Tuesday, August 24, 2010

You have the right to the illusion of privacy

Of course, any thoughts about complaining about the right to privacy, and we'll arrest you before the crime is committed.

Where to start. First, those invasive body scans that are keeping us from going to the airport? Well those scanners are now all over the roads, scanning other vehicles. Seriously.

Now, if that wasn't something that made you feel sorrow for your lost rights. Let's take a look at the decision to deploy new computers that predict when crimes will be committed. Of course, the obvious comparisons to the movie Minority Report are going on.

The computer doesn't say a burglary will happen, it says that this individual is probably a criminal, and gives a percentage calculated to determine how likely the person is to commit another crime. This information can then be used to determine parole, probation, and bond issues. It can help parole officers give additional attention to people who the computer consider to be high risk.

Here's a hint. If you spend all day following a guy around, eventually he's going to get annoyed, and deck you. Then he's committed a crime of assaulting a police officer, and the computer is proven right. The term self fulfilling prophecy comes to mind. Between the two of these stories, one has to wonder if we have any privacy left in this world. Apparently, the only things the Government didn't know, was the thoughts in your own head, and now they have a computer program that attempts to predict that information.

What a world. What a depressing world.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Americans eat too much

We've heard how Americans are too fat, and apparently, Congress thinks so too. They're cutting food stamps to fund the First Lady's "Let's Move" initiative to help America lose weight. By reducing the amount of food available for people to eat, they hope to significantly reduce the numbers of overweight Americans. Democrats, they'll tell you about food with a program about nutrition, but they won't actually give you any food to eat.

This reminds me of the Dumpster Diving program for the homeless. Instead of feeding the homeless, they spent tens of thousands of dollars creating a video to show at homeless shelters, so people would know what kinds of food found in the dumpsters was safe to eat.

So welcome to the Democrats health program, first our starvation diet, we're going to insure you starve, because we don't want you to have any food.

This from the same party that thinks it's a good idea to turn food into gasoline.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

But he's a cop isn't he?

There is a lot of news lately, and most of it isn't good. I stumbled across this story while browsing the Democratic Underground to see how the Liberals liked being called names by another Democrat. That they weren't happy is a given, but my attention was focused on this story instead.

A Cincinnati Police Officer who was assigned to the Canine unit, left his narcotics detecting dog in the police car while responding to a family emergency. The dog died from being neglected in the car from the heat.

If you or I had done this, and the police found out, we would have been arrested on the spot for Animal Cruelty. No excuse would have prevented the arrest. Our wives could have been on their last hour on earth, and we would still be on our way to jail for Animal Cruelty.

If we had somehow sabotaged the police car so the engine would quit and the dog died from the heat, we would have been charged with murdering a police dog. In some states, the punishment for that is the same as murdering a police officer.

Now, the police officer in question has been placed on administrative leave, while the incident is under investigation. So for not doing his job, seeing to the safety and comfort of his assigned partner, he is paid now not to do his job.

One of my recent blog posts was about Police Officers dying from failing to wear their seatbelts. Now they're killing each other in a manner of speaking. The agreement between human, and animal is one of trust and partnership. We want the acute senses of the animal to assist us. They can detect trace elements of narcotics if properly trained. They can detect explosives, or find an fleeing suspect if so trained. These animals save lives. Find criminals, and detect dangerous items. That is their part of the agreement. Our part is to care for them, and always remember that their trust can't be taken lightly.

This officer had a family emergency. His six year old son needed emergency medical treatment. I understand that desire, the desire to see your family safely through the situation. However, how hard would it have been to leave the car running? After learning the situation with your son, couldn't he have made a phone call and said. "My police car is running outside of St. Francis Hospital, and Juno is inside. Can someone from the office come get her? I'm going to be tied up for a couple days with this."

He had to report that he was en route to the Hospital for the family emergency. He had to report that he was out of service with a family matter. He had to do these things, they're normal and natural for all police to call on the radio and report what's going on. Why didn't he add. "Juno is in the car, and someone needs to come get her and take her to the Boarding facility." I know they have to have one. He takes vacations doesn't he? There has to be a plan in case he's injured or sick and unable to care for the canine. Why didn't that plan go into effect?

The articles I've read don't say it, but I'm given to understand the child will recover. I'm gratified to hear that. Now, the question is this. When will the officer be charged with Animal Cruelty. I'm certain that the Assistant Chief of Police wouldn't be discussing Mr. John Smith's tragic family situation if Fluffy had died in the car outside of a Hospital while Mr. Smith was dealing with a Family Emergency. They would be discussing the arrest of Mr. Smith who was charged with Animal Cruelty. Doesn't Juno deserve some Justice?

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Kudos to Rep. Boehner

Love this one. He's suggesting names for the Stimulus II act that the Democrats are pushing through the house this week.

The Porkulus II hasn't got a name. It's literally a blank line. So Rep. Boehner held a press conference and suggested the following names.

