I just returned from a 13-day trip to Ocracoke Island and Myrtle Beach. While the destinations and itinerary of that trip will be the subject of future posts, my current interest is my observations on the ongoing debate over the soaring price of fuel.
In January of this year unleaded regular gasoline cost an average of $3.085/gallon and we all were crying the blues. Now, four and a half months later, the average price of a gallon of unleaded regular in Florida is $3.814, an increase of 23.6%. Annualized that’s an increase of 62.9%.
That hurts everyone and affects every part of our economy from food to transportation, from stock prices to entertainment; everything we do is connected in some way to the cost of fuel and crude oil.
The burning question on most people’s minds is, “who is to blame?” The media and the Democrat party will tell you its “big oil” and the Bush administration who are at fault. Most people go along with that assessment because it makes a neat little package and easy to understand.
I find it interesting that when asked a hard question, liberals (i.e. Democrats) will counter that the answer is not so simple, nuanced with many variables that must be addressed for one to understand their answer. But when it comes to the price of fuel, they simply pin the blame on “big oil” and the current administration.
But is it really so simple, and is the fix so simple as well?
They want to divert the deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the marketplace for the rest of the year and eliminate the federal gas tax for 15 weeks during the upcoming summer driving months. Sounds good, but will it really make a serious impact?
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) amounts to 70,000 barrels per day, about one tenth of one percent of world consumption and 0.0056% (that’s just over one half of one percent) of daily US imports.
If the SPR were full and we were to be cut off from the world oil supply, there would be only about 58 days of reserve before we would need to drastically cut back on consumption. In practice though, we would need to make those drastic cutbacks immediately.
The US is dependent on foreign crude oil for 60% of its consumption, the largest portion of which is refined into gasoline (9.253 million bpd). However, if the 12,000,000 barrels per day we import was interrupted not only would fuel supply be scarce, but manufacturing of most goods would grind to a halt.
Not only is crude used to make plastics, which permeate every part of our economy, but the machines which produce them and make every item we produce more affordable would stop for lack of lubrication and maintenance parts.
But returning to the immediate issue of the price of gasoline and the effect of the congressional and administrations band-aid approach. It’s estimated that diverting the SPR to domestic production will result in a reduction of about .03 - .05¢ gallon. That works out to about $53 in savings over 6 months of the diversion. Excited?
The moratorium on the 18.4¢ federal gas tax will save motorists an estimated $28 - $30 on average over its limited lifespan and in the process reduce available revenue for highway maintenance by $6.4 billion, affecting 10’s of 1000’s of highway related jobs.
So for the sake of saying they did something, our congressmen/women and the administration are going to save you about 83 bucks, expose a weakness in our national security, expose motorists to unsafe roads as they go unmaintained and throw thousands of highway workers into the unemployment lines.
In the end, who's gonna notice anyway? In 38 days at the current rate of increase the pump price of gasoline will be right back where it was before the "cuts" took place. At the end of the summer when the "tax holiday" ends and the price suddenly rises 18.4¢, do you really think the American people will remember they've been enjoying the largess of the US Congress for 3 months?
Sounds like a great plan to me.
My next post will include some of my ideas on what we should do to deal with this problem and the wider issue of the US energy supply.
"We are all in the same boat on a stormy sea and
we owe each other a terrible loyalty." - G. K. Chesterson
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
How long do we have to wait?
Come on Dems, get with the program, how long do we have to wait? Until another 9/11?
Now, ya curious about this and more, get a different take on Washington politics. Visit the Freedom Project.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
The crash and political realities
The past few weeks have been consumed with life events. A friend and co-worker was involved in a head-on collision with a man who was fleeing police after a traffic violation. She was working, returning from a facility we had the previous day discussed switching with one I was to visit that same day. I had decided to let things remain in situ.
Our friend was severely injured, in ICU for 5 days and is now in a rehabilitation center where she will learn to live independently while her shattered legs heal. While her doctors say she will be able to return to her love of horses, riding and teaching others, especially children, to ride and love them too, I cannot imagine such injuries will not leave her without permanent physical and emotional scars,
The passenger in the offending driver’s car was killed in the accident; the driver was injured (and temporarily housed on the same hospital wing as our friend) and while there is no doubt as to his fault, the local media chose to focus on the deceased’s family complaints of law enforcement being to blame for the accident, their reasoning, there should have been no pursuit.
There was no mention of our friend’s injuries, no reference to her decades of work with children and therapeutic rider training. No acknowledgement of her selfless efforts to organize multiple yearly group outings for her co-workers and families to “help them see there’s life outside work.”
Ellie will be OK, it will be a long, difficult journey, but she will be OK.
In the process of the past few weeks I come to know her son, John, who has come from his New York City home to oversee her care. What a great guy and loving, caring son. Ellie, ya done good!
On the political front, I’ve been loathe to write much, while the Dems duke it out for the nomination, McCain marches on, the Republican rules of engagement preventing a reoccurrence of the Democrat brawl.
The “winner take all” rules of the Republican primaries make for a quick leap to the front for a candidate who can consistently squeak out state by state wins, that growing tally in electoral votes can mask a much closer popular vote and disparity among Republican voters.
The apparent desire to keep that disparity masked is held up by the lack of available information on popular vote tallies. A search of an hour and 30 minutes yielded no information on the Republican side.
RealClearPolitics.com does a great job of polling the polls and even has a matrix of the Democrat popular vote totals, but a click on the link where the Republican popular vote totals should be yields only delegate counts and polling results.
I suspect that were the popular vote results available they would reveal that among Republican voters, the split between McCain supporters and the other candidates supporters would be much wider than the current delegate count would indicate.
I’m not a huge McCain fan; he’s too much politician, too willing to negotiate, too willing to make deals with the “devil” to lay a strong claim to conservatism. Make no doubt, I’m a conservative first, the Republican Party just lies closer to my philosophies than the Dems.
Still, I cannot, like Ann Coulter, say I’ll vote for Hillary before McCain. If he’s the nominee, and it looks like he will be, I’ll have no choice but to hold my nose and pull the lever. Unlike Dr. Dobson who said he’ll not vote for the first time in his life, I think not voting is a vote for the Democrat nominee, I just can't do that.
Our friend was severely injured, in ICU for 5 days and is now in a rehabilitation center where she will learn to live independently while her shattered legs heal. While her doctors say she will be able to return to her love of horses, riding and teaching others, especially children, to ride and love them too, I cannot imagine such injuries will not leave her without permanent physical and emotional scars,
The passenger in the offending driver’s car was killed in the accident; the driver was injured (and temporarily housed on the same hospital wing as our friend) and while there is no doubt as to his fault, the local media chose to focus on the deceased’s family complaints of law enforcement being to blame for the accident, their reasoning, there should have been no pursuit.
There was no mention of our friend’s injuries, no reference to her decades of work with children and therapeutic rider training. No acknowledgement of her selfless efforts to organize multiple yearly group outings for her co-workers and families to “help them see there’s life outside work.”
Ellie will be OK, it will be a long, difficult journey, but she will be OK.
In the process of the past few weeks I come to know her son, John, who has come from his New York City home to oversee her care. What a great guy and loving, caring son. Ellie, ya done good!
The “winner take all” rules of the Republican primaries make for a quick leap to the front for a candidate who can consistently squeak out state by state wins, that growing tally in electoral votes can mask a much closer popular vote and disparity among Republican voters.
The apparent desire to keep that disparity masked is held up by the lack of available information on popular vote tallies. A search of an hour and 30 minutes yielded no information on the Republican side.
RealClearPolitics.com does a great job of polling the polls and even has a matrix of the Democrat popular vote totals, but a click on the link where the Republican popular vote totals should be yields only delegate counts and polling results.
I suspect that were the popular vote results available they would reveal that among Republican voters, the split between McCain supporters and the other candidates supporters would be much wider than the current delegate count would indicate.
I’m not a huge McCain fan; he’s too much politician, too willing to negotiate, too willing to make deals with the “devil” to lay a strong claim to conservatism. Make no doubt, I’m a conservative first, the Republican Party just lies closer to my philosophies than the Dems.
Still, I cannot, like Ann Coulter, say I’ll vote for Hillary before McCain. If he’s the nominee, and it looks like he will be, I’ll have no choice but to hold my nose and pull the lever. Unlike Dr. Dobson who said he’ll not vote for the first time in his life, I think not voting is a vote for the Democrat nominee, I just can't do that.
Monday, February 18, 2008
What are we celebrating after all?
Today is President's Day, created by Congressional law in 1968 by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act that moved most US Federal holidays to a Monday. Originally it was to combine both Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday into one holiday, but as most things Washington (the town not the man), stuff fell through the cracks. When signed, the act only applied to Washington's Birthday.
The first designated Federal holiday to honor a citizen, Washington's Birthday was so ordered by Congress in 1880 for the District of Columbia and expanded to the states in 1885. Its purpose was to honor the man who was our first President and is regularly referred to as "the Father of Our Country."
George Washington was commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary forces who overthrew England, presided over the convention that created the US Constitution, unified our nation and after unanimous choice of the Electoral College became our first President, setting the standard for all subsequent Presidents to attain.
For decades on this day our citizens were reminded of this great man and his accomplishments and took time to honor his important and vital place in our history. However, in recent years it has become little more than a reason to have a retail sale.
Outside of government and banks, few take leave of work, fewer remember the man, and even fewer remember that without him, this great nation may well have never come into existence. Today, it's all about a day off work or school and another reason to compel people to spend.
On the other hand, a recent addition to the Federal holiday calendar, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day came into existence in 1983 to celebrate the life of this man who undoubtedly had a great impact on the United States civil rights movement. Still, one would be hard pressed to say his impact on the US and her citizens was as far-reaching as that of George Washington.
Even so, were one to imply that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day be observed in the same manner as the President's Day observance has become, there would be great cries of "heresy" and disrespect for this man. If one were to suggest celebrating "King Day" by holding a sale he would no doubt be venerated as having ill will towards the Black community.
It took about 20 years from it's inception to when business began to accept President’s Day as a "non-holiday" and no doubt there were many who cried out at this dishonor as it turned into a retail sale day. Yet today we allow it as acceptable and expected practice, many looking forward to the possibility of finding a good "deal".
I have little doubt that sometime in the future, certainly not as quickly as it took President's Day for there was substantial prior history to that day of remembrance, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day will, too, become another little recognized day where most forget the man and his accomplishments and turn their attention to the discounts of the retail sector.
People will cease demanding the day off from work to honor the man, memorials will be forgotten, parades no longer organized and the words so often quoted, "I have a dream…" will take their place in obscurity along side Washington’s "…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The first designated Federal holiday to honor a citizen, Washington's Birthday was so ordered by Congress in 1880 for the District of Columbia and expanded to the states in 1885. Its purpose was to honor the man who was our first President and is regularly referred to as "the Father of Our Country."
George Washington was commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary forces who overthrew England, presided over the convention that created the US Constitution, unified our nation and after unanimous choice of the Electoral College became our first President, setting the standard for all subsequent Presidents to attain.
For decades on this day our citizens were reminded of this great man and his accomplishments and took time to honor his important and vital place in our history. However, in recent years it has become little more than a reason to have a retail sale.
Outside of government and banks, few take leave of work, fewer remember the man, and even fewer remember that without him, this great nation may well have never come into existence. Today, it's all about a day off work or school and another reason to compel people to spend.
On the other hand, a recent addition to the Federal holiday calendar, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day came into existence in 1983 to celebrate the life of this man who undoubtedly had a great impact on the United States civil rights movement. Still, one would be hard pressed to say his impact on the US and her citizens was as far-reaching as that of George Washington.
Even so, were one to imply that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day be observed in the same manner as the President's Day observance has become, there would be great cries of "heresy" and disrespect for this man. If one were to suggest celebrating "King Day" by holding a sale he would no doubt be venerated as having ill will towards the Black community.
It took about 20 years from it's inception to when business began to accept President’s Day as a "non-holiday" and no doubt there were many who cried out at this dishonor as it turned into a retail sale day. Yet today we allow it as acceptable and expected practice, many looking forward to the possibility of finding a good "deal".
I have little doubt that sometime in the future, certainly not as quickly as it took President's Day for there was substantial prior history to that day of remembrance, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day will, too, become another little recognized day where most forget the man and his accomplishments and turn their attention to the discounts of the retail sector.
People will cease demanding the day off from work to honor the man, memorials will be forgotten, parades no longer organized and the words so often quoted, "I have a dream…" will take their place in obscurity along side Washington’s "…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Friday, February 08, 2008
Medias campaign to disuade Republican voters
With Mitt Romney now out of the race, the media can now start their attack on the leading Republican presidential candidate. Up to this point they’ve nearly had a “love fest” with John McCain, essentially defending him against the concerns of conservatives.
For weeks the media has disparaged Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as the "goon squad" for their, ah hem, lack of support for candidate McCain. Flying false flags and characterizing the concerns of conservative pundits more as personality issues and ignoring the real ideological and policy issues these commentators have postulated.
Now, after the Romney withdrawal, the national media suddenly begins its attack on McCain, the AP enumerating his failure to show up for “half” the Senate votes in the past year. All the while demonstrating that while Sens. Obama and Clinton’s failure to show records were less than stellar, they still recorded more Senate votes than McCain.
That is just the initial salvo. Reporting on McCains’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Zachary Coile reported some of the specifics of conservatives disagreements with the front runner.
"It's not just that he voted against the tax cuts - he rallied moderate Republicans and Democrats to oppose the tax cuts"
“… his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which they called an affront to the First Amendment.”
“…McCain is too eager to compromise with Democrats.”
“…his vote against the 2001 tax cuts…”
“…his immigration bill, which failed in the Senate last year…”
“…the Gang of fourteen.”
