Saturday, February 27, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Wolves vs. the Lamb
It’s very difficult to discuss politics, when people keep changing what words mean so that what they say isn’t what they mean. Examine the basic tenants of political philosophy in the USA.
The dictionary says that Conservativism is - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes. That definition certainly doesn’t describe the Republicans, and with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan doesn’t describe a single Republican president in history. In the past ½ century Republicans Nixon, Ford, and both Bush’s were all elitists who supported big business over individual rights, hardly conservative.
The dictionary says that Liberalism is - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. Liberals in politics don’t call themselves liberal anymore they call themselves Progressive. Progressives according to the dictionary are making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. I find that both of those definitions do not represent the reality of whom and what is our current “Liberal” party, the Democrats. In fact by definition liberalism is closest to the tenants of the Libertarian Party.
Here is what the dictionary says is the definition of Socialism ~ a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and/or control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This accurately describes both the Demicans and Republicrats currently in power.
It is not arguable that from the words and deeds of Pres. B. H. Obama, he is a socialist. Unless of course we accept the Bill Clinton definition of “is.” History has clearly demonstrated that socialism (including its twin sisters fascism and Marxism) has lead to oppression everyplace it has been implemented, unless you think that the nearly 100 million people killed in the name of socialism last century is a success. Socialism has less chance of ever being accepted here in the USA because of the very founding principles, and type of people who make this country. Read a history book of the founding of the USA that hasn’t been warped by political correctness. Read the works of our founding fathers. Simply read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Unless the very foundation of our society is changed socialistic policies will fail in this country.
This country was founded on moral not political principles; the moral principle that made this country, is based on property rights, specifically property rights as described in the 10 commandments. King George was thrown out of this country based on property rights. The 10 commandments, etched on our Supreme Court, are the ultimate definition of property rights. In the first 4, God as creator of all, expects his property rights to be honored, the 5th, tells children that as their creators the property rights of their parents should be honored, and the last 5 tell us to honor the property rights of others. Property rights are the foundation of our society. The 10 commandments can be summarized very simply as “Thou Shalt Not Covet.” The very nature of liberty is for everyone to be free of the covetous actions of others.
Physical property is what is commonly understood by everyone to mean property. You have the right to acquire, control and use physical things. Your most fundamental possession is understandably your person, your body. From this comes the right to life and liberty. You could look at children as also being such property, extensions of you until they reach the age of adulthood and themselves become independent, self-owning individuals.
The problem with property rights is what to do with unwanted property, whether it’s hazardous waste or an uncontrollable child, you as the owner of property are responsible for your property and cannot just dump unwanted property making somebody else responsible for it. So when you purchase florescent lights, when they are burned out, you not anybody else, is responsible for properly disposing of the useless, mercury filled hazardous waste, that at one time provided light. Failing to be responsible for your property in a way which forces others to take care of your property, is a violation of other people’s property rights.
Socialism is based in its core on violating the very founding principle of what the USA was created on, property rights. Socialism violates the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is based on coveting others property. It is not based on liberalism, the idea of a liberal government which guarantees individual rights and civil liberties. It perverts the very nature of individual rights. “Taxation without representation” was a cry based on property rights, that government cannot arbitrarily take a person’s property.
Socialism’s core value is that you as an individual don’t have property rights and that even your labor is the property of the “community”, and that the community has the right to distribute you labor as the community sees fit. Socialism is based on coveting the property of others. Universal Health Care is a socialist doctrine. Saying Health Care is a right, is saying that you have the right to force the labor of another citizen to pay for your doctor, drugs, hospital visits, etc., and that the community has a right to determine how individuals use the product of their labor. Socialism is a construct used to concentrate power in some individual (Che) or Oligarchy (Communist party) to be the supreme decider of how a community distributes property. Socialist ideas are always about concentrating power and taking liberty from individuals. Obama himself said it in a town hall meeting in August of 2009, the “problem” with our constitution is that it makes it difficult to make big changes. A constitutionally limited government like ours makes enacting socialism difficult. Socialism and its proponents like Obama, don’t care what the people want, or about individual liberty, they care about concentrating power and control.
