Monday, September 24, 2007

Perhaps Columbia Got it Right

Not on purpose of course. The Iranian President Ahmadinejad made quite the ass of himself today with many of the statements he made and the questions he answered. He thought he was smart and witty. But comparing investigating the holocaust to physics research just does not hold up under scrutiny. To not recognize what he was trying to do would have been hard to miss.

Wrap yourself in the idea of free speech. Then connect with the audience. I am an academic person just as you are, he tried to pass to the crowd. I only wish I had been there to ask a follow up: Would he be comfortable with an American investigation into the life of Muhammad? Perhaps we can get Robert Spencer to chair that investigation, and present at a university in Tehran.

It was apparent that he had underestimated the questions he would be asked. No homosexuals in Iran? This must be why they are executing them. Invite our university students to Iran? Let's see the last time we had American students in Iran en masse, there was this little event called the Hostage Crisis. They would still be there if it had not been for Ronald Reagan winning the election.

I believe it is important to get those that you have issues with in front of live cameras as often as possible. Hear what they say on the spot. Understand the words that they choose. Watch their facial expressions. If you hear it directly from the horse's mouth, you will not need one of the horse's handlers to tell you what you have heard or how to interpret this. You will be able to do it for yourself.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Hillary-The Solution is Simple

Wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of making things more complicated, they made things simpler? Instead of the new nightmare of legislation that Hillary is proposing, why not do what we already know works to increase the supply side of the medical world rather than trying to increase the demand side?

What am I talking about? It's simple. Increase the profit margins in medicine so that we have more doctors, more providers and more solutions to our problems. How can we do that? With the stroke of a pen. Eliminate all federal income taxes on those in the medical profession, the drug industry, and wellness industry. Then you can sit back and watch the results.

Under today's system, doctors, like everyone else, pay higher and higher taxes the more they earn. So on one hand we want their services, but we penalize them when they are too successful. Bad idea. Doctors, nurses and others who earn more and get to keep what they earn will work more, providing more opportunities to see more patients. Others will see the potential income in the industry and join it as well. It really is that simple.

Am I the only one to recognize that the more profit there is in something, the more of it becomes available to the masses? No. Drug dealers have known this for years. Prohibition proved this to the liquor makers.

Yet the approach Hillary and company have proposed fail in two areas: They increase the demand AND they reduce the profits of those who supply. Hasn't this approach been disastrous each time it has been tried? In the 1990's the Federal government told nursing homes what they would pay for patients despite what the actual cost was. Instead of improving the industry, it was devastated. The government tried to reduce profit, and they reduced any incentive to go for new patients. How many new patients would you like if you lost money on every one?

The Federal government reminds me of the I Love Lucy episode where Lucy and Ethel lose a nickel on every jar of salad dressing they make. Of course they tell Ricky they will make it up in volume....

If the goal is to improve health coverage in this country, let's have the federal government make the first sacrifice and forgo the income taxes generated from this proposal of mine. If they are not willing to sacrifice for the better of all, then why should you and I?

From Stealing from the Rich to Stealing from the Healthy

Hillary Clinton believes that there is some magical fountain of money, called insurance, that can be used to pay for health insurance for all. But this scheme falls in line with the income tax system, which takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

To understand what is being done here, you must understand how insurance works. Most people don't. Here it is in a nutshell: A group of people combine some assets(usually money) in case one of them has a loss. If the individuals in that group have different levels of potential loss, they pay different amounts based upon that.

Not so with HillaryCare. What are the factors that will decide your premium? Your age and sex. The system is not going to demand more money for high risk individuals. Because the system does not do that, this means that they MUST take more funds from healthy individuals. We are going to have a system that steals from the healthy to give to the unhealthy. And it is planning to steal at gunpoint these funds from you.

Once again our government is going to penalize those that have successfully taken care of them selves, and reward those that have lived unhealthy lives.

If I did not want health insurance, what in the constitution says that the government can force me to buy insurance?

If they force me to buy insurance, can they force me to take blood, drug, and urine tests as well?
Can they require me to take proactive drugs? Can they force me to be sterilized? If I am forced to buy insurance, can I be forced to undergo medical procedures?

What happened to a country where people stayed OUT of the lives of others?

There is no magical fountain of money that will cover this cost. The money will be taken from the healthy(which they will never get back) and given to the unhealthy(which they will never return).

If you ask someone on the receiving end of these benefits, they will claim the insurance companies have lots of money. Yes they do. My money. My money. Not theirs. Mine. Why are they entitled to it?

If this is not the United States on the brink of Marxism, it certainly feels like it. Despite how ill you are, how poor you are, how ignorant you may be, you have no constitutional right to my health, my money, or my brains. Am I the only one that believes this? Or am I just the first to realize that I am just a slave to the will of the masses?


Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Global Warming linked to Global Warming Research?

As we have moved from a period of scientific diecovery, to one of of scientific fearmongering, we should take a moment and look at where we have come from and where we are headed.

In older civilizations, many which are now gone, the powerful individuals were the ones that could predict the future with seeming certainty, and the rest of the ignorant masses would follow these leaders blindlessly. Many cultures with advanced scientific understandings, such as the Aztecs and their understanding of winter and summer solstices, used the knowledge of when these events would occur, would manipulate the masses to their whims.

Today, we have a scientific community that seems hellbent on tying every event in nature to global warming. With the media in tow, reinforcing constantly that we have not just reached a consensus and it is accepted, but that the consensus is forecasting a bleaker , faster and more destructive outcome due to global warming. If you question any of this you are shouted down.

In this vein of thought, shouldn't we recognize this and do the only responsible thing? I do believe that any more dollars spent on global warming research should be ended immediately. Why research any of these issues when we already know what the conclusion will and must be? Why must we fly all of these researchers around the world for endless meetings, conferences, research sessions, when we all know the conclusion anyway?

Think of the paper we can save by not printing any more global warming reports or stories in the newspapers? Thnk of all the carbon fuels that can be saved by not running computer simulation after computer simulation to confirm that global warming is occurring? Was it really necessary to do the research on this story? Or should this have been a no-brainer?

"Global Warming to Delay Next Ice Age"

What about this gem? It's now been confirmed that white clothes are being worn year round not because individuals do not give a damn about fashion dos and don'ts, but because of the effect of Global Warming.

Warming Trend: White Jeans Year Round
by: Teri Agins 30 August 2007
Labor Day is upon us, and Maury Rogoff has no intention of putting away her white jeans. It has been years since the New York marketing consultant went through the seasonal ritual of switching her closet around. "I'm in total seasonal denial," she says. "I only cave in when it really gets cold in January and February," she says. "I resist tights and hose all winter long."One of the most surprising effects of climate changes can be found in your closet: With the exception of heavy winter coats and flimsy sundresses, there aren't a lot of truly seasonal clothes in many people's wardrobes anymore.The move toward seasonless dressing is largely an effect of climate change. In most places in the Northern Hemisphere, the weather is getting warmer, and winters are shorter and less extreme, according to the Center for Climate Systems Research at Columbia University in New York. Radley Horton, a climatologist at the center says 11 of the Earth's 12 warmest years since 1890 occurred after 1996. But in recent years, he says, "there are less extreme differentials between seasons," he says. The result: Spring is starting earlier by a week to 10 days, and fall is starting about a week later.

These are just two stories from last week. Do a search on global warming stories in the news and you will spend a year just reading the research reported last.

Isn't it just possible that Global Warming research is actually causing Global Warming? I would wager that if we used their data(I use their data bacause real data does not actually substantiate that global warming is caused by man), and plotted total global warming research projects against the global warming temperatures, we would have the highest correlation possible.

If they would only pay me to research this....