-- Save Our ‘Stimulus’ (SOS) Act
-- ‘Recovery Summer’ Bailout Act (Cash for Flunkers)
-- Delivering Unions a Major Boost (DUMB) Act
-- Helping Election Expenditures, Hurting American Workers (HEEHAW) Act
-- Democracy is Strengthened by Clearly Leveraging and Optimizing Special-Interests’ Effectiveness (DISCLOSE) Act
-- Holding Union Bosses Over Until Card Check Act
-- Rescuing Incumbent Democrats Is Costly (RIDIC) Act
-- Summertime Cash for Union Bosses Instead of Spending Cuts for Taxpayers Act
-- Frivolous Act of Ineffective Largesse (FAIL) Act
-- Naming These Things Hasn’t Gotten Us Anywhere, So Why Bother? Act

Kudos Sir, for suggesting names that are accurate and entertaining.

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Timely argument again.

Last night, I wrote a piece about Hiroshima and Nagasaki where I concluded that dropping the bomb on Japan was the right thing to do. Today, Greg Mitchell writes in the Huffington Post that the use of the bomb was indefensible.

His argument is that without the use of the bomb, Japan would have surrendered in a few weeks anyway. That position is problematic to say the least, when you look at the history.

The Japanese realized that an atomic bomb had been used on them at Hiroshima. Yet, they did not react to the Potsdam declaration, instead asking the Russians to represent them to the other allies, and maintain the four points of Japanese Surrender, which included the preservation of the Emperor as the absolute ruler of Japan. That was unacceptable. That there be no occupation force in Japan, again unacceptable, and no occupation of Japanese occupied land including Formosa, and Korea, again unacceptable that the Japanese would be able to keep these conquered lands. Finally, the Japanese demanded the right to address "war crimes" with internal trials and determinations. In other words, the Japanese Government still demanded to be allowed to remain unpunished for the war, and left alone to prepare for World War III as the Germans did between one and two.

Greg Mitchell further states that the only really contentious part of the Negotiations was the position of Emperor, which we let them keep. There is a big difference between a figurehead, with no authority legally, and a person with dictatorial powers. One that Mitchell apparently misses.

Additionally, the reports of children being issued bamboo spears are all too well know, would our troops merely taken the spears away and spanked the kids? No, they would have shot, and killed those children, the future of Japan, robbing the nation of any hope of rebuilding after the war. The Japanese would not accept the idea of barbarians ruling them, and even at the very end, after two Bombs had shown the destructive power now facing them, General Tojo refused to accept Surrender as a necessity. Moreover, the military attempted a coup to prevent the Surrender from taking place. This hardly sounds like the assertion of Greg Mitchell that the Japanese would have surrendered in a few weeks.

Yet, through this all, there is one thing that you must understand when approaching the end to the conflict in 1945. The Japanese Military was essentially in control of the country, and the Japanese Military believed it was far more honorable to die, than to surrender, which is why they felt justified abusing Prisoners of War, because those men had surrendered rather than die honorably.

The Military planned a defend the main island of Japan with a defend to the last order. So no civilian would have been spared. The Japanese Leaders were as determined as Hitler to see their own nation destroyed before they would admit defeat.

Do I still support the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as horrible, but necessary? Yes. The Emperor finally decided that the shame of defeat was something that could be endured by a nation, but stubborn defense in the face of these new weapons would be the end of the Japanese Culture, and people, forever. His forced decision saved many millions of lives of both the Japanese and Allied people. His decision allowed Japan to rebuild, and arise from the ashes as a technological giant, and a leader in world business and invention.

If we had not dropped the bomb, Japan would be a much weaker, and much less advanced nation than it is today. So let me repeat the germane questions. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it the only answer that saved Japan for the future? Yes.

By the way Greg, you might want to notice that the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on the 9th of August, even with that, the Emperor did not announce his intention to surrender for another week on the 17th of August. The final document was signed on the 2nd of September, almost a month after the first bomb was dropped.

Should we apologize?

The news is full of the astounding fact that the United States is officially sending a representative to the Hiroshima memorial. Liberals love to apologize, for anything they didn't do. They apologize for Slavery, when they held no slaves, and freed no slaves. They apologize for anything and everything that they can, when they didn't do it. But they never apologize for usurping our rights like the 2nd Amendment. For some reason, even when they are later overturned by the court, they continue to do so.

So I was thinking about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and wondering what we should apologize for. We warned the Japanese that we would accept only unconditional surrender. We warned them that we would fight for total victory. We did not mention the bomb by it's name, and atomic bomb, but we said we would destroy Japan.

Japan was trying to negotiate, where there would be no post war occupation, no changes to the Japanese Government, and we would just have to trust the Japanese to disarm after the war.

History had shown us that this didn't work. Germany after World War I was allowed to self disarm, and all it did was cause a break in conflict lasting about twenty years. The only way we could see any hope that there wasn't another war in twenty more years was to make sure this victory was complete.

Much discussion has been centered around the estimates that an invasion of the Japanese Islands would have resulted in many millions of Japanese dead, and at least One Million American and other allies dead. Now, the Soviets had already lost a million men and women fighting Germany, and Germany had lost more than twice that number fighting the Russians, Americans, and English.

So were we wrong to drop the bomb? I don't think so. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it barbaric? Yes. Was it necessary? Yes. There is no way the American people would ever forgive Japan if we lost a Million troops taking the nation. Long before we got to that number, the order would have gone out in sheer self defense, for an absolute destruction of the Japanese homeland. In other words, killing every man, woman, and child in Japan.

On the day of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Halsey is quoted as saying that before he was done, Japanese would be spoken only in Hell. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered, that would have been the eventual outcome.