Suddenly, these and other issues, that conservatives contend reveal McCain’s liberal mindset, are making headlines. This worry, along with McCain’s propensity to link arms with liberal Democrats like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy, and even more moderate Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, rankle conservatives who have watched McCain abandon them repeatedly over the years while championing liberal causes.
When the details of the pundits’ disagreement with McCain may have been educational to and had an effect on Republican primary voters, the media was silent. Now, with McCain the frontrunner and presumed nominee, these issues become headlines.
It seems to me this is the beginning of the liberal medias effort to discourage the Republican voter and dissuade them for casting a vote come November. I think their strategy is, if Republicans flee the voting booth, no matter who the Democrat nominee is, Hillary or Obama, they will have smooth sailing to the inauguration.
I have to say I was having problems thinking positively about our now presumed nominee any way. I didn’t support him in our Florida primary, and working up support now is going to be real tough.
James Dobson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage all have come out against McCain. But they aren’t the only ones. Conservative voters across the nation have serious problems with John McCain. Those who don’t probably haven’t studied his record.
Granted there are varying degrees of conservativism, and even conservatives will disagree on various issues, but all will find in John McCain to have abandoned them in many of the issues they hold dear. I place myself firmly in their camp.
For weeks the media has disparaged Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as the "goon squad" for their, ah hem, lack of support for candidate McCain. Flying false flags and characterizing the concerns of conservative pundits more as personality issues and ignoring the real ideological and policy issues these commentators have postulated.
Now, after the Romney withdrawal, the national media suddenly begins its attack on McCain, the AP enumerating his failure to show up for “half” the Senate votes in the past year. All the while demonstrating that while Sens. Obama and Clinton’s failure to show records were less than stellar, they still recorded more Senate votes than McCain.
That is just the initial salvo. Reporting on McCains’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Zachary Coile reported some of the specifics of conservatives disagreements with the front runner.
"It's not just that he voted against the tax cuts - he rallied moderate Republicans and Democrats to oppose the tax cuts"
“… his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which they called an affront to the First Amendment.”
“…McCain is too eager to compromise with Democrats.”
“…his vote against the 2001 tax cuts…”
“…his immigration bill, which failed in the Senate last year…”
“…the Gang of fourteen.”
Suddenly, these and other issues, that conservatives contend reveal McCain’s liberal mindset, are making headlines. This worry, along with McCain’s propensity to link arms with liberal Democrats like Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy, and even more moderate Democrats such as Joe Lieberman, rankle conservatives who have watched McCain abandon them repeatedly over the years while championing liberal causes.
When the details of the pundits’ disagreement with McCain may have been educational to and had an effect on Republican primary voters, the media was silent. Now, with McCain the frontrunner and presumed nominee, these issues become headlines.
It seems to me this is the beginning of the liberal medias effort to discourage the Republican voter and dissuade them for casting a vote come November. I think their strategy is, if Republicans flee the voting booth, no matter who the Democrat nominee is, Hillary or Obama, they will have smooth sailing to the inauguration.
I have to say I was having problems thinking positively about our now presumed nominee any way. I didn’t support him in our Florida primary, and working up support now is going to be real tough.
James Dobson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage all have come out against McCain. But they aren’t the only ones. Conservative voters across the nation have serious problems with John McCain. Those who don’t probably haven’t studied his record.
Granted there are varying degrees of conservativism, and even conservatives will disagree on various issues, but all will find in John McCain to have abandoned them in many of the issues they hold dear. I place myself firmly in their camp.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Winning the Future
While I have disagreement with some of the specific items listed, the overwhelming majority of this "Platform of the American People's" action items are right on!
This platform is the result of 6 national polls of the American people, asking their opinions of the serious issues facing our nation and the proposed solutions. The polling results are available for review and next to each plank in this "Platform of the American People" the polling results for that plank are displayed.
The broad categories are:
- English and American Civilization
- Immigration, the Border and Assimilation
- Science and Technology
- Prizes
- Energy and the Environment
- Taxes and Jobs
- Social Security and Retirement
- Freedom of Religion
- Defending America
This isn't a Democrat, Independent or Republican document, it is the result of the sincere opinions of a broad representation of Americans of every political stripe. Visit the website, read the platform, make your own decision about this document and how it aligns with you personal values
I can imagine every one of us can find something to disagree on, but I can also imagine that everyone, if we take the time to listen to and understand each other, will find we have more values in common than points of dissimilarity. Visit the website or download the petition to your computer. Download now (You will need Foxit Reader or Adobe Reader)
I have little doubt that except for the most virulent partisan among us, most will agree to most of the agenda of "Platform of the American People." Therefore I'm recommending that everyone take a moment to visit the website, read this treatise on American ideals and if you too can agree with the majority of its tenants, follow through, sign the petition.
The future of our nation it too important and, in the end, we are all really not that different in the values we hold dear.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Who's gonna tote the load?
This Sunday, when asked in an ABC interview about her plan to enforce universal health care if elected, dodged the question of imposing fees and/or garnishing wages to do so. She specifically mentioned enforced enrollment and higher taxes.
Now one could ask, how could she do that to the poor and low income families. The most likely answer is, she wouldn’t. That’s how she would press the issue through and gain broad support of the masses. If they don’t have to pay for it, of course they’ll support it.
So who would she tax and or garnish? Those who are already paying the bill. The middle class and up. Currently the top 25% of income earners pays 86% of income taxes.
You may respond, well, that leaves me out. Think again. If your household has an annual income of $62,000 or more, you are in the group of those paying the bill (2005 Tax Foundation Data). Just as an FYI, the top 50% of income earners ($31,000 and above) pay 96.93% of all income taxes.
So who do you think Hillary or anyone else wishing to garnish wages, impose additional fees and increase taxes on the taxpayer to fund a giveaway to the lower 50% will appeal to? Do you think she’ll have any difficulty getting their support?
NOW! What was your income last year? Which of the above groups will you fall into? The upper 50% of income earners, or the lower 50%? Are you ready to increase the amount of your income you send to the federal government? Think, know the facts before you decide. Free heathcare doesn’t mean free, someone has to tote the load, the short odds are it’ll be you.
Now one could ask, how could she do that to the poor and low income families. The most likely answer is, she wouldn’t. That’s how she would press the issue through and gain broad support of the masses. If they don’t have to pay for it, of course they’ll support it.
So who would she tax and or garnish? Those who are already paying the bill. The middle class and up. Currently the top 25% of income earners pays 86% of income taxes.
You may respond, well, that leaves me out. Think again. If your household has an annual income of $62,000 or more, you are in the group of those paying the bill (2005 Tax Foundation Data). Just as an FYI, the top 50% of income earners ($31,000 and above) pay 96.93% of all income taxes.
So who do you think Hillary or anyone else wishing to garnish wages, impose additional fees and increase taxes on the taxpayer to fund a giveaway to the lower 50% will appeal to? Do you think she’ll have any difficulty getting their support?
NOW! What was your income last year? Which of the above groups will you fall into? The upper 50% of income earners, or the lower 50%? Are you ready to increase the amount of your income you send to the federal government? Think, know the facts before you decide. Free heathcare doesn’t mean free, someone has to tote the load, the short odds are it’ll be you.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
On the road with the nuvi 350
We received a Garmin nüvi 350 3.5-Inch Portable GPS Navigator
this Christmas and took it on our trip to South Carolina. I've used a Garmin eTrex for several years and like a lot of the features and the huge amount of information available from it's simple format. But its use on a trip was limited by it's lack of internal memory and difficulty to route away from the computer.
this Christmas and took it on our trip to South Carolina. I've used a Garmin eTrex for several years and like a lot of the features and the huge amount of information available from it's simple format. But its use on a trip was limited by it's lack of internal memory and difficulty to route away from the computer.
The nüvi 350 solves those problems, automatically routing and having enough memory to load the full map and POI (Points of Interest) for the US and Canada. In practice it is easy to setup and use. When we deviated from it's recommended route it would recalculated and offer alternative routing from our present location. When we needed to detour around Atlanta due to traffic tie-up, a press of the on screen button sent us on our way.
Preferring a more scenic return route, we selected the "shorter distance" option and came down US 441 from I-85 to I-10 north of Lake City, FL. On that route a few of the shortcomings make their appearance.
While the nüvi 350's database is the 2008 map, it failed to have the changes in the roadbed due to fairly recent construction. Now that construction wasn't totally new but had be opened, I'm guessing here, within the past year or so. In those areas the nüvi went off trying to route us back to a road that didn't not exist. The same problem appeared in Greenville along a new stretch of road I know is over a year old. Getting past those areas, it recalculated and went on as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Additionally, some of the POIs were off or non-existent. Apparently these businesses closed or moved and the changes didn't make the database. That kind of error is to be expected.
Another negative, at least for me, is the inability to pre-determine your route. I like sitting down at the computer with mapping software and plan my trip. This isn't possible with the nüvi 350, any nüvi or Street Pilot that I'm aware of. You can determine a series of interim waypoints and insert them as you go along, but to completely preplan and setup you trip, nope.
Some of the nüvi 350's weaknesses are common to most if not all mapping products, software and hardware. Most of these use the same map database, and this database is flawed in some areas. In Ocala we have a stretch of road that no matter what I use, Garmin, Mapquest, Google Maps, Streets and Trips; they all read this 2 mile strip off from as little as a block to as much as 2 miles. So, as the on screen disclaimer advises, be aware that it, like any other product is imperfect and don't bet your life on it.
Just the same, the Garmin nüvi 350 was fun and easy to use, very helpful in getting around situations, and contains a very good POI database. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes to travel while appreciating the benefits of modern technology.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
One over, another begun!
That title could apply to many things. The years, interests, books...OK, let's talk about books. My holiday break gave me time to finish two I've been working on; Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity by John Stossel, and Exile by Richard North Patterson. Both books were entertaining and educational in their own way.
Stossel's book tackles and summarizes many of same subjects covered in his ABC 20/20 broadcasts. He piles head-on into many of the basic misconceptions many Americans have about their government and the media. Additionally he raises the covers on many "common knowledge" beliefs ranging from prescription drugs, relationships, parenting and so on. I a few areas I think he fails to fully/fairly cover the subject, preferring to focus on a portion of the misperception while ignoring the validity of the opposing argument. Not every subject can be boiled down to "either/or" "black and white."
That takes me to the next book on the list, Exile by Patterson. Talk about a complex subject, the complexity of the Middle East can be summarized in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Fully nuanced, villains and heroes, victims and oppressors on both sides. We often hear in the news about the Palestinian suicide bombers and the Israelis are constantly characterized as oppressors in their response to these and in their attempts to protect against further bombings.
Were it was so simple to parse. There's plenty of blame to go around on this matter, and it doesn't end with the primary participants. Syria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and then even the west all play a role in the destruction and the bigotry. Most of all, the inability of both Israelis and Palestinians to move away from entrenched positions of hatred and perceived privilege to compromise, tolerance and honest negotiation.
Will it happen in our lifetime, in any lifetime? Patterson leaves you doubtful, yet, if enough real people begin to think like the few mentioned in the book, who knows...
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The following is a response to a humorous email I forwarded to liberal friend:
I couldn't let him get away with that statement so lightly so...
Sometimes we need a good shock to see how really wrong we are... I think Hillary will be that shock. The nanny state will not be what "everyone" wants once they find out how much of their freedom it will cost.
Yeah, Bush was/is a disappointment in several areas. Yes the Republicans were disappointing in the legislative leadership on many fronts. Do I want a government that will "fix" every wrong in my life? Do I want a government that will be my source for every "need?" Do I want a government run by people who spend their lives looking for what's wrong with America and their answer is always bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, government? The answer is no.
But lets consider for a moment, how are they (specifically Hillary) going to pay for what they (she) propose? Tax the rich? I don't think so.
Statistics for 2004: The top 50% of income earners paid 92% of the taxes. The top 50% started at $50,000 annual incomes. That included you.
Those earning over $1M were less than one quarter of 1% but paid almost 21% of total taxes. That means those earning less than $50,000/year paid only 8% of taxes. Those are my gleanings from the IRS statistics freely available.
Others say essentially the same:
"The U.S. income tax system is so bad and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40 percent of the country's households pay no income taxes at all, says Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, and president of Ari Fleischer Communications.
Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas; however, the one place where it does excel is at redistributing income, says Fleischer:
According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
those who make more than $43,200 (the top 40 percent) pay 99.1 percent of all income taxes.
Those who made more than $87,300 in 2004, the top 10 percent, paid 70.8 percent of all income taxes.
In other words, 10 percent pay 7 out of every 10 dollars and their share of the burden is rising.
"And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster:
In 1979, affluent individuals made 9.3 percent of the nation's income and they paid 18.3 percent of the country's income tax.
In 2004, they made 16.3 percent of the nation's income but their share of the income tax burden leaped to 36.7 percent.
As for the middle class they make 13.9 percent of the nation's income and their share of the nation's income tax dropped to 4.7 percent.
In 1979, they made 15.8 percent of the nation's income and paid 10.7 percent of the nation's income tax."
From the National Center for Policy Analysis
In 1993 Bill Clinton pushed through a plan to make the wealthy recipients of Social Security pay their fair share. In that plan that Clinton signed into law, "couples earning $32,000 or more on Social Security (and individuals above $25,000) get the opportunity to have the taxable portion of their benefits expanded from 50 percent to 85 percent." (See World News Communications article) So the definition of "wealthy" was lowered to just $25,000/year. Few disagree that Hillary was the brains behind the Bill Clinton administration and the policies attempted and implemented.
How about the corporations? We can just load up on their taxes and have them pay the costs of our ever increasing, every more expensive government. OK, who pays corporate taxes? The business, no, a business builds into it's products and services it's costs of creating, marketing and selling those products. All costs in business, and a tax is a cost of doing business, are passed on through the product or service to the end purchaser. And who is that? Who buys the products? The consumer, you.
