BResponsible

Oh, Canada...

2009-07-15T17:26:00.001-07:00

Here is an excellent video regarding Obama's desire to move the US towards a Canadian style healthcare system.

Earth Day Nonsense

2009-04-22T03:02:00.000-07:00

Ah, Earth Day as come upon us again. The annual plague of "truth" will spread across the world as we "celebrate" our impending doom. I'm all for this wonderful world we live in and for taking better care of it. There is more we can do and I see progress. What I'm not for is the continued lies spread by the media and many other outlets. I'm sure even my young children's day will include some education on global warming brought to us by the horrible human race.

There will be many poor examples of articles aimed at showing us how we are hurting mother Earth. I will quote from the first one that I ran into - Climate Catastrophe? Here's What the U.S. Could Look Like in 2100.

You've been hearing about the negative impacts of global warming for years. Sometimes your friends nervously joke about it — "Could land in the Rocky Mountains become beachfront property?" Other times you read with worry the news about forest fires, hurricanes, droughts and heat waves. And you wonder, "Is climate disaster already upon us?"

Scientists say the answer is "yes." We are now experiencing the effects of human-caused climate change and, even if we drastically alter our polluting behavior today, we'll continue to see changes over the next two to three decades. This change is irreversible, and researchers predict it may be worse than the depressing situation Al Gore foretold in "An Inconvenient Truth."

By stating "scientists say...we are now experiencing the effects of human-caused climate change" there is more than one overstatement taking place. Sure some scientists will state such but there are others who will state that we are not a major contributing factor in the current climate change taking place. So, 1) not all scientists agree and 2) we are not experiencing human-caused climate change - there is no definitive proof of that.

It is all quite tiring to reiterate, but our contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere is about 3.2% of total C02 "pumped" up there and less than 0.1 of one percent of the total greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Pretty natural stuff, water vapor. In all, nature generates 30 times more C02 than we humans.

The article states that if we reverse course now, we can get over the damage we have done in about 30-40 years. It doesn't say what exactly that means. A total cessation of human generated CO2? Imagine what that would do to our battered economy. It is crazy to think it could be done within that period of time alone. I even question, if we were to pretend we were the cause of global warming, whether or not such a cessation would change anything significantly in such a short period of time (in the grand scheme of things).

Be sure to go through the article and read of all the horrible things that will happen due to global warming. Of course, it would not make sense to note any of the positives of such changes as that would lessen the impact of the article. Some scientists continue to base their predictions on faulty climate models but I do not imagine that will end soon.

I hope everyone's Earth Day celebration is full of good cheer! For such a result, I recommend avoiding all media outlets, keeping your kids at home and maybe planting a tree/flowers, riding your bikes along a scenic trail and/or hiking among God's wonders.

One of the Most Idiotic Statements Ever

2009-04-19T23:19:00.000-07:00

Janeane Garofalo made one of the most idiotic statements ever when she commented on the recent Tea Parties being held to protest growing government spending and bailouts -

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.

When Obama was elected as President, I knew it would come to a point that when a person or group of persons disagreed with his policies some fool would come out and say it was because they were racist. The fact is, such a comment is simple minded and a cop out. When you have nothing intelligent to say, it is better to shut up than spew stupidity.

This is not about racism, this is about disagreement with Obama policies pure and simple. Calling those protesting such policies rednecks is more racist than what any of the tea party protestors are doing.

And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they'll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become -- it's like showing Frankenstein's monster fire.

She's got it all backwards. Who has to resort to petty name calling because she has nothing intelligent to say? Who is not willing to accept the truth here? Keith Olbermann can't, that's for sure -

Our number two story tonight, the sad reality behind the corporate sponsored Tea Parties, visual proof that this is not about spending, deficits, or taxes, but about some Americans getting riled up by the people who caused these things, and finally about some Americans who just hate the president of the United States.

While I did not participate in a Tea Party, those I know who did and who helped organize some were not corporate representatives. A large part of the blame for what we are going through now is because of the Democrats but they nor the media will ever admit that. They encouraged the lending to people who should never have received a mortgage loan. That is where the dominoes began to fall.

Hate is a strong word. I definitely feel the hate from those such as Olbermann and Garofalo who have no problem calling conservatives names and misrepresenting them. If they were on the receiving end of their own vitriol, there would be grand protests about the hate from themselves, the media and other liberals. It is hypocrisy at its grandest.

The Pickens Plan

2008-08-26T14:43:00.000-07:00

I was surprised to recently see a TV advertisement featuring T. Boone Pickens and his plan. Having left Texas I did not believe Pickens would follow me to another state but there he was on the TV in living color. Of course, the first question that came to my mind was what is Pickens getting out of this? If Pickens has a plan, it is for himself to make more money no matter how he markets it. Who is getting the bad end of the stick while he has the good end?

I graduated from West Texas A & M University where I took classes from the T. Boone College of Business. T. Boone's name was dropped from the college in 2005 over questions of whether or not he completed his pledge of $1.5 million (the University's side of the story) or because T. Boone thought the college was not performing to his expectations (his side of the story). He basically was confronted with the issue and decided it was time for a name change for the college.

A former corporate raider, he shunned Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle for Dallas because the region was not willing to tote his line anymore. He was always about profits despite what he left in his wake. Of course, the Texas Panhandle couldn't get rid of him that easy, as he would show up again with a plan to sell water down state to San Antonio and/or the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.

The water plan is still in the works and he has been paving the way to make it possible by his influence in the Texas legislature. He now has obtained the ability to get right-of-way to build a pipeline and, along with it, is looking at putting in transmission lines for his wind generated power. Pickens plan to pipe a limited resource, water from the Ogallala Aquifer, pays little regard to what future impact it may have on the farmers and communities of the Texas Panhandle.

At this point, let me touch on the new Pickens Plan that has brought him out west and onto my TV as well as that of many others. He wants to see the US increase the amount of power generated by wind energy to 22% of our power needs and convert the existing 20% or so of power generated through the use of natural gas to our transporation needs. What a green thing for an oilman to want to do, right? That's what he would like you to believe, and to believe he is doing this out of the best interest of the country, too. But, that is not who and what Pickens is about.

Pickens wants to put into place the largest wind farm to date in the Texas Panhandle near the town of Pampa through his company Mesa Power. His problem is that he needs the transmission lines to get that power to where it is needed. By getting support for his plan, he would most likely get the financial support to put in his transmission lines and thus be able to profit from his new wind farm. To top it off, Pickens has natural gas interests through his hedge fund, BP Capital, and would profit from a move to natural gas for transportation needs.So, who has the most to gain from the Pickens Plan? T. Boone Pickens, of course.

Is it a good plan regardless of Pickens' profit motives? I don't think so. Wind energy is definitely a viable and growing source of energy. There is still much room for it to grow. Where Pickens plan falls apart is in converting some of our transportation energy needs to natural gas. Pickens intends for it to be a transitional fuel as we convert over to more hybrids and to electric vehicles. His plan does not seem to take into account the infrastructure costs and time involved in getting more natural gas fueling stations. He also needs the support of automobile manufacturers for such a conversion and those behemouths take a long time to turn. A conversion to more natural gas fueled vehicles is in no way going to happen soon so why waste the time in doing it when we could be closer to other modes of fueling our automobiles.

Hopefully, national legislators and the public will see what worth this Pickens Plan really is and not buy into it. It will be time, effort and money wasted if we sink any of it into a plan that does little for us in the near future and will mean little to us in the more distant future.

David M. Walker Information Roundup - Our Looming Fiscal Crisis

2007-11-27T14:38:00.001-08:00

David M. Walker is the Comptroller General of the United States. I have blogged about him before but wanted to gather some links together regarding his attempt to warn Americans about our government's unfunded liabilities.

First, this article from the Washington Post - America's Red Ink. Here we are warned that the the Federal government has $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That's $440,000 per American household and was $20 trillion just 6 years ago.

Mr. Walker is involved in a Fiscal Wake-up Tour with the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation link provides links to various presentations and I will add this one - Time for the Federal Budget Process to Include Unfunded Entitlement Obligations. I recommend a viewing of one of Mr. Walker's Fiscal Wake-up Tour presentations like this one given to the Association of Advanced Life Underwriters (one of the more lengthy presentations given by him in the tour - this is in PDF format).

There is also an interview of Mr. Walker that was done on 60 Minutes - US Heading for Financial Trouble? From that interview:

The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago, a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the "baby boom."

David Walker believes this issue should be one of the top three in the coming presidential campaign but I doubt it will be given the attention it deserves.

No Farmer Left Behind

2007-11-14T07:59:00.000-08:00

I can't link the Wall Street Journal article but if you have access check out The No Farmer Left Behind Act article from November 14. While produce prices are on the rise as well as the profit of those who produce it, Congress is working on another farm bill that will dole out $25 billion in direct crop payments and $10 billion in emergency assistance. The impact of subsidies can be illustrated by these quotes from the article:

In other industries, we celebrate the impact of trade and technology in reducing prices. But U.S. farm programs are expressly designed to make food prices higher for consumers. Economists estimate that Americans pay about $12 billion more a year for food as a consequence -- on top of the higher taxes to sustain the direct handouts...

About $4 of every $5 in the Senate bill go straight into the pockets of the growers of five commercial crops: corn, cotton, rice, soybeans and wheat. The idea of subsidizing corn growers at today's prices makes about as much sense as government sending a check to every American who owns Google stock.

Now, immediately upon coming across this article I though about how the big benefactors of farm subsidies are the corporate farmers.

