Climate Predictions Left Un-Fullfilled

This is from Watts Up With That blog

The Worst Climate Predictions of 2008

And yet to play out, let’s also not forget Al Gore’s 2008 prediction: “Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”

-Anthony

By Dennis Avery in the Canada Free Press

“2008 will be the hottest year in a century:” The Old Farmers’ Almanac, September 11, 2008, Hurricanes, Arctic Ice, Coral, Drinking water, Aspen skiing

We’re now well into the earth’s third straight harsher winter-but in late 2007 it was still hard to forget 22 straight years of global warming from 1976-1998. So the Old Farmer’s Almanac predicted 2008 would be the hottest year in the last 100.

But sunspots had been predicting major cooling since 2000, and global temperatures turned downward in early 2007. The sunspots have had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometers since 1860. Today’s temperatures are about on a par with 1940. For 2008, the Almanac hired a new climatologist, Joe D’Aleo, who says the declining sunspots and the cool phase of the Pacific Ocean predict 25-30 years of cooler temperatures for the planet.

“You could potentially sail, kayak or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice . . . is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.” Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs, June, 2008.

Soon after this prediction, a huge Russian icebreaker got trapped in the thick ice of the Northwest Passage for a full week. The Arctic ice hadn’t melted in 2007, it got blown
into warmer southern waters. Now it’s back. (Reference)

Remember too the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. Polish climatologist Rajmund Przbylak says “the highest temperatures since the beginning of instrumental observation occurred clearly in the 1930s” based on more than 40 Arctic temperature stations.

(This uneducated prediction may have been the catalyst for Lewis Pugh and his absurd kayak stunt that failed miserably - Anthony)

“Australia’s Cities Will Run Out of Drinking Water Due to Global Warming.”

Tim Flannery was named Australia’s Man of the Year in 2007-for predicting that Australian cities will run out of water. He predicted Perth would become the “first 21st century ghost city,’ and that Sydney would be out of water by 2007. Today however, Australia’s city reservoirs are amply filled. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald-Sun reminds us Australia is truly a land of long droughts and flooding rains.

“Hurricane Effects Will Only Get Worse.” Live Science, September 19, 2008.

So wrote the on-line tech website Live Science, but the number of Atlantic hurricanes 2006-2008 has been 22 percent below average, with insured losses more than 50 percent below average. The British Navy recorded more than twice as many major land-falling Caribbean hurricanes in the last part of the Little Ice Age (1700-1850) as during the much-warmer last half of the 20th century.

“Corals will become increasingly rare on reef systems.” Dr. Hans Hoegh-Guldberg, head of Queensland University (Australia) marine studies.

In 2006, Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg warned that high temperatures might kill 30-40 percent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef “within a month.” In 2007, he said global warming temperatures were bleaching [potentially killing] the reef.

But, in 2008, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network said climate change had not damaged the “well-managed” reef in the four years since its last report. Veteran diver Ben Cropp said that in 50 years he’d seen no heat damage to the reef at all. “The only change I’ve seen has been the result of over-fishing, pollution, too many tourists or people dropping anchors on the reef,” he said.

No More Skiing? “Climate Change and Aspen,” Aspen, CO city-funded study, June, 2007.

Aspen’s study predicted global warming would change the climate to resemble hot, dry Amarillo, Texas. But in 2008, European ski resorts opened a month early, after Switzerland recorded more October snow than ever before. Would-be skiers in Aspen had lots of winter snow-but a chill factor of 18 below zero F. kept them at their fireplaces instead of on the slopes.

*Sources:

Predictions of 25-30 year cooling due to Pacific Decadal Oscillation: Scafetta and West, 2006, “Phenomenological Solar Signature in 400 Years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record,” Geophysical Research Letters.

Arctic Warmer in the 1930s: R. Przybylak, 2000, “Temporal and Spatial Variation of Surface Air Temperature over the Period of Instrumental Observation in the Arctic,” International Journal of Climatology 20.

British Navy records of Caribbean hurricanes 1700-1850: J.B. Elsner et al., 2000, “Spatial Variations in Major U.S. Hurricane Activity,” Journal of Climate 13.

Predictions of coral loss: Hoegh-Guldberg et al., Science, Vol. 318, 2007. Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2008, issued by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, Nov., 2008.

Aspen climate change study: Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Potential Impacts and Responses, Aspen Global Change Institute, June, 2007.
(1) Reader Feedback Click here to get Canada Free Press in your email
Dennis T. Avery, is a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute in Washington. Dennis is the Director for Global Food Issues ([url=http://www.cgfi.org]http://www.cgfi.org[/url]). He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rent

A Post From Reason's Hit and Run
I love posts that illustrate the Rent-Seeking problem we have in this country. I added the bold emphasis.

Blagojevich as a Lesson in The Evils of Rent-Seeking
George Mason University economist Donald Boudreaux, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, finds that the Blago contretemps reminds him of the importance of the economic concept of rent-seeking, and how government income transfers do more, and worse, than create a zero-sum game of special interest wins, taxpayer loses. An excerpt:

The income derived from possessing a special privilege is called "rent" (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the monthly payments that tenants make to landlords). Rents themselves are just a transfer of value from some people to others. So, for example, when each American pays an extra $10 annually for sugar because of the special protections that Uncle Sam gives to American sugar farmers, that $10 winds up in the hands of sugar farmers. Each of us who doesn't grow sugar is worse off by $10, while those who do grow it are better off by the sum total.
[But] the very ability of government to create lucrative special privileges diverts resources from socially productive pursuits into wasteful ones.
Knowing that government is willing and able to impose tariffs that will protect them from foreign competition – and knowing that such protection will raise their incomes – sugar farmers understandably spend some of their resources farming government rather than farming their land.
Such lobbying can reap advantages worth millions. So it's understandable that companies spend considerable effort courting politicians who can bestow such privileges. That's wasteful. Time, energy, and other materials that could be used to expand the output or improve the quality of goods and services are instead used to lobby government for narrow benefits that may harm society at large. .....

(see Broken Window Fallacy here)

It's easy to look at the Blagojevich case and see a failure of personal ethics. It is about character. But it's also about how government itself creates the very conditions for corruption. Think of all the special privileges governors can bestow: subsidies for stadiums, public-works contracts, special taxes and fees, not to mention myriad regulations with myriad loopholes. Chief executives – mayors, governors, and presidents – are supposed to be the chief enforcers of the law. Today, though, they are also chief bestowers of privileges.....
......Blagojevich's shenanigans – though probably illegal in ways that grants of other special privileges aren't – are nevertheless appropriately seen as a product of the rent-seeking culture that today's increasingly unconstrained government engenders.