What about the shareholder? Shareholders, whether as individual shares or in a fund are also ultimately individuals. Those taxed shares, even in a tax exempt portfolio such as an IRA or 401-K are still taxed before they become part of the investment vehicle and those taxes impact the total return and therefore the income available to the individual. Again, the individual pays.
So before you vote for Hillary or anyone else, you better think long and hard about how they are going to pay for all those promises. We should have been thinking about it all along, but now with 20% of the national economy at stake with the push to federalize healthcare, it's more so. All else aside, think rationally for a moment, have you ever trusted "the government" before to efficiently spend the dollars they take from your income?
Have you ever experienced the government to efficiently administer a service? Are you satisfied with the level of service you get with Social Security, Medicare, from the IRS, from any government service under any administration. What makes you think that will change now? Because someone promises to let your neighbor, the clerk at the grocery store, the guy behind the counter at the convince store or the kid who sells you at ticket at the movie theater share in your healthcare costs by charging them higher taxes?
And what about the uninsured? According to media reports and the Census Bureau, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. While that's a big number, it also mean's 84% of Americans are covered under employer, government and individual plans!
Of the 15% without, how many have been denied health services? And how many choose not to purchase health insurance. While the percentage rose during the period covered (2005-2006), that the economy was in a strong growth phase and the poverty rate declined (MarketWatch)would indicate that maybe not having insurance was a choice for some,not a lack of availability or ability.
We have county health services freely available at little or no cost to the recipient. Hospitals are required to treat any who come to their emergency rooms. And they do. It's all paid for by our taxes and insurance premiums.
Healthcare costs are rising at a crazy rate and we need to control them. Yes we do. But is nationalization of healthcare the answer? I think not. Anywhere you look where there is government administered healthcare, Canada, Europe, Cuba, wherever, there are restrictions on not just 24% of the population, but on everyone regarding the availability of health services. Waiting lists are the norm, not the exception. Why do people from all over the world come here for healthcare? Because of the wait or lack of services in their own countries.
Is our system perfect? Far from it. Can it be fixed? Yes, but it will take a change in attitudes from everyone. For starters, include or increase co-pays so those who won't regulate their own use of health services to when they really need it, will have to pay more for it, with or without insurance. Reduce the cost of bringing drugs to market and balance the cost paid by overseas consumers with those paid by the American consumer so they, and we, pay a fairer portion of the cost the medications we take. Create a system of more efficiently using medical resources instead of unnecessary duplication of services. But not to the extent of harming access to critical resources.
Do I trust Hillary to administer the challenges facing this nation? No. At heart she's a socialist. I know that's a flaming statement but when you rationally consider her proposals, that's where it all comes down to. Government control of all services instead of a free market economy.
On the other hand, do I trust the Republicans any more. I'm having a hard time with that one too. The last seven years have proven that when it comes to fiscal policy, the Republicans are just as much free spenders with the taxpayers dollars as any Democrat. On social issues I'm much closer to the Republicans than the Democrats, but even then there are many moving away from me.
Has the war in Iraq been prosecuted badly? Has any war at any time in history been prosecuted properly when viewed through the lens of history? Wrong assumptions were made that would have been made by any American administration because of our Western perspective.
Is George Bush evil? I Hillary evil? No to both. They are two different people with different agendas and perspectives on the place of government in the life of the individual and the role America should play in geopolitics. I just happen to agree more with Bush and less with Hillary. Certainly not totally in agreement or disagreement with either.
John Edwards made the statement that in essence characterized the Republicans as serving bumper sticker politics. If this little exchange is any indication, look at your statement and my response. Which is more suited for a bumper sticker and which is more of an in-depth analysis?
That's why the Democrats appeal to the poor and uneducated, present company excluded of course. Because they were educated in the government run, teachers union administered schools the economically and intellectually challenged lack the patience or skills to look beyond the "bumper sticker" and get to the meat of the matter.
That's enough of a rant for one day...have a happy!
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
HILLARY IN "08" GET USED TO IT!!
I couldn't let him get away with that statement so lightly so...
Sometimes we need a good shock to see how really wrong we are... I think Hillary will be that shock. The nanny state will not be what "everyone" wants once they find out how much of their freedom it will cost.
Yeah, Bush was/is a disappointment in several areas. Yes the Republicans were disappointing in the legislative leadership on many fronts. Do I want a government that will "fix" every wrong in my life? Do I want a government that will be my source for every "need?" Do I want a government run by people who spend their lives looking for what's wrong with America and their answer is always bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, government? The answer is no.
But lets consider for a moment, how are they (specifically Hillary) going to pay for what they (she) propose? Tax the rich? I don't think so.
Statistics for 2004: The top 50% of income earners paid 92% of the taxes. The top 50% started at $50,000 annual incomes. That included you.
Those earning over $1M were less than one quarter of 1% but paid almost 21% of total taxes. That means those earning less than $50,000/year paid only 8% of taxes. Those are my gleanings from the IRS statistics freely available.
Others say essentially the same:
"The U.S. income tax system is so bad and increasingly reliant on a shrinking number of Americans to pay the nation's bills, that 40 percent of the country's households pay no income taxes at all, says Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary, and president of Ari Fleischer Communications.
Our tax system comes up short in a lot of areas; however, the one place where it does excel is at redistributing income, says Fleischer:
According to a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
"And those super-rich one percenters? Their share of the nation's income has risen, but their tax burden has risen even faster:
From the National Center for Policy Analysis
In 1993 Bill Clinton pushed through a plan to make the wealthy recipients of Social Security pay their fair share. In that plan that Clinton signed into law, "couples earning $32,000 or more on Social Security (and individuals above $25,000) get the opportunity to have the taxable portion of their benefits expanded from 50 percent to 85 percent." (See World News Communications article) So the definition of "wealthy" was lowered to just $25,000/year. Few disagree that Hillary was the brains behind the Bill Clinton administration and the policies attempted and implemented.
How about the corporations? We can just load up on their taxes and have them pay the costs of our ever increasing, every more expensive government. OK, who pays corporate taxes? The business, no, a business builds into it's products and services it's costs of creating, marketing and selling those products. All costs in business, and a tax is a cost of doing business, are passed on through the product or service to the end purchaser. And who is that? Who buys the products? The consumer, you.
What about the shareholder? Shareholders, whether as individual shares or in a fund are also ultimately individuals. Those taxed shares, even in a tax exempt portfolio such as an IRA or 401-K are still taxed before they become part of the investment vehicle and those taxes impact the total return and therefore the income available to the individual. Again, the individual pays.
So before you vote for Hillary or anyone else, you better think long and hard about how they are going to pay for all those promises. We should have been thinking about it all along, but now with 20% of the national economy at stake with the push to federalize healthcare, it's more so. All else aside, think rationally for a moment, have you ever trusted "the government" before to efficiently spend the dollars they take from your income?
Have you ever experienced the government to efficiently administer a service? Are you satisfied with the level of service you get with Social Security, Medicare, from the IRS, from any government service under any administration. What makes you think that will change now? Because someone promises to let your neighbor, the clerk at the grocery store, the guy behind the counter at the convince store or the kid who sells you at ticket at the movie theater share in your healthcare costs by charging them higher taxes?
And what about the uninsured? According to media reports and the Census Bureau, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. While that's a big number, it also mean's 84% of Americans are covered under employer, government and individual plans!
Of the 15% without, how many have been denied health services? And how many choose not to purchase health insurance. While the percentage rose during the period covered (2005-2006), that the economy was in a strong growth phase and the poverty rate declined (MarketWatch)would indicate that maybe not having insurance was a choice for some,not a lack of availability or ability.
We have county health services freely available at little or no cost to the recipient. Hospitals are required to treat any who come to their emergency rooms. And they do. It's all paid for by our taxes and insurance premiums.
Healthcare costs are rising at a crazy rate and we need to control them. Yes we do. But is nationalization of healthcare the answer? I think not. Anywhere you look where there is government administered healthcare, Canada, Europe, Cuba, wherever, there are restrictions on not just 24% of the population, but on everyone regarding the availability of health services. Waiting lists are the norm, not the exception. Why do people from all over the world come here for healthcare? Because of the wait or lack of services in their own countries.
Is our system perfect? Far from it. Can it be fixed? Yes, but it will take a change in attitudes from everyone. For starters, include or increase co-pays so those who won't regulate their own use of health services to when they really need it, will have to pay more for it, with or without insurance. Reduce the cost of bringing drugs to market and balance the cost paid by overseas consumers with those paid by the American consumer so they, and we, pay a fairer portion of the cost the medications we take. Create a system of more efficiently using medical resources instead of unnecessary duplication of services. But not to the extent of harming access to critical resources.
Do I trust Hillary to administer the challenges facing this nation? No. At heart she's a socialist. I know that's a flaming statement but when you rationally consider her proposals, that's where it all comes down to. Government control of all services instead of a free market economy.
On the other hand, do I trust the Republicans any more. I'm having a hard time with that one too. The last seven years have proven that when it comes to fiscal policy, the Republicans are just as much free spenders with the taxpayers dollars as any Democrat. On social issues I'm much closer to the Republicans than the Democrats, but even then there are many moving away from me.
Has the war in Iraq been prosecuted badly? Has any war at any time in history been prosecuted properly when viewed through the lens of history? Wrong assumptions were made that would have been made by any American administration because of our Western perspective.
Is George Bush evil? I Hillary evil? No to both. They are two different people with different agendas and perspectives on the place of government in the life of the individual and the role America should play in geopolitics. I just happen to agree more with Bush and less with Hillary. Certainly not totally in agreement or disagreement with either.
John Edwards made the statement that in essence characterized the Republicans as serving bumper sticker politics. If this little exchange is any indication, look at your statement and my response. Which is more suited for a bumper sticker and which is more of an in-depth analysis?
That's why the Democrats appeal to the poor and uneducated, present company excluded of course. Because they were educated in the government run, teachers union administered schools the economically and intellectually challenged lack the patience or skills to look beyond the "bumper sticker" and get to the meat of the matter.
That's enough of a rant for one day...have a happy!
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Windfall profits? Is I don't hear cries of windfall profits when Coke Cola's profit margin is 20% or the pharmaceutical industries average margin is 16.5%. But when oil's margin of 8.5% generate profits of $3 to $8 billion, because of business volume, it’s called "windfall". A little basic economics 101 would help here.
So the congressional response to this "windfall" is to:
A) Pad the federal treasury with a new royalties when the PPB rises above $55,
B) Congress “feels our pain” with a $100 "rebate,"
C) Increase taxes on oil company inventories,
D) Rescind tax incentives on exploration in difficult areas.
What’s wrong with this? It's simply pandering. When we need to explore more, congress makes it more expensive. While congress gives $100 to the taxpayer on one hand, it comes right out of the other pocket.
Historically it's been charged that corporate America doesn't pay taxes. In truth that is a fact. All business taxes are passed through to the end user as a cost of doing business. So new royalties will come...out of the taxpayers pocket.
Taxes of oil company inventories, out of the taxpayer's personal budget. Rescind tax incentives, a double hit in both more taxes passed through and more increases in actual costs as the supply continues to diminish because of the costs of exploring areas like shale oil.
The whole issue is a blatant example of the left and both sides of the aisle in Congress preying on the ignorance of the American people. The local paper characterized the royaly cap as costing government billions of dollars. It would be better said, "the cap saves the US taxpayer billions of dollars," they're the ones who pay the bill.
If I can figure this out and understand it, what’s wrong with the "big guys?"
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
So the congressional response to this "windfall" is to:
A) Pad the federal treasury with a new royalties when the PPB rises above $55,
B) Congress “feels our pain” with a $100 "rebate,"
C) Increase taxes on oil company inventories,
D) Rescind tax incentives on exploration in difficult areas.
What’s wrong with this? It's simply pandering. When we need to explore more, congress makes it more expensive. While congress gives $100 to the taxpayer on one hand, it comes right out of the other pocket.
Historically it's been charged that corporate America doesn't pay taxes. In truth that is a fact. All business taxes are passed through to the end user as a cost of doing business. So new royalties will come...out of the taxpayers pocket.
Taxes of oil company inventories, out of the taxpayer's personal budget. Rescind tax incentives, a double hit in both more taxes passed through and more increases in actual costs as the supply continues to diminish because of the costs of exploring areas like shale oil.
The whole issue is a blatant example of the left and both sides of the aisle in Congress preying on the ignorance of the American people. The local paper characterized the royaly cap as costing government billions of dollars. It would be better said, "the cap saves the US taxpayer billions of dollars," they're the ones who pay the bill.
If I can figure this out and understand it, what’s wrong with the "big guys?"
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Monday, April 10, 2006
I took a drive to our downtown square this afternoon, after a discussion with my wife trying to help her understand that what I was about to do was based on principle, not protest. Like elsewhere around our nation, Ocala area supporters of illegal immigration held a “rally” on our downtown square.
Too often we Americans will speak in quiet circles, or loudly in small groups to register our dissatisfaction with our representatives and government. We will carefully protest the failures of Capitol Hill to address the very real concerns we have; yet when given the opportunity to put feet to our voice, we balk.
Often this is because those of us who hold the most conservative and traditional of values maintain as part of those values a work ethic that creates a responsibility to employer, employee, customer and family. That responsibility oft prevents us from taking the steps necessary to leave or shut down our business and join a group of likeminded individuals to publicly express our beliefs.
Too often, those who demand more from government in the way of handouts, “rights”, and “freedoms” are able to gather together in large numbers because they have few other responsibilities. They demand the benefits without taking on the responsibilities that come with being a member of our society.
While I may be some what convoluted in some aspects of the illegal immigration issue currently facing our nation, one thing I do know. We must secure our borders. This is a much changed world from what it was even 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan first signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that among other things introduced amnesty to those in this country illegally.