And though this is a Democratic Congress that claims to care about "inequality," the USDA says about two-thirds of this farm aid goes to the wealthiest 10% of farms. It is a direct transfer from taxpayers and poor consumers to mostly rich corporate farmers. President Bush has requested that subsidies only go to farmers with incomes below $200,000, but the Senate bill has no income caps for full-time farmers. One proposed amendment (by Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar) would establish a cap of $750,000 in income, but that's still about 14 times the average family income in America, and the farm lobby is fighting even that. The House subsidy ceiling is $1 million a year, which after fancy accounting would exclude no corporate farms at all. Yet all of this is defended as a "safety net."

It would thus seem that the farm aid is going to the wrong farmers. The American consumer has enough to worry about with increasing fuel and energy costs without having to deal with spiking agriculture product prices that may be increasing in cost partly due to farm subsidies. It is just another burden placed on produce prices in addition to increased demand and increased production costs.

Teenage Pregnancy

2007-11-08T08:01:00.000-08:00

The big topic here in Texas the last couple of days has been teenage pregnancy. Texas has the distinction of ranking first among states for the rate of teenage pregnancy among teenagers that are already mothers. You can read more about it in this Dallas Morning News article, Texas teens lead nation in birth rate. The figures are coming from Child Trends (here is a PDF copy of the study).

The focus of the discussion on this topic has been on sex education - abstinence and contraceptive approaches. Some are blaming the fact that Texas does not focus enough on teaching children about the availability of contraceptives. States like Vermont and New Hampshire are at the other end of the scale. You can read more about their success in this Burlington Free Press article, One ranking were last is best. In that article Sharon Moffatt, Vermont's Health Commissioner states the following:

Moffatt said the key to Vermont's success at holding down the number of repeat teen births has been a comprehensive strategy that includes health education programs in schools to try to prevent teen pregnancies, early prenatal health services for pregnant teenagers and supports such as child care after birth to allow teens to complete school.

I have a different take on this issue. Health education, including that of abstinence and contraceptives is a band aid approach to the true problem that is creating teenage pregnancy and repeat teenage pregnancy. The problem starts much earlier.

When I first moved to Texas from Idaho while in the fourth grade I was in for some culture shock. In Idaho I was kid having fun (well, except for school) and girls had cooties. When I got to Texas, many kids were pairing off as boyfriends and girlfriends kissing and going on dates (not dinner and movie dates but getting together doing things fourth graders did). Kids of that age should not be getting in such relationships, they are not mature enough for it. The problem was compounded by parents who thought it was cute. Some parents encouraged the behavior and many were complacent to it.

Relationships build over time. If you start kids off with boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in elementary school, they're going to develop to more involved relationships early as well. Is it a surprise that kids are starting to have sex as early as a middle school (with even some cases of elementary school age sex)? Those kids have moved from kissing and holding hands to oral and full sex (with steps in between) as a natural relationship trend too early.

Many of the girls I saw in boyfriend/girlfriend relationships in elementary school were the same ones I saw getting pregnant as teenagers in high school. Once you find it necessary to provide abstinence and contraceptive education the true root of the problem has already been missed. The relationships have already begun and pressure to move them through the steps of greater intimacy are already well underway. With so many kids starting these relationships early, by the time their "raging hormones" hit they are already at the edge of sexual intimacy.

Schools really can't teach relationship classes starting in elementary school. They are not equipped for that education and they really do not have the time. Parents should be building a foundation of what is right and wrong and give their kids an understanding of what is appropriate for their age. Sadly, I see the trend going the wrong way in this regard. So, we see band aid approaches to the issue with many concluding we are not going to keep kids from having sex so we need to stop them from getting pregnant by educating on contraceptives and making contraceptives more available. To me, the opportunity has been missed and kids suffer for it.

Economic Impact of Global Warming Hysteria

2007-08-30T11:56:00.000-07:00

My poor neglected blog. What better is there to finally get a post on here again than bringing up one of my favorite topics - the environment and namely global warming? Due to a global warming discussion over at Nauvoo, a forum I participate in, the subject has come back to the surface.

Today I read an article by S. Fred Singer (Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia) titled Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? (the link is to a PDF document). It was from a lecture he delivered at Hillsdale College during a seminar entitled "Economics and the Environment". I could bring up his comments regarding problems with the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - a United Nations group) and the claim that 2,500 scientists on that panel agree that human activities are the main contributor to global warming and/or other problems with that conclusion but really it would be been there done that to do so. What I think is important about his comments is:

Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.

So, the global warming hysteria can have an economic impact. Environmentalists and the like that are pushing the human caused global warming scare probably do not take the time to realize what they are doing, don't care or have other aims in mind. One aim could be to rake in an economic windfall for themselves:

It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest.

I'm sure a majority are probably truly concerned but they don't think beyond their issue. Their narrow focus misses the problems with the "facts" they are pushing and the impact of the solutions they are pushing. We have to move forward looking both ways to avoid being broadsided by other, possibly greater problems brought on by our shortsighted solutions to problems that we may not have control over or that may not even be problems at all.

SiCKO - Part 2

2007-06-28T07:27:00.000-07:00

I have to highlight some additional issues regarding SiCKO. Please note that the two articles I linked in my prior post are by people who have already seen SiCKO (Prepare to be Sickened by SiCKO and Placebo Propaganda).

From Placebo Propaganda:

Sicko indicts our system of private sector insurance by showing the ugly side of HMOs. Later, however, it notes that our system of HMOs is largely the result of Richard Nixon's 1973 HMO Act. In other words, the growth of HMOs are not the natural outcome of private sector insurance but the spawn government policy. Nor does this instance of government bungling do much to bolster his case for a government takeover of our health care system.

Other contradictions are less glaring but no less serious. After condemning HMOs, Sicko laments the failure of Hillary Clinton to establish a system of universal health insurance in the U.S. during the early 1990s. But if HMOs are so bad, why would Moore be so sympathetic to HillaryCare? After all, Clinton's plan was dubbed "managed competition" because it would have put Americans in one of a number of heavily regulated HMOs. However, Moore leaves that fact about HillaryCare out of Sicko, so perhaps that's more a case of deception than a contradiction.

That statement really stands alone. Many complain about HMOs and the amount of control they have over a person's care. What needs to be realized is this is a taste of what government provided healthcare would be like but it would probably be worse.

Time has an article, Health Care's War Against Sicko that mentions healthcare's offensive against SiCKO. Of course, the healthcare industry from providers to health insurers are going to do what they can to get the truth out there. Their livelihoods are at stake.

Though few people have actually seen Sicko yet, there's been wide-ranging speculation that the film and its maker could be the catalysts Americans need in order to demand reform of their ailing medical care system. With an emphasis on the 47 million uninsured in the U.S., Moore not only presents a chilling assessment of the status quo but goes on to advocate for the socialist approach of Canada, France and Cuba as a more effective alternative.

Plenty have seen SiCKO to comment on it. The mention of the 47 million uninsured in the US is oft repeated by those critical of healthcare coverage in the US but note from Prepare to be Sickened by SiCKO the following:

Moore throws around a figure of “50 million uninsured Americans.” It's more accurate to report that the number of Americans who are uninsured cannot be verified. A significant percentage, however, can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. In addition, as many as one-third of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or other free government programs but fail to apply for them. And, ultimately, “uninsured” does not mean without access to care.

I also noted information regarding the uninsured in my 2004 blog post.

Also from the Time article:

"People see Moore as uniquely honest and truthful in a corporate landscape," says Pat Aufderheide, a communications professor at American University.

Honest? Truthful? Only to those who refuse to look beyond the distorted side that Moore presents regarding issues. I find little honest and truthful about distorted "truth". I'm sure there are way too many that fit that description, however.

SiCKO - The title says it all

2007-06-26T08:23:00.000-07:00

Another film title that describes the film quite well. Michael Moore is at it again with his new “documentary” effort, SiCKO. Just for full disclosure – I have not seen this film and have not had an opportunity to. Frankly, I would at some point if I could do so without contributing to the box office totals and Michael Moore’s profit. There are plenty out there who have seen it and have something to say. There is a good discussion at American Thinker titled Prepare to be Sickened by SiCKO by Peter Barry Chowka. He starts the article off with the following:

From start to end, SiCKO, the latest “documentary” from notorious writer and filmmaker Michael Moore, is a stunning example of the Big Lie. Almost shockingly devoid of fact and context, it's instead based on highly selective, emotionally-driven, and deeply flawed anecdotes, strung together by writer-director-producer Moore's trademark folksy, soft-spoken, whimsical personal narrative. SiCKO (the unusual capitalization is Moore's conceit) is not a documentary at all, but a naked propaganda exercise on behalf of full-bore socialism. A better title for it would be Pinko.

No surprise there. This is how Michael Moore operates.

The absence of any actual, verifiable information, and essential context, about the big and extremely complex subject at hand (health care, after all, represents one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy) is appalling, but that probably won't bother either the hard core collectivists and statists who will eagerly pay to see this thing or the fans of the expanding entitlement culture, who will root for SiCKO's commercial success and, more to the point, the progress of Moore's single payer universal health care agenda in the evolving national political debate.

I have commented in an earlier post on this blog what a single payer universal health care system would do for us. The best example is to look to other countries that have had such systems. The result has been increasing taxes, poor healthcare and the rationing of healthcare for many of those countries. It would appear that you don’t get that truth from Moore’s SiCKO. The article provides some links to some blogs and websites that do contain the other side of the story:

Fortunately, a number of Web sites and blogs, and even competing filmmakers, are taking Moore and his fellow travelers to task for their misrepresentations, omissions, and obfuscations.