Oh The Poor Polar Bear

I guess we are all guilty of cruelty to animals. (except of course Nobel laureate AL Gore)

Stimulus Package . . . that's what she said

I have often quoted Ezra Taft Benson and the Proper Role Of Government, I believe now that governments role (proper or not) has come to be the money spenders. I would guess that 90% of all legislative actions are based on how to spend tax payers money, the other 10% is all the important stuff like, what should or should not be a federal holiday, what month should be national apple pie month, whether or not Sasquatch is endangered, and if so is the Yetti and Bigfoot also endangered and so on.

Here is a video explaining what the government strategy is, it does not however explain why, for that is simply not possible.

Mumbai

A true analysis on the Mumbai incident:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mumbai Tragedy

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Bigoted Mormons, And Other Conervatives

Prop 8 in California really is about bigotry. People that voted for prop 8 (Christians, conservatives etc) did it to protect their way of life and to exclude inviting gay and lesbians into their circles. Churches don't want to have to marry gays if they find it against their beliefs, Boy Scouts don't want to be forced to allow same sex couples be troop leaders and camp out chaperons. That's not to say they can't live side by side with same sex couples and afford them all the courtesy they would any other.

Reason has a good story on this topic (Gay By Force):

Ideally, the government would leave marriage to private institutions, which managed to maintain it for almost all of its history. Short of that, those institutions and the individuals who follow their teachings should be free to accept or reject gay unions as they see fit, which means they should not have to worry about being sued for unlawful discrimination.

The key to this debate is what happened to eHarmony in New Jersey (added emphasis):

Such fears played a conspicuous role in the Proposition 8 campaign, and the eHarmony case shows they're not fanciful. Eric McKinley, the gay man who filed the New Jersey civil rights complaint that forced eHarmony to start matching same-sex couples, says the company's straights-only strategy was "very hurtful" and made him feel like "a second-class citizen."
Unlike a government that claims exclusive authority to approve adoptions or marriages, eHarmony has plenty of competitors, including online matchmakers that advertise themselves as gay-friendly alternatives. Yet McKinley could not bear the thought that one of many dating services chose to focus on heterosexuals. Such intolerance of diversity undermines the struggle for gay rights by feeding fears that equal treatment by the government means equal treatment by everyone.

The thought that not everyone must recognize gay, lesbian unions is unbearable to the gay and lesbian people. After all, in California gay and lesbians are afforded the same rights through domestic partnerships that a married couple has.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple most of "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses. [1]

So what then is the big deal with "Marriage"? Marriage is a religious institution created by religious authority for people to have intimate relations with the approval of God. It just so happens that our society has combined marriage with civil unions to be recognized as the same. I don't know of many religions that promote gay marriage (other than the Episcopalians, and some "fringe" religions). It would seem to me that forcing religions to accept and preform gay marriages would be tantamount to having Gods approval. Which is ironic because most gay lesbians are, not necessarily atheistic, but non-religious. I personally don't know any church going homosexuals.

The Favor Factory

Whether you are for them or against them, you ought to know who is sponsoring the Earmarks, and what they are for.

Personally I think there has to be a better way to pay for special pet projects than to slip a few million into any random bill.

Anyways, here is a link (at the Seattle Times) to search out all the earmarks and their "daddies"

Orin and Bob seems to be on the same page for who they support and who supports them!

How Bad Is It For The Poor?

An interesting report on the poor in America by Carpe Diem shows that the poor really are too bad off. Sure they don't have what they want, and have to work for the necessities more than the luxuries, but it is all relative. Those with more than you are richer, those with less are poorer.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air
conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a
microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR
or DVD player, and a stereo

In the comment section a reader (poor boomer) bashes the report:

consumer goods such as color televisions (okay, just TRY to buy a
black-and-white TV these days!) and VCR.DVD players are dirt cheap, especially
used ones. I have bought good working color TVs and VCRs for less than $25 and
today these used items are even cheaper.

And there you go, actual example of "Trickle down" economics at work. One man's used DVD player is another man's treasure for only $25.

Maybe It's A Cronyist Republic??

There is so much talk out there about the "Big 3" bailout. I know the stated purpose is to advert disaster with over a million or so jobs lost. I don't understand how bankruptcy automatically means all is lost. Does anybody think that all the holdings of these companies is really just going to disappear, and that American cars will be no more? Wouldn't the "Moderately Sized 6-8" be better than the "Big 3"?
Look at the airline industry. Southwest is doing great, while United, Delta, Northwest all struggle. There is something to be said about a company that is "too big to fail".

Of course it doesn't matter what is the best course, or what "the people" want. According to George F. Will,

"...the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g.,
sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.”

ie the stronger the company the more political weight it has, and the more political weight it has the more money and favoritism it receives. Here is an example from Canada (Darin Morely via Coyote)

One of the great things about the web, obviously, is that it allows for much
more efficient communication that opens up new and useful offerings. For
example: the web offers the ability to find other people traveling to the same
general place you're heading and to set up a convenient carpool. It's good for
the environment. It's good for traffic. It just makes a lot of sense. Unless, of
course, you're a bus company and you're so afraid that people will use such a
system rather than paying to take the bus. That's what happened up in Ontario,
as earlier this year we wrote about a bus company that was trying to shut down
PickupPal, an online carpooling service, for being an unregulated
transportation company. TechCrunch points us to the news that the Ontario transportation
board has sided with the bus company and fined PickupPal. It's also
established a bunch of draconian rules that any user in Ontario must follow if
it uses the service -- including no crossing of municipal boundaries -- meaning
the service is only good within any particular city's limits.

The point of this is to show that this "share the wealth" idea sounds good for those without, but really who is getting the money? David Boaz at Cato:

it’s impossible to have nonpolitical allocation of trillions of dollars of
taxpayers’ money handed out by government. If you don’t want the powerful to
lobby and manipulate in order to get their share of the money, then leave it in
the marketplace. If you put it in the hands of politicians, expect political
allocation.

That is why government hate free market, and why socialism/rent-seeking policies and bureaucrats succeed, If you give money to big groups that in turn support you you win, if you support free enterprise and competition there is no big group to support you. And what is more important to a politician that re-election? (insert silence interrupted by the faint noise of cricket chirps)

Proper Function Of The Markets??

Initially it was the title of the article that caught my eye, but upon reading it at Reason
Online by Matt Welch titled Back to the Barricades it states pretty accurately my thoughts on our economy.

If you want to know when this country's political class, even those hailing
from the allegedly pro-market Republican Party, lost faith in the single
greatest economic organizing principle ever devised by mankind, look no further
than the following six terse sentences from Bush's decidedly unpresidential
speech: "I'm a strong believer in free enterprise. So my natural instinct is to
oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions
should be allowed to go out of business. Under normal circumstances, I would
have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is
not functioning properly." Italics mine, to highlight the favored lament of
reluctant central planners everywhere.

After the collapse of communism and the attendant discrediting of Marxian
economic models, the industrialized world more or less settled on democratic
capitalism as the best available option for countries to grow and prosper (see
"The Libertarian Moment," page 62). Old Europe slashed government involvement in
industry, New Europe rode mass privatization to massive growth, East Asian
countries went from emergingmarket "tigers" to full-fledged market economies,
and China used markets to yank hundreds of millions up from poverty. One could
perhaps be forgiven for thinking the 20th century's great economic argument had
been settled.

when a Republican presidential nominee unleashes retrograde attacks against
the "casino culture" of Wall Street "greed," and when a Democratic Congress
holds nearly daily hearings suggesting any number of "windfall profits" taxes
and forced reductions in private-sector CEO pay, that sound you hear is
a fragile consensus shattering and a warning bell clanging in the
night.

It amazes me that a free society with historically strong economic growth not only allows less freedom and has contempt for financial success, but strongly supports policies that try to impose limits on both.

The departure from the founding tenets of our country is eerily similar to examples throughout history, and especially the story of samuel:

In 1 Samuel 8
The people talking to Samuel:
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

In other words: the constitution is old and out dated, we need to follow the example of Europe and the rest of the world.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Religion should have no part in this country, because it only breeds hate and discrimination, government is the only institution that can or should help the poor.

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

We don't want any responsibilities, we don't want to have to worry about trivial things like health care, retirement savings, national security. Lets just give it all to the government and they can balance the check book and give us an allowance, after all they know what's best.

More about European style of government here and here.

If It's So Simple We Does Nobody Get It???

I got this video from dr5.org (life, liberty, and property). It's Jim Moran of Virginia.



What does our country stand for?? Equality or freedom?? It would seem that if you make some money you should be able to keep it, that would be freedom, not equality. Equality would be you make some money and be forced to share it out to those with out. I choose freedom.

What happens when corporations get beat up by the government for being "too greedy"? they impose regulation, tax increases and form unions. If you would like to see how well that works look at the auto industry. Of course at this point they have allowed so many concessions to unions and the government that they are reliant on the government for a bailout. I think the failure of the auto industry is mostly to blame on government. Sure they put out crap cars that made Toyota, Honda happy, but what do you expect when the government beats you down and punishes you for any success.
Look at the oil companies, they become successful and the government can't stand it. They can't wait to beat them down. After all a successful company will hire more people than an unsuccessful company.

2nd Amend-Obama

Yes it is a slow day at work. So for some entertainment, play this little quiz to see how you and future Mr. Obama will get along.



In the Salt lake Tribune, there is an article about how guns are flying off the shelves because of the election results. Here is one of the comments that follow:

CHARLES HARDY SAID, "Now that we will have someone who is openly hostile to the right to keep and bear arms in the White House, gun owners and those who hope to one day own guns have woken up and they are nervous,"
NO ONE IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO IS "OPENLY HOSTILE TO THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" OBAMA HAS STATED THAT ".....he is a supporter of Second Amendment rights, "while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them," WHY SHOULD ANY RUN OF THE MILL PERSON NEED TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON W/ CLIPS HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS? THE 1994 BAN MANDATED THAT SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSULT WEAPONS BE USED ONLY FOR MILITARY OR POLICE, THAT IS IT. NO BAN ON RIFLES, NO BAN ON PISTOLS, NO BAN ON SHOTGUNS...

It is this ignorance about guns that created the Clinton ban in the first place. It is really just a simple ploy to gradually get rid of guns altogether. Without guns our government has no counter balance to become a totalitarian state.

Yes, I Did Vote

My thoughts on the election.

My biggest fear is that an Obama presidency couple with a democrat congress, is that taxes will increase (payroll, and corporate) for me and my small business.

I have decided that personal freedom is the most important issue!!!! All other issues fall into the more or less freedom columns.

Many Libertarian blogs I read state their disapproval of California's Prop 8 passage. I couldn't disagree more on the matter of state supported gay marriage could have very dire effects on my religion and its stance promoting man/woman marriage. The next step for our gay/lesbian friends would be to sue religious institutions to allow these marriages to be done in their sacred places. And besides, the only difference in my mind between a civil union and a marriage is the religious aspect.

I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Only as long as he doesn't take away any of my freedoms. I really HOPE that he is as smart as everybody thinks he is.

I think that the Republicans deserve/needed this loss. GWB out spent, grew government, impinged on personal freedom more than any previous democrat. As a result I hope that they will rethink what they stand for and actully work towards smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

I supported the Iraq war and still do although I have suffered war weariness, mostly due to the finical hardship it has given us.

no matter who is president or in congress, we (USA) are going to need to spend lots of money in the military to support the Iraq, and Afghanistan wars.

I'm trying to be optimistic, but I generally distrust government (federal) and don't think they will make any decisions that will increase my personal freedom or wealth.

Silver Lining??

I was wondering the other day what is best for government as far as who is in control.
Republican president, and republican congress??
Democrat president, and democrat congress??
Or mixed and matched??

Well it just so happens that Reason Magazine did some research on this very topic.

In 2004, looking at real annual government spending per capita since 1947,
Liberty's R.W. Bradford concluded that while spending grows faster if
Republicans control the White House, it also grows faster if Democrats control
Congress. Furthermore, some empirical studies, such as David R. Mayhew's 2005
book Divided We Govern, suggest that when one party controls the White House and
the other controls at least one house of Congress, the result is slightly slower
spending growth, increased oversight, and longer-lasting reforms.Based on these
findings, we can rate the different Congress/White House combinations from
mediocre to worst: 1) Democratic White House and Republican Congress, 2)
Republican White House and Democratic Congress, and 3) unified Republican or
Democratic rule.Only bad combinations are available in November, as Congress
will almost certainly remain in the hands of the Democrats. If McCain wins the
race, we won't be getting our best option—and in two years we could get a
unified Republican government, which would be awful. The least bad option, as
far as spending is concerned, is for Obama to win. While unified government is
terrible, and I suspect Obama will be atrocious, Democratic control of the
legislative and executive branches increases the chance that Republicans take
over Congress in two years. Then we can all live happily in a mediocre world.

Why Isn't This Guy On The Ticket???

This is probably the best stump speech for republicans I've seen all campaign. I would assume that if this video was played over and over in places like Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, the repubs could actually win those states.

For a Representative Republic, I Don't Feel Very Represented

Over at reason online they have an article in which Libertarians weigh in on Barack Obama. While I really like the libertarian view of Life , Liberty, Property, and their free enterprise economic philosophy, I am readily hesitant with the foreign policy and "freedom extends to everything including illicit drugs" mentality. Truthfully I would like to see a new party emerge that is a good mix of libertarian, republican thought. After all I am not at all pleased with the Republican party. Do what you say you believe Repubs!! It seems to me that the independent voter, or 3rd party supporter are anti GOP, not because of ideological differences, but rather as punishment for being hung out by the GOP these last 8 years.

I can put up with some liberalism as long as government is smaller and I have more economic freedom. And allowed to carry a gun.
I don't see any candidate that favors these tenets, with exception of McCain's supporting gun ownership freedoms.

From the article "Is There Any Hope For This man" at reason online (Richard Epstien)

The Obama campaign is rich in contradictions for those who approach
politics as defenders of strong property rights and limited government. On the
positive side, I applaud Obama for showing a willingness to improve the
procedural protections afforded to persons detained at Guantanamo Bay, and to
cut back on the hostility toward immigration into the United States. And I hope
that on key matters of race relations, he would be able to defuse many lingering
historical resentments.
Unfortunately, on the full range of economic issues,
both large and small, I fear that his policies, earnestly advanced, are a
throwback to the worst of the Depression-era, big-government policies.
Libertarians in general favor flat and low taxes, free trade, and unregulated
labor markets. Obama is on the wrong side of all these issues. He adopts a
warmed-over vision of the New Deal corporatist state with high taxation, major
trade barriers, and massive interference in labor markets. He is also
unrepentant in his support of farm subsidies and a vast expansion of the
government role in health care. Each of these reforms, taken separately, expands
the power of government over our lives. Their cumulative impact could be
devastating.

I think government has gotten so big like cancer that has
metastasised there is no way of getting rid of it completely (and keep
the good cells). The only hope is to keep in check and hope it
doesn't kill us.

Health Care

Health care is a tough issue. Being in the health care industry I am torn between access to care for all economic classes vs. the financial rewards of being a health care provider.

My thoughts are:
1. The amount of time, effort, sacrifice, and money I invested into become a dentist should exact a financial reward in at least direct proportion.
2. Health care in not a "right" it is a privilege. Just because we can treat people, doesn't mean we are morally obligated to do so no matter the cost.
3. If somebody can go to free clinic and get certain treatment, they wont generally go to a regular clinic and pay for those same services.
4. If we were to exclude government from any and all health care systems, we would see non-profit type industries filling in, and that access to care levels would not be any less than they are now.
5. If health care were to become totally socialized then I would be paying double, 1 in taxes to supporrt the system, and 2 in loss of compensation.

Anyways, here is a video on Obama's healthcare plan.


Post Script: I read an article in the AGD Impact regarding universal healthcare with a dentist twist. Some highlights:

Gladwell sees America drifting away from universal care. He identifies two
philosophies of health insurance. The first, called social insurance, assumes
that insurance is supposed to be “socially redistributive”—that it should help
equalize the risk between the healthy and the sick. Medicare is a social
insurance, as are the universal plans of most industrialized nations. The second
kind of insurance is actuarial, in which people look for plans based on their
individual needs and pay based on their personal situation and history.
Actuarial insurance, represented by the majority of private health policies in
America, means sicker people pay higher premiums and the sickest people can’t
get coverage at all. Health Savings Accounts, Gladwell writes, are a “final,
irrevocable step in the actuarial direction.”

As Alice Thomson of the London Telegraph writes, “In Britain today, you can
stuff yourself on deep-fried Mars bars, drink 20 pints a night, inject yourself
with heroin, smoke 60 cigarettes a day, or decide to change your sex—and the NHS
has an obligation to treat you…but if you have bad teeth, forget it.”

It seems the catch-phrase for this generation is "Redistribution". Do I want to pay for people that get sick more than me? Some, at no fault of their own, have all sorts of health problems, but others because of their lifestyle have self imposed health problems. I certainly don't want to pay for them.

The biggest overall problem with any issue such as this is that I don't trust government to be able to manage anything to acceptable level of efficiency.

Town Rubbish

Reading over blogs, especially blogs on the state of our economy, there is a fare amount of reference to the "Broken Window Fallacy", by Frédéric Bastiat. It is a good example of what our government is doing. (ie Breaking windows to create jobs to fix them.)

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when
his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present
at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every
one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent
apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an
ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of
the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?" Now, this form of condolence
contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case,
seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the
greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the
accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade
to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you
reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs,
rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that
which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is
too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes
money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be
the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory
is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not
seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one
thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had
a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or
added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six
francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

In Contrast:
A quote from John Maynard Keynes. (Of Keynesian Economics fame, main contributor to the "New Deal")

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable
depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town
rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up
again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of
the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the
help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital
wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It
would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are
political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be
better than nothing. (p. 129)"

Note the "it would be better to do A, but B is better than nothing". Personally I would rather hold my money until A is available and not do B (dig through town rubbish to find banknotes) at all. The main point of Bastiat is for people to consider not only what is seen, but what is not seen. Rather than looking at just the window people, what about the grocery business, the home business, the entertainment business.

That is a real problem with government. Barrack Obama wants to create 5 million green jobs, working on climate change. All you hear is 5 million jobs created, never a word about jobs lost or other ramifications on other industries.

For more about Obama's green job creation (as if government can create jobs) read here

To The Highest Bidder . . . .ie The Government

ABC (local channel 4) has a nice story about a bank auction on foreclosed properties and homes. Apparently the banks involved rejected the auctioned prices in hopes of more $$ from the "Bailout".

Eric Nelson, founder of Eric Nelson Auctioneering, said buyers' bids totaling
about $7.5 million were rejected because of indecision among nervous lenders,
the pending bailout and last week's stock market plunge.

This is the reason the bailout wont work as expected. If you know that you will sell something to the government, no matter what it is, then there is no market. Because a) who would sale for less money than the gov. is going to pay, and b) who would buy something that is in direct competition with the gov. The Price is going to be artificially high.

This is why free markets are so important. They keep things level, at "market value". For example if the price of houses were too high for the value, then people will stop buying them, or will over extend themselves to buy them and struggle to make the payments, often losing it to foreclosed. The housing market then decides that the price of homes is too high an they are lowered in order to sell. The other option is have gov take over and infuse a ton of $$ to try and keep the house price at the high level. This does nobody any good.

"I think the sellers were surprised that the lot prices came in so low. One
of the sellers walked out in the middle of the auction on his lots. He paid
about $231,000 for each of his lots, but they were getting $100,000-plus
bids," Nelson said.
Nelson said many lenders are anticipating better deals in the wake of a
federal bailout."They're thinking, 'Why sell the properties for 50 cents on the
dollar' when they may get 75 cents or 80 cents through the bailout?" Nelson
said.

I bet they wont get their bailout, and end up selling for less on another auction.

On a side note, the reason the stock market went up the other day is because "Financial Hank" announced that the gov would be buying bank shares. So what do you do when you hear that? Go buy shares in those banks. Or is it really consumer confidence that the gov fiscal plans are right on track??

Food and Guns (Sorry Weapons)

I was watching Glenn Beck yesterday and he had on Peter Schiff. Talking about the bailout and the state of our economic concerns, they reasoned that in order to pay our debt to other countries, and to buy up all the "bad" debt from these banks (which now we are on the verge of nationalizing) the U.S. is going to need to print more money (700 billion). Peter describes a likely out come:

SCHIFF: And the government, instead of encouraging us to start
saving now
so we can pay back the debt, they`re trying to encourage us to
borrow even more
money and spend that.
You know, what`s going to happen,
of course, is as inflation starts running
out of control and prices start
going through the roof, the government again is
going to focus on the
symptoms and not the disease.
And they`re going to impose price controls on
energy, on food, on a lot of
other things that are vital, which means
shortages, which means long lines,
black markets, civil unrest.
All this
stuff is coming if we don`t stop.

This to me is a clear and plausible path, that will require food storage and most likely some way to defend your house. Maybe I'm reading more into this than is there, after all most opinion shows exaggerate for effect. They would have fewer viewers if the sky is not falling. However I generally like what Glenn Beck has on his show and don't seem to think it too alarmist.

Thus I will be working on my food storage a lot more and will fit a few weapons into the budget. In the military you will be sharply corrected if you call it a gun.

President Bush
said Tuesday his administration will spend $250 billion this year to
purchase stock in banks and take a number of other bold steps in an effort to
combat a global credit crisis that is threatening to push the U.S. into a deep
recession.
Bush said the government's role will be limited and temporary and "these
measures are not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve
it."

If you think I am crazy or going overboard, ask your self (or perhaps a history buff) when the government ever took something over that A)turned out better than a private business approach, or B)when has the government ever "downsized" and gave back organizations to the privates sector.

Enabelers

This video from Reason TV illustrates why government in its current state is too far out of touch with reality that, we in reality are made to suffer. Politicians should not be telling us what we need, we should be telling them. Not everybody wants health insurance (at least not everybody wants to pay for health insurance). Everybody has to make choices in life, and all decisions have consequences, even indecision has consequences. People who live responsibly are getting hosed, and it wont be too long before responsible living loses appeal and incentive, thus spawning more people to get what they want and plead to the government for what they need.

Wooden Arrows!! You Know, For The Kids

My religious beliefs are such that at some point our government and country will be on the brink of collapse, and the only thing that will save it is the direct intervention from Christ, via the second coming. Thus I can't suppose to be too optimistic regarding government function, especially with this bailout thing. No matter the choice given to government I would think it to choose the one that will lead us into peril. Perhaps that is a good thing, but who knows?

This all came more clear upon reading this on Hit and Run (too good not to pass on to everyone I know):


Andrew Leonard goes digging in the Senate’s bailout package and finds a bunch of “sweeteners” added to lure in votes. Among them:

* Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
*Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
* Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
* Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
* Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
* Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
* Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
* Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
* Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

There are also tax credits for solar and wind power, and a very expensive requirement that health insurance companies cover mental health the same way they cover physical health.
But remember, this is only about preventing an economic cataclysm.

Unbelievable!!! Too much crap for the House to pass, why not add some senate issuses to pork it up some more! Shouldn't energy credits for geothermal heat pumps be drawn up into an "energy bill"? And for that matter shouldn't excise exemptions for wooden arrows be drawn into a "who the hell cares" type of bill? Am I just not smart enough to understand the way government works, or are these guys actually morons??

The Bailout

I have thought a lot about this "economic crisis" and have wavered on whether or not I support, rather think we need, the federal bailout. I will be the first to admit I don't know jack about economics, which limits my ability to objectively understand the subtleties of this situation. With all that said, I am against any sort of bailout from the government (at least so far as it has been presented).

My reasons for my stance are thus:

1. Any entity taken over or controlled by the government is inefficient and burdensome to tax payers.
2. All government programs (as far as I can tell) are government programs for the simple reason that they lose money and private companies wont/ can't run failing programs.
3. Budget 101, if you live over your means, and get over extended, you have to then live below your means in order to pay all outstanding debts (true, sad, but true). Thus our country needs to reset our spending based on GDP or whatever it is that the USofA counts as"income"
4. I have not heard one single person say that this bailout, or whatever comes out of congress, will actually work and that no more $$ will be required. Bear Stern, Fannie and Freddie, AIG!!! At what point do we say enough is enough???
5. If the ultimate goal is to have liquidity, so that the markets don't freeze, isn't there a better way than giving $$ to the large investment banks that got into trouble.

Coyote blog has a good post on his alternative HERE.

Robert P. Murphy also has a good post titled "The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.

In very simple terms, the Paulson Plan is a straight-up transfer of $700
billion — and counting! — from the taxpayers to a few big financial
institutions. (Some smaller banks are complaining that they don't own the exotic
mortgage-backed derivatives, but rather simple mortgages. They do not believe
they will see a dime of the Paulson money.) It's easy to get all twisted around,
but just remind yourself of this: the Paulson Plan has the federal government
borrow $700 billion (through issuing Treasury debt) in order to buy assets from
Wall Street banks. (We are neglecting the time delay in the program; the entire
$700 billion wouldn't be spent all at once.)

some people want to say that if the government pays $700 billion for a
portfolio of assets that is really only worth $400 billion, then the taxpayers
really only lost $300 billion, not the full $700 billion.
Yet this thinking
is naïve. The taxpayers are not going to be treated as equivalent to
shareholders of a firm that just acquired $400 billion in assets. The taxpayers
are not going to get a cut of the monthly mortgage payments (less the servicing
costs on the $700 billion in new debt) tied to the government's massive
portfolio. Instead, the government will simply bump up its annual spending by a
few billion dollars.

And then at some point — during a future Republican administration, no
doubt — there will be a push to "privatize" the secondary mortgage market, and
the government's portfolio at that time will be auctioned off at very generous
prices to politically connected institutions. For example, maybe the $400
billion portfolio is auctioned off for $250 billion. (Perhaps the big banks have
to set up subsidiaries owned by minorities and women who get preferential
treatment in the bidding process. But whatever the ruse, they will find a way to
justify the low prices.) When all is said and done, the government will have
played hot potato with the MBS, and the national debt — borne by taxpayers —
would be $450 (=$700-$250) billion higher.

He concludes with this insight:

Far from providing stability and confidence, the Fed, Treasury, and SEC's recent
moves have ensured that US capital markets will now function with the same
efficiency as public education in this country. The Paulson Plan is one more
step in the socialization of America, but it is also a great bank robbery.

Can you imagine a new government program entitled "No Tax Payer Left Behind"?

Henry David Thoreau: “This government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way.”

How It All Works (aka The High Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leaverage Fund)

This via Jeffrey Tucker

Eye of the Needle

My belief system is such that I believe that happiness in life (and death for that matter) is mostly dependant on how we treat others, especially those in need. This not only means money matters, but helping people in whatever they need. I call it Charity(as would probably everyone reading this blog).
Right now in this country there seems to be a division of thought.
1- People should pay taxes to go to charitable causes, or
2- People should not pay "charitable" taxes, and hope that they contribute of their own free will.

I firmly believe in #2, although that leaves the charitable support of this nations poor to the charitable demeanor of the general populace. Government officiators hate this system, because it leaves too much to chance, and not enough recognition to themselves for giving to the poor (albeit giving from tax payers).

In an article by Katherine Mangu-Ward from Reason online talks about Joe Bidens vision of the system.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), for instance, seems concerned about adequate
patriotism on the part of people in households making over $250,000. They need
to pay more taxes, he said this week: "It's
time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to
help get America out of the rut."
Could it be that Biden is a real, live, walking, talking straw man?
Advocates of personal responsibility and private charity love to hold up this
particular character for inspection: the guy who believes that state welfare
programs exempt him from the obligation to personal charity. The guy who
believes that paying mandatory taxes and making private donations are one and
the same. I've always been skeptical that such a character exists. But here we
have him, in the gleaming golden flesh.
Lest there be room for doubt, Biden
stuck by his remarks and tacked on, "Catholic social doctrine as I was
taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the
most."

And people accuse Sarah Palin as a religious zealot.

When Biden released his tax returns last week, many jumped on his none-too-impressive
record of charitable giving. Despite income somewhere in the $210,432 to
$321,379 category during the last 10 years (rich!),
the Bidens have given between $120 to $995 to charity annually, between 0.06
percent and 0.31 percent of their income. The average taxpayer bringing in more
than $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions, according to the
IRS.
Last year, the tax returns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) show charitable
giving of 27.3 percent to 28.6 percent of his income.

I really believe that the success and prosperity of our country depends on the values of it's people, and that charitable giving is paramount. I also think that those with the most (or even just more) should give more, just not more taxes. Everybody needs to contribute, not only for the betterment of society, country, government, but also for themselves.

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:(Luke
12:48)

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mathew 19:24)

Chivalry Masquerading As Feminism

Cathy Young as a contributing editor at Reason Magazine discussed how the Palin V.P. pick is good for women. I thought it pointed out a few good things, about the state of feminism in America. I, for one, am glad to see a non-lesbian, family loving, God fearing woman stand up for equality.

she writes:

[M]ore representation for feminism across the spectrum of political beliefs is a
good thing. Women, like men, should be able to disagree on gun ownership,
environmental policies, taxes, even abortion while agreeing on gender equity.

At the 1990 Senate hearings on the bill, Biden proudly reported that he
and his brothers were forbidden to lay a hand on their sister even in
self-defense, while she enjoyed "absolute impunity"—and added, apparently not as
a joke, that he had "the bruises to prove it." This is not equality; it's
chivalry masquerading as feminism.

Ultimately, women should vote on the
basis of a candidate's ideas and ability, not gender. But in the contest of the
vice presidential candidates, Palin represents by far the better version of
female empowerment. Regardless of how we vote or who wins, that empowering
message is here to stay.

I am not a woman, so to speak on behalf of one would be foolish, but I would like to think that feminism should be all about equality, and freedom to do whatever you want, be that V.P. or motherhood, or both. It is human nature to want more than other people in order to validate your place. But just like in a band, all instruments/sounds need to be at specific volumes to make the music whole. Nobody likes to hear an overwhelmingly loud bass solo.

Does That Come With Fries??

At the website fightglobalwarming.org You can among other things, buy carbon credits to off-set your personal carbon foot print.

How does it work?
Even if you have already reduced your driving and
electricity use, there's more you can do. You can neutralize the rest of your
pollution—through offsets. When you buy offsets, you essentially pay someone to
reduce or remove global warming pollution in your name.
For example, when you
buy 10 tons of carbon offsets, the seller guarantees that 10 fewer tons of
global warming pollution go into the atmosphere. While the pollution you
produce yourself is the same, you get the credit for that 10-ton reduction.

In case you were wondering what the going rate is, here is what they have on carbonfund.org

Car (5 tons) $25.00

Person (10 tons) $50.00

Zero Carbon (18 tons) $90.00
Go Zero Carbon for just $7.50 a month, and get five tons free!

Hmmm, $7.50 a month for some peace of mind, and a guilt free conscious. Just where does that money go to? To the Climate Gods?? Al Gore?? (aren't they both the same?)
No, it all goes to COWS.

Biomass Digester ? The Inland Biomass Digester collects cow manure from farms in
the area, and natural microbial action converts the manure into methane. The
methane is then used to power a desalination plant to provide water to
surrounding communities. Not only does this process prevent methane from
entering the atmosphere (methane is 23x more powerful than CO2 as a green house
gas) but remnants from the digester is made into organic fertilizer.

I don't quite see how for $7.50/month I can be carbon free when they are removing methane and not carbon. Do I need to by methane off-sets too??

Posted by Dee Norris (via Watts Up With That blog)
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.

I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.

By LukeFri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.

I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.

I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW - ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,

In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).

Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:

• 
  The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
• 
  The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
• 
  the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
• 
  The theory of prions - the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease - was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
• 
  The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.

As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.

It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment -

The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.

I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.

2008 Elections

Here are some links to the elections for this year. (in Utah).

First: a list of all canidates (excel spreed sheet)

Site of the Lieutenant Governor, which has all sorts of voter information, including how to find your polling station.

I always wondered what the Lt Govenor did.

More from the Lt Govenor web pages: here

In 2004 about 68% of the population voted. That is higher that in many past elections. I imagine that percentage goes down when it is not a presidential election. For a detailed account of the statistics from the 2004 election click here

And finally a quote:

No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of
individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He
may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.
(Chicago: Charles Haelberg and Company.

The Republic of Yellowstone

If you have ever visited a national park (Yellowstone for example), you have undoubtedly seen signs or have been told to Not Feed The Bears.

Have you ever wondered why? It's probably pretty obvious.

From bebearawaresw.org spokesman, General Norman Schworzkopf lists some of the reasons:

1. Bears should never obtain human food, pet/livestock feeds, or garbage. Bears that receive these "food rewards" may become aggressive towards humans or cause property damage. To protect people and their property, these bears may have to be destroyed.
2. Wild bears have a natural fear of humans and will attempt to avoid people and developed areas fed bears do not!
3. Wild bears rely on natural foods such as berries and fish. Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage!
4. Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same.
5. Wild bears fed along roads tend to stay near the road - increasing vehicle-animal accidents.

When camping or visiting bear country, there are some precautions so as to not have a run in with a bear
such as:
store food away from your sleeping area
keep food in "bear proof" containers
don't sleep in clothes that have food smell on them.

All this so that we can be spared injury from a bear and the bears can be spared injury from us. So how does this relate to anything that I normally post?

Well I came up with the idea for this post from my brother in law, Mark.

You see just as irresponsible it is to give hand outs to the bears (even though it may seem they are starving and emaciated), it is irresponsible for our government to give handouts to it's people.

In reference to the above bulleted quote

Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage! "Fed" humans will abandon work and progress for hand outs and freebies.

Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same. People will come conditioned to not working and government subsidies they will propagate laziness through their posterity. (Which seems to be the most active reproducers).

Now I'm not saying that we should deprive our nations poorest and underfed, but that there are inherent problems with government providing for them.

Statistics from the US food and nutrition web site. (Food Stamps)
In 2000, it served 17.2 million people a month and cost $17.1 billion.
In 1995, it served 26.6 million people a month, and cost $24.6 billion.
In 1990, it served 20.1 million people and cost $15.5 billion.
In 1985, it served 19.9 million people and cost $11.7 billion.
In 1980, it served 21.1 million people and cost $9.2 billion.
In 1975, it served 17.1 million people and cost $4.6 billion.
In 1970, it served 4.3 million people and cost $577 million.
The program's all-time high participation was 27.97 million people in March of 1994.

Although to the government that is not that much money, what it is doing to the population is what is truly dragging down our country.

Attack of the Clones???

I always loved the A-Team growing up, but I could never understand how they could fire a ba-zillon rounds from a fully automatic, but nobody gets hit( never mind killed). The solution: as learned from Star Wars I The Phantom Menace, create an army of robots. It's not violent to kill off a thousand robots is it? Even StormTroopers wore robotic like masks that de-humanized them. But at least those roles were filled with actual acting extras.
Here is a good video of the "Machines"



(Insert robotic voice here) "Yes We Can"

California Wealth Tax Proposal

I got this from Coyote blog. It was too good not to share here.

Sometimes a proposed law is so wrong and so destructive, but so typical of a certain philosophical bent, that I almost wish it would pass, if for no reason than to have an Atlas Shrugged-type object example of disastrous results. Such is the case for a California ballot initiative that has qualified for the signature-gathering stage. The initiative, in part: (full text linked here)
Imposes one-time tax of at least 55% on property exceeding $20 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. [note that this is an asset tax, not an income tax]
Imposes one-time tax (between 36.5% - 54.3%) on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California.
Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married; 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married.
The proceeds of this money will be used to:
To purchase 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of stock in ExxonMobil, Chevron, General Motors, Ford, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup, in order to ensure California has an uninterrupted source of energy and financial capital.
To drain and restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley to it’s condition at the beginning of the 20th century.
Use any Surplus funds to combat Global Warming, make infrastructure repairs and improvements, and to research alternative energy sources.
Beyond the unbelievably Marxist confiscation going on here, it begs the question of just what supply of energy and financial capital that California is not getting today that this will somehow ensure. The implication seems to be that ExxonMobil, GM, and Citigroup are too fair-minded, selling their wares too even-handily, and that California would prefer their attention tilted towards California.
Of course this initiative is profoundly immoral, so I can't do anything but deride it, but it would make for a spectacular object lesson (though one would have thought the Soviet Union's experience to be sufficient to this task, but apparently not). I am sure GM's troubles would be greatly helped by replacing its board of directors with the California State Legislature (the only American organization running a bigger deficit than GM) and replacing Citigroup's credit analysis with California social services bureaucrats. I would kind of like to see this in the same way I would love to see what happens if I threw a crate of fluorescent tubes off a 10th-floor roof -- I would never actually do it, because it would be unsafe and destructive, but I can still dream about how compelling the disaster would be.
Postscript: One could probably label this the Arizona and Nevada economic stimulation act and probably not be far off the mark.

If you follow the links and actually read the proposal it is breath-takenly absurd. ie:


The People of California find and declare all of the following:

a) The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is inconsistent with the tenets of a democratic society.
b)Staggering sums of wealth have come to be concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population coinciding with growing poverty for tens of millions of persons, declining living standards and worsening economic security for tens of millions more.
[...]
e)Massive concentrations of financial power have fueled the globalization of the American economy, undermined America's traditional manufacturing, industrial and agricultural strength and substituted a class of money changers and speculators. The concentrated financial power has wholly undermined free democratic institutions, created a new breed of public office holder wholly beholden to it's power and reduced America to a debtor nation and a nation of debtors.

Aren't the tenants of a democratic society the fact that everybody has the freedom to do with their life what ever they want? Aren't there tens of millions of people that have started in poverty and have risen to be very wealthy? Have you ever seen the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness" with Will Smith? I just don't get this mentality. Sure everybody would like to better off, but at the expense of others?
And really do we really want to go back to the day when the US manufactured everything? I guess we are going to have to fire all the robots and machines that have taken that roll, so all these willing and able Americans can step in and do it slow and at a higher expense. I guess some peoples views of a democratic society is to take things away from those that have worked hard and give to those that don't.
Good Luck California

This Great Nation, Fairness To All

Obama in his DNC acceptance speech talking about the heros of our nation.

"In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree, who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
[...]And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman.She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. "

And these impressive feats, thanks to Obama, and the Democratic message, will soon be legends of history. His vision is that no suffering will take place, every person will have health care, every one will have cable (or satellite), everybody will have a Prius to drive. "They" will provide everything that "We the People" have right to. Such as a 30 hour work week, 6 weeks vacation so that we don't go postal and go on any shooting sprees. Instead of worrying how to pay for things, we can just sign everything over to the government and they shall provide. Where $100 of our earned dollars returns at about $20. No more are the days in which you will need to rise above the economic class your in. Everybody will be middle class, except the politicians that so graciously commit their time and energy to making sure our rights (and the rights of animals and the planet) are never violated. They will probably even create a new division of government just to create more rights for the people. How can this be bad???

How to Build a Welfare State

I recently read about Frederic Bastiat. He was a French political economist in the 1800's. His views look like a page right out of the Libertarian play book (Life, Liberty, and Property). He derides government for social support of it's poor (or any one else for that matter). That is one of the biggest arguments the "left" has -- Compassion for the poor and needy. Where is your compassion if you are against food stamps? Subsidised living? Health Care for all people?

Well he explains things this way:

"[The socialists declare] that the state owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ...But is it possible? ...Whence does [the state] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success." — from Journal des Economistes (emphisis added)

And also a quote by Henry Grady Weaver from his book
THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)

Sounds like the Hollywood elite. Look how cool I am, I go to Africa and adopt babies, so I know
how government should take care of it's people. Government shouldn't have to "take care" of its people, people should take of people.

The Proper Role Of Government

In 1968 Ezra Taft Benson wrote a paper titled "The Proper Role Of Government". It explains principals of government in simple terms and, the pitfalls that will lead to the decline of our nation. I don't really see my self as uber patriotic. I do serve in the military and have tremendous respect for all those that serve as well. I do feel "emotional" every time I hear the national anthem. But honestly what I value most is the opportunity to work and prosper. I'm sure there are many freedoms I enjoy that I don't fully recognize, but really the chance to improve my economic comfort is a major quest of life.

Here is an excerpt from the paper

The Basic Error Of Marxism
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:
"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.
Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

I would like to point out that Obama wants to do precisely what Ezra T. Benson is waring us about. I don't have a lot of faith in the politicians of this country. There seems to be a snowball effect in which government gets bigger and bigger (and personal rights get smaller and smaller). For example take universal health care: My biggest concerns are how intrusive the government will be, and how much I will have to pay. In the military medical is part of the package, but with that comes monthly safety briefings on how to climb a ladder, how to wash your hands correctly, how to spot potential safety problems in the work place, how to inspect a radio so that it wont cause a fire when plugged in etc etc... . The only things government should provide us is security, and incentive.

Robin's Hood

A few weeks ago Glenn Beck talked about taxing the rich to give to the poor. You know Robin Hood stuff. Now, I'm not rich, but I can surely see how bad an idea this is. Of course choosing a level at which you become "rich" is absurd.

Obama defined it in his interview with Rev Rick Warren:

IF YOU ARE MAKING $150 THOUSAND A YEAR OR LESS AS A FAMILY, THEN ARE YOU MIDDLE CLASS OR YOU MAY BE POOR. BUT $150 DOWN, YOU ARE BASICALLY MIDDLE CLASS. OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON REGION WHERE YOU ARE LIVING. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF YOU ARE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 THEN ARE YOU IN THE TOP 3, 4 PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY. YOU DOING WELL. NOW THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATIVE AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EVERYBODY THAT IS MAKING OVER $250,000 IS LIVING ON EASY STREET, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES IS IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD SCHOOLS, IF WE BELIEVE IN GOOD ROADS, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE, IF WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE A MOUNTAIN OF DEBT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, THEN WE'VE GOT TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS. THEY DON'T COME FOR FREE. AND IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE, I BELIEVE IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE INTER GENERATIONALLY FOR US TO INVEST OR FOR US TO SPEND $10 BILLION A MONTH ON A WAR AND NOT HAVING A WAY TO PAY FOR IT. THAT I THINK IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS UNDER THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING IF YOU MAKE 150 THOUSAND OR LESS YOU WILL SEE A TAX CUT. IF YOU ARE MAKING $250,000 OR MORE YOU WILL SEE A MODEST INCREASE. WHAT I'M TRYINGTO DO IS CREATE A SENSE OF BALANCE AND FAIRNESS IN OUR TAX CODE. ONE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE LOOPHOLES AND BIG STACKS OF STUFF THAT YOU'VE GOT TO COME THROUGH WHICH WASTE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY AND ALLOWS SPECIAL INTEREST TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THINGS THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.(empasis added)

I like the candor in which he explains things. He makes no apology for taxing those over the $250K mark. My question is is that "balanced" or "Fair"? When you increase taxes on the rich there is a decrease in incentive to work hard to become rich. I'm not talking about those that make $20 million each year, or those that don't have to work due to their amount of wealth, but those on the cusp of that $250k. Is it worth going to 8 years of college knowing that if I am successful I will have to pay my country rather than saving my money to put my kids through college. But apparently Obama says that is where my money will be going anyways. so the question is: who is better at spending my money? Me? Government?

Glenn Beck counter points Obama:

'The rich should be willing to pay more' 'As Barack Obama said, If you believe in good schools, good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college and if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then...we've got to pay for these things' 'You conservative-Christians claim to be so into the Bible, why don't you read it sometime! We're supposed to take care of the poor'

Your winning, logical, reasoned arguments

1. Why? Why should anyone be willing to have their hard-earned money taken from them by force, and then wasted by an out-of-control government?
2. So, the only way to have good schools is to spend more money? Then why are some of the worst schools in America, scholastically speaking, in Washington DC, where we spend the most money per student? New York spends the most per student at $14,119 yet ranks 44th in SAT scores. DC ranks 3rd in spending-nearly $13,000 per student, yet ranks 51st, yes dead last. As for leaving a "mountain of debt for the next generation", here's a concept…CUT SPENDING!
3. We sure are. And if you can show me even ONE verse in the King James version of the Bible where it says that governments should tax their citizens more to help the poor, I'll swallow the Bible whole, join the democrat party right now, donate 50% of my income to the federal government, and do bake sale fundraisers for Barack Obama.
INDIVIDUALS have the responsibility to take care of the poor NOT governments…each person is responsible for himself and his family, then if he can't make it, his other family members should step in, then friends, then church organizations. If none of those can help then, as a last resort, the government is there. If we had these values, there would be no need to forcefully take obscene percentages of successful people's income from them.(emphasis added)