The polls are remarkably consistent; the majority of the people in the USA rejects socialism and believes in individual property rights. They want smaller government and don’t want government health care. The whole Tea Party movement is not against just the Democrats, it’s against both major parties.
Rasmussen poll shows 83% of Americans blame the deficit on the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending.
Washington Post poll shows 58% of voters want smaller government and fewer government services.
New York Times poll shows 75% of Americans dislike Congress.
The first Tea Party was in response to individual property rights being oppressed; a response to the King of England coveting the property of colonial citizens. The current Tea Party is in response to the very same issue, the failure of the government to protect individual property rights. If the two major parties don’t pull their head out of the sand and remember the why this country was founded the results of this “Tea Party” may be the same as the results of the original Tea Party. This country and the people of this country soundly reject socialism. As a people we have become fat a lazy, and allowed socialistic thinking to infect our public institutions. The Tea Party movement is a rejection of socialism, not just a rejection of the two elitist political parties. Our current government schools have all but eliminated the works of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, and Franklin. The all said the same basic thing. That the bible was right, men are by nature covetous, and that because government is made of men that it must be limited; that the purpose of government is to protect individuals from the covetous nature of others, and when government fails to do so, it can and must be changed. The Hope and Change desired by the people of this country is not for the government to do more, not for more socialism, but less for government.
For people who want and believe in liberty dealing with socialists who only want to add a little socialism, is like a lamb dealing with a wolf who promises to only eat a little off of one leg, not the whole thing. To give up any is crippling, and makes it easier to lose everything. Ben Franklin has been credited as saying, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote.” The American people need to learn that the wolves are named “Democrat” and “Republican”.
The dictionary says that Conservativism is - a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes. That definition certainly doesn’t describe the Republicans, and with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan doesn’t describe a single Republican president in history. In the past ½ century Republicans Nixon, Ford, and both Bush’s were all elitists who supported big business over individual rights, hardly conservative.
The dictionary says that Liberalism is - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, non violent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. Liberals in politics don’t call themselves liberal anymore they call themselves Progressive. Progressives according to the dictionary are making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. I find that both of those definitions do not represent the reality of whom and what is our current “Liberal” party, the Democrats. In fact by definition liberalism is closest to the tenants of the Libertarian Party.
Here is what the dictionary says is the definition of Socialism ~ a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and/or control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. This accurately describes both the Demicans and Republicrats currently in power.
It is not arguable that from the words and deeds of Pres. B. H. Obama, he is a socialist. Unless of course we accept the Bill Clinton definition of “is.” History has clearly demonstrated that socialism (including its twin sisters fascism and Marxism) has lead to oppression everyplace it has been implemented, unless you think that the nearly 100 million people killed in the name of socialism last century is a success. Socialism has less chance of ever being accepted here in the USA because of the very founding principles, and type of people who make this country. Read a history book of the founding of the USA that hasn’t been warped by political correctness. Read the works of our founding fathers. Simply read the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Unless the very foundation of our society is changed socialistic policies will fail in this country.
This country was founded on moral not political principles; the moral principle that made this country, is based on property rights, specifically property rights as described in the 10 commandments. King George was thrown out of this country based on property rights. The 10 commandments, etched on our Supreme Court, are the ultimate definition of property rights. In the first 4, God as creator of all, expects his property rights to be honored, the 5th, tells children that as their creators the property rights of their parents should be honored, and the last 5 tell us to honor the property rights of others. Property rights are the foundation of our society. The 10 commandments can be summarized very simply as “Thou Shalt Not Covet.” The very nature of liberty is for everyone to be free of the covetous actions of others.
Physical property is what is commonly understood by everyone to mean property. You have the right to acquire, control and use physical things. Your most fundamental possession is understandably your person, your body. From this comes the right to life and liberty. You could look at children as also being such property, extensions of you until they reach the age of adulthood and themselves become independent, self-owning individuals.
The problem with property rights is what to do with unwanted property, whether it’s hazardous waste or an uncontrollable child, you as the owner of property are responsible for your property and cannot just dump unwanted property making somebody else responsible for it. So when you purchase florescent lights, when they are burned out, you not anybody else, is responsible for properly disposing of the useless, mercury filled hazardous waste, that at one time provided light. Failing to be responsible for your property in a way which forces others to take care of your property, is a violation of other people’s property rights.