An example provided in the article about problems with government provided healthcare:

Literally every day, the mainstream media in the countries whose government-run medical systems Moore holds up as superior models publish stories documenting the failure of mandatory, no-opt-out, state-run medical care. The laundry list of ills, in the U.K. alone, includes patients waiting months or even years for critical drugs and treatments (sometimes becoming disabled or dying because of the delay or lack of care), people denied therapies altogether because of rationing or cost (see, for example, an article last February in The Scotsman, “Cancer patients told life-prolonging treatment is too expensive for NHS”), an explosion in the size of the medical bureaucracy, and thousands of physicians taking to the streets earlier this year to protest.

Bureaucracy will never provide a cure for our healthcare problems. We will pay for healthcare even if it is through the government, just not directly and at a greater cost in taxes and limited care. From my earlier blog post I explored what might happen if we went to a universal healthcare system (note that I put this together back in October of 2004):

As healthcare costs rise there will be much debate about how to pay for it. Taxes will be raised but only to a point because it will unfavorable for politicians to take it up too far. Once that option is exhausted the government will look to keep healthcare costs down by a combination of things. There will be the limiting of awards given in lawsuits for malpractice, limiting the amounts that doctors and healthcare facilities can charge, prescription drugs will become heavily regulated and eventually the government will decide what drugs get made and who gets them and HMO style approval will become necessary to see specialists, to have tests done and to have surgical procedures performed. Now, some of these changes are needed now on a minor scale but the government won’t know when to stop. The results will have a drastic effect on many levels. Lawyers will find a large source of income gone because it will be unsuccessful to sue the government (not that this is bad, but the lawyers would not like it). Fewer would choose a healthcare profession, especially that of being a physician as all that education and bad hours for a poor income in relation, set by the government. There would be less pharmaceutical research, such research being unprofitable because of heavy government regulations. Thus there would be fewer new medications to take preventing many different conditions and diseases.
The biggest effect would be the loss of consumer choice which so called “Patients’ Bills of Rights” have supposedly tried to increase (gratefully they have not passed). There will be less protection against malpractice, fewer doctors and healthcare facilities to choose from, fewer prescription offerings and choices and less choice and availability of specialized care, tests and procedures. On top of that, the quality of care will deteriorate as those in the healthcare industry have little incentive to perform, fewer funds to do their job and decrease in number as the pay doesn’t compensate for the education, continuing education and cruddy hours.

There are problems our country faces with regard to healthcare costs but the solution is not going to a universal healthcare system.

I want to point out another review of SiCKO from David Hogberg at American Spectator – Placebo Propaganda. Note the following from that article:

The Deceit: I sure hope Moore got paid by the governments of Canada, France, and the United Kingdom for the romantic way he portrays their health care systems. Moore plays a montage of American commentators claiming that the Canadian system has waiting lists for surgery. After his visit to Canada, Moore claims that "what we've been told about Canada is just not true." But his "investigation" into the Canadian system involved chatting with some of his Canadian relatives, interviewing one man who had surgery on his elbow, and visiting a hospital emergency room. He did much the same for the United Kingdom. Clearly he didn't spend much time looking for people who had spent time on waiting lists, although a bit of searching on the Internet would have been sufficient
As for France, Moore spends all of his time interviewing people who seem to be largely drawn from France's upper-middle class. No doubt the government services they receive are reasonably good. But one wonders if he might have found something different had he spent time in one of France's Muslim ghettos. Nor did he spend any time looking at how the breakdown of France's health care system contributed to the nearly 15,000 deaths from a heat wave in August 2003.

Stuart Browning, a filmmaker, as put together Free Market Cure, a website with videos and information and links to “inform Americans about the dangers of collectivized medicine and the benefits of free markets in health care”.

Too many in the US are going to take Michael Moore’s SiCKO and believe it is the truth. There’s always more to the story and anyone who truly wants to know the state of our healthcare system and what universal healthcare may do to our healthcare should explore the issue beyond Moore’s narrow, propagandized view.

Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory

2007-05-25T11:40:00.000-07:00

From Steven Malloy of Junk Science we have another article on Global Warming - Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that the 2000 to 2004 rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions has grown three times than during the 1990s. The "consensus" theory that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming would mean we should be experiencing more rapidly increasing temperatures. Well, its not happening.

The bottom line is that while we may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before — relatively inexpensive coal, oil and gas are facilitating steady global economic expansion — that activity isn’t having any sort of discernible or proportionate impact on global temperatures.

Not surprisingly, the study authors don’t seem to want you to know that fact since nowhere in their study do they even mention the word “temperature,” let alone do they present a graph comparing trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide with global temperature.

Someone has something wrong about carbon dioxides relation to global temperature.

First, despite all the carbon dioxide emitted by man since the industrial revolution, manmade carbon dioxide is an exceedingly small part of the total greenhouse effect — on the order of about 0.11 percent.

Remember that we’re talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in parts per million. You may choose to believe that a 3 percent annual increase in manmade carbon dioxide emissions — releases that represent way less than 1 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions — is something to worry about, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves.

Next, we’re not even really sure of the true relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. While the alarmists want us to believe that rising carbon dioxide levels necessarily increase global temperatures, scientific data from Antarctic ice cores indicate the exact opposite — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide appear hundreds of years after increases in global temperature.

So, the "consensus" science continues to not add up. I doubt, however, that those behind the National Academy of Sciences study will ever admit that.

Be sure to read the article to get the full details.

BioFuels on the Rise

2007-05-18T07:17:00.000-07:00

Continuing what appears to be one of my pet subjects, I recently ran into an article, The Worldmarket For Biofuel Exceeded $ 18 Billion In 2006, that discusses the ever increasing market for Biofuels. Notable is the fact that China aims to be oil-free by 2030 and is currently the #3 producer of biofuels behind Brazil and the US.

Biofuels are the next step in ridding ourselves of oil dependency. It is encouraging to see the sources of biofuels diversifying away from energy intensive crops such as corn and soybeans to recycled oils and wastes to various types of weeds and plants that require less energy to produce.

Understand that I believe biofuels should only be a midpoint change as we transition to other forms of powering our vehicles - electric fuel cell cars being one of the promising alternatives. If we can plug our vehicles in for charging through the use of energy produced by wind, solar or nuclear power we will drastically reduce our polluting emissions.

Jatropha

2007-05-09T06:49:00.000-07:00

There's another fuel alternative out there - biodiesel made from the Jatropha weed. Seems many countries in the world are starting to look at Jatropha for their future energy needs. For more information check out Former weed may fill world's fuel tanks at Yahoo News, originally from The Christian Science Monitor. A hardy plant that can grow almost anywhere and yields "yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of corn" (wikipedia article on Jatropha oil) sounds good. Even oil companies are looking into the plant for fuel production. It seems almost everyday another alternative fuel source comes up in a news article. Hopefully we are exploring all these alternatives to find the more effective sources for our fuel needs.

"The Mormons"

2007-05-04T10:19:00.001-07:00

I do not normally post about religion here, not that I do not think it is an important topic but because this is not a religious blog. However, as a believing and practicing Mormon I have to take issue with the recent broadcast of "The Mormons" on PBS. I am surprised so many are calling this a thoughtful presentation of my Church and religion. The presentation missed so much. I found this article by Maurine Jensen Proctor to be a great response and to reflect my feelings on "The Mormons" quite well. I do not believe a responsible approach was taken in this production, not that I have a problem with the subjects that were touched on, but largely about what was left out and the lack of balance.

Unfunded Liabilities

2007-05-03T06:41:00.000-07:00

It would probably come as a surprise to many in the US to know the Federal government has $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That's $440,000 per American household and was $20 trillion just 6 years ago. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States warned us about America's Red Ink last year and continues to do so. That figure does include liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Something obviously has to be done to revamp these programs or we could be in big trouble in the future. There is an extensive review of this problem put together by The Heritage Foundation. It is quite extensive and still quite relevant even though it was put together two years ago. David Walker believes this issue should be one of the top three in the coming presidential campaign but I doubt it will be given the attention it deserves.

Another area we find unfunded liabilities is with state and municipal pension plans. In a Barron's article it is noted those unfunded liabilities are upwards of $1 trillion. That is not all, in addition to the unfunded pension liabilities, states and municipalities also have to contend with unfunded post retirement health care liabilities which approaches $1.5 trillion. A lot of attention was given recently to the unfunded pension liabilities of corporations. However, Barron's notes that most major corporations now have those liabilities 100% funded. Now it is time for states and municipalities to do the same.

Renewable All the Way

2007-04-25T07:34:00.000-07:00

XL Dairy Group is building a facility in Arizona that is going renewable all the way. It is going to produce high grade ethanol, biodiesel, milk and dairy products, and animal feed while doing it using energy 100% produced by the plant. Some of that ethanol and biodiesel will even be produced using algae rather than corn. There are more and more of these type of projects coming out with different variations. Many are producing their own energy to produce ethanol through such things as animal waste. It is good to see things going in this direction.

Trans Fats May be Going but What is Taking It's Place?