The Bomb destroyed many lives, we'll never know how many, but it finally convinced the Japanese rulers that further resistance was futile, and there was no hope of any sort of negotiated peace. Surrender was the only avenue open if they wished to have a Japanese people after the war.

Japan holds a dubious honor, the only people ever to have nuclear weapons used against them. If we hadn't seen the destruction first hand, if we didn't have those pictures showing the devastation we may well have started a World War III with the Soviets a few years later. However, the shock, and horror that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undeniable and both Military and Political leaders were forced to admit that that destruction would be the result of a Nuclear exchange.

Imagine for a moment, that we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima. We would have paper estimates, and scenarios of destruction, but we wouldn't KNOW first hand what it would look like. Generals like McArthur would have considered the Atomic Bomb to be a useful Tactical, that is to say battlefield weapon. Korea almost saw the use of the Atomic bomb on a much larger scale, there were plans both before, and after McArthur that would have seen between thirty and forty bombs dropped on the battlefield. Thankfully, this didn't happen.

By Vietnam, it wasn't even really considered for Tactical Operations, we had become suitably horrified at the destructive power of the bomb. We did not want to start tossing them around like softballs, instead saving them for emergency Tactical, and most importantly Strategic options.

Yet they are still horrible. We know because of pictures like this. We know because we saw first hand what happens, we couldn't pretend it would be just fine and dandy to drop an atomic bomb. In a way, we humans had to learn the hard way. We had to childlike touch the pot of boiling water, to learn what hot is. We had to drop the bomb on humans, to see what true suffering and destruction was.

Am I sorry we dropped the bomb? No. Am I relieved we never again dropped another on people? You bet your butt I am. Am I prepared to drop another if, and only if it is the only way to guarantee victory, or destruction of a vital industry for an enemy? Yes. Am I prepared to Nuke Iran if, and only if, it is the only way to guarantee this repressive, and unstable nation is prevented from possessing such terrible weapons? Yes.

As horrible as the bomb is, there are things that are worse. The absolute annihilation of the Japanese people and culture would have been worse. The bombing of Iran would be bad, but it would be significantly worse to allow Iran to bomb any number of cities including but not limited to Jerusalem, and or any of our cities. If you want to make it a simple choice between you, and me, I choose you. Will I feel remorse? Probably not. You see, I'm comforted by this simple truth. I probably wouldn't feel any better about the situation if I was the one who was dead. Iran is too foolish to be allowed to have the bomb. They are too immature to be allowed to have it. They're like Truman and McArthur during Korea. They threaten everyone with the bomb. You don't do that anymore, because today, those threats carry a lot more weight. Today, people won't tolerate those threats.

Thankfully, the drop the bomb at the slightest whim crowd didn't win in Korea. Otherwise there would be an untold and inestimable number of cities that suffered the same fate as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Liberals are right, the weapons are horrible. Liberals are wrong, there are worse things than the bomb.

Friday, August 06, 2010

New Taxes to make Green reality

The UN is calling on a Billion dollars in new taxes to continue to fund the transition away from Carbon Fuels and towards Green technology. In other words, all the money we're pouring into it already, and it's still not commercially viable.

On another site, I explained the history of trans ocean shipping to explain how and why older less efficient systems are no longer in use. Not because they were dirty, or dangerous, but because it was cheaper, and more PROFITABLE to use the newer systems.

First Man used oars, and then a combination of oars and wind to move his boat across the waters. This gave way to tall sailing ships, the square rigged ships of lore and legend. The days of Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Man switched to this system because it was possible to go much farther with a smaller crew than the oarsmen allowed. Wooden ships continued to get larger, more heavily armed, more heavily armored, and faster. However, the limitation they faced was wind. Revolutions appeared from time to time, style of sail, style of rigging, changes in the type of sails. However, the basic truth of their limitations was obvious. When there was no wind, there was no movement. If the wind opposed the ship, they were relegated to tacking into the wind, days were spent trying to go a few miles upwind.

Then coal fired steam engines were adapted to ship designs, and the first powered ships were invented. These had huge advantages in speed, and maneuverability. No longer were they limited by the wind, but by how much coal they could carry, and how fast they could shovel it into the fire. The old sailing ships were still around, but growing fewer and fewer in number as ship owners cast them aside in favor of powered transportation. It was economic, you could complete a distance faster, with fewer delays, with coal than you could with the power of wind alone.

By World War I, Coal fired ships were giving way to the new technology. This was oil fired boilers. These boilers took an hour or so to light, but once lit, were easy to maintain, with fewer workers, and far more powerful and reliable than coal fired ships.

By the time World War II came about, the standard was these oil fired ships, but there was a new energy source on the horizon. Diesel. Submarines and smaller ships used Diesel engines to power them through the water. Diesel Submarines were essentially our only real offensive arm after Pearl Harbor in the Pacific. These Submarines powered by these engines were able to range from Hawaii to Japan, stay on station for a month or so, and then return clear across the Pacific again for more supplies.

After the War, Oil and Diesel were both used, as Diesel wasn't suitable yet for large oceangoing ships, like the Air Craft Carriers. We wanted bigger ships, but the Oil Fired Boilers just weren't capable of handling it. Then, we discovered Nuclear, and the size of our ships was no longer limited by how much oil we could carry. Submarines could sail underwater indefinitely, limited only by the crews and their need for food and eventual maintenance.