Socialism is based in its core on violating the very founding principle of what the USA was created on, property rights. Socialism violates the foundations of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is based on coveting others property. It is not based on liberalism, the idea of a liberal government which guarantees individual rights and civil liberties. It perverts the very nature of individual rights. “Taxation without representation” was a cry based on property rights, that government cannot arbitrarily take a person’s property.
Socialism’s core value is that you as an individual don’t have property rights and that even your labor is the property of the “community”, and that the community has the right to distribute you labor as the community sees fit. Socialism is based on coveting the property of others. Universal Health Care is a socialist doctrine. Saying Health Care is a right, is saying that you have the right to force the labor of another citizen to pay for your doctor, drugs, hospital visits, etc., and that the community has a right to determine how individuals use the product of their labor. Socialism is a construct used to concentrate power in some individual (Che) or Oligarchy (Communist party) to be the supreme decider of how a community distributes property. Socialist ideas are always about concentrating power and taking liberty from individuals. Obama himself said it in a town hall meeting in August of 2009, the “problem” with our constitution is that it makes it difficult to make big changes. A constitutionally limited government like ours makes enacting socialism difficult. Socialism and its proponents like Obama, don’t care what the people want, or about individual liberty, they care about concentrating power and control.
The polls are remarkably consistent; the majority of the people in the USA rejects socialism and believes in individual property rights. They want smaller government and don’t want government health care. The whole Tea Party movement is not against just the Democrats, it’s against both major parties.
The first Tea Party was in response to individual property rights being oppressed; a response to the King of England coveting the property of colonial citizens. The current Tea Party is in response to the very same issue, the failure of the government to protect individual property rights. If the two major parties don’t pull their head out of the sand and remember the why this country was founded the results of this “Tea Party” may be the same as the results of the original Tea Party. This country and the people of this country soundly reject socialism. As a people we have become fat a lazy, and allowed socialistic thinking to infect our public institutions. The Tea Party movement is a rejection of socialism, not just a rejection of the two elitist political parties. Our current government schools have all but eliminated the works of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Paine, and Franklin. The all said the same basic thing. That the bible was right, men are by nature covetous, and that because government is made of men that it must be limited; that the purpose of government is to protect individuals from the covetous nature of others, and when government fails to do so, it can and must be changed. The Hope and Change desired by the people of this country is not for the government to do more, not for more socialism, but less for government.
For people who want and believe in liberty dealing with socialists who only want to add a little socialism, is like a lamb dealing with a wolf who promises to only eat a little off of one leg, not the whole thing. To give up any is crippling, and makes it easier to lose everything. Ben Franklin has been credited as saying, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote.” The American people need to learn that the wolves are named “Democrat” and “Republican”.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Of Sports, Free Speech and Liberty
My preference for sports, like most Americans, is that they include speed and some element of danger. The Winter Olympics has much of that, but to be honest I have trouble thinking of curling as a sport. I was enthralled with the women’s snowboard cross during the Olympics. Speed, jumps, falls, completion, drama, everything a good sporting event should have, unfortunately NBC paired it with the Men’s figure skating short program.
To be fair, if I use that criterion, which allowed me to enjoy the snowboard cross, the criteria which includes such sports as football, basketball, even motocross, I have to include figure skating. Acknowledging that the estrogen-fest that was the men’s figure skating short program is a sport is difficult. But hell, just like pro-wrestling it even includes death threats, but unlike the phony rigged acting of professional wrestling, the threats made in men’s figure skating were real and credible. Part of what makes accepting men’s figure skating as a sport revolting is my personal bias; I find flaming effeminate men disturbing and revolting. Johnny Weir typifies this type of person.
The fact is, Johnny Weir is a free man, and has the same liberties as the rest of us. As much as his appearance, actions, manners and speech offend me, none of them restrict or infringe upon my rights. I don’t have a right not to be offended. There are some, who because of Weirs dress and speech have threatened his life. He has had to remain in the secure Olympic campus for his own safety. No it is not a bunch of butch homophobes in flannel shirts trying to string up the flaming fruitcake persona of Johnny Weir, it’s leftist radicals, who want to determine control the free choices he and everyone else can make.