2007-04-17T11:22:00.000-07:00

This will be my first "nutrition" post. Good health, however, is important in reducing our healthcare costs and increasing quality of life so I think it is an important topic. We see Trans Fats being banned in a few places and many companies removing it from their products but we should be concerned about what is taking its place. An article that I ran into at MSNBC addresses this subject - Trans fats’ fill-in may not be much healthier. Trans Fats originally replaced saturated fats and now the opposite is occuring. There are some options to consider as noted by the article:

What are the options? There are some heart-healthier oils, called monounsaturated and polyunsaturated oils — such as olive, canola or soybean oils. Unlike trans and saturated fats, these liquid oils don’t raise levels of so-called bad cholesterol, or LDL cholesterol.

However, monounsaturated and polyunstaturated oils are not good for baking so other alternatives are being researched. My simple answer is to limit our consumption of baked goods as would seem prudent and suggested over the years. We can only go so far to find healthy replacements for substances that are unhealthy when overconsumed. We will find ourselves chasing our tails as we go from one substitute to another as we find out our substitutes are not sufficient in reducing risks to our health.

Alarmism Places Spotlight on Al Gore

2007-03-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Al Gore's global warming alarmist rhetoric is really a ploy to draw attention to himself. If he was not spouting grim "realities" of what we have done to our planet, would anyone listen to him? Would anyone remember him? Probably not.

I toyed with the idea that Al Gore does not even believe the extremes of his rhetoric but I quickly came to the reality that hey, its Al Gore, he does believe it. So, I cannot resign myself to believe that his attempts are merely to get himself in the spotlight. He is narrow minded enough to believe all the man-made global warming hype but too hypocritical about it to do all he truly can to prevent his so-called contributions to global warming.

So, we will probably have a good while to enjoy Al Gore's continued trumpeting of global warming and how humankind has caused it. The inflated statistics, flawed science and hyped language will continue to come from his direction as well as others in his camp and all too many will listen and believe.

The North American Union

2007-02-23T13:40:00.000-08:00

There's a conspiracy theory running around that an organization called the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America is heading us toward a North American Union, including a common currency titled the Amero. The SPP website provides no evidence that its aim is to create a North American Union nor a common currency. The Bush Administration flatly denies that they are trying to create such a union. Check out the Myths and Facts section of the SPP website. There have been some good articles recently regarding this conspiracy theory.

Michael Medved has discussed the issue on his radio program on more than one occasion. After one such broadcast with "scare-mongers" (his description) Joe Farah and Jerome Corsi he made these comments on Townhall.com regarding the aftermath. John Hawkins also tackles the matter over at HumanEvents.com and points to Killing the North American Union Conspiracy found at RightWingNews.com.

The exploration of extending economic and security cooperation between our country and Canada and Mexico is blown out of proportion. Our sovereignty is not in danger. Nothing is going to be done without going through the proper channels, including that of Congress. The likes of Ron Paul (a potential Presidental candidate) to use these scare tactics is irresponsible and discredits them in my view.

Climate Distortions

2007-02-08T14:43:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article, Lawmakers Question Scientists About Climate Change, over at FoxNews.com. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is something I have wanted to dig into further and still plan to. Here is a quote from this article that I find interesting:

Rohrabacher asked the co-chairwoman of the IPCC what percentage of greenhouse gases are caused naturally rather than by human beings. Chairwoman Susan Solomon said carbon dioxide emissions, the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, "is caused almost entirely by human beings."

Pressed again, she said: "A fair number, regarding the increase since 1750, is that
greater than 90 percent of the increase is caused by human activities."

"That wasn't the question, was it?" Rohrabacher retorted. "Listen, this is very dishonest, you're supposed to be a scientist."

Speaking to FOXNews.com, the congressman said Solomon's answer was "a total obfuscation" that "tries to exaggerate the actual amount of pollution being put into the atmosphere by human beings as compared to what nature does itself."

Rohrabacher explained that the answer he got does not reveal that perhaps only 5-10 percent of all greenhouse gases are made by humans even if the human contribution has increased by 90 percent over the last 100 years.

He added that it "makes no sense at all" to defund certain programs and dramatically change our way of life" when "one volcano is going to undo" all the improvements.

Rohrabacher said another scientist testifying at the hearing, Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, acknowledged that a graph he used in his testimony demonstrates an upward trend in temperature, but does not make clear that the starting point of 1850 was at the very end of a 500-year cooling period, a fact Trenberth readily admitted.

Rohrabacher said the graph, therefore, shows a "one degree change from the bottom. That doesn't sound very alarming to me." He also faulted scientists who use scare tactics to make their case.

"We've seen this over and over again, where they are trying to claim an almost unanimous consensus among scientist and it's not true. Usually that tactic is nothing more than just trying to stampede people than answer serious criticism," Rohrabacher said.

Rep. Rohrabacher makes some excellent points.

Minimum Wage Increase

2007-01-08T08:24:00.000-08:00

I have concerns about the push to increase the minimum wage. It is interesting to note that I have always earned more then the minimum wage since my first job at the age of 16. I hope everyone has had the chance to be informed as to who actually earns a minimum wage. Here is a quote from Heritage Foundation:

"Contrary to the stereotype, most minimum wage workers do not need government assistance. Less than one in five live below the poverty line, and the average family income of a minimum wage earner is almost $50,000 a year. Very few minimum wage workers support a family with their earnings—fewer, in fact, than in the population as a whole. Minimum wage workers are far more likely to be teenagers or college students than single parents working full time. The majority of minimum wage workers are between the ages of 16 and 24, and over three fifths work part time."

So, if you raise the minimum wage for those who earn it, your increasing the wages of those who really don't need the increase. When you consider an increase in wages for high school and college students will likely place price pressures on their employers, the results will be higher cost of products and services and/or a reduction of the workforce.

The whole minimum wage issue is one that is cosmetic. It looks pretty and gives people warm fuzzies when it is done and gives brownie points to the politicians that push it. It is a half-hearted, surface treatment anti-poverty measure. Here is some additional information from Heritage Foundation:

"This is unsurprising because low wages are not a primary cause of poverty. Most poor Americans do not work for the minimum wage. In fact, most poor Americans do not work at all, for any wage. Over three-fifths of individuals below the poverty line did not work during 2005, while only 11 percent worked full time year-round. The median family with children living below the poverty worked only 20 hours per week. Families are not poor because they earn low wages but because they do not have full-time jobs. If at least one parent in every poor household worked full-time year round, the child poverty rate in the United States would plummet by over 70 percent. Raising the minimum wage does not address this problem."

If politicians truly cared about those in poverty, they wouldn't try to sell an increase in the minimum wage as part of the solution. In fact, with the loss of low-skilled jobs and possible increases in the costs of products and services, a higher minimum wage does more harm than good to those in poverty.

More Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore

2006-12-07T07:21:00.000-08:00

No matter how many posts and no matter how many links I provide regarding problems with the "science" and "facts" in Al Gore's docuganda An Inconvenient Truth, I will never be able to overrun the loads of articles and links out there that support the information Al Gore presents. I read somewhere on the internet that there is an attempt to establish truth by repetition of the same information regardless whether or not it is accurate - if you tell a lie enough people start to take it as truth. I agree with that sentiment and you see it with this issue. I have so often heard there is a consensus regarding man's part in global climate change. Despite the clear fact there is not a consensus, many still claim there is. I'm linking some additional articles regarding An Inconvenient Truth below for your reading enjoyment. The first article addresses the consensus issue. The WSJ Opinion Journal article below is written by a Mr. Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00400.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

My prior post on this subject was about an article in Car and Driver magazine. Using an article from an automobile magazine got me in trouble but I don't find the source of the information an issue as long as the science and facts are presented correctly. I could cite that a lot of the support on the net for An Inconvenient Truth comes from liberal sources or environmental organizations or activists. It is hard to avoid bias but it is the information that counts. The science in the Car and Driver article is accurate and presented in numerous places, including some of the articles above. The information in An Inconvenient Truth is countered or clarified in the articles linked. A truly thoughtful and exploratory documentary would include both sides of the issue. Perhaps those such as Al Gore do not find it necessary to do so due to their claim of consensus but, quite frankly, any such claim is a lie. I don't throw that term around lightly but there is just too much evidence to the contrary to claim consensus. Of course, the purpose of Al Gore is not to provide a thoughtful and exploratory look at global climate change but to create a climate of fear and it is hard to do that when your science is not so clear cut.

Problems with the Canadian Healthcare System

2006-11-27T08:04:00.000-08:00

I get into posting themes, don't I? I can't help how information comes to me, so I share it as it comes.

I recently came across this article in the Calgary Sun about problems with the Canadian health-care delivery system. This is of important note to us in the US as a warning about problems with universal healthcare systems (government paid healthcare for all). With the Democrats taking control of Congress, they will once again try to push us in that direction.

"The Fraser Institute is projecting health-care costs will consume 50% of Alberta’s budget by 2017. That’s a sharp ramp-up of the timeline the institute projected last year, when it felt Alberta wouldn’t be spending 50% of its revenues on health care until 2035. Now, the Fraser report says, Alberta will likely spend 100% of its revenue on health-care by 2030. "

That kind of spending can not be sustained. What are the possible solutions for Canada? What has been done in the past by the Canadian government?

"But the report argues that conventional government solutions won’t be feasible in the long run: Governments cannot continually raise taxes in order to cover increased health-care costs, because the end result of that would be provincial governments taxing 100% of everyone’s income. Nor can government continually run budget deficits and borrow the money needed to bridge the health-care funding gap. Nor, says the report, would the public stand for governments constantly delisting services from provincial health-care plans, or further rationalizing services by increasing waiting lists. "

Problems lie ahead for the Canadian healthcare system. Estimates of costs do not take into account a growing elderly population. We have to take these problems as a warning about how we proceed in the US with healthcare. The government solution does not appear to be the big answer that Democrat politicians would want us to believe.