At the time it was thought this, along with increased border control would stem the tide of illegals entering the country. In 1986 there were about 2.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States and it was thought a simple matter to close the borders, giving amnesty to those working in the US since 1982, and provide penalties for those who knowingly employed illegals.
Since then the tide of illicit border crossings has continued to rise to an estimated 40,000 monthly. While that may be down from an estimated 1.5 million annually in the mid-90’s, the estimated number of illegals in the US has increased to at least 10.5 million according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Some other estimates put the number as high as 20 million.
Were we discussing armed combatants from a hostile nation, our politicians would fall over themselves to demand military action to drive out the invaders. Yet, while it’s most likely the majority of those entering illegally are peaceful people who simply desire a better life, there are certainly among them a sub group of those who would do this nation harm.
Whether it be drugs, Mexican gangs and “mafia”, criminals and certainly even terrorists as described in one World Net Daily article, there are those entering our country who will do us harm. Yet our politicians remain sitting on their hands, sacrificing the security of 296 million American citizens for fear of alienating 10.5 million non-citizens.
As stated earlier, I may not have a fully developed response for the whole issue of illegal immigration, this one thing I do know, we MUST secure our borders. If not to stop illicit border crossings then to protect against the entry of criminal and terrorist elements who WILL do us harm.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Too often we Americans will speak in quiet circles, or loudly in small groups to register our dissatisfaction with our representatives and government. We will carefully protest the failures of Capitol Hill to address the very real concerns we have; yet when given the opportunity to put feet to our voice, we balk.
Often this is because those of us who hold the most conservative and traditional of values maintain as part of those values a work ethic that creates a responsibility to employer, employee, customer and family. That responsibility oft prevents us from taking the steps necessary to leave or shut down our business and join a group of likeminded individuals to publicly express our beliefs.
Too often, those who demand more from government in the way of handouts, “rights”, and “freedoms” are able to gather together in large numbers because they have few other responsibilities. They demand the benefits without taking on the responsibilities that come with being a member of our society.
While I may be some what convoluted in some aspects of the illegal immigration issue currently facing our nation, one thing I do know. We must secure our borders. This is a much changed world from what it was even 20 years ago when Ronald Reagan first signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that among other things introduced amnesty to those in this country illegally.
At the time it was thought this, along with increased border control would stem the tide of illegals entering the country. In 1986 there were about 2.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States and it was thought a simple matter to close the borders, giving amnesty to those working in the US since 1982, and provide penalties for those who knowingly employed illegals.
Since then the tide of illicit border crossings has continued to rise to an estimated 40,000 monthly. While that may be down from an estimated 1.5 million annually in the mid-90’s, the estimated number of illegals in the US has increased to at least 10.5 million according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Some other estimates put the number as high as 20 million.
Were we discussing armed combatants from a hostile nation, our politicians would fall over themselves to demand military action to drive out the invaders. Yet, while it’s most likely the majority of those entering illegally are peaceful people who simply desire a better life, there are certainly among them a sub group of those who would do this nation harm.
Whether it be drugs, Mexican gangs and “mafia”, criminals and certainly even terrorists as described in one World Net Daily article, there are those entering our country who will do us harm. Yet our politicians remain sitting on their hands, sacrificing the security of 296 million American citizens for fear of alienating 10.5 million non-citizens.
As stated earlier, I may not have a fully developed response for the whole issue of illegal immigration, this one thing I do know, we MUST secure our borders. If not to stop illicit border crossings then to protect against the entry of criminal and terrorist elements who WILL do us harm.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Friday, March 31, 2006
Look around you in the news today, the fact that there are 12 million illegal aliens in our country, the majority of which are seeking a better life for themselves and their families should cause each one of us to pause and take inventory of our lives and the blessing we have been given as citizens of this nation.
For certain, the desire for a better life doesn't give one a pass to flaunt the laws of our free society, but it should be instructive to those of us who nonchalantly take our blessings for granted. You can be certain; those citizens serving in uniform do not take their US citizenship for granted. Serving in a foreign land rapidly makes precious the blessings of home.
On another note of blessing, as of today, the loss of American lives in Iraq is on track to become the lowest monthly loss since February 2004 when 20 men and women gave their lives in Iraq. While we would be careful to not read too much in this we pray it is the beginning of a trend where Iraqis pick up the terrible honor of protecting their freedoms won at the cost of American, British, and other coalition lives.
Certainly the Iraqi police and military have lost many lives as they have struggled to organize, train, police and fight their war, to date and estimated 12,159, but, as in our own fight for freedom from the Boston Tea Party in 1773 to 1783 when the British left their final North American military post in New York. By some counts 4,435 combat deaths took place in that crude war.
To be sure, men have become more efficient in the effectiveness of their military weapons, but in this war the greatest factor is the willingness of the enemy to use powerful, crudely effective weapons while ignoring the conventions of war.
While American sensibilities and the penchant of the typical American for a quick solution to difficult problems has caused many to waver, the enemy remains resolute in his determination to drive us from Iraq and Afghanistan, and establish their operations in those countries from which to launch renewed attacks on American soil and our citizens.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
For certain, the desire for a better life doesn't give one a pass to flaunt the laws of our free society, but it should be instructive to those of us who nonchalantly take our blessings for granted. You can be certain; those citizens serving in uniform do not take their US citizenship for granted. Serving in a foreign land rapidly makes precious the blessings of home.
On another note of blessing, as of today, the loss of American lives in Iraq is on track to become the lowest monthly loss since February 2004 when 20 men and women gave their lives in Iraq. While we would be careful to not read too much in this we pray it is the beginning of a trend where Iraqis pick up the terrible honor of protecting their freedoms won at the cost of American, British, and other coalition lives.
Certainly the Iraqi police and military have lost many lives as they have struggled to organize, train, police and fight their war, to date and estimated 12,159, but, as in our own fight for freedom from the Boston Tea Party in 1773 to 1783 when the British left their final North American military post in New York. By some counts 4,435 combat deaths took place in that crude war.
To be sure, men have become more efficient in the effectiveness of their military weapons, but in this war the greatest factor is the willingness of the enemy to use powerful, crudely effective weapons while ignoring the conventions of war.
While American sensibilities and the penchant of the typical American for a quick solution to difficult problems has caused many to waver, the enemy remains resolute in his determination to drive us from Iraq and Afghanistan, and establish their operations in those countries from which to launch renewed attacks on American soil and our citizens.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Thursday, September 08, 2005
I've been offline for nearly a week now while I upgraded my computer and reinstalled the OS and programs. What a time to be out of things. While I've been distracted my other pressing matters and haven't been motivated too much to post lately, there's has been some outrageous stuff being tossed about in the wake of hurricane Katrina.
Charges of racism coming into play in the failure to evacuate New Orleans. The person with the primary responsibility for the safety and security of N.O., mayor Ray Nagin, is black. Why then, if racism is an issue, didn't he swiftly and decisively act to ensure the safety of New Orleaneans?
Slow evacuation. Why did Nagin refuse to use the 500+ school and city transit buses immediately at his disposal to evacuate those in the Superdome and the Convention Center per the established disaster plan? His excuse...they weren't good enough. He wanted "...every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country..." brought in, no matter how long it took, no matter how many people were raped, beaten and killed in the interim.
Nagin was not so slow to respond to the need for emotional relief for city officials, first responders, and their families. He decreed September 4 that "five-day vacations - and even trips to Las Vegas - to the police, firefighters and city emergency workers and their families would be paid for by the citizens of New Orleans." Nagin first tried to get FEMA to pay for his largesse, but they correctly refused. No doubt that will be the subject of a future foul-mouthed diatribe, the likes of which we come to expect from C. Ray.
Charges of failure to address the levee issues are mis-leading at best, some would call them out right lies. Others would say they are "smoke" to obscure the real failures of the liberal local and state officials, as well as the Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu.
That Louisiana is the leading recipient of federal Corp of Engineering dollars is unquestionable, some $1.9 billion in the last five years. The question is, how were those taxpayer dollars spent? Of the more than $590 million in the 2006 budget, millions are designated for projects of questionable merit.
The Washington Post (Registration Required) reports Sen. Landrieu inserted language in an Iraqi spending bill that forced the Corps for "cook the books" to justify a project studies had considered of little cost/benefit.
It seems Sen. Landrieu had little regard for the people of New Orleans and what she describes as the widely known problems with the levee system. Otherwise she would have inserted language to force the Corps to accelerate the work already in progress on that issue.
Speaking of the levees, there have been some wild charges that the levees were intentionally breached by operatives of the Bush administration. No one of a sane mind would give this theory any credence, but who said those desperate souls on the left are sane? Of course, in the U.S., everyone loves a conspiracy theory.
Is the federal response to little? As as of right now, more than $62 billion has been approved for Katrina disaster relief. That is more than $200,000 per each of the 300,000 evacuees. Even if you spread it over the estimated 1 million affected people in the area, that corresponds to $62,000 per individual. Too little, hardly.
Certainly there were failures on the part of FEMA to ramp up response. But when dealing with the largest natural disaster in United States history. A disaster covering an area of 90,000 square miles and involving over 1 million people, response cannot be instantaneous.
Logistically there is a huge process of mobilizing an effective response. That is why the state and local officials are the primary responders. That is why emergency preparedness begins with local planning. It was those plans that were ignored by Mayor Nagin and others, opting to wait for Federal response instead of taking responsibility for their constituency.
If there are lessons to be learned it is that:
1) Government cannot protect citizens from all possible harm.
2) The Liberal line that government will be the father protector is untenable.
3) When faced with hard decisions, human nature will prefer to do nothing.
4) When difficult events happen, those in charge will blame instead of protect.
5) Those best equipped to respond in a disaster are in the private sector.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Charges of racism coming into play in the failure to evacuate New Orleans. The person with the primary responsibility for the safety and security of N.O., mayor Ray Nagin, is black. Why then, if racism is an issue, didn't he swiftly and decisively act to ensure the safety of New Orleaneans?
Slow evacuation. Why did Nagin refuse to use the 500+ school and city transit buses immediately at his disposal to evacuate those in the Superdome and the Convention Center per the established disaster plan? His excuse...they weren't good enough. He wanted "...every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country..." brought in, no matter how long it took, no matter how many people were raped, beaten and killed in the interim.
Nagin was not so slow to respond to the need for emotional relief for city officials, first responders, and their families. He decreed September 4 that "five-day vacations - and even trips to Las Vegas - to the police, firefighters and city emergency workers and their families would be paid for by the citizens of New Orleans." Nagin first tried to get FEMA to pay for his largesse, but they correctly refused. No doubt that will be the subject of a future foul-mouthed diatribe, the likes of which we come to expect from C. Ray.
Charges of failure to address the levee issues are mis-leading at best, some would call them out right lies. Others would say they are "smoke" to obscure the real failures of the liberal local and state officials, as well as the Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu.
That Louisiana is the leading recipient of federal Corp of Engineering dollars is unquestionable, some $1.9 billion in the last five years. The question is, how were those taxpayer dollars spent? Of the more than $590 million in the 2006 budget, millions are designated for projects of questionable merit.
The Washington Post (Registration Required) reports Sen. Landrieu inserted language in an Iraqi spending bill that forced the Corps for "cook the books" to justify a project studies had considered of little cost/benefit.
It seems Sen. Landrieu had little regard for the people of New Orleans and what she describes as the widely known problems with the levee system. Otherwise she would have inserted language to force the Corps to accelerate the work already in progress on that issue.
Speaking of the levees, there have been some wild charges that the levees were intentionally breached by operatives of the Bush administration. No one of a sane mind would give this theory any credence, but who said those desperate souls on the left are sane? Of course, in the U.S., everyone loves a conspiracy theory.
Is the federal response to little? As as of right now, more than $62 billion has been approved for Katrina disaster relief. That is more than $200,000 per each of the 300,000 evacuees. Even if you spread it over the estimated 1 million affected people in the area, that corresponds to $62,000 per individual. Too little, hardly.
Certainly there were failures on the part of FEMA to ramp up response. But when dealing with the largest natural disaster in United States history. A disaster covering an area of 90,000 square miles and involving over 1 million people, response cannot be instantaneous.
Logistically there is a huge process of mobilizing an effective response. That is why the state and local officials are the primary responders. That is why emergency preparedness begins with local planning. It was those plans that were ignored by Mayor Nagin and others, opting to wait for Federal response instead of taking responsibility for their constituency.
If there are lessons to be learned it is that:
1) Government cannot protect citizens from all possible harm.
2) The Liberal line that government will be the father protector is untenable.
3) When faced with hard decisions, human nature will prefer to do nothing.
4) When difficult events happen, those in charge will blame instead of protect.
5) Those best equipped to respond in a disaster are in the private sector.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
While the world has been slow to acknowledge, much less respond to the devastation wrought by Katrina on the Gulf coast, response is beginning to trickle in. Granted it is mostly in the form of condolences, but that is better than some of us expected.
As expected though, the Islamic terrorists of the world have responded in character, rejoicing “in America's misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring in Internet chatter that "Private" Katrina had joined the global jihad, or holy war. With "God's help," they declared, oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year.”
I understand that the United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the earth and is always called on to respond, and we do so willingly, to disasters in less fortunate areas of the world. What I don’t understand is the callous and vindictive nature of many of the citizens and governments around the world.
Germany's Minister of the Environment, Jürgen Trittin is typical of many elitist, both internationally and domestic. He takes space in a paper chummy with the Social Democrats to bash what he perceives as US President George W. Bush's environmental laxity. “Until now, the US has kept its eyes shut to this emergency (greenhouse gasses). (Americans) make up a mere 4 percent of the population, but are responsible for close to a quarter of emissions."