Today, most large ships are powered by either Diesel engines, or Jet Turbine type engines, as well as the standard Nuclear Power for military vessels. Today's modern ships use giant Diesel engines, that are more efficient and powerful than anything in our history for commercial shipping. It's amazing when you see how large these engines really are. One of the largest, the Emma Maersk is also one of the most efficient. They channel the exhaust through radiators, transferring the heat to steam turbines, which provide additional electrical power to the ship. They use silicon based paint to decrease drag.

In other words, that ship combines all we currently know about building large ocean crossing ships to operate with maximum efficiency. Notice there are no solar panels, or silly little wind turbines. This is a working ship, meant to move a heck of a lot of cargo as quickly as possible, while keeping costs as low as possible per trip.

Now, you want to replace Diesel, because it's dirty, and creates Carbon Dioxide. Here is your challenge. Make the new system as reliable as Diesel, and make it as efficient as Diesel. Now, make it MORE efficient and cheaper to run than Diesel is for ships, and you've licked the Green power problem.

Yet, the greenies can't manage to get to that part. They come up with complicated electric driven systems, that are quasi reliable, in the short term. They take up more space, and still require Diesel as a generator back up for when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing.

So what are our options? Fuel Cells? Perhaps, but they're more expensive and Hydrogen is a little tricky to store, and oh yeah, it's just not available in large quantities that a ship would need at every port it's liable to arrive at. That it's extremely flammable is well known, as everyone knows the story of the Hindenburg. One little spark and the whole ship could well blow up much the same way.

So are the Greenies coming up with technology that is cheaper and more efficient? The answer is no, the systems they're coming up with are more expensive, far more expensive, and far less efficient. Ethanol for example, is actually not helping burn much less gasoline at all. You burn more as you get worse mileage from the Ethanol blend, so you have to buy more gasoline/ethanol. That means that we're burning a tiny bit less gasoline, but we're turning our food into fuel, which is asinine no matter how you try to explain it. I would like to be here in two hundred years when school kids are learning about that folly. I would really like some of these ethanol fanatics to explain to the future why we were starving people all over the world, so we could feel good about our gasoline.

Ethanol has to have subsidies, which means that the Federal Government pays the makers to get the Ethanol. In other words, if they weren't paid money from the Federal Government, your Gasoline would be about six bucks a gallon to include the mandated ethanol. Is it better yet?

Well at least we reduced those nasty greenhouse gases. We have to do this to save the planet the Greenies say. Yes, we reduced those greenhouse gases 1/19th of 1%. Yes, you read that right. We reduced Greenhouse gasses by .19% and it only cost us $7 billion in 2005.

So they can't make a more efficient system, and they can't make a more reliable system, and they can't make a cheaper system. So the answer is to make the current systems more expensive with those new taxes, thus driving the costs up artificially, to make the newer less efficient systems seem competitive. In other words, they have to LIE to make Green a reality with the current technology.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Police Seatbelt Usage

How many times have we seen it. A police officer not wearing his seatbelt, while he watched for a chance to ticket someone for not wearing theirs. We could start an entire blog on stories of police failing to follow the very laws they enforce upon us, but for this entry, I'll try and stick with the news story I read and wanted to pass along.

Police officers not wearing their seatbelt while driving an automobile. It turns out that the various laws supposedly passed to save our lives, which make seatbelt use compulsory under penalty of fines, aren't being followed by the police with the predictable results. Yes, the number of police officers who have died in the "line of duty" is increasing, even in single car accidents, which means they don't run into, or aren't run into by another car. In 24% of those accidents, the occupant of the car was ejected, read that to mean thrown clear of the car during the crash, thus demonstrating quite definitively that the officer was not wearing his seatbelt.

Now, the snickers about hypocrisy aside, lets discuss this as a cost to the community. Besides the loss of a rather expensive automobile purchased by the taxpayer, we have the cost of training a replacement officer, the lost expense of training the now deceased officer, and the cost of the life insurance.

If the officer is only injured, then we the taxpayer may well be stuck paying for that officer for life in the vein of disability. Is that fair? Line of duty to me means that you are doing what you're supposed to be doing. In other words, you're doing the job the way you're supposed to, in obedience to policy, regulations, and laws pertaining to whatever action you are currently engaged in. If you are responding to an armed robbery, your response should be within clearly defined departmental policies, regulations, and the applicable state and local laws for your actions.

If your death or disability results from your failure to follow policy, procedures, or laws, should the taxpayer be stuck with the expense? I find it hard to believe but the answer from most people would be to excuse the blatant stupidity of the police in this matter. I say blatant stupidity, because that is the way I have long characterized those who don't use seatbelt's. I'm opposed to laws which mandate their usage, under the belief that a fool will find a way to mangle himself without my attention. However, I remember when those laws were being debated, police officers talked about how tired they were of responding to and cleaning up fatal traffic accidents in which a seatbelt could have saved the lives of the occupants of the cars.

Yet, now, some thirty years later, the police are the ones not wearing their seatbelts, because I can only assume they want to be ready to leap from the car in foot pursuit of a bad guy. How long does it take to unfasten a seatbelt? When you're in pursuit of a vehicle, are you really serving the citizenry by being untethered to the car?

