed more than $80,000, and he wondered if he would ever see it. The government has said it would take 10 days to reimburse the dealers, but that was before the program apparently ran out of money and devolved into chaos Thursday night."
"Mr. Kurkin, the lawyer in Miami, said that many dealers are attaching clauses to their sales agreements, saying that if the government money does not come through, the customer will have to make up the difference."
". . . the dealers’ plan says only that the replacement car be more fuel-efficient, so it could get just one more mile per gallon. That may help sales, but is likely to do little for the environment. But experts said the government plan would do little for the environment either."
"Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, said in a statement that the cash-for-clunker program is not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. Any energy savings, he said, could take several years to realize, considering the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make it."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
BTW - Sorry for the recent wave of blog-cooling. It's camp season.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Dear Ignorant Citizen,
Thanks for your concern about this important issue. I plan to do the opposite of what you suggest. I look forward to benefiting greatly from the hidden earmarks in the bill. Feel free to contact me about other issues, as my staff loves the ensuing fits of laughter.
Your Most Gracious & Powerful,
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The formulation of the so-called Waxman-Markey bill was less traditional legislative sausage-making than an unspeakable practice out of The Jungle. Its architects bought off every possible interest group no matter what the policy consequences until they had a bare majority to slam it through the House sight unseen (a physical copy of the final bill didn’t yet exist when it passed). Mission accomplished, although at the price of a ramshackle bill that won’t succeed on its own terms, even as it introduces costly distortions and invasive bureaucratic controls into the economy.
Monday, June 29, 2009
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature. . . .
"All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible, yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members who were asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Also, last night Drudge linked to a Cincinnati Enquirer story about the stimulus. This little slice is typical:
In Woodlawn and Lincoln Heights, taxpayers will spend $100,000 to resurface one-seventh of a mile of Prairie Avenue, and install curbs for 20 houses along the way - a project that Rev. Jesse O'Conner hopes will stop the flooding in his basement. Without curbs or gutters, rainwater comes down the street and settles on his property.
So, to review, we borrowed $100,000 from the Chinese and/or inflationary money printing that the children from every state in the union will have to pay in taxes and lost wealth in a few years--all so some guy in Cincinnati can have his basement fixed for "free". And Obama says this will save the economy, all the while raising taxes on "rich" people and employers. The audacity of insanity. . .
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold bible studies in their home, 10News reported. Read the rest here.
Expect more of this type of treatment from increasingly hostile government agencies.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
So we have two broad theories of the American justice system:
1) Judges should be impartial and unbiased, making decisions according to the US Constitution and turning a blind eye to all else.
2) Judges should make decisions based on emotion and partisan political philosophy with an eye to handing out rulings favorable to the chosen few.
The Founding Fathers and nearly all Americans up to about 1950 and most Americans today would probably go with theory #1. Obama, Sotomayor and the Democrat political class are clearly going with theory #2, a choice that undermines the rule of law and threatens to erase much of the unprecedented individual liberty enjoyed by our nation for the last two centuries.
Not much is known about Sotomayor yet, but her involvement in a New Haven firefighters discrimination case should tell us enough. She voted in favor of the lower court's ruling in favor of discrimination, rejecting a 46-page opinion with a solitary paragraph of her own. George Will has some of the details of the case in a Washington Post column last month (the case will soon be heard by the Supreme Court). Suffice it to say that the firefighters involved have the wrong skin color to elicit Sotomayor's fabled sympathy.
Republicans cannot reasonably expect to block her confirmation. The Democrats have the votes. However, Senate Republicans can and must use this opportunity to expose Obama's radical agenda to the American people. Democrats from conservative states need to feel the heat. We need to acquaint the American people with as much information as possible about this and future nominees to the bench. Elections have consequences, but so will will the next one.
Michelle Malkin has much, much more.
Monday, May 25, 2009
I believe that a death such as theirs has been the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valor with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions.
None of these men was enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honorably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonor, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
In fact, as Kay Hymowitz limned in her 2006 book, Marriage and Caste in America, what we really have in this country is a caste system. At the top are the college graduates who nearly always get married before becoming pregnant. At the bottom are poor women of all races and backgrounds who routinely have babies before they marry (if they ever marry).
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Of course, the Times has to make everything "fair" by pointing out that evil oil companies and Republicans do the same thing all the time--always looking for a way to trick people into buying into their diabolical schemes [insert sinister laugh here]. The answer to all this Orwellian newspeak is to properly educate people to think, something that can be done in spite of public indoctrination via schools and media. The fact that "global warming" has become code for "we're going to tax you into oblivion based on a fairytale" shows that the battle is far from lost.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
It's official: Barack Obama is the second most reviled newbie president of the last forty years. A gallup survey today published in the Washington Times shows Obama to have an approval rating of just 56 per cent. The only president to have performed worse than that at the end of his first 100 days in office was Bill Clinton - and only then because it happened to coincide with the spectacular mishandling of the Waco siege, which might reasonably be laid at the door of ATF and FBI incompetence rather than presidential negligence.
Read the rest here.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
We spent the first part of the in London, where we saw many, many famous sights. The British Museum was spectacular, as was Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace.
We got to see the changing of the guard at close range:
The food was excellent--I don't know why people knock British food. I loved it! The steak & ale pie was especially good:
We also managed to visit Bath, the later traveled north to see Edinburgh and Glasgow.
A missionary friend also took us up into the Highlands for a few hours. Loch Lomond is truly a beautiful place. Then, we headed back to London and flew home on Tuesday. We're still battling a bit of jet-lag, but we had a wonderful time! For more detailed and engaging commentary of our trip, see Karen's blog, Candid Diversions (more updates to follow). Also, here are many more pics on my Picasa page. I'll try to get back to politics in the very near future!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
The problem with it is that it makes little effort to document or demonstrate its contention that “extremist” groups are resurgent, that they are right-wing, or that they may be formed from the ranks of “disgruntled military veterans.” Worse, it’s very sloppy about what qualifies someone as “extremist” in the first place. Basically, it’s fancy bureaucratese for: We’re guessing bad people will do bad things because the economy is bad and the president is black. But we have no real evidence.
This report reminds me of the old Jeff Foxworthy routine: If you've ever opposed abortion, you might be a terrorist. If you support states rights, you might be a terrorist. If you've ever been too drunk to fish . . . you get the idea. If you haven't read Liberal Fascism yet, what are you waiting for?
Also: Michelle Malkin has a great letter sent to Napolitano by a group of Senators.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The event kicked off with the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem, a mark of a classy and orderly protest. I saw no bad behavior or over-the-top signs. I guess ACORN failed to plant those counter-protesters after all.
The only counter-"protesters" I saw were a small group on a street corner. They may have been waiting for a bus.
Here are a few of the signs I snapped:
And last, but not least, my Mom even got into the spirit for the Nashville Tea Party:
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Cincinnati event goes from 11:30-12:30 tomorrow. Check this handy site for details about your city. This is a great opportunity to make a statement to the nation and our elected "representatives."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
But Holdren (science fiction expert) noted that shooting particles into the air—making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested—could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
You know it's bad when liberal eco-sceintists and news stories actually include the phrase "grave side effects." Practically all liberal policies (particularly those of a scientific bent) have grave side effects, but they usually don't get mentioned in mainstream print. This is nothing short of a blarring klaxxon. I don't think anything humans do can seriously change the climate system of the planet in any meaningful way, for better or worse. What they can do, and have been tirelessly working to do for the last 40 years, is severly limit our modern and prosperous way of life.