The heinous “crime” which warrants Weir’s death is that he wore a piece of fox fur on his costume, and didn’t capitulate to the PETA crowd, saying the right things. To quote Johnny Weir, he “Loves Wearing Dead Animals,” and calls animal rights activists “Crazy Fur People”. I don’t know if I’ll ever live down the shame o f using, and agreeing with quotes from such a sissy. Unlike libertarians, PETA and the extremists it attracts typify the left. If you can’t persuade people to do what you want them to do, if you can’t elect representatives to make the law you want, then use force. They don’t use violence in their own self defense, but to force their beliefs on others. This is morally corrupt. Weir hasn’t proposed or promoted anything illegal, or anything that infringes upon the rights of another. Because he enjoys what the left finds as offensive, they are willing to force him to change his behavior.
Johnny Weir, like everybody should be free to express himself as he wishes and not to be threatened with violence for those expressions. Because leftist extremist groups like PETA have a history of using violence, Weir changed his behavior. Why is it that the left, statists in general, think that they should have the right to force others to live the way they think is best? Johnny Weir is and should remain at liberty to act how he wants, so long as his expression does not infringe on the rights of another. Although I find him disturbing, and will avoid any product or company who choose to use him as a spokesperson, I would and do defend his right to express himself as he sees fit.
Why can’t the liberals do the same? Not only will they not defend the right of others to express their ideas, they work at silencing others who express different ideas. When their ideas fail because the people reject them yet they are more than willing to use force, to make people accept them. Consider talk radio; conservative idea’s and spokesmen sell commercials (Rush, Beck, etc); to a lesser extent libertarian ideas and spokesmen sell commercials (Boortz, Savage, etc). Conservative and Libertarian ideas sell because people freely choose to listen to those ideas. Liberal ideas don’t sell commercials; Air America went bankrupt, as when people are given a free choice, they choose not to listen to them. The only place liberal radio is alive is at NPR, which is paid for by tax dollars, and where liberal ideas don’t have to compete. Unlike conservative or libertarian talk radio, NPR doesn’t take callers and doesn’t try to argue their points, it dictates a view, it doesn’t defend a view. When liberal ideas are given freedom, and have to compete, they are rejected. This is why the left is trying to re-instate the “fairness” doctrine, and use the force of government to make people hear and accept their ideas.
Maybe this is why so many liberals hate competition; competition is so un-fair, because with competition there is always a winner and a loser. The politically correct view of the Olympics is that it is a platform to teach respect for self and others; fair play; excellence; joy in effort; and balance of body, mind, and will. That is crap, look at the NBC coverage, and you’ll see it’s about winning, losing, competition, and the worlds thirst to attempt to be the best. The medal counts we watch every day to see who is best, in a fair even handed competition, with the same rules applied to everybody. We reward those who excel, acknowledge those who try, and ignore those who don’t compete. The left isn’t willing to have the same rules for everybody, because there will be winners and losers, and those who don’t compete will be left behind. Ask why your school no longer has dodge ball or a valedictorian.
Why does it take street gang methods to implement liberal ideas? Johnny Weir didn’t take the fur off his costume because he was convinced by the competing idea that people shouldn’t use animal furs. He did so because he didn’t want his Olympic performance tainted by extremists throwing blood on the ice, and because he feared for his well being. The PETA crowd made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Liberals like street gangs work on the principle of eliminating completion, allowing people to freely choose over competing ideas is not a consideration. Liberty is being free to compete fairly for the rewards offered by your fellow man. In the competition for ideas Johnny Weir’s liberty was never a consideration.
To be fair, if I use that criterion, which allowed me to enjoy the snowboard cross, the criteria which includes such sports as football, basketball, even motocross, I have to include figure skating. Acknowledging that the estrogen-fest that was the men’s figure skating short program is a sport is difficult. But hell, just like pro-wrestling it even includes death threats, but unlike the phony rigged acting of professional wrestling, the threats made in men’s figure skating were real and credible. Part of what makes accepting men’s figure skating as a sport revolting is my personal bias; I find flaming effeminate men disturbing and revolting. Johnny Weir typifies this type of person.