Healthcare Costs and Illegal Immigrants

2006-11-21T08:00:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article over the weekend in my local paper titled Hospitals feel drag of illegal immigrants. This site does require registration to view this article so I'll try to quote portions that I am commenting on:

"In Tarrant County, which consists mainly of Fort Worth [Texas], hospitals require foreign-born indigent patients to furnish proof of legal residence. However, at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas County, management has a de-facto don't-ask, don't-tell policy. Last year the facility spent $76 million caring for non-county residents or people believed to be illegal immigrants, hospital officials say."

"From Brownsville to El Paso, the rapidly growing number of "anchor babies" is costing hospitals millions of dollars, health officials say. "Anchor babies" are the newborns of undocumented immigrants, who use such children to become legal since anyone born in this country is automatically a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality."

"In Dallas County 70 percent of women who gave birth in the first three months of 2006 were here illegally. In Oklahoma 83 percent of the money spent on illegal immigrants is in maternity wards. In Georgia $100-$300 million is spent each year in non-emergency care for illegal immigrants."

Healthcare and health insurance costs are a growing concern in the US. One of the causes of that is "cost shifting". Hospitals and other care providers shift costs not paid by illegals, uninsured and amounts over Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates to those who do pay and/or have insurance. The concern of growing illegal immigrant healthcare costs should be a concern of all of us not to mention the problem of "anchor babies" causing greater illegal immigrant problems.

Many hospitals are starting to require proof of citizenship for service but many do not and will probably continue to provide care for illegals until the money they are losing from such care becomes impossible to ignore. Of course, there will be some upset that we turn away illegal immigrants for healthcare but there comes a point where we cannot continue to absorb those costs as citizens.

This provides yet another reason we need to do something about illegal immigration.

Corny

2006-11-03T06:57:00.000-08:00

I guess I've been stuck on environmental issues lately but I can't help it. Here in the Texas Panhandle some ethanol plants have been announced. There has been a big push lately for the expanded use of ethanol which is primarily made with corn. This push seems to come mostly from the automobile manufacturers as well as politicians and corn producers. The marketed cause of the big push - the concern over dependency on foreign oil. I'm a little concerned that not only is Ethanol not environmentally friendly but takes us in a direction we really shouldn't be going in.

Some may consider ethanol a good renewable energy resource but lets think about that for a moment. We only have a certain amount of farmable land to produce the corn that is used to produce the ethanol. Increased farming does put a stress on the land. There is only so much corn we can viably produce. So ethanol production can only reach certain levels and those levels may not be maintainable over time.

Another concern is that the production of corn itself is energy and resource intensive. The planting, maintaining, harvesting and transport of corn uses a lot of energy. In addition, the production of corn and ethanol uses a lot of water which is a resource that in many areas is not in unlimited supply in consumable form. Sure, there are ways to keep the impact of the energy and water usage down. Locally, most of the ethanol plants are going to be run using energy produced from cow manure (readily in supply here with all the feedyards and dairy farms). Water can be obtained from secondary sources (water that has been treated after use).

I still have a lot of question regarding ethanol and really don't feel comfortable in getting on the ethanol bandwagon just yet. I don't think ethanol is a viable alternative to reducing our foreign oil dependency. Ethanol may be a distraction from what we really should be doing - going truly renewable in what fuels are vehicles. How much production will we actually be able to accomplish and how much can the environment handle? Will we actually be able to get to levels that noticeably reduce our dependency on foreign oil?

I think the best thing to do is completely change how we make our vehicles go. Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles are showing some promise and are getting closer to reality with Honda and GM getting ready to roll out some vehicles, while mostly on a test basis it is a first step. There is no current infrastructure for fueling hydrogen vehicles but it looks like home based fueling will be part of that infrastructure. Yes, it will take energy to produce the hydrogen but if our homes are going to be getting more power from renewable sources such as wind (a fourth wind farm is going to be built near where I live), solar, nuclear (newer technologies will greatly reduce waste) and etc. that may not be so bad.

So, I have some concerns about ethanol and I'm not done looking in to it. I guess I'm also concerned about the price of corn increasing as demand for it increases. That is good for farmers but not so much for consumers. I like corn, especially corn on the cob!

A Truly Inconvenient Truth

2006-09-07T07:26:00.000-07:00

I ran into this article on CarandDriver.com. It gives information that has been given several times in the past. However, the likely truth of our part in global warming escapes those such as Al Gore whose movie, An Inconvenient Truth, this article is about. It is inconvenient for environmentalists to understand a basic truth, that the world is in constant change and that the warming of Earth could actually be occuring on a natural basis as it has in the past. How nice of them to give humankind the power trip of thinking we can control the climate.

Sometimes I wonder if environmentalists spew their extremist views to justify their existence. What would they be doing if they weren't raising alarm to a problem that we may have little part in, if any at all?

Mentality Crash between the Middle Ages and the 21st Century

2006-08-25T06:28:00.000-07:00

I watched an exerpt from an Al Jazeera program broadcast on February 21, 2006. It is an interview of Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan. Here is a link to a manuscript of her comments. Here are some of her remarks (italics added):

The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

If the radical islamic groups want to take over the world from the infedels, there's no better way than winning the world over by constructive means, not the destructive means the radical islamic groups currently are trying to use. If these groups want respect, would it not be better to get respect from achievements in work and knowledge, as Wafa Sultan states, than to get that respect out of fear? The world, for the most part, will continue to fight intimidation by violence and threats yielding little, if anything, to these islamic groups that terrorize the civilized world.

It makes me wonder about the true motivations of terrorist groups. I do not see how it can be about their god, their religion. That must be a mere front for their true motivations - power and control. What god wants a person to not use their mind and spirit to create a better world for all? I wonder if they truly know what they want, championing a cause with simple means and simple "rewards". Finding no true satisfaction in the destruction and death they foment, they try more in hope at some point it will mean something. Little do they seem to realize they are only destroying themselves and whatever supposed cause they are championing.

Israel

2006-07-13T13:01:00.000-07:00

The EU and much of Europe are criticizing Israel for their attacks in Lebanon and Hezbollah, that...

“The presidency deplores the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justified.” from Finland (which currently holds the EU Presidency)

Where has the EU been as the Palestinians and Hezbollah gorillas have targeted civilians in Israel over the years? Lebanon harbors Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Israel has the right to defend itself from Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and if Lebanon is not going to do anything about Hezbollah, they are forcing Israel to do so. All the concessions made by Israel by withdrawing from southern Lebanon and Gaza have been rewarded with continued terrorism. Hamas and Hezbollah are not interested in peace with Israel but to conquer Israel.

Taking Parenting from Parents

2005-11-03T08:40:00.000-08:00

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is up to no good once again. It seems they think, as well as a lower court before them, that parents shouldn't have the power to parent. Here's the article from WorldNetDaily regarding their ruling that...

there is "no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

This is the most irresponsible statement I have ever read. I should be able to have control over the information fed to my children regarding sexual matters - especially my young children! Tax dollars are going to a public school system that doesn't answer to the taxpayer?

"have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."

No? Then the government has no right to take taxpayer money and strip parents of the right to parent. Parents are the ultimate authority regarding what their children are exposed to and no taxpaper supported organization should be able to override that within reasonable bounds.

I like and agree with the comments from Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis with Focus on the Family Action:

"Anyone who wonders why pro-family organizations like ours have been so concerned about activist courts only has to look at this case," Earll said in a statement. "The 9th Circuit did more than rule against parents who were upset that their elementary-school-aged children were being asked explicit questions about sex in class. They told all parents they have no right to protest what public schools tell their children."

"What the court did here is declare parenthood unconstitutional. It's long been the liberal view that it takes a village to raise a child – but never before have the 'villagers' been elevated, as a matter of law, above mothers and fathers."

This is alarming and hopefully will get before the Supreme Court and be overturned.

True Love?

2005-08-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

As I browse the internet and check my e-mail I am often confronted with ads for True, an online dating service. These are the most reprehensibly wrong and annoying ads! The images they use for their ads are pictures of scantily clad women with text that basically reads - "looking for love?".

It appears, as their ad graphics clearly show, that true love must be based on how gorgeous a woman is. At least, based on True's definition of true love. That couldn't be more wrong. Love is not so superficial, it is something that can't be easily captured in an ad graphic. Physical attraction is real and often initiates relationships (or attempts at relationships), however relationships will not last on physical attraction alone and most will admit they are not looking for that type of relationship.

Love is found in who we really are. Our passions, ambitions and values. It is found by soul contact not in what the eye sees. Sure, what is within us can be reflected on the outside. Confidence in self and respect of self shows and is most often desired. Personality often is found dancing in one's eyes. However, initial attraction to physical traits will not pass the muster of what the soul truly yearns for.

True is advertising a false love, a love, or should I say "lust", of the physical. It is a superficial love, the type most often doomed to failure as it has no foundation, the physical just being a movie set facade of what we truly are. At some point the facade is taken down and reveals our true self. That is where true love is found.

I hope any woman would find True's advertising as demeaning and a hint at what type of man would frequent such a service based on what type of man they are trying to attract in their advertising. Maybe that is what type of attractions True is trying to create. But, it is false advertising to call it true love. How ironic.

Ringling Bros. Circus - Baby's First Circus - Follow-up

2005-06-14T09:10:00.000-07:00

Got a quick reply from Ringling Bros./Feld. They state the problem was a misunderstanding and will honor the Baby's First Circus ticket vouchers as promoted. I thank Ringling Bros./Feld for the prompt reply to the situation and the fact they are honoring the promotion as advertised! I strongly encourage those with newborns (to 12 months) to order your ticket vouchers and enjoy the circus (the real circus - Ringling Bros.) when it comes to your town or one near you!

Ringling Bros. Circus - Baby's First Circus

2005-06-13T11:03:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid Ringling Bros. Circus came to our town. I enjoyed going to the real circus and was disappointed as an adult and a father to discover the Ringling Bros. no longer came to our city probably because it was not big enough to warrant a visit. I did discover, however, that they had a program where you could get a ticket voucher for your newborn (12 months or younger) so your child could go to the circus for the first time free . Not knowing when Ringling Bros. would return to our town or when we could make it to a larger city to see it, I requested the ticket vouchers after the birth of our two youngest planning on someday taking them. I was reassured in the wording of the offer that there was no expiration date.

Well, Ringling Bros. is finally coming back to our city. We immediately planned on attending and I went to the Box Office to get our tickets. At that time I was told, regarding the newborn tickets, that they were meant as a commemorative item and that they were not valid for children 2 or older (children under 2 are free anyway, as long as they sit on your lap). This instruction was provided to the Box Office by Feld Entertainment (they own Ringling Bros.). No where in the language of the offer does it state the tickets were merely meant as a commemorative item and that the tickets were only valid for those under 2. No where on the ticket vouchers is this information provided, either. In both places it is stated that there is no expiration date.

So, in other words, Ringling Bros. has deceived me and everyone else that requests the free newborn ticket voucher. This deception is very disappointing. I have addressed my concerns to Ringling Bros. and will post any reply should I get one.

Here is a link to Ringling Bros.' Baby's First Circus promotion.

The Environment and Energy

2005-04-12T10:17:00.000-07:00

I don't know if I would call myself an environmentalist. As noted in a prior blog, I have a problem with both extremes of the issue. The big issue these days is Global Warming and what is causing it. I believe there is global climate change happening as we speak but I do not believe anyone has yet to prove what is causing it - whether it be a natural climate shift, a climate shift enhanced by human-made pollutants or a climate shift wholly due to humankind's pumping of pollutants into the atmosphere. I lean towards a natural climate shift possibly enhanced by the pollutants we are creating.

It is just plain common sense to realize we need to do something about how we generate energy. Regardless of whether or not we have proof that the pollution we put into the atmophere is causing harm, doesn't it make sense that it can't be doing a lot of good? Besides, the resources currently used for producing energy are of limited supply and the demand is growing tremendously, especially in China. So, there are multiple reasons to do something about our energy usage.

It is pleasant to see the number of wind farms going up in Texas and New Mexico. The cost of producing energy by windmill farms has come down to the point of being cost effective. However, now environmentalists are complaining about the appearance of such farms and the possible harm done to birds and other animals. I guess it is just not possible to please some no matter what you do.

The growing number of hybrid cars available and being sold is great. I think every new automobile sold should be a hybrid as there are no sacrifices in performance and no negatives that I can come up with. Some will mention the additional cost to produce such vehicles but as production numbers increase, the cost will go down greatly. We have swallowed the cost of various features over the years, I think we can afford to go all hybrid. In the future, other options that are being explored will replace hybrid cars. It is important we progress and implement new technologies that replace our dependency on fossil fuels. However, I am not in favor of lofty requirements that require unabsorbable expenses that no one is going to be willing to pay for.

Thoughts on Terri Shiavo

2005-03-31T09:22:00.000-08:00

I know, everybody and their dog is posting a blog about Terri Shiavo today. I think it is important issue and, surprisingly, I have not heard too much complaining about it being such a prominent topic these days. That tells me there is some interest in the issues involved.

To start right off, I must say that I have some conflicting thoughts on what should have been done in this matter. I have heard disparaging comments regarding Michael Shiavo that, frankly, I cannot validate and thus cannot hold as true. If he was truly abusive and wished only to rid himself of his wife, he has just committed murder, as he may have been responsible for what led to her condition but mostly and more correctly because he improperly represented his wife's wishes as he should not have had the authority to make that decision and may have lied regarding what she wanted.

However, as I do not know that Michael Shiavo is guilty of spousal abuse, I have to say as his wife's husband he had every right to represent what his wife wished in the event she would be in such a condition. As this case was brought before the judicial system on several occasions, I think every opportunity was provided to prove her wishes to be otherwise and that was not proven. I have to say that a spouse should have a better idea of what his/her husband/wife would want should one be in such a condition better than a mother or father. If I knew my wife wished something I would defend her wishes regardless of criticism and would not "sell" that desire away.

As for Terri Shiavo's condition, I do not think the courts provided reasonable review. From what information I have heard and read, an independent examiner spent little time in examining her and did not do enough to adequately determine her condition. Descriptions from both sides conflict, of course, and thus a thorough independent examination was crucial and a responsibility of the court to provide.

My niece was born premature - at 24 weeks to be specific. Due to complications of the premature birth she had brain damage. She was fed by a tube throughout her short life (she lived to be 6 years old). She never walked or talked but responded to stimuli, at times smiling and laughing. If someone recommended to me during her life that we discontinue feeding her because she would never get any better I would have been furious. She never indicated pain or discomfort and responded to those who loved her. Her life was precious and, in my opinion, had purpose whether or not we knew exactly what that purpose was. It would have been wrong to terminate that life by not feeding her.

So, when there is doubt, I think we should side with life. To terminate someone in a condition such Terri Shiavo's it may be easy to "let them go" but that is mostly for the ease and comfort of the caregiver unless there is no doubt there is nothing left to save. If someone clearly indicates that they do not wish to be in such a state, then that decision should be honored. However, sometimes I wonder if, from looking from this side, we choose to terminate our lives prematurely. It is hard to know.

This won't be the last time this situation arises nor is it the first time. More will have to face such decisions as we get more adept at sustaining life. The question is what is the quality of that life and when is letting it go the right thing to do.

The Melting Pot

2005-01-11T23:37:00.000-08:00

Note: I have had problems with this post, having submitted it five times so far with odd errors in the opening paragraph and links. Please let me know if you have any problems should you attempt to read any of the linked articles.

I recently responded to a guest column in my local paper regarding speaking English in the US. English is nice, but not necessary by Aaron Phillips that was in response to another guest column Speak English, or forever hold your peace by Todd Stephens and a letter to the editor, Live (in U.S.) and learn - English by Yvonne Sober. That response is as follows:

Israel Zangwill, a British-Jewish immigrant, popularized a term most of us are familiar with – “The Melting Pot”, the title and subject of one of his plays. The term has described the transformation process, the forging, of immigrants into Americans. The crucible this forging has taken place in is that of the freedoms offered by this country as well as the responsibilities of our citizenry.

What kind of alloy are we forging these days? We are supposed to be forging one composed of the strengths of the people that reside and immigrate here. The uniqueness of the various elements being put together are not taken away but should add to the strength of the whole. While the end product is composed of those unique elements, it is, of itself, uniquely American.

As immigrants become citizens of this country, they are unified by the freedoms we all enjoy, the democratic process we can all participate in and by the language we speak. It is important to recall that it is a requirement, in becoming a citizen in the United States of America, that immigrants know the language spoken here – English.

Why are immigrants required to know English? Could it be to better understand the laws and regulations of this country? To be able to read and understand our history? To fulfill their responsibilities as citizens? Maybe it is to be able to communicate with their fellow Americans as neighbors and fellow-citizens.

If we add to the melting pot something that will not mix what kind of alloy do we forge? We forge a weak alloy prone to fracture and collapse. Language is a unifier. Communication is essential to being able to relate and work with one another. If we cannot communicate with one another a barrier is erected and we are more apt to misunderstanding, mistrusting and conflict.

The growing number of immigrants who do not feel the need to learn English is a disturbing trend. The fact that they are increasingly being accommodated by government agencies furthers that trend. As citizens they are supposed to know English so why do we need to print documents and ballots in their native languages?

My mother, an immigrant to this country, learned English because she had to and also because she wanted to. She was not accommodated in that effort nor did she expect it. She feels all Americans should know English to participate and contribute as a citizen.

English is necessary. No one is asking immigrants to abandon their culture and language but to become Americans and to add upon what makes this country great. It is not necessary to become a multilingual society but a society united by a language and an American identity. Yes, a nation is composed of individuals but it is still a nation.

This response was not published due to space constraints (or so they say). It could just be that they didn't like it but they have published a couple of my submissions in the past. They said if I cut the word content in half they would publish it as a letter to the editor but I couldn't make myself do it.

The Changing Face of Scientific Understanding

2004-11-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

We often hear alarmist predictions regarding the melting of Arctic ice. While it is important to pay attention to studies done that seem to show the melting is actually occurring, it is also important to remember the imperfectness of our knowledge. This article from Environment Canada cites studies done on sonar records from British and American Submarines that indicate the thickness of Arctic ice has diminished by 40% since the 1950s. However, a Canadian scientist, Dr Greg Holloway of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, Canada, believes the missing ice may have just relocated. Information regarding his theory can be found in this BBC News article.

It would appear from the knowledge that the submarine data was not comprehensive, only covering a portion of the Arctic. More recent sonar data from the 1990s shows little or no thinning and some of the data from the North Pole may even indicate a thickening of the ice. Dr. Holloway's theory is that multi-decadal wind patterns may have shifted the ice to areas the submarine sonar studies were not done. It is important to note that Dr. Holloway's research has not been put through peer review and has not been published. While his research has not been reviewed, the new submarine data cannot be refuted and does not show an alarming thinning of arctic ice.

I like the following quote from the first article from Environment Canada:

There are few certainties when it comes to predicting future
climate, particularly when such predictions are based on observations made over a very short period of time, relatively speaking. ...Despite the uncertainties, scientific studies such as these are an important step toward recognizing and better understanding the impacts of climate change in time to reduce or mitigate its effects.

I do not think we should ignore data that we uncover through various methods. However, we should always acknowledge the limitations of such data and the fact that future data and information may change the conclusions drawn from the data first acquired.

The problem we often face when it comes to environmental issues is we have the alarmists who scream the sky is falling and we need to take drastic action before horrendous climatic calamities take place. On the other spectrum we have people who, when results of various studies come out, are quick to point out the flaws in the data, method of data collection or the possible contradictions and advocate no action is required.

I think the true place we need to be is somewhere in the middle. Drastic action can be costly and all for naught or even damaging if the problem turns out to be non-existent or not as bad as first thought. No action can be costly in keeping us from making changes that can improve our environment and possibly keep us from causing irreparable damage.

A better approach is to look into possible solutions, proceeding on a cautious basis while additional data is collected. If our understanding changes, showing no need for action or a different approach, whatever cautious steps we have taken to remedy the problem can be stopped or corrected. If through that additional knowledge we find the problem is bigger than we thought we can step up our measures. Most often I cannot see no action being the best approach.

Truly Moving On

2004-11-04T11:26:00.000-08:00

As most, I am pleased that the presidential election is over. Of course, as a biased conservative, the fact that I am pleased is mostly due to the fact George W. Bush won. I feel that values, integrity and strength has prevailed. That is not to say Bush is a monument to that description but more to say Kerry is, in my opinion, absolutely not. While Bush is not my perfect ideal for a President, Kerry is much much further from my ideal.

The answers to our country's ailments is not making government bigger and putting more of our money in the hands of bureaucracy. It is inefficient and wasteful. Having government doing for people what people should do for themselves makes for a weak and dependent populace. The Democrats may actual prefer a weak and dependent populace as it makes them the more powerful but they don't realize a weak and dependent populace makes for a weak and dependent country because our country is our people.

We will not stand long as the greatest country on this earth if we do not uphold the values that have been an important part of this country since its founding and even before. As a promised land, it can only remain as such if the family remains the foundation of its people. A family composed of a mother and father, each fully vested in the raising of their children and nurturing the relationship between themselves. Values as given to us by God have proven themselves the creator of order, harmony and growth. Without them respect and direction is lost and pride and chaos creeps in.

Kerry was not honest and forthright during his presidential bid. He misprepresented his past while holding it up as a banner reason to vote for him. His colors changed with each group he spoke to. He spoke of grand designs for the country while never showing us the designs. What one might call pride in his service to his country is actually pride in a finely crafted past which is just a facade for disservice to his country in his false heroics, false accusations against his fellow veterans and his voting record against maintaining this country's security.

We continue with a president who will not turn our security over to a "global test" where it would meet against the self-serving criticisms of other countries. President Bush has turned to and will continue to turn to the world for assistance in what we feel needs to be done. The world, however, should not be surprised when we decide inaction or endless concessions are not the best way to protect ourselves. We can't be self-serving but the rest of the world can be?

Only strength and resolve will make for progress against the cowardess and intimidation of terrorists. Those states who support and protect terrorists must know our strength and resolve. Evil must be conquered not cajoled and negotiated with.

Yes, I believe the right person won.

How to Mess Up Healthcare - Vote for Kerry!

2004-10-26T09:31:00.000-07:00

There is one way to mess up almost anything and that is to give government, namely our Federal Government, a bigger role. This is a diagram of the Kerry Health Plan. What a mess! By adding layers of bureaucracy to getting healthcare, Kerry plans to provide healthcare to all. He's going to do this primarily by putting more people on Medicaid (almost 22 million of the 25 million insured under Kerry's health plan). If you have had any dealings with Medicaid, you know how it limits healthcare choices and strictly controls costs (by artificially low pricing). It just puts us on the road to healthcare rationing as found in other countries such as Canada. Everyone loses under Kerry's plan:

Americans would experience higher taxes to pay for the plan
Americans would lose freedom of choice under the plan
Americans would lose control of their healthcare
Healthcare providers would be forced to accept prices set by the Federal Government
We may eventually have a shortage of physicians and other healthcare providers due poor pricing and loss of control in taking care of patients
Taxpayer money would be wasted in added layers of bureaucracy
Research and Development (a big part of total healthcare spending in the US) would suffer

Kerry's health plan does not solve any of the problems with healthcare costs in the US (see my prior blog entry). It just puts the power in the hands of the government, politicans and bureaucrats to make our healthcare decisions.

John Kerry's Tax Hypocrisy

2004-10-08T11:22:00.000-07:00

Kerrys Paid Just 12% in Federal Income Taxes in 2003. It is quite amazing John Kerry wants to raise taxes on those making $200,000 (his budget proposal actually puts the amount at $146,500 - the amount at which the second highest income bracket starts) or more but he and his wife are unwilling to pay their fare share. Kerry is ready to rollover tax relief given to the middle class despite his prior claims otherwise and is unwilling to pay more than 12% in Federal Income Taxes?

The Poor not so Poor in the US?

2004-10-07T13:22:00.000-07:00

This article in the Washington Times makes poor in the US sound not so poor.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He can obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had enough money in the last year to meet his family's essential needs.

Perhaps we should be more grateful for what we have in this country.

For a more extensive version of the article, go here.

Health Insurance Costs in the US

2004-10-07T11:08:00.000-07:00

An issue that should be probably get more attention than it is is the cost of health insurance in the US. Of course, the reason for increased health insurance costs is the increased costs in healthcare. It is a multifaceted problem that will require a multifaceted approach. If not addressed soon, this problem will become a crisis and there will be a mad rush to fix it. A rushed solution will probably not be the best solution for the people of this country.

First, let me address briefly some reasons for the increased costs, not all of which are bad:

Medical advances are happening all the time. Costs for new technology and treatments are high.
We have a growing elderly population who are using the new treatments available and are living longer because of it (thus requiring continued maintenance).
In a lawsuit happy country, some doctors are overly cautious, often ordering unnecessary tests, procedures and other treatments (this has continued even with tort reform).
Consumers not knowing the true costs of their healthcare due to copays and such, don't shop their doctors and treatments for the most reasonable cost for competent care.
Consumers not asking for comparable alternatives to name brand prescriptions.

Cost shifting.

We (meaning those who do pay) pay for those who don't pay their hospital bills.
We pay for those who unnecessarily go to the ER for all their healthcare
(and usually don’t pay their bills).
We pay for those costs not covered by government medicare reimbursements.
We pay for those who don't have health insurance claiming they can't afford it - many due to their own choice and poor priorities (ie. that nice brand new Ford Navigator is more important than health insurance).

Greed

Doctors who overcharge and over treat to compensate for their financial ineptness.
Hospitals that overcharge and over treat to improve the bottom line.
Overpaid hospital executives.
Overpaid insurance company executives.
Pharmaceutical companies over-advertising and promoting higher priced drugs that have comparable benefits to generic and other drugs with lower prices.
Consumers who think insurance should cover everything (never has been the purpose of insurance).
Over utilization by consumers.
Government mandates that force insurance companies to offer certain coverages limiting the options of consumers to choose their own plan.

There is too much involved in this for the answers to be clear cut. This is why I don't see blame being owned by one party but by all. Even if all sides make positive changes, the plain truth may be that to live a quality, extended life it is going to cost some bucks and there may be little to do about it.

The Uninsured Problem

We often are reminded about the large uninsured population in this country. The figure often mentioned is 41 million though that number is slightly dated. The problem with the 41 million uninsured figure is it is not adjusted (thus includes) those who willfully choose not to be insured. That is, they feel they can pay for it out-of-pocket or they just have other priorities. Personal example of this is my sister-in-laws family with the same income as my family. We choose to budget for health insurance, they choose not to. It is not because they can't afford it, it is because they are not willing to pay for it. They would rather eat out more often and buy expensive items. What happened when my sister-in-law's husband's heart started quitting on him and required a pacemaker? They went to the hospital and got it done and will never pay more than a quarter of the bill because they can't. Who will pay for it? Those who take responsibility and buy health insurance and those who pay for their healthcare. Why? Because a hospital cannot eat such expenses everytime someone does not pay them, they can't, they must pass on the cost.

The National Institute for Health Care Management put together a study that breaks down the 41 million uninsured as follows:

Those eligible for public programs but not enrolled. Over 14 million uninsured Americans, most of them low-income, fall in this segment.
Low-income people who do not qualify for public programs. About 9 million uninsured Americans fall in this segment.
Moderate- to high-income Americans. About 18 million uninsured people fall in this segment, with 11.4 million having incomes over 300% of poverty or $54,300 for a family of four.

Universal Healthcare

What is wrong with universal healthcare? Government involvement. There is very little the government does efficiently (note, I did not say there is nothing the government does efficiently). Why is that? Politicians have their own self-interest in mind, whether it be to get reelected, to please their constituents or to better their position. As long as politics are involved, government will lack the efficiency to manage healthcare costs. There are also the layers of bureaucracy that are involved when the Federal Government is in charge. Usually money will be filtered going to and through the Federal Government and back again as it is distributed by local government agencies. Here is what would happen if we got universal healthcare despite all the good fuzzy feelings it would give its proponents:

As healthcare costs rise there will be much debate about how to pay for it. Taxes will be raised but only to a point because it will unfavorable for politicians to take it up too far. Once that option is exhausted the government will look to keep healthcare costs down by a combination of things. There will be the limiting of awards given in lawsuits for malpractice, limiting the amounts that doctors and healthcare facilities can charge, prescription drugs will become heavily regulated and eventually the government will decide what drugs get made and who gets them and HMO style approval will become necessary to see specialists, to have tests done and to have surgical procedures performed. Now, some of these changes are needed now on a minor scale but the government won’t know when to stop. The results will have a drastic effect on many levels. Lawyers will find a large source of income gone because it will be unsuccessful to sue the government (not that this is bad, but the lawyers would not like it). Fewer would choose a healthcare profession, especially that of being a physician as all that education and bad hours for a poor income in relation, set by the government. There would be less pharmaceutical research, such research being unprofitable because of heavy government regulations. Thus there would be fewer new medications to take preventing many different conditions and diseases.

The biggest effect would be the loss of consumer choice which so called “Patients’ Bills of Rights” have supposedly tried to increase (gratefully they have not passed). There will be less protection against malpractice, fewer doctors and healthcare facilities to choose from, fewer prescription offerings and choices and less choice and availability of specialized care, tests and procedures. On top of that, the quality of care will deteriorate as those in the healthcare industry have little incentive to perform, fewer funds to do their job and decrease in number as the pay doesn’t compensate for the education, continuing education and cruddy hours.

Boy, this sounds like Canada! Do you think when they embarked on their travesty of a universal healthcare system it looked much different then what some are trying to get here in the United States now? Though the problems may not be apparent in the beginning, they will come, they will evolve into what Canada has now. What is the state of the Canadian system? Check out The Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.com/), namely Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada (12th Edition) (www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=413). The Fraser Institute is a Canadian public policy organization. Also, read this great article found in the National Review by David Frum titled Al’s Brainwave (http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary111502.asp#000892) and his answer to some criticism he received regarding his article –http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary111802.asp (scroll halfway down page).

When it comes to prescription drugs in Canada, what you don't hear about are the bus loads of people that come into the US from Canada to buy their prescriptions. Why? The Canadian government dictates what drugs are sold and at what price they are sold. Because Canada either will not let a drug company sell its drugs there or the price the government said they had to sell at is not acceptable, some prescription drugs are not even sold in Canada. Talk about rationing healthcare. This is the way the whole Canadian government run healthcare system works.

Canadians are not pleased with their healthcare. Prime Minister Chretien established a commission to check out the system. They are going to infuse their system with an additional $15 Billion through 2006. In a couple of Canadian provinces, citizens are taxed at a rate approaching 50% of income. At least in Canada there are fewer back problems from carrying around heavy wallets.

Medical Research

It is sometimes cited that the US pays more for medical care than in other countries. However, what is often not mentioned is that the figures mentioned include the US medical research program which expends more than the total healthcare expenditures of the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. The world benefits from our research when many of those other countries have systems that encourage little research within their own borders. It would be detrimental to the US and the world if the US expended less in medical research and thus produced less in medical advances that improve the quality of life and reduced the number of new treatments for diseases. The end result of less medical research would most likely be increased healthcare costs.

Conclusion

What needs to be done? The problem is multifaceted and you can’t fix it by trying to solve only one part of it. Consumers, healthcare providers, health insurance companies and government need to take responsibility for costs and demands. Government needs to do more to encourage consumers to purchase health insurance and be responsible for their healthcare costs. Healthcare costs need to be better managed by providers in the responsible dispensing of healthcare (tests, procedures and medication). There needs to be some pharmaceutical regulation or improvement/enforcement of current regulations (Hatch-Waxman Act, for instance) – billions of dollars is being spent by drug companies for advertising campaigns to consumers who do not even know what the drug being advertised is for. Consumers choice in their health plan needs to be secured by limiting mandated benefits which have historically raised the cost of health insurance. The consumer needs to be educated on what insurance is for – to protect against a devastating financial loss due to needed healthcare, not to cover every little thing (such as the sniffles). The consumer needs to be educated on the true cost of their healthcare and some responsibility needs to be placed on them to better “shop” for their healthcare. We need to be more proactive in prevention of larger health issues by living healthier lives and have regular checkups.

These are just some basic ideas. There is a lot more depth to the issues that cannot be addressed briefly. Part of the reality is we are living longer lives because of medical advances in tests, procedures and medication. Those tests, procedures and medication cost money and if we want to maintain our increased life longetivity and quality, we are probably going to have to get used to having a larger portion of our income going to healthcare.

There is a lot of responsibility to pass around with this issue and once those responsibilities are understood and properly embraced and taken, I think we can go a long way to fixing the cost of rising health insurance and the healthcare it covers.

Another Internet "Virus": False Information

2004-08-30T07:43:00.000-07:00

The internet is a wonderful source of information and a place for information exchange. It is also, quite sadly, a place where false information is spread. One of the biggest sources of false information are those wonderful e-mails forwarded by our dear friends and aquaintences. I don't understand it. Why forward something that you don't even know is true?

This is one of my biggest frustrations. I regularly respond to false information forwarded by e-mail with a link to the truth that can often quite easily be looked up at www.snopes.com. If only everyone would take a small amount of time to check things out before they forward them on. Hey, it may even result in less of this junk being generated in the first place.

The latest forwarded junk was regarding some supposed comments by Denzel Washington in an interview with Katie Courac on NBC. I'll direct you straight to Snopes which has a copy of the information being forwarded around and also the truth about the interview. My biggest questions is, why? Why generate this falsehood in the first place? What good does it do to fabricate some comments and forward them to all your friends and aquaintences? Do they really think it will further their cause? My opinion is that it just does the opposite. Lies and distortions will only sour a message and turn people against your cause.

My message to all is to check out things out before you forward them. I can say for myself that I have no desire to perpetuate lies and distortions and thus take responsibility for what I forward by making sure it is the truth.

Robert Novak: Kerry's war record

2004-08-10T08:11:00.000-07:00

Robert Novak: Kerry's war record: " Why should details of what Kerry did more than 30 years ago be part of this election campaign? Only because the senator has made them integral to his strategy. Kerry as war hero received more attention at the Democratic National Convention than plans for the future. Thus, what he did in his shortened four months of combat becomes a valid campaign issue."

Those who complain about the Swift Boat Veterans using their freedom of speech to speak out against someone they fear becoming president are way off base. Their concerns are strong enough to be vocal about Kerry and that should be a cause for concern for every voter out there. If Kerry wants to hold up his status as a veteran and his war record as a reason to vote for him, the right to counter that is just as valid. If Kerry can have a few veterans running around with him as he campaigns why should veterans who oppose him not also speak out?

Kerry, the Great Contradiction

2004-07-30T14:30:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Convention seems rife with proof that Kerry and many in the Democratic Party are full of contradictions. In true fashion as a politician and a Democrat, Kerry not only contradicted his record but himself within his very own speech. From The American Spectator comes an excellent article Hell Is on the Way by George Neumayr. Give it a read.

The Democratic or Democrat convention?

2004-07-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

It seems wrong to me to call that convention going on in Boston the Democratic Convention. Should it not be the Democrat Convention? I'm not saying Democrats are not Democratic but it just does not seem like proper English (not that I'm stuck on the use of proper English as I am a frequent violater of the rules of the language). Its not a convention for the democratic but for the Democrats. I think (of the cuff, of course) that we have just gotten lazy and calling it the Democratic Convention sounds better. I suppose a perusal of history will show if this terminology has always been the same or not but at this time I do not have time for a lot of research. If anyone knows or has any thoughts, throw 'em at me.

I'm a Blogger, too!

2004-07-27T14:31:00.000-07:00

Wow! I didn't even realize what blogging was until recently. I think this will provide me a way to express my thoughts easier and quicker.

I am greatly annoyed at the way so many in the world today do not take responsibility for their actions and words. This ranges from merely forwarding garbage e-mail to the obvious such as politicians distorting the truth. If everyone would take responsibility for themselves, taking care of their needs the best they can and expressing themselves, whether it be about themselves or others, in a truthful, thought out manner, the world would be a better place.

Most know when they can do more for themselves before requiring of others to "contribute" to their well-being but still some feel that they are owed something regardless of their own efforts. Most know when they are presenting actual facts or not and that expressing those facts in context provides an accurate picture of their meaning. However, some still insist upon mixing truth with fiction and presenting facts out of context to further their agenda.

We are all biased and should acknowledge that and should not deny it. That bias will color our expressions in words and actions. Our biases should have some basis in fact rather than some hopeful notions of an ideal or reality that doesn't exist. We should have some basis in reality or our expressions of the state of things are damaged and do ourselves and society little good in progressing to a higher ideal.

Do we have to agree? No. Does the better world we aim for look the same? Well, I think the ideal world we would like to see is more similar than some care to admit (though some glaring differences may exist). The path taken to that utopia is different, however. If we try to live our lives honestly and responsibly and if we try to change the world, if that is our aim, in an honest and responsible manner, no matter the path we wish to take we will have a positive influence on the world.

So, let us go forth in an honest and responsible manner!