There’s other “reasons” given for the lack of compassion by the world, our infrastructure, our well-developed weather service, the immediacy of federal assistance, even the size of the U. S. Army.
Americans are not pleased with the callousness shown by Trittin and other critics of the United States, especially during this time of crisis. Writing to the German news website, Spiegel Online, Mike Patton pretty well sums up the feelings of Americans saying,
David Falloure adds,
Of course Germany isn’t the only country to show it’s soulless behind. After French President Jacques Chirac expressed the sympathies of the French people, he reportedly said, “France stands ready to respond, if asked.”
"If asked?" That smacks of arrogantly waiting around for the U. S. to come on her knees begging for help. But that is the kind of action, err, inaction, we’ve come to expect from the French.
Had the U.S. waited around for France to "come begging" for help when the Nazis invaded their soil in 1940, they would still be arrogantly "sniffing" their disdain and Chirac would be making his sympathies known in German.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
As expected though, the Islamic terrorists of the world have responded in character, rejoicing “in America's misfortune, giving the storm a military rank and declaring in Internet chatter that "Private" Katrina had joined the global jihad, or holy war. With "God's help," they declared, oil prices would hit $100 a barrel this year.”
I understand that the United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the earth and is always called on to respond, and we do so willingly, to disasters in less fortunate areas of the world. What I don’t understand is the callous and vindictive nature of many of the citizens and governments around the world.
Germany's Minister of the Environment, Jürgen Trittin is typical of many elitist, both internationally and domestic. He takes space in a paper chummy with the Social Democrats to bash what he perceives as US President George W. Bush's environmental laxity. “Until now, the US has kept its eyes shut to this emergency (greenhouse gasses). (Americans) make up a mere 4 percent of the population, but are responsible for close to a quarter of emissions."
There’s other “reasons” given for the lack of compassion by the world, our infrastructure, our well-developed weather service, the immediacy of federal assistance, even the size of the U. S. Army.
Americans are not pleased with the callousness shown by Trittin and other critics of the United States, especially during this time of crisis. Writing to the German news website, Spiegel Online, Mike Patton pretty well sums up the feelings of Americans saying,
- “The majority of German brains have been adversely affected by global warming - they're definitely fried.”
David Falloure adds,
- “Europe does what it does best, looks on with no action or expression. Same as usual. Thanks for nothing.”
Of course Germany isn’t the only country to show it’s soulless behind. After French President Jacques Chirac expressed the sympathies of the French people, he reportedly said, “France stands ready to respond, if asked.”
"If asked?" That smacks of arrogantly waiting around for the U. S. to come on her knees begging for help. But that is the kind of action, err, inaction, we’ve come to expect from the French.
Had the U.S. waited around for France to "come begging" for help when the Nazis invaded their soil in 1940, they would still be arrogantly "sniffing" their disdain and Chirac would be making his sympathies known in German.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Sunday, August 28, 2005
With a third of domestic crude oil supply and 40% of US gas and oil production facilities located on the Gulf coast, we can expect severe disruptions to the flow of gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil as Katrina blows through the region.
I have little doubt that by the end of the next few weeks prices at the pump will be pushing an average of $3.00 per gallon if not higher. For the coming winter months, the northeast, which heavily relies on home heating oil, will see devastating increases in costs.
You can keep track of the average pump prices at AAA's Fuel Gauge Report.
US Department of Energy Gas & Diesel Report
All of this can, and probably will, have a hugely negative impact on the economy. Al Qaida will be pleased. So should Cindy Sheehan. Seems like she is rooting for the "freedom fighters" who killed her son Casey. And they are all for anything that causes damage to the United States.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
I have little doubt that by the end of the next few weeks prices at the pump will be pushing an average of $3.00 per gallon if not higher. For the coming winter months, the northeast, which heavily relies on home heating oil, will see devastating increases in costs.
You can keep track of the average pump prices at AAA's Fuel Gauge Report.
US Department of Energy Gas & Diesel Report
All of this can, and probably will, have a hugely negative impact on the economy. Al Qaida will be pleased. So should Cindy Sheehan. Seems like she is rooting for the "freedom fighters" who killed her son Casey. And they are all for anything that causes damage to the United States.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Cindy Sheehan’s experience as the mother of a deceased veteran of Iraq gives her no more credibility as a geo-political critic than Jeffrey Dahmer’s experience gives him credibility as a food critic.
It gives her a forum, but credibility comes from life experience, education, or professional status. It appears Ms. Sheehan has none of these in the area of domestic or international politics or the war on terror.
She can speak, perhaps even credibly, all she wants to a mother’s pain at the loss of her child. She can opine on any other issue but her opinions alone make her no more credible than mine validate me.
An individual’s opinions are validated by that individual’s experience in the relative area. While Albert Einstein has earned credibility for his opinions on the physical universe, I don’t think one could trust his credibility in the area of memory enhancement.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
It gives her a forum, but credibility comes from life experience, education, or professional status. It appears Ms. Sheehan has none of these in the area of domestic or international politics or the war on terror.
She can speak, perhaps even credibly, all she wants to a mother’s pain at the loss of her child. She can opine on any other issue but her opinions alone make her no more credible than mine validate me.
An individual’s opinions are validated by that individual’s experience in the relative area. While Albert Einstein has earned credibility for his opinions on the physical universe, I don’t think one could trust his credibility in the area of memory enhancement.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Last night I was listening to Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. He covers a wide range of topics, some really strange, some very disturbing and some quite interesting. Last nights topic, space, planetary discoveries, NASA and the Space Shuttle missions was right down my "alley" of interests.
One comment guest Richard C. Houghland made really got me thinking and at the same time was pretty upsetting. Houghland, a former space science museum curator; a former NASA consultant, and during the Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News, made the comment that NASA has known for years the insulating foam on the shuttle external fuel tank was a serious problem.
The foam problems, at least in part, have their genesis in radical environmentalism. In 1997, during the Clinton administration, the EPA, under the leadership of Carol M.
Browner, put pressure on NASA to switch from a freon based foam application to a more environmentally friendly method. While government agencies, at least at the time, were exempt for many of these regulations, NASA complied, most likely under heavy pressure.
Immediatedly, with the first post change shuttle mission, they saw dramatic increases in the number and severity of damage to the heat tiles from insulating foam disintergration. While over the intervening years the engineers attempted to alleviate the problem, they were not able to eliminate it. The 2003 Columbia disaster is directly linked to these fundamental technological changes brought on by a desire to "save the ozone" from the minimal amounts of freon emitted during the application process.
I can't totally blame the Clinton administration for the Columbia disaster though. Long after the radicalism of the Clinton era, NASA maintained and continues today to use the use of the non-freon foam application process, despite the reams of data documenting the problems with it.
This culture, perhaps hindered by governmental, burecratic, corportate inertia; perhaps infected itself by that same radical environmentalism that tend to permeate much of elitist scientific thought; perhaps simply in an act if self-preservation and seeking a course that would be non-confrontational with the environmentalists and the media; refused to take another look at the pre-1997 technology the, while not perfect, worked much better that the current system.
The problem is, even after Columbia, and now the problems discovered in the recent launch of Discovery, NASA, both publically and according to insiders privately, refuses to reconsider the fundamental problems with the current foam application system.
All it will take is someone with the guts and gumption to think outside the comfort zone of bureacracy and push the issue. Will it take another Columbia disaster to really get their attention, I hope not.
Related articles:
Did PC Science Cause Shuttle Disaster? FoxNews February 07, 2003
Fixing the Foam: Preventing Disaster, Getting Clear Picture FLORIDA TODAY
5 July 2005
Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs NewsMax July 28, 2005
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
One comment guest Richard C. Houghland made really got me thinking and at the same time was pretty upsetting. Houghland, a former space science museum curator; a former NASA consultant, and during the Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News, made the comment that NASA has known for years the insulating foam on the shuttle external fuel tank was a serious problem.
The foam problems, at least in part, have their genesis in radical environmentalism. In 1997, during the Clinton administration, the EPA, under the leadership of Carol M.
Browner, put pressure on NASA to switch from a freon based foam application to a more environmentally friendly method. While government agencies, at least at the time, were exempt for many of these regulations, NASA complied, most likely under heavy pressure.
Immediatedly, with the first post change shuttle mission, they saw dramatic increases in the number and severity of damage to the heat tiles from insulating foam disintergration. While over the intervening years the engineers attempted to alleviate the problem, they were not able to eliminate it. The 2003 Columbia disaster is directly linked to these fundamental technological changes brought on by a desire to "save the ozone" from the minimal amounts of freon emitted during the application process.
I can't totally blame the Clinton administration for the Columbia disaster though. Long after the radicalism of the Clinton era, NASA maintained and continues today to use the use of the non-freon foam application process, despite the reams of data documenting the problems with it.
This culture, perhaps hindered by governmental, burecratic, corportate inertia; perhaps infected itself by that same radical environmentalism that tend to permeate much of elitist scientific thought; perhaps simply in an act if self-preservation and seeking a course that would be non-confrontational with the environmentalists and the media; refused to take another look at the pre-1997 technology the, while not perfect, worked much better that the current system.
The problem is, even after Columbia, and now the problems discovered in the recent launch of Discovery, NASA, both publically and according to insiders privately, refuses to reconsider the fundamental problems with the current foam application system.
All it will take is someone with the guts and gumption to think outside the comfort zone of bureacracy and push the issue. Will it take another Columbia disaster to really get their attention, I hope not.
Related articles:
Did PC Science Cause Shuttle Disaster? FoxNews February 07, 2003
Fixing the Foam: Preventing Disaster, Getting Clear Picture FLORIDA TODAY
5 July 2005
Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs NewsMax July 28, 2005
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, June 25, 2005
WorldNetDaily: Government tyrants get stamp of approval: "the recent Supreme Court decision has essentially given its backing to city governments becoming tyrants – unrestrained power in allowing municipalities to seize private property to make way for commercial development."
For many if not most Americans this ruling will go right over their heads, until it's too late. I've traditionally sided with the idea that government and the courts will ultimately do the right thing. The furor over the Patriot Act had me in the government’s corner siding with the necessity of taking exceptional measures because these are exceptional times. Trusting the system and the courts would reign in abuses. But I'm starting to be concerned.
The Terri Schiavo case where the justice seemed to fail her and her family was but a shot over the bow. Failing to take an unblinking look at the serious questions surrounding that obviously murky situation was an utter failure to protect the rights of the weak in our society.
The seeming insatiable hunger spending that used to be limited to the liberals and Democrats has now turned into a ravenous feasting of uncontrollable gluttony at the expense of the American people.
Couple the failure of the judicial to protect the rights of the week with the gluttony of government spending and what do you end up with? The answer is found in last Thursdays ruling by the court.
Only eight states, Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida, where laws have been on the books protecting the rights of property owners, all but prohibiting eminent domain. But given this ruling and the ever increasing hunger of states and municipalities for revenues, look for legislation to be introduced to overturn those laws.
They tried it last year in Florida but the bill was killed through the efforts of Libertarians, who I often disagree with. I don't expect that to be the end of the issue here. Time after time those who think they can do more with our private property than we can will seek way to take it away from us...now with the approval of the Supreme Court.
It looks like Zimbabwe president Mugabe is on the cutting edge of what is about to become US government policy, if they don't agree with you, take their property. Look out churches, conservative organizations, liberal organizations, and advocacy groups. Depending on who is in power, your assets will be next.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
For many if not most Americans this ruling will go right over their heads, until it's too late. I've traditionally sided with the idea that government and the courts will ultimately do the right thing. The furor over the Patriot Act had me in the government’s corner siding with the necessity of taking exceptional measures because these are exceptional times. Trusting the system and the courts would reign in abuses. But I'm starting to be concerned.
The Terri Schiavo case where the justice seemed to fail her and her family was but a shot over the bow. Failing to take an unblinking look at the serious questions surrounding that obviously murky situation was an utter failure to protect the rights of the weak in our society.
The seeming insatiable hunger spending that used to be limited to the liberals and Democrats has now turned into a ravenous feasting of uncontrollable gluttony at the expense of the American people.
Couple the failure of the judicial to protect the rights of the week with the gluttony of government spending and what do you end up with? The answer is found in last Thursdays ruling by the court.
Only eight states, Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida, where laws have been on the books protecting the rights of property owners, all but prohibiting eminent domain. But given this ruling and the ever increasing hunger of states and municipalities for revenues, look for legislation to be introduced to overturn those laws.
They tried it last year in Florida but the bill was killed through the efforts of Libertarians, who I often disagree with. I don't expect that to be the end of the issue here. Time after time those who think they can do more with our private property than we can will seek way to take it away from us...now with the approval of the Supreme Court.
It looks like Zimbabwe president Mugabe is on the cutting edge of what is about to become US government policy, if they don't agree with you, take their property. Look out churches, conservative organizations, liberal organizations, and advocacy groups. Depending on who is in power, your assets will be next.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
The past few weeks have been busy, leaving little time to write. Karen and I had the privilege to participate in the creation of the directory for our church. I was tasked with taking photos (in a hurry) and we had to really focus to try and depict all the ministries of the church. I ended up shooting about 1700 photos in 2 weeks.
Of those 1700, about 350 made the preliminary cut and after the committee review we settled on 38 for placement. I was so thankful for the new camera I bought in March, a Canon G6. It takes great pics in the auto mode, which I used a lot, and has the versatility to do great under low light conditions in fully manual mode.
There's a lot to learn about it, but this was a crash course taking photos that really had to count.
Then there was a change in committee leadership and with one day to go Karen and I assumed the lead. Having to get up to speed, finalize the layout and copy, and figure out the process of submitting the project was a challenge.
After it was over, it wasn't. There were several days getting the final reports and copies of the submission documents and rosters to the appropriate folk at church, prepare disks of all the photos for an archive and create an album of all the unused photos.