The fact is, Johnny Weir is a free man, and has the same liberties as the rest of us. As much as his appearance, actions, manners and speech offend me, none of them restrict or infringe upon my rights. I don’t have a right not to be offended. There are some, who because of Weirs dress and speech have threatened his life. He has had to remain in the secure Olympic campus for his own safety. No it is not a bunch of butch homophobes in flannel shirts trying to string up the flaming fruitcake persona of Johnny Weir, it’s leftist radicals, who want to determine control the free choices he and everyone else can make. The heinous “crime” which warrants Weir’s death is that he wore a piece of fox fur on his costume, and didn’t capitulate to the PETA crowd, saying the right things. To quote Johnny Weir, he “Loves Wearing Dead Animals,” and calls animal rights activists “Crazy Fur People”. I don’t know if I’ll ever live down the shame o f using, and agreeing with quotes from such a sissy. Unlike libertarians, PETA and the extremists it attracts typify the left. If you can’t persuade people to do what you want them to do, if you can’t elect representatives to make the law you want, then use force. They don’t use violence in their own self defense, but to force their beliefs on others. This is morally corrupt. Weir hasn’t proposed or promoted anything illegal, or anything that infringes upon the rights of another. Because he enjoys what the left finds as offensive, they are willing to force him to change his behavior.
Johnny Weir, like everybody should be free to express himself as he wishes and not to be threatened with violence for those expressions. Because leftist extremist groups like PETA have a history of using violence, Weir changed his behavior. Why is it that the left, statists in general, think that they should have the right to force others to live the way they think is best? Johnny Weir is and should remain at liberty to act how he wants, so long as his expression does not infringe on the rights of another. Although I find him disturbing, and will avoid any product or company who choose to use him as a spokesperson, I would and do defend his right to express himself as he sees fit.
Why can’t the liberals do the same? Not only will they not defend the right of others to express their ideas, they work at silencing others who express different ideas. When their ideas fail because the people reject them yet they are more than willing to use force, to make people accept them. Consider talk radio; conservative idea’s and spokesmen sell commercials (Rush, Beck, etc); to a lesser extent libertarian ideas and spokesmen sell commercials (Boortz, Savage, etc). Conservative and Libertarian ideas sell because people freely choose to listen to those ideas. Liberal ideas don’t sell commercials; Air America went bankrupt, as when people are given a free choice, they choose not to listen to them. The only place liberal radio is alive is at NPR, which is paid for by tax dollars, and where liberal ideas don’t have to compete. Unlike conservative or libertarian talk radio, NPR doesn’t take callers and doesn’t try to argue their points, it dictates a view, it doesn’t defend a view. When liberal ideas are given freedom, and have to compete, they are rejected. This is why the left is trying to re-instate the “fairness” doctrine, and use the force of government to make people hear and accept their ideas.
Maybe this is why so many liberals hate competition; competition is so un-fair, because with competition there is always a winner and a loser. The politically correct view of the Olympics is that it is a platform to teach respect for self and others; fair play; excellence; joy in effort; and balance of body, mind, and will. That is crap, look at the NBC coverage, and you’ll see it’s about winning, losing, competition, and the worlds thirst to attempt to be the best. The medal counts we watch every day to see who is best, in a fair even handed competition, with the same rules applied to everybody. We reward those who excel, acknowledge those who try, and ignore those who don’t compete. The left isn’t willing to have the same rules for everybody, because there will be winners and losers, and those who don’t compete will be left behind. Ask why your school no longer has dodge ball or a valedictorian.
Why does it take street gang methods to implement liberal ideas? Johnny Weir didn’t take the fur off his costume because he was convinced by the competing idea that people shouldn’t use animal furs. He did so because he didn’t want his Olympic performance tainted by extremists throwing blood on the ice, and because he feared for his well being. The PETA crowd made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Liberals like street gangs work on the principle of eliminating completion, allowing people to freely choose over competing ideas is not a consideration. Liberty is being free to compete fairly for the rewards offered by your fellow man. In the competition for ideas Johnny Weir’s liberty was never a consideration.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Orlando Straw Poll Results
On Saturday, February 13th, the Orlando Tea Party hosted a Candidate Hob Nob and Straw Poll at Orlando City Hall. The straw poll was administered by the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office with actual ballots and vote scanning machines. The hosts of the ‘Tea Party Patriots Live’ radio show and the rest of the volunteer organizers would like to congratulate the winners of the straw poll. You can see the results of Yesterday’s Straw Poll in Orlando HERE
The Results are Interesting to say the least.
For Governor LP Candidate John Wayne Smith received 13% more of the vote than the highest ranking Democrat.
In the US Senate Race LP Candidate Alex Snitker received 17% more of the vote than Charlie Christ. It may be early but I think you can stick a fork in Christ. Rubio’s 66.6% showing indicates that he may be unstoppable.
Now the bad news, the Democrats have dismissed the entire “Tea Party” movement, I believe that they have done this at their own peril. The Tea Party represents the bulk of independent voters, and although the republicans are making a strong attempt to take it over, the fact that an unknown New Port Richey newcomer like Alex Snitker can muster 22% of the vote for US senate, and more than 21% more of the vote than the highest polled Democrat speaks volumes.
There is a political revolution going on the poll numbers don’t bode well for the “in” crowd.
The Results are Interesting to say the least.
For Governor LP Candidate John Wayne Smith received 13% more of the vote than the highest ranking Democrat.
In the US Senate Race LP Candidate Alex Snitker received 17% more of the vote than Charlie Christ. It may be early but I think you can stick a fork in Christ. Rubio’s 66.6% showing indicates that he may be unstoppable.
Now the bad news, the Democrats have dismissed the entire “Tea Party” movement, I believe that they have done this at their own peril. The Tea Party represents the bulk of independent voters, and although the republicans are making a strong attempt to take it over, the fact that an unknown New Port Richey newcomer like Alex Snitker can muster 22% of the vote for US senate, and more than 21% more of the vote than the highest polled Democrat speaks volumes.
There is a political revolution going on the poll numbers don’t bode well for the “in” crowd.
Too Much Government
“When the Government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.” ~ Gary Lloyd
The government needs more revenue, real dollars in its coffers, and needs to cut spending. History has repeatedly shown that the way to increase revenue is by cutting taxes. Yet the politicians in charge (Democrats) keep calling for higher taxes, a historically proven method to stifle economic growth and reduce long term government revenue. Tax code is now used as a way to pay off political supporters, the 20 thousand some odd pages of tax code are proof enough. The American people want the government to get out of their lives.
Why doesn’t Washington Get it? The American people get it; Washington and big government are the problem.
Obviously the people of this country don’t believe that the government knows what’s best. The uproar at last summer town hall meetings; the Tea Party movement; and the loss of big government politicians in New Jersey, Virginia, and even Massachusetts, clearly demonstrate that the people know that government is our problem not our salvation.
The States are getting it, there are 37 states which have passed or have proposed laws and resolutions affirming their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. The Federal government has gotten too big and is overstepping its constitutional bounds and the limits of what the people and the States will accept.
There is a political revolt out going on and Washington just doesn’t get it.
Here is a prime example Wyoming House Bill BH95.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
2010 Census - Know Your Rights
originally posted last may, but more relevant now
The 2010 census is coming up, and if your even the slightest bit cantankerous you might not fill out form they mail you. You might not fill out the second form they mail you. They will then send somebody to your door to ask you the questions.
Now that's not so bad but by law you are required to answer the census. Now the good news, the law also states that agents of the government can be required to provide you with information if requested, before you can be required to answer their questions.
The amount of info you can require, and ask about is extensive. You not only can use this form for agents like the Census takers, but any other government agent who is questioning you. Kind of cool, put them through what they put you through.
Some bright people have compiled an nice questionnaire you can have the government agent fill out. (at the bottom are links to several versions)
Search the net using:
Key Points:
Click Here for PSQ version 2
The 2010 census is coming up, and if your even the slightest bit cantankerous you might not fill out form they mail you. You might not fill out the second form they mail you. They will then send somebody to your door to ask you the questions.
Now that's not so bad but by law you are required to answer the census. Now the good news, the law also states that agents of the government can be required to provide you with information if requested, before you can be required to answer their questions.
The amount of info you can require, and ask about is extensive. You not only can use this form for agents like the Census takers, but any other government agent who is questioning you. Kind of cool, put them through what they put you through.