It's a shame that we're not allowed to take a photograph of the police officer not wearing his seatbelt, and thus endangering him or herself, on the roads in direct violation of the law, and see that the officer is similarly fined. I think it's the height of irresponsibility for police to operate a vehicle without a seatbelt, and further feel that any accidents or injuries should be excluded from "line of duty" coverage.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Chris Christie, Conservative

I can think of no higher praise for an elected official. Conservative. I think that sums up all of what is wrong with the rest of the Republican Party, they aren't.

Of course, you can just imagine how the rest of the CCBB types in the Republican Party view Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey. Yep, they don't like him. He's so definite. He's so oddly out of touch, so determined not to be moderated. It's almost like he doesn't care what people think about him.

As near as I can tell, he doesn't. This profile on National Review is a good example. He campaigned on some principals, and when he got to the State Capital, he was told that those principals would have to go by the Democrats. They sauntered up, and handed him legislation to raise taxes on the rich, smirking I'm sure. They were stunned when he actually vetoed the legislation. After promising to be back, they stormed out of the office and went back to huddle.

Then he used the Line Item Veto to freeze salaries, reduce spending, and get this, cut programs nearly to the bone. The Democrats were outraged, and frankly, unsure what to do. They tried the usual, protests. Christie didn't care. They shouted at him, and called him names, and told him how hard they all work for that paycheck. His answer, if you don't like what I'm doing, quit. I don't care.

So what you have is a Politician, who believes in right, and wrong. Who believes in honest, hard work, and smaller less intrusive Government. You have a Governor who has slashed the budget, and insisted that the Teachers chip in a few bucks every month towards their own Health Benefits, and freeze their pay to help make up the shortfalls of the State Budget. He's annoyed and upset everyone. His approval numbers are about where President Obama's are. Yet, there is a big difference.

You see, President Obama and the Democrats are selling this nations future to anyone who can buy bonds at steadily increasing prices, while Governor Christie is placing New Jersey on sound financial footing, and only doing what they can afford to do. The difference is obvious to anyone with a modicum of logic or common sense. In one, the future of the country hangs in the balance of a unsustainable and unsupportable series of additional entitlements that will be nearly impossible for the Washington Elite to reverse because they're afraid of being called meanies. On the other hand, in New Jersey, the future is looking brighter, because the State Government is moving towards a sustainable and sound financial future. No more running out of cash, no more juggling the books to make the state look better.

The difference is obvious, lies versus truth. The lie is that we can afford Obamacare, and all the other federal boondoggle plans. The truth is we should be slashing the budget, like New Jersey.

In ten years, New Jersey will be in a much better position as a Government, and a state, than the nation will be. Not because Governor Christie is a Republican, but because he doesn't care if you like him, love him, hate him, or loath him. Because he's going to do the right thing, for the people, for the state, and for the future. If you must hate him, hate him for doing what should have been done years ago, getting a runaway budget under control.

But they promised

The Federal Government when they rushed to put the clothing penetrating X-rays in every nook and cranny they could, swore up and down that they weren't going to keep those images. They promised the American People that the images wouldn't be kept. We already knew that they were making off color comments about the images, we knew that because one of them got angry about it.

Now, it's come out that the Government IS keeping those buck nekkid pictures that they swore they wouldn't keep. What what were the odds of that happening?

Well most of us knew that it would happen, we read the procurement specs, which clearly stated that there must be a mechanism for storage of the images, and for high speed transfer of the images on the network.

But why aren't we surprised that they were lying again? Now, will anyone be fired for this? No. Will anyone be forced to resign in disgrace? No. Will they be promoted? Probably. Just to remind you of what kind of pictures we heard they will not be keeping, these totally innocuous pictures look something like this.

Start of the Appeals process

The Federal Judge who is ruling on a motion from the Homosexual Community has announced that his decision will be handed down between 1pm and 3pm California time tomorrow.

The question, is if California's electoral decision by the population which passed Proposition Eight is unconstitutional. The motion claims that it violates the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution.

The obvious answer is it doesn't really matter how the Judge decides this afternoon. If he rules against the motion, it will be moved to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, which has the dubious honor of being the most overturned Court of Appeals in the land. If he rules in favor, the appeal of those who support the Prop 8 principal will be equally guaranteed. Whoever loses will appeal to the next step, which is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, as I'm not a betting man, I'll not be accepting wagers that the 9th will find a hidden Constitutional Right for Homosexuals to marry. We can also assume that is a given, since historically, the 9th has always found the Liberal side of the argument to be the Constitutional one in their opinion, which is probably why they're the most overturned court in the land.

At that time, it will go to the Supreme Court. How will the Supreme's find? I can bet that four of the Justices will almost certainly find in favor of the idea of Equal Protection extending to the right to marry anyone you want regardless of gender.

I can also see four Justices finding the opposite to be true, that Equal Protection does NOT extend to marriage.

How will it come down? Good question, and I don't know. Yet I can see this topic burning up the blogosphere and the news talk shows for the next several years while the various appeals work their way up to the Supreme Decision.

Interesting Primary night.

A night of Primaries is winding down, and to summarize them, I'll say they're interesting.

First, Voters in Missouri have voted overwhelmingly to reject Obamacare. Granted that in all honesty, this is a merely symbolic vote, however, despite that, the people voted more than two to one in favor of blocking Obamacare in Missouri.

I guess the people didn't like what they found in there eh Nancy?

Another Incumbent has bitten the dust in the Primary. Representative Caroline Kilpatrick, mother of former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, and a dedicated Democrat, was defeated in the Primary election. Her problems mostly involve her equally dedicated defense of her son, who is serving a year and a half in prison for crimes committed while he was Mayor. He's also facing Federal Charges as more crimes are alleged from his tenure as Mayor.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

What's in Obamacare?

For a while, when the nation was debating Obamacare, horror stories of the Socialized Medicine follies flew around the Blogosphere and the general consensus was this. We didn't want anything to do with it.

So it's been a bit since we passed it, so do we know whats in it yet?

The topic of the 1099 forms has been addressed quite well by everyone except those who inflicted this abomination upon us. The Democrats to make sure that they didn't have to repeal it, brought it to the floor under a little known, and almost never used trick that required a 2/3 majority to pass the legislation. If only all legislation required such a majority, we could probably eliminate most of the damned foolish nonsense coming out of Washington. The trick failed to pass, because the Republicans wouldn't vote for this bill as it would raise taxes elsewhere to pay for the estimated $19 Billion that the dreamers in Washington claim will be collected with the 1099 requirement.

So we've had time to get into the 2,400 pages of the Obamacare law, and what's in there besides the 1099 requirement that will put an unknown and un-estimated number of businesses out of business?

Well, according to the people who have been looking into it, Obamacare only looks worse the more you look into it. Now, the Democrats consider this to be an exceptionally good piece of legislation. Something to take home and present to the voters for re-election. How bad can it be? Well, this chart shows you the interlocking, intertwined, Byzantine regulatory and oversight monstrosity that has been created in those 2,400 pages of legislation. I would post a snapshot of the chart here, but it's so complex, that the small picture can't possibly do it justice. Follow the link, and then try and figure out how many levels of No you'll have to go through to get some needed procedure done.

The really great news for you Seniors, you'll no longer have to worry about those pesky problems associated with getting old. Thanks to Obamacare cutting over $529 Billion from Medicare, your age related problems will probably go from annoying and difficult, to deadly in the next year or so. Interestingly, your deaths will come from lack of care, right about when the Estate Tax is slammed back into full effect, so the Government won't miss out on any of your life's earnings, even as you miss out on your life.

Well the good news is that there isn't a Death Panel right? Actually, there are two. The law creates two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.

Well what kind of care can we expect from the socialized medicine that the rest of the world is looking to eliminate? Here's a couple more horror stories for you from such enlightened countries that already have versions of Obamacare. In the first, a man sews his own leg up after being ignored in the treatment room for over an hour. He's looking at a possible criminal complaint for misuse of Hospital Property. It turns out the needle and thread they left in the room for that hour weren't actually supposed to be used to sew up the gash on his leg.

In our second story, a woman miscarries her baby in the waiting room of the hospital emergency room. Where she was sitting bleeding, and crying, for over three hours. Finally she left and went to another Hospital where she was informed that she'd miscarried her baby. No word yet if she misappropriated Hospital Property by using the chair to miscarry her baby.

What I don't understand is why the Republicans aren't running on this simple platform issue. "If elected, and we have the majority, the very first piece of legislation we will send to the Senate from the House is the complete repeal of Obamacare. We will attach it as a rider to every single piece of legislation we send to the President, and we will keep the pressure up to repeal this legislation no matter how long it takes."

But that's probably too definite for the Republicans. They're happy running on the time proven platform. "Any Body But Obama." It worked so well for John F. Kerry, who served in Viet-Nam, in 2004.

Monday, August 02, 2010

Arianna Huffington tries to get Palin

I've said it before about Sarah Palin, and I'll say it again. Nobody sends the left wing off into a frothing tizzy fit faster than Sarah Palin. It's amazing. I used to think they were rabidly hate filled about Rush Limbaugh, but he's rapidly turning into your Father's Buick. Ann Coulter used to get this kind of reaction, especially when she would say kind things about Senator Joe McCarthy.

But these days, Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and many more are out of the spotlight of hatred the left shines on their favorite.

Today's example is from Arianna Huffington, the Gulfstream Eco nut and Limousine Liberal of fame and legend.

Arianna has started to wonder if perhaps Sarah Palin is the PR Genius that the left has said she isn't. Of course, she is quick to point out that Sarah Palin has no policy positions, and is merely a shallow individual who couldn't ever be a serious candidate. However, she worries that you and I, the people, would be so disgusted and distrustful of the wise career politicians that we might actually vote for someone who has such great PR skills despite the absolute lack of policy or positions that would doom any other candidate.

Now Arianna, I have to wonder. What about Sarah's policies don't you understand. Sarah is against Big Government growing bigger, and more powerful, and more controlling. So it seems according to the polls are about 70% of the people. Do you need specifics about what parts of the Federal Government are too big? How about a thousand contractors, organizations, and departments involved in Homeland Security? How about a dozen levels of redundancy for the School Lunch program?

We've seen Sarah Govern. She rejected the status of the privileged few that most Politicians would embrace. She dumped the jet from Alaska, and she put legislation and contracts that the State was considering out where the people, you know, you, me, commonly called the people, could read it easily. We've seen that she resigned a powerful position rather than perform an unethical action as directed by those she owed her position to.

We've seen her take a pay cut as Mayor, when the previous Mayor fought to make sure he got a Pay Increase.

We've seen her stand up and blast the destined to pass ObamaCare, and hang a brilliant and accurate label on the inevitable committee that will have to exist to allocate diminished supplies to increasing demand.

We've seen all of that, and you have to ask what her policies are? Perhaps you're not quite as bright as you pretend. Perhaps you can read a white paper, but can't read the newspaper. We know she's in favor of securing the borders, since she says that President Obama doesn't have the guts (polite version of the word she used) to tackle immigration.

Arianna, do you know what the big problem with the Left is regarding people like Sarah Palin? It's that they act, instead of talk. Liberals talk about what someone else should do about a problem. They talk about what we (which never means them) have to do to address the problem. Liberals like you Arianna, park your Yachts where they won't be taxed. Liberals like you take private jets while complaining about the little people using too much gasoline in their SUV's and destroying the planet. People like Sarah, act on their beliefs, and since you Liberals only ever pretend to act on a belief, you think she's merely a Brilliant PR machine, cranking out phrases that resonate with the gullible public.

The more you Liberals try to understand her, the more you clearly show how shallow and you all are.

Nobel Prize winning Economist concerned about economy

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, seriously, I wish I was making that up, is concerned suddenly about the lack of job growth. He doesn't understand why Congress and the President don't act. He doesn't understand how the Washington Elite don't address this when record high unemployment is becoming the new normal.

This noted LIBERAL economist hasn't ever met a tax he didn't like, and feels that Government Regulation is the answer to all the worlds ills. Yet, he doesn't understand why the economic job growth hasn't happened.

Sir, let me take a moment and see if I can explain. Let's say you are the head of a business instead of a paid blowhard at the NY Times. Now, Washington is gunning for you, passing huge regulations on you twice already, first in the form of the Obamacare which everyone now admits will result in skyrocketing costs for medical, that one day, perhaps in the far distant future, will level off. That means your cost to provide Medical to your employees is going to double, and perhaps even triple in the not too distant future. Would you add more expense to that situation by hiring people you don't really need right now? The answer is obviously NO.

Then there is the Wall Street Reform Law. This one on top of regulating the industry to the point where the banks will be little more than puppets of the Federal Government, also creates two dozen enforcement offices for the EEOC, so would you hire a bright young account executive if you have no idea how the EEOC regulations are going to be applied? Wouldn't you wait until you had an exact understanding of the hiring quota's placed upon your business before you hired anyone? I mean, you might get lucky and find a disabled black woman who happens to be a Veteran to work for you as a manager, but you might not. So you would reasonably wait, especially if you DIDN'T NEED ANYONE RIGHT NOW.

Perhaps you run a factory, but you aren't certain how the pending cap and trade, which is liable to be passed right after the November Elections via a Lame Duck Congress, will affect your business. Wouldn't you wait to see what happens before you invest the time, and substantial money to hire someone until you KNEW what the future regulations from a regulation happy Government will be?

So what happened to your trillion dollar Stimulus? I'll tell you. It was a boon to Government, hiring clearly showed that seventy percent of the jobs created were Government jobs. They paid teachers and hired more teachers, despite the fact of lower school enrollments nationwide. They paid Unions for doing what they usually do, little or nothing. They funded every pet project of every special interest and in the end, they got exactly what we predicted when they passed the Porkulus. They got a slight bump in the economy, which didn't really stimulate anything.

Now, in a few short months, taxes are going up across the board. The poorest among us will see their taxes increase by 50%. Earlier I posted the HISTORICAL proof that Higher taxes always equal lower collections by the IRS. Yet, you as a Nobel Winning Economist don't understand that simple factual truth.

Mr. Krugman, apparently you don't know economics very well after all, and thanks to you, I now have even more reason to treat the highly lauded term "Nobel Prize winning" with even greater derision.

History Proves Conservatives Right on Taxes.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article, one that goes into far more detail than my own reading on the subject. I know of course, and have quoted many times the historical fact of President Kennedy's tax cut results. I know and have quoted many times how President Reagan's tax cuts led to a doubling of collected taxes during a ten year period. You read that right, in 1980, the IRS collected roughly $500 Billion. In 1990, the same IRS collected roughly $1 Trillion.

I know the historical anecdotal evidence against high taxes. I know that the Luxury Taxes of the 1990's caused entire segments of our population to lose their jobs. Senator Kennedy claimed that the rich would be paying their fair share finally.

However, the Rich took their money, and bought their yachts elsewhere. The boat building industry in Senator Kennedy's state suffered an 88% decline in sales and service. Even these days, those high taxes are avoided like the plague, like with Senator Kerry who was just outed for parking his Yacht in Rhode Island where there are no taxes.

I learned from this article that this historical example trends much farther back into history than I thought. It goes all the way back to the Great Depression. President Hoover thought it would be a good idea to tax the nation into prosperity. It didn't work obviously. History clearly demonstrates that high taxes are never a good thing for the economy, and never raise the funds that the Politicians claim they will. Instead, we see whole industries wiped out in an effort to get the Rich to "Pay their fair share."

The article points out that under our current taxes, the riches 1% of wage earners are paying about 3.3% of the Gross Domestic Product in taxes. Yes, that's right. I had to read it twice myself before I grasped it. In other words, 3.3% of what every single person, business, corporation, earns in this nation, is paid in taxes by the richest 1%.

So as Nancy Pelosi and President Obama tell us that the Rich aren't paying their fair share, think about this. How much less will they be paying when like Senator Kerry they take their funds or assets to another location where they're not going to be taxed so highly.

The nation of St. Kitts and Nevis has very liberal citizenship opportunities for those with the money, you have to wonder how many of our nations wealthy will be relocating to a nation like that instead of being blamed for their success here.

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Obama's grades falling

In December 2009, just a few short months ago, President Obama gave himself a grade of B+ in an interview with Oprah. Now, during an interview, remember, just a few short months later, President Obama states that his grade is "incomplete" at present.

Of course, a few short months ago, the Press tended to repeat the party line that the Recession was over, and that all was going swimmingly here in the great old US of A. People still hadn't started to believe that the Obamacare would try and kill them, that belief came later.

So why would the President fall from a B+ to an incomplete? Normally Incomplete is a term used when either you've failed to attend class, or you've failed to participate in class. For President Obama, it may be a little of both.

As for failing to attend class, Perhaps it's that he's cutting class to go play golf? He's played more rounds of Golf than President Bush did in eight years in office. Perhaps it's that he's on vacation a lot. Even the liberal Fact Check sight admits that he has been on vacation more than nearly every other President, and that was just during his first year. Remember GW Bush's first year was pretty easy, until 9-11. The economy was doing OK, there weren't any wars yet, and his victory was too narrow for Washington to admit he had a mandate, so legislative work was difficult to say the least.

So perhaps this bit of honesty from President Obama, that he feels he's earned the grade of Incomplete is accurate. Of course, the real reason that people are graded Incomplete, is so they don't get an F. In a way, it's sort of like saying that he hasn't even done enough to earn an F on his report card.

America's Math Wars

Townhall has an article that kind of struck home today. It involves something that I have learned to respect a great deal, and that is Math. I have previously posted about how my own shaky foundation and understanding of math was a problem that I had to overcome despite my teenaged certainty that I wouldn't ever use it. I learned the truth, and have made an effort to tell todays kids that everything is math. Math is the foundation of logical thought, and math is involved in every job you may get in the future. I almost wrote nearly every job, but I can't think of a single job, or a single thing in life where Math won't play some part.

The article outlines the current high goals of California's educational system regarding Math. It calls on the sincere attempt to have every student in Algebra by the time they reach the 8th grade. I should point out, I was taking Algebra in the 11th Grade, and nearly flunked it.

California is thinking about adapting the Federal Standard pushed by President Obama, which would set lower goals for the students, but infuse some $700 million into the school systems. Now, obviously, you want the money to pay teachers etc. However, don't you also want your students to have as much of a foundation as possible to prepare them for the future?

One line in the article sums up the reality of the current educational mess.

So it was no surprise when Stanford University math professor James Milgram found that the number of California State University students who needed remedial math had more than doubled, from 23 percent in 1989 to 54 percent in 1997.

Half of the students at the University needed remedial Math classes. They didn't have the bare minimum math skills needed to attend the University. So with this abomination in our recent history, why would anyone even consider lowering the standards further, instead of pushing math harder?

Because, math is one of those things that is like Colonel Colt's pistol, is a great equalizer. So when a Politician explains that the Legislation will work, you just have to understand high number math, the people in the crowd do understand, and know it's a lie.

I won't write that stupid statement, that I wished I had studied Math harder when I was in school. Because I doubt that I would have, as at that time I was a Teenaged Rebel without a clue. However, I'm glad that someone around me knew math, and could teach me as I moved into the real world, and I'm certainly glad that I was lucky enough to have people who would teach me what I should have already known.

Social Security, probably not for you.

Social Security, the Ponzi Scheme of American Politics, is highlighted in todays NY Times. The so called Newspaper of Record, which usually spends its time explaining how Conservatives are really all racist, sexist, homophobic, hate filled, horrible people, is today explaining how you individually should prepare for the day when Social Security isn't going to be there.

You know, that day that would never come according to the Liberals? Remember Paul Krugman telling us that there was no crisis in Social Security? Well, there is a problem, one that anyone could see a mile off. And that problem is getting closer every day, and as usual, Politicians have no desire to fix the problem until it's too late.

So the NY Times today is advising you to start thinking about your retirement without Social Security. You know, that thought pattern that they claimed was merely scare tactics when President Bush proposed changes to avoid the crisis all together.

It is a crisis. A crisis of our own making. A crisis of our own inaction, and our own determination to refuse to see the truth, that nobody gets something for nothing. So instead of learning from our Ponzi Scheme that is destined to fail, we add more and more social programs to the Ponzi Scheme under the assumption that money grows on trees, and we'll pay for it later.

Our National Debt is greater than the Gross National Product. That means that if the Government collected every single dollar made, earned, or saved, that they still wouldn't be able to pay the debt. So we spend more, and more, and more, because for some reason, our elected and appointed leaders haven't figured out that there are two parts to the science of book keeping. There is income, and outgo. In other words, that which you earn, and that which you spend. Being politicians, they're really good at spending, but not so good at budgeting.

So now the NY Times thinks you should consider a future without Social Security. I have to wonder, can we manage a future without the NY Times? Their concern for this issue is a little later than it could have been. It's like the Math is only now becoming real for them, when THEY might be losing THEIR Social Security.

Hit Counter