During all that our sister site, Front Line Report, was down for a week and as soon as that was up I began receiving letters and photos from SSgt. Michael Carnes who is deployed with the 391st Engineering Battalion to Afghanistan. He had some great photos and interesting letters.
They had to go up and so I began creating the pages and photo galleries to feature him. Visit the site and read about things from the perspective of "eyes on the ground."
With that all caught up, now I have to concentrate on the business of the home, about a months worth of financial transactions to be recorded, basic maintenance around the house, and back to the task of the daily regimen of taking care of my aging body.
Ah well...the excitement was fun while it lasted!
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Of those 1700, about 350 made the preliminary cut and after the committee review we settled on 38 for placement. I was so thankful for the new camera I bought in March, a Canon G6. It takes great pics in the auto mode, which I used a lot, and has the versatility to do great under low light conditions in fully manual mode.
There's a lot to learn about it, but this was a crash course taking photos that really had to count.
Then there was a change in committee leadership and with one day to go Karen and I assumed the lead. Having to get up to speed, finalize the layout and copy, and figure out the process of submitting the project was a challenge.
After it was over, it wasn't. There were several days getting the final reports and copies of the submission documents and rosters to the appropriate folk at church, prepare disks of all the photos for an archive and create an album of all the unused photos.
During all that our sister site, Front Line Report, was down for a week and as soon as that was up I began receiving letters and photos from SSgt. Michael Carnes who is deployed with the 391st Engineering Battalion to Afghanistan. He had some great photos and interesting letters.
They had to go up and so I began creating the pages and photo galleries to feature him. Visit the site and read about things from the perspective of "eyes on the ground."
With that all caught up, now I have to concentrate on the business of the home, about a months worth of financial transactions to be recorded, basic maintenance around the house, and back to the task of the daily regimen of taking care of my aging body.
Ah well...the excitement was fun while it lasted!
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Thursday, May 05, 2005
I've been out for a while, on vacation, and found myself enjoying the time too much to even think about writing. However, I saw this today and had to post a brief note.
The article on WorldNetDaily was actually on another issue but this statement by Congressman Jim Moran, D-Va, couldn't be left unanswered. Speaking on Social Security and the President's campaign to address the problems coming...
"In 1983 it was fixed, and the Congressional Budget Office says we're good up until 2052. ... Social Security is the only solvent fund we have in the government today really, it's got 1.7 trillion dollars of surplus today. We're going to have a surplus of two to three hundred billion for every year until the next 30 years."
Yeah Mr. Moran, Congress did do something with Social Security in 1983, they set up a Trust Fund that was supposedly established to provide funds for the coming deficits. The problem is that you, Congress, couldn't keep your hands off it.
You've spent those funds, writing IOU's that are essentially worthless since to pay them back into the fund you will have to tax the American people again to repay Social Security funds they have already paid through payroll taxes.
Since Congress cannot control their spending, the fix is in alright, it's in for the American people. If Congress was goverened by the same laws and rules they thrust on American business, every one of them would be in jail for embezzelment and extortion of the American people and their trust.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
The article on WorldNetDaily was actually on another issue but this statement by Congressman Jim Moran, D-Va, couldn't be left unanswered. Speaking on Social Security and the President's campaign to address the problems coming...
"In 1983 it was fixed, and the Congressional Budget Office says we're good up until 2052. ... Social Security is the only solvent fund we have in the government today really, it's got 1.7 trillion dollars of surplus today. We're going to have a surplus of two to three hundred billion for every year until the next 30 years."
Yeah Mr. Moran, Congress did do something with Social Security in 1983, they set up a Trust Fund that was supposedly established to provide funds for the coming deficits. The problem is that you, Congress, couldn't keep your hands off it.
You've spent those funds, writing IOU's that are essentially worthless since to pay them back into the fund you will have to tax the American people again to repay Social Security funds they have already paid through payroll taxes.
Since Congress cannot control their spending, the fix is in alright, it's in for the American people. If Congress was goverened by the same laws and rules they thrust on American business, every one of them would be in jail for embezzelment and extortion of the American people and their trust.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, April 16, 2005
An article on WorldNetDaily perplexed me this week. It was about an item for sale (since pulled) on Internet marketplace Cafepress.com. It was a t-shirt with the image show to the right and the logo:
For Gods Sake ...
KILL BUSH
Save the United States
and the Rest of the World
The article also referred to a display at Columbia College of a mock postage stamp, seen on the left,
of President Bush with a gun pointed at his head. The message is that killing the President of the United States, if he is conservative, is an act of patriotism. According to those on the left, these are merely free expression and or works of art.
It seems like the left is amazingly replete with free expression involving killing authority figures with which they disagree. Consider this poster photographed at an illegal San Francisco anti war rally March 15, 2003.
The message on the banner, “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers.”
Apparently war and the killing of enemy combatants and terrorists who are trying to kill our soldiers is a bad thing, yet the cold blooded murder of military officials is good, even an act to be commended, if the left is to be believed.
Yet, it would be these same people no doubt who sanction, even glorify, the killing of innocent children in the abortion clinics, 3000 daily. It is these same people who stood shoulder to shoulder with Michael Schiavo and Florida Judge Greer as they together pulled the source of sustenance from Terry and caused her death.
It is these same individuals who would devalue the life of a human, both too weak and inconvenient or to imperfect for their sensibilities, and in their distorted sense of compassion cause the destruction of these innocent lives. All the while crying and protesting over the legally prescribed penalty for the criminal taking of innocent life (acts they apparently support and defend) and the administration of the death penalty. Their sense of radicalized freedom allows them to do anything they want.
There is such an obvious disconnect and dichotomy on the left. When one tosses out absolutes for relativism this is the result. When one ignores moral absolutes and moral leadership to follow their own selfish weaknesses and desires, the result is anarchy. It’s not a new problem. But it is a problem, for the left, and for America.
(Jdg 21:25) At that time there was no king in Israel. People did whatever they felt like doing.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
For Gods Sake ...
KILL BUSH
Save the United States
and the Rest of the World
The article also referred to a display at Columbia College of a mock postage stamp, seen on the left,
of President Bush with a gun pointed at his head. The message is that killing the President of the United States, if he is conservative, is an act of patriotism. According to those on the left, these are merely free expression and or works of art.It seems like the left is amazingly replete with free expression involving killing authority figures with which they disagree. Consider this poster photographed at an illegal San Francisco anti war rally March 15, 2003.
The message on the banner, “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers.”Apparently war and the killing of enemy combatants and terrorists who are trying to kill our soldiers is a bad thing, yet the cold blooded murder of military officials is good, even an act to be commended, if the left is to be believed.
Yet, it would be these same people no doubt who sanction, even glorify, the killing of innocent children in the abortion clinics, 3000 daily. It is these same people who stood shoulder to shoulder with Michael Schiavo and Florida Judge Greer as they together pulled the source of sustenance from Terry and caused her death.
It is these same individuals who would devalue the life of a human, both too weak and inconvenient or to imperfect for their sensibilities, and in their distorted sense of compassion cause the destruction of these innocent lives. All the while crying and protesting over the legally prescribed penalty for the criminal taking of innocent life (acts they apparently support and defend) and the administration of the death penalty. Their sense of radicalized freedom allows them to do anything they want.
There is such an obvious disconnect and dichotomy on the left. When one tosses out absolutes for relativism this is the result. When one ignores moral absolutes and moral leadership to follow their own selfish weaknesses and desires, the result is anarchy. It’s not a new problem. But it is a problem, for the left, and for America.
(Jdg 21:25) At that time there was no king in Israel. People did whatever they felt like doing.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, April 09, 2005
There is currently a discussion (some would say “bombs being thrown”) here in Florida regarding a bill Representative Dennis Baxley proposed and passed through committee. House Bill 837, the “Academic Bill of Rights,” would guarantee a students right to "free inquiry and free speech" in the classroom.
Many on the right have worried about the increasing influence of leftist ideology on college and university campuses and the suppression of centrist or conservative ideology that contradicts the professorial line of thought. Many students have related stories of being marginalized on campus and targeted academically for holding to views different from their professors.
The situation has concerned some to the extent that websites and organizations have been formed to organize the effort to increase diversity of thought and ideology on the university campus. David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom is on the forefront of this effort helping to craft model legislation.
But the problem isn’t limited to student marginalization. Many conservative thinking professors, researchers, scientists and administrators complain of a wall of ideology and intimidation barring them from freely expressing their ideas. This has been seen recently in the prestigious Smithsonian Institute when Richard Sternberg had his standing as a researcher at the Institute called into question when an article favorable to Intelligent Design was published in a journal he edited.
It didn’t matter that Mr. Sternberg didn’t write the article or that it is a peer reviewed study. The article sites biologists and paleontologist who question the Darwinian theory. But the real story is that it was the messenger, the publisher of the article, who is being brought to task.
As Mr. Sternberg’s complaint cites, the chairman of the Zoology Department called his supervisor and questioned his religious and political affiliations, assuming he was both a “religious fundamentalist and a right-winger.” Sternberg, who describes himself as a Catholic with lots of questions, says that though he was able to beg a small office in the Institute, his colleagues ignore him in the halls and old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him.
The interesting thing in this particular case is that it was Sternberg, the messenger, who has been attacked for allowing diversity of thought, peer reviewed thought, in an academic journal. Of course the problem is that this particular thought brought into question the “holy grail” of elitist, liberal academia, Darwin’s evolution.
The automatic response that Sternberg was surely a “religious and political fanatic of the conservative bent” tells the tale of those ensconced in our institutions of higher learning. They don’t wish a debate of ideas; they wish only their ideas to be the rule of the classroom. While this is certainly a broad brush, it is a brush with substance. According to a Washington Post article, 72% of university professors describe themselves as liberal, while in the elite universities 87% of faculty labeled themselves as such.
Here in Florida, a debate on TheSky97.3 on Friday between Mr. Baxley and a representative from the University of Florida (I truly wish I could recall his name) was essentially cordial, but the true underlying issue was revealed when Baxley’s opposite charged that his bill was merely a ruse to push Christianity and Creationism in the guise of intellectual freedom in the classroom.
Baxley countered that the purpose is to truly open the university setting to diversity of ideas in the same way the left has opened it to diversity of gender, color, race, sexual preference and so on. If diversity is good in those areas, why not in the area for which the university was created, the expression of thought and ideas?
Were HB837 truly designed for the purposes of promoting Christianity, so what? Isn’t the opposition’s reaction proof of the problem the bill is designed to deal with? Are not thoughts and ideas, from all sources, valid for discussion and exploration? How can one fully understand their position on any idea or issue until they are challenged?
It would appear the left is all for diversity until that diversity challenges their ideology. To suppress full and open discussion is an admission of fear of the potential validity of the idea.
Perhaps that is what the elitist academians fear, a challenge for which they can provide no rebuttal.
Futher reading:
The Branding of a Heretic
Science's new heresy trial
Fighting in Florida
A Victory in Florida
College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Summers Storm
Who Stole Harvard?
Colleges need intellectually diverse professors
Why an Academic Bill of Rights is Necessary
Academic Freedom
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Many on the right have worried about the increasing influence of leftist ideology on college and university campuses and the suppression of centrist or conservative ideology that contradicts the professorial line of thought. Many students have related stories of being marginalized on campus and targeted academically for holding to views different from their professors.
The situation has concerned some to the extent that websites and organizations have been formed to organize the effort to increase diversity of thought and ideology on the university campus. David Horowitz’s Students for Academic Freedom is on the forefront of this effort helping to craft model legislation.
But the problem isn’t limited to student marginalization. Many conservative thinking professors, researchers, scientists and administrators complain of a wall of ideology and intimidation barring them from freely expressing their ideas. This has been seen recently in the prestigious Smithsonian Institute when Richard Sternberg had his standing as a researcher at the Institute called into question when an article favorable to Intelligent Design was published in a journal he edited.
It didn’t matter that Mr. Sternberg didn’t write the article or that it is a peer reviewed study. The article sites biologists and paleontologist who question the Darwinian theory. But the real story is that it was the messenger, the publisher of the article, who is being brought to task.
As Mr. Sternberg’s complaint cites, the chairman of the Zoology Department called his supervisor and questioned his religious and political affiliations, assuming he was both a “religious fundamentalist and a right-winger.” Sternberg, who describes himself as a Catholic with lots of questions, says that though he was able to beg a small office in the Institute, his colleagues ignore him in the halls and old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him.
The interesting thing in this particular case is that it was Sternberg, the messenger, who has been attacked for allowing diversity of thought, peer reviewed thought, in an academic journal. Of course the problem is that this particular thought brought into question the “holy grail” of elitist, liberal academia, Darwin’s evolution.
The automatic response that Sternberg was surely a “religious and political fanatic of the conservative bent” tells the tale of those ensconced in our institutions of higher learning. They don’t wish a debate of ideas; they wish only their ideas to be the rule of the classroom. While this is certainly a broad brush, it is a brush with substance. According to a Washington Post article, 72% of university professors describe themselves as liberal, while in the elite universities 87% of faculty labeled themselves as such.
Here in Florida, a debate on TheSky97.3 on Friday between Mr. Baxley and a representative from the University of Florida (I truly wish I could recall his name) was essentially cordial, but the true underlying issue was revealed when Baxley’s opposite charged that his bill was merely a ruse to push Christianity and Creationism in the guise of intellectual freedom in the classroom.
Baxley countered that the purpose is to truly open the university setting to diversity of ideas in the same way the left has opened it to diversity of gender, color, race, sexual preference and so on. If diversity is good in those areas, why not in the area for which the university was created, the expression of thought and ideas?
Were HB837 truly designed for the purposes of promoting Christianity, so what? Isn’t the opposition’s reaction proof of the problem the bill is designed to deal with? Are not thoughts and ideas, from all sources, valid for discussion and exploration? How can one fully understand their position on any idea or issue until they are challenged?
It would appear the left is all for diversity until that diversity challenges their ideology. To suppress full and open discussion is an admission of fear of the potential validity of the idea.
Perhaps that is what the elitist academians fear, a challenge for which they can provide no rebuttal.
Futher reading:
The Branding of a Heretic
Science's new heresy trial
Fighting in Florida
A Victory in Florida
College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Summers Storm
Who Stole Harvard?
Colleges need intellectually diverse professors
Why an Academic Bill of Rights is Necessary
Academic Freedom
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, April 02, 2005
There are so many perspectives on the tragedy of the death of Terri Schiavo. Surely it can be argued that an arrogant judiciary has run amuck. Deliberately ignoring the constitutional authority of Congress to determine the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
At the same time one can argue that Congress has no business involving itself in the personal matters of one family. Yet, if the purpose of our government not to protect her citizens, what is it?
Our Declaration of Independence declares, “…all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”
This founding document of our nation established the fact that the purpose of government is to protect and ensure those “inalienable rights” given to each of us. If Terri Schiavo was in the condition described by her husband, if she suffered from such great damage to her brain that there was no hope, it was still the responsibility of her government to ensure her right to live until such time that her creator took her to be with Him.
Sadly, her government and finally her husband failed in their sacred vows to protect her.
Many in the disabled community watched the drama of the past few weeks and years with alarm. If one man, and a government sworn to protect this woman, would turn on her and not only fail to protect her but actively seek her death, what will protect them, the disabled, when someone decides their lives have no more value. When they are no longer “convenient” to have around?
This was inadvertently brought home to me a few days ago when listening to a news roundtable on Fox News, one of those in the discussion made a comment that went something this.
“But she had a feeding tube. What kind of life is that?”
I wish I could remember who the speaker was. I would want to ask him, “Who are we to decide what determines quality of life for someone? What gives us as individuals, as a nation, as judges and politicians, even as medical professionals the right to determine when someone’s life no longer has value?”
If living with a feeding tube begs the question, “what kind of life is that?” what of a life tied to a dialysis machine? What of life tied to an oxygen tank because of emphysema? What value is there in a life tied to a wheelchair or bedridden? What of the blind? The deaf? Those who live in pain from carpel tunnel or arthritis? “What kind of life it that?”
Where do we draw the line? Who do you want to draw the line? An overburdened medical profession who feel compelled to pour their efforts on those they think have a better chance at a normal life? Who find their professional lives assaulted daily by those in the worst dire straits medically?
Do you want a legal system, seeming bent on extracting the last bit of blood and coin from the doctors, determining when you no longer have value? If a doctor has value to these circling vultures only as a source of income, what value will your life have for them when they’ve extracted every last trial and appeal from you?
Do you want a judiciary to sit in distanced, unmoved judgment of your life’s value without so much as a single visit? Who hide from your humanity behind a shield of withdrawal and aloofness?
What will happen next, once we decide those with chronic medical problems no longer have value in our society? Who will be the next target for easing our discomfort? Will it be the immigrants, the blacks, and homosexuals, those whose ideas don’t line up with those in power? What of the Jews, the Catholics, the Christians and Muslims. What if they will not surrender their values to a secularism that devalues life and determines it worthy only if it is acceptable and convenient?
You say, “No, not in America, that will never happen here!” I dare say those living in Germany in the 1920’s and ‘30’s too thought such a notion was unimaginable. Yet history now tells us they were wrong.
Hitler instituted sterilization and euthanasia measures to enforce his idea of racial purity among German people and caused the slaughter of millions of Jews, Sinti and Roma (Gypsies), Slavic peoples, and many others, all of whom he considered inferior. Among those thought to be inferior were the physically and mentally disabled. They soiled the purity of his idealized Aryan race.
Has our nation started her decline down the path made clear by the Nazi purge? Are we, in the name of “mercy” heading where only tyrants and despots dare?
The demagogues for euthanasia declare and emphatic NO! Certainly Hitler avowed his honor and purity of purpose as well, and history declares his shallowness thereof. Have men really changed all that much since?
Those in the Christian faith who opposed Hitler either did so weakly or out of self-interest. The one Christian leader who took a firm stand, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was put to death by the Nazi regime just days prior to the end of the war. Even in today’s debate in the Schiavo drama we see reflections of the Churches influence, or lack thereof, in Nazi Germany. The church is either weak in it’s response, or marginalized by the liberal media.
Those who sued for the “right” to legally abort the unborn argued it was a medical necessity. Women should not be required to carry diseased or deformed children to term. They should not be required to place their lives in danger, even lose their lives, to birth a child.
We now know that “medical necessity” has become a “choice” of convenience where 96% of those who “choose” abortion do so for purposes of “social” convenience. How long will it take for the “necessity of mercy” to become the “convenience of society?” It took abortion less than 20 years, in today’s fast paced, self worshipping society I surmise it will be much sooner.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
At the same time one can argue that Congress has no business involving itself in the personal matters of one family. Yet, if the purpose of our government not to protect her citizens, what is it?
Our Declaration of Independence declares, “…all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”
This founding document of our nation established the fact that the purpose of government is to protect and ensure those “inalienable rights” given to each of us. If Terri Schiavo was in the condition described by her husband, if she suffered from such great damage to her brain that there was no hope, it was still the responsibility of her government to ensure her right to live until such time that her creator took her to be with Him.
Sadly, her government and finally her husband failed in their sacred vows to protect her.
Many in the disabled community watched the drama of the past few weeks and years with alarm. If one man, and a government sworn to protect this woman, would turn on her and not only fail to protect her but actively seek her death, what will protect them, the disabled, when someone decides their lives have no more value. When they are no longer “convenient” to have around?
This was inadvertently brought home to me a few days ago when listening to a news roundtable on Fox News, one of those in the discussion made a comment that went something this.
“But she had a feeding tube. What kind of life is that?”
I wish I could remember who the speaker was. I would want to ask him, “Who are we to decide what determines quality of life for someone? What gives us as individuals, as a nation, as judges and politicians, even as medical professionals the right to determine when someone’s life no longer has value?”
If living with a feeding tube begs the question, “what kind of life is that?” what of a life tied to a dialysis machine? What of life tied to an oxygen tank because of emphysema? What value is there in a life tied to a wheelchair or bedridden? What of the blind? The deaf? Those who live in pain from carpel tunnel or arthritis? “What kind of life it that?”
Where do we draw the line? Who do you want to draw the line? An overburdened medical profession who feel compelled to pour their efforts on those they think have a better chance at a normal life? Who find their professional lives assaulted daily by those in the worst dire straits medically?
Do you want a legal system, seeming bent on extracting the last bit of blood and coin from the doctors, determining when you no longer have value? If a doctor has value to these circling vultures only as a source of income, what value will your life have for them when they’ve extracted every last trial and appeal from you?
Do you want a judiciary to sit in distanced, unmoved judgment of your life’s value without so much as a single visit? Who hide from your humanity behind a shield of withdrawal and aloofness?
What will happen next, once we decide those with chronic medical problems no longer have value in our society? Who will be the next target for easing our discomfort? Will it be the immigrants, the blacks, and homosexuals, those whose ideas don’t line up with those in power? What of the Jews, the Catholics, the Christians and Muslims. What if they will not surrender their values to a secularism that devalues life and determines it worthy only if it is acceptable and convenient?
You say, “No, not in America, that will never happen here!” I dare say those living in Germany in the 1920’s and ‘30’s too thought such a notion was unimaginable. Yet history now tells us they were wrong.
Hitler instituted sterilization and euthanasia measures to enforce his idea of racial purity among German people and caused the slaughter of millions of Jews, Sinti and Roma (Gypsies), Slavic peoples, and many others, all of whom he considered inferior. Among those thought to be inferior were the physically and mentally disabled. They soiled the purity of his idealized Aryan race.
Has our nation started her decline down the path made clear by the Nazi purge? Are we, in the name of “mercy” heading where only tyrants and despots dare?
The demagogues for euthanasia declare and emphatic NO! Certainly Hitler avowed his honor and purity of purpose as well, and history declares his shallowness thereof. Have men really changed all that much since?
Those in the Christian faith who opposed Hitler either did so weakly or out of self-interest. The one Christian leader who took a firm stand, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was put to death by the Nazi regime just days prior to the end of the war. Even in today’s debate in the Schiavo drama we see reflections of the Churches influence, or lack thereof, in Nazi Germany. The church is either weak in it’s response, or marginalized by the liberal media.
Those who sued for the “right” to legally abort the unborn argued it was a medical necessity. Women should not be required to carry diseased or deformed children to term. They should not be required to place their lives in danger, even lose their lives, to birth a child.
We now know that “medical necessity” has become a “choice” of convenience where 96% of those who “choose” abortion do so for purposes of “social” convenience. How long will it take for the “necessity of mercy” to become the “convenience of society?” It took abortion less than 20 years, in today’s fast paced, self worshipping society I surmise it will be much sooner.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Painting a very different picture from that told by her parents, pro-death attorney George Felos described Terri Schiavo’s appearance as “very peaceful, the most beautiful since I’ve known her” (paraphrased). I’m sorry, but death, no matter how it comes, is not “beautiful.”
But that kind of propaganda is to be expected from Felos who is the leading proponent of assisted suicide in the U.S. legal profession. Painting images very different from their actual appearance is his specialty.
Consider, judicial independence is vital to our system of justice in the United States. Yet it has been reported that last year, the day following a favorable ruling for Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer received a $250 donation for his re-election campaign from Felos. The amount is not important, the appearance of quid pro quo and conflict of interest is. Was there a duplicitous move to influence the “independent judiciary.”
There are so many questions swirling around this case, questions that should cause the judiciary to pause and at a minimum become dubious of the claims of Felos and Schiavo.
Yet, the greater question is what is happening in our country? What has happened to us that we are running headlong down the path of death for the convenience of the living?
Argue how you may, of the 46 million abortions reported in America since 1973, the vast majority were not for medical reasons. The primary reasons given for these abortions amount to personal convenience
The reasons given for abortion are as follows:
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for responsibility 21%
- Feels she can't afford baby 21%
- Concern for how baby would change her life 16%
- Relationship problem 12%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 11%
- Has all the children she wants 8%
- Other reasons 4-5%
TOTAL: 93%
"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 3%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest 1%
TOTAL: 7%
From National Right to Life
Fully 93% of abortions are for matters of social convenience, not medical issues or rape/incest as the pro-abortion lobby consistently touts as the reason abortion should be easy and legal. Consider that the reason given, “Baby may have health problem” is based on what “may” be and the underlying difficulties and inconvenience of caring for a sick or disabled child, and the “Social Reasons” category can be reasonably increased to 96%.
That is, 3600 abortions per day in 2004, or every day more than twice the total number of American casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war are killed in the abortion mills of the United States. The liberals wail over the former while demanding that the American taxpayer, including those who find abortion morally wrong, pay for abortion on demand.
Now the battle line is shifting to include physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, two closely related but distinctly different acts. While the generalities of the Schiavo case may be closer to the act of allowing nature to take its course, the specifics paint a different picture. In that Schiavo does not specifically qualify as physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia, it is an early skirmish on the field of battle that will surely lead to more of these types of situations.
Do not be deceived; while those proponents of PAS and euthanasia speak passionately to the dignity of the individual, mercy and so on, the deeper reasons are both societal and economic.
It is painful to watch a loved on ravaged by disease, to see their bodies waste away, the vibrant spark of life slowly diminish as they edge towards death’s door. It is never easy, for some it is impossible. While advocates often speak of easing the pain of the dying, they also want to end their own pain.
Consider the concept of a funeral. They are not for the deceased. While we speak of honoring them, of paying a final tribute and honor to those who have passed on, the real purpose of the funeral is to help ourselves in dealing with the pain of loss. The dead don’t care, they’re not crying. It’s us, the living.
In the same way PAS and euthanasia are a palliative solution to the pain of the friends, family and caretakers of the injured, diseased and dying. It speeds the process so we can move on with our lives.
Consider Michael Schiavo. What are his stated plans when Terri dies? To marry his 10 year live in lover.
What about economics? This was brought home to me today as I discussed Schiavo with a co-worker. His arguments ran to the waste of money being spent on keeping her alive and to the financial ability of her parents and siblings to care for her were they to receive custody.
The cost of care in the final year of life comprises 18% of lifetime medical costs, 30% of Medicare expenditures. With the increasing pressures on hospitals, insurance companies and government medical programs to reign in costs, the availability of end-of-life care is certainly to become a much-debated issue while PAS and euthanasia will become viewed as a solution.
Listen to the current debate and you will hear these and other reasons given to “pull the tube” and get on with it.
The bottom line is that abortion and PAS/euthanasia are bound together in the politics and ethics of the culture of death in America. To acknowledge one as morally wrong inherently weakens the arguments for the other. Thus you will not find a pro-life/pro-euthanasia advocate or a pro-abortion/anti-euthanasia apologist.
Both abortion and PAS/euthanasia find their foundation in the social self-centeredness of our society. They reflect the focus of the “me” society where the important things of life do not include sacrifice, delayed gratification and giving of one’s self to others.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
But that kind of propaganda is to be expected from Felos who is the leading proponent of assisted suicide in the U.S. legal profession. Painting images very different from their actual appearance is his specialty.
Consider, judicial independence is vital to our system of justice in the United States. Yet it has been reported that last year, the day following a favorable ruling for Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer received a $250 donation for his re-election campaign from Felos. The amount is not important, the appearance of quid pro quo and conflict of interest is. Was there a duplicitous move to influence the “independent judiciary.”
There are so many questions swirling around this case, questions that should cause the judiciary to pause and at a minimum become dubious of the claims of Felos and Schiavo.
Yet, the greater question is what is happening in our country? What has happened to us that we are running headlong down the path of death for the convenience of the living?
Argue how you may, of the 46 million abortions reported in America since 1973, the vast majority were not for medical reasons. The primary reasons given for these abortions amount to personal convenience
The reasons given for abortion are as follows:
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for responsibility 21%
- Feels she can't afford baby 21%
- Concern for how baby would change her life 16%
- Relationship problem 12%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 11%
- Has all the children she wants 8%
- Other reasons 4-5%
TOTAL: 93%
"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 3%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest 1%
TOTAL: 7%
From National Right to Life
Fully 93% of abortions are for matters of social convenience, not medical issues or rape/incest as the pro-abortion lobby consistently touts as the reason abortion should be easy and legal. Consider that the reason given, “Baby may have health problem” is based on what “may” be and the underlying difficulties and inconvenience of caring for a sick or disabled child, and the “Social Reasons” category can be reasonably increased to 96%.
That is, 3600 abortions per day in 2004, or every day more than twice the total number of American casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war are killed in the abortion mills of the United States. The liberals wail over the former while demanding that the American taxpayer, including those who find abortion morally wrong, pay for abortion on demand.
Now the battle line is shifting to include physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, two closely related but distinctly different acts. While the generalities of the Schiavo case may be closer to the act of allowing nature to take its course, the specifics paint a different picture. In that Schiavo does not specifically qualify as physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia, it is an early skirmish on the field of battle that will surely lead to more of these types of situations.
Do not be deceived; while those proponents of PAS and euthanasia speak passionately to the dignity of the individual, mercy and so on, the deeper reasons are both societal and economic.
It is painful to watch a loved on ravaged by disease, to see their bodies waste away, the vibrant spark of life slowly diminish as they edge towards death’s door. It is never easy, for some it is impossible. While advocates often speak of easing the pain of the dying, they also want to end their own pain.
Consider the concept of a funeral. They are not for the deceased. While we speak of honoring them, of paying a final tribute and honor to those who have passed on, the real purpose of the funeral is to help ourselves in dealing with the pain of loss. The dead don’t care, they’re not crying. It’s us, the living.
In the same way PAS and euthanasia are a palliative solution to the pain of the friends, family and caretakers of the injured, diseased and dying. It speeds the process so we can move on with our lives.
Consider Michael Schiavo. What are his stated plans when Terri dies? To marry his 10 year live in lover.
What about economics? This was brought home to me today as I discussed Schiavo with a co-worker. His arguments ran to the waste of money being spent on keeping her alive and to the financial ability of her parents and siblings to care for her were they to receive custody.
The cost of care in the final year of life comprises 18% of lifetime medical costs, 30% of Medicare expenditures. With the increasing pressures on hospitals, insurance companies and government medical programs to reign in costs, the availability of end-of-life care is certainly to become a much-debated issue while PAS and euthanasia will become viewed as a solution.
Listen to the current debate and you will hear these and other reasons given to “pull the tube” and get on with it.
The bottom line is that abortion and PAS/euthanasia are bound together in the politics and ethics of the culture of death in America. To acknowledge one as morally wrong inherently weakens the arguments for the other. Thus you will not find a pro-life/pro-euthanasia advocate or a pro-abortion/anti-euthanasia apologist.
Both abortion and PAS/euthanasia find their foundation in the social self-centeredness of our society. They reflect the focus of the “me” society where the important things of life do not include sacrifice, delayed gratification and giving of one’s self to others.
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The past several weeks I’ve withheld comment as I, along with the nation and the world, stood by while the drama of Terri Schiavo’s struggle was waged. Fact of the matter is that I’ve been aware and casually watching for the past several years when this struggle first came to light.
Quite frankly, at first I thought, why are they doing this to her? She’s not there, she’s only a shell, let her go. Pull the plug and let nature take its course. But then I learned more.
Terri is not on life support as the liberal media claim. She is not unconscious. She is aware. She feels pain. She laughs and cries. She responds to her family, friends and caretakers. It’s only that she needs a feeding tube to supply nourishment, and therapy that holds the promise of taking food normally and so much more.
While the liberal media persists in denying the things Terri is able to do, they also actively deny a voice to those who see value in Terri and hope for her life. It was only on FoxNews "Hannity & Colmes" that we heard of Dr. Bill Hammesfahr, and Nobel Prize nominee who has examined Terri extensively and claims there is great hope for her.
He has seen amazing recoveries in his work with patients with injuries and damage beyond Terri’s condition. Yet the liberal media and their political allies turn a deaf ear, a blind eye and say, “there’s not hope, she cannot understand anything, she’s in a ‘persistent vegetative state.’” With a PVS comes the inability to comprehend and react to any beneficial or effective stimulus. Someone in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ cannot understand even the obvious.
It would seem while Terri apparently can, the left either cannot or will not. Perhaps they are the ones in a ‘persistent vegetative state,’ not Terri Schiavo. Should they be denied life? Not even I would suggest that!
Is there really hope for Terri? Consider this.
I have a friend, she is also a Terri, who several years ago suffered a severe blow to the head and terrible damage to her brain. This vibrant, jubilant woman in an instant became unable to speak, eat, walk and all the other wonderful, creative and joyful things she had done for years. Many would say she was like Terri.
Yet she was allowed and encouraged in therapy and while there remain difficulties, she lives! She walks, with difficulty. She talks and converses, with difficulty. She struggles to live as normally as she can, with difficulty. But the point is, there was no expectation that she would, yet she does.
Is she 100% as she was before the accident? No, she never will. But she was given the opportunity to become all that she could. No one tried to deny her that.
There is a hell bent determination by the liberal left to condemn Terri Schiavo, to end her life, despite the evidence of hope. This I cannot understand.
Were Terri Schiavo a convicted murder on death row and a tiny bit of evidence came to light that might exonerate her, the liberal media, politicians and activists would walk through the coals of hell to stay the execution and save her life. They understand that once she was gone it was too late.
Why are they so determined to kill her now?
If Terri was anorexic and starving herself there would be cries of her need for treatment, her life would be of worth and need saving. Appeals of the horror of self-starvation could not be quieted.
Yet she’s not and it’s ok for someone else to starve her.
The pervasive culture of death in our country is determined to make Terri Schiavo as their “cover girl,” their “Miss Death.” Yet from all indications there is at best strong disagreement whether Terri would want that “honor.”
Has the minister of this “culture of death,” Attorney George Felos, co-opted an unwitting Michael Schiavo in his unrelenting quest for free wheeling, anything goes death in America? Felos history on this matter speaks for itself.
Has Michael Schiavo enlisted Felos in his struggle to quiet Terri, to prevent her from possibly recovering enough to speak? I only ask this last question because of the circumstances.
Terri suffered her trauma, what ever it was, 15 years ago. Ten years ago Michael moved in with his girlfriend, sired two children, all while in control of a million dollar judgment in Terri’s case. Over that time he denied her therapies and treatments that held hope for her improvement.
Now, with his common law wife at his side, who he says he will marry as soon as Terri is out of the way, he claims she wanted to die rather than live in this “condition.” We have his word on it.
In interviews and affidavit, a former caretaker of Terri’s, Carla Sauer Iyer, has quoted him asking when “the bitch was going to die?” The same person tells of finding Terri overdosed on insulin immediately after Michael left her. An overdosing that could have resulted in her death. While these accusations have not been dealt with in a court, they are very troubling.
While Terri’s parents and siblings are pleading for the chance to sacrifice their lives to care for Terri, it seems Michael would sacrifice Terri, the one he stood in front of an altar and promised to love and care for in sickness and health.
I have to ask, what sacrifice would Michael have to suffer by Terri’s living that is so great she must die? Does Terri know something that Michael does not want, cannot possibly allow, to be made known?
As terrible as divorce is, I know, I’ve been there, death of a spouse is so much worse. I know, I’ve been there. So what is it about the call of Terri’s death that tastes so sweet to her loving husband Michael Schiavo?
Would if be a hard life, a struggle and sacrifice to care for someone in Terri Schiavo’s condition? Absolutely! But it would be a struggle and sacrifice of honor and love. Can every one do it?
All can, not all will. My friend Terri? Her husband of 15 years divorced her and left her with her loving parents to care for her while he took their children. Did I agree with him? No. But in light of what Michael Schiavo wants to do to his Terri, I honor my friend’s husband.
At least he had the honor to admit he couldn’t handle it and allow someone who loved her more and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices care for her.
All Michael Schiavo wants is death.
More on Terri's condition:
Facts Versus Michael Schiavo by Cherly Ford RN
Disabled Woman Would Cry 'Help Me,' Caregivers Claim - CNSNews.com
If only Terri had murdered someone - Burt Prelutsky
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Quite frankly, at first I thought, why are they doing this to her? She’s not there, she’s only a shell, let her go. Pull the plug and let nature take its course. But then I learned more.
Terri is not on life support as the liberal media claim. She is not unconscious. She is aware. She feels pain. She laughs and cries. She responds to her family, friends and caretakers. It’s only that she needs a feeding tube to supply nourishment, and therapy that holds the promise of taking food normally and so much more.
While the liberal media persists in denying the things Terri is able to do, they also actively deny a voice to those who see value in Terri and hope for her life. It was only on FoxNews "Hannity & Colmes" that we heard of Dr. Bill Hammesfahr, and Nobel Prize nominee who has examined Terri extensively and claims there is great hope for her.
He has seen amazing recoveries in his work with patients with injuries and damage beyond Terri’s condition. Yet the liberal media and their political allies turn a deaf ear, a blind eye and say, “there’s not hope, she cannot understand anything, she’s in a ‘persistent vegetative state.’” With a PVS comes the inability to comprehend and react to any beneficial or effective stimulus. Someone in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ cannot understand even the obvious.
It would seem while Terri apparently can, the left either cannot or will not. Perhaps they are the ones in a ‘persistent vegetative state,’ not Terri Schiavo. Should they be denied life? Not even I would suggest that!
Is there really hope for Terri? Consider this.
I have a friend, she is also a Terri, who several years ago suffered a severe blow to the head and terrible damage to her brain. This vibrant, jubilant woman in an instant became unable to speak, eat, walk and all the other wonderful, creative and joyful things she had done for years. Many would say she was like Terri.
Yet she was allowed and encouraged in therapy and while there remain difficulties, she lives! She walks, with difficulty. She talks and converses, with difficulty. She struggles to live as normally as she can, with difficulty. But the point is, there was no expectation that she would, yet she does.
Is she 100% as she was before the accident? No, she never will. But she was given the opportunity to become all that she could. No one tried to deny her that.
There is a hell bent determination by the liberal left to condemn Terri Schiavo, to end her life, despite the evidence of hope. This I cannot understand.
Were Terri Schiavo a convicted murder on death row and a tiny bit of evidence came to light that might exonerate her, the liberal media, politicians and activists would walk through the coals of hell to stay the execution and save her life. They understand that once she was gone it was too late.
Why are they so determined to kill her now?
If Terri was anorexic and starving herself there would be cries of her need for treatment, her life would be of worth and need saving. Appeals of the horror of self-starvation could not be quieted.
Yet she’s not and it’s ok for someone else to starve her.
The pervasive culture of death in our country is determined to make Terri Schiavo as their “cover girl,” their “Miss Death.” Yet from all indications there is at best strong disagreement whether Terri would want that “honor.”
Has the minister of this “culture of death,” Attorney George Felos, co-opted an unwitting Michael Schiavo in his unrelenting quest for free wheeling, anything goes death in America? Felos history on this matter speaks for itself.
Has Michael Schiavo enlisted Felos in his struggle to quiet Terri, to prevent her from possibly recovering enough to speak? I only ask this last question because of the circumstances.
Terri suffered her trauma, what ever it was, 15 years ago. Ten years ago Michael moved in with his girlfriend, sired two children, all while in control of a million dollar judgment in Terri’s case. Over that time he denied her therapies and treatments that held hope for her improvement.
Now, with his common law wife at his side, who he says he will marry as soon as Terri is out of the way, he claims she wanted to die rather than live in this “condition.” We have his word on it.
In interviews and affidavit, a former caretaker of Terri’s, Carla Sauer Iyer, has quoted him asking when “the bitch was going to die?” The same person tells of finding Terri overdosed on insulin immediately after Michael left her. An overdosing that could have resulted in her death. While these accusations have not been dealt with in a court, they are very troubling.
While Terri’s parents and siblings are pleading for the chance to sacrifice their lives to care for Terri, it seems Michael would sacrifice Terri, the one he stood in front of an altar and promised to love and care for in sickness and health.
I have to ask, what sacrifice would Michael have to suffer by Terri’s living that is so great she must die? Does Terri know something that Michael does not want, cannot possibly allow, to be made known?
As terrible as divorce is, I know, I’ve been there, death of a spouse is so much worse. I know, I’ve been there. So what is it about the call of Terri’s death that tastes so sweet to her loving husband Michael Schiavo?
Would if be a hard life, a struggle and sacrifice to care for someone in Terri Schiavo’s condition? Absolutely! But it would be a struggle and sacrifice of honor and love. Can every one do it?
All can, not all will. My friend Terri? Her husband of 15 years divorced her and left her with her loving parents to care for her while he took their children. Did I agree with him? No. But in light of what Michael Schiavo wants to do to his Terri, I honor my friend’s husband.
At least he had the honor to admit he couldn’t handle it and allow someone who loved her more and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices care for her.
All Michael Schiavo wants is death.
More on Terri's condition:
Facts Versus Michael Schiavo by Cherly Ford RN
Disabled Woman Would Cry 'Help Me,' Caregivers Claim - CNSNews.com
If only Terri had murdered someone - Burt Prelutsky
Be sure to visit Front Line Report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)