Some bright people have compiled an nice questionnaire you can have the government agent fill out. (at the bottom are links to several versions)
Search the net using:
THE PUBLIC SERVANT QUESTIONNAIRE
Key Points:
- An American does not have to speak with a government agent unless the citizen has been arrested.
- Americans have a right to privacy, to be left alone.
- The PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (Public Law 93-579), empowers citizens to require full, written disclosure from a government official who seeks information.
- You may insist on complete disclosure as a precondition to speaking with any government official.
- Law-abiding citizens are sometimes visited by agents of the Federal government for no apparent reason. It is helpful, at the time of these visits, to recall that unless a citizen has been placed under arrest (either because a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe the citizen has committed a crime or because the officer has in his possession an arrest warrant issued by a judge who believes there is probable cause the citizen has committed a crime, a citizen does not have to entertain the company of government agents.
- Citizens also have the right, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not to testify against themselves. Thus, when "the government" comes knocking on one¹s door, you have the right to simply say, "Please go away." Unless the government officer places you under arrest (there must be probable cause, or an arrest warrant based on probable cause), the officer must obey your wishes.
- Of course, citizens also have a vested interest in assisting "the government" in its role of crime-solver. Most of us understand the need to help "the government" to apprehend criminals. But it is also helpful, when "the government" arrives at your place of employment or at your home, to know how to find out why government agents have appeared on YOUR doorstep.
- A handy little questionnaire that I came across years ago will do the trick. It¹s called the "Public Servant Questionnaire." A version following the link. The "PSQ" was developed by Lynn Johnston, author of Who's Afraid of the IRS? (Libertarian Review Foundation: 1983, ISBN 0-930073-03-7).
- The PSQ is based on the requirements placed upon the government by the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), an amending law to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, and is included as Section 552a.
- If a citizen chooses to cooperate with government officials who are seeking information, BEFORE questioning begins, the citizen should politely inform the government agent or agents that a prerequisite for the citizen's cooperation with "the government" is the agent¹s cooperation with the citizen.
- The questions should then be put to each agent, and the citizen should enter the answers onto the questionnaire. Copies should be provided to each agent, either at the time of the questioning or by mail to the agent after the visit. The questionnaire informs the government agent that the citizen knows his rights and knows which limited powers the government agent has been granted by the people.
- Most probably some government agents will not want to fill out or sign the PSQ. That’s fine. They can then be sent on their merry way. They may need to explain to their superiors, and a court of law, and a jury, on another day, why they refused to cooperate with the reasonable questions of the highest officeholder in the land, a citizen.
Click Here for PSQ version 2
Obama's Character
President B.H. Obama in the State of the Union Address, January 2010:
How could he say that with a straight face?
Look at his actions in the first year.
Obama promised transparency during his campaign, but his modus operandi is to do everything behind closed doors.
He promised healthcare negotiations on C-Span, but did the negotiations in secret. He cannot blame congress, when they asked his administration to come to committee hearings, etc. all he had to do was say “only if they are on C-Span”.
He said if someone has another idea he’ll listen, but he the Republicans were not even allowed in the process.
He told us that the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of law, but according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito it's “Not true.”
He promised that lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but hired more than 40 lobbyists to work in his administration.
A year of openly and contemptuously doing exactly the opposite of what he has told us he would do. He obviously believes the people deserve a lying, un-accountable, arrogant, and elitist government, because that is exactly the administration he has created to govern this country.
Obama’s arrogance is without question; his contempt for the average citizen has become legendary, think “bitter clinging”. There is no doubt than he is a liar of eminent caliber and would make P.T. Barnum proud.
I’ve tended to think that Obama has evil intent for the USA, but alas I do believe I have been wrong and he has no evil intent. Thinking of him having fascist Machiavellian plans gives him too much credit. While trying to ascertain a logical explanation for his actions and proposals, of which history has repeatedly proven to be ineffective and detrimental to society, my ideas on Mr. Obama tended to attribute to him evil intents, trying to purposefully weaken and destroy our country. Reviewing my and others numerous writings on the stupid things government does, and putting in context of Obama being the ultimate government bureaucrat, I no longer think he has evil intent. As a science fiction reader I should have instantly remembered the sage words of the author of Callahan’s Cross Time Saloon Spider Robinson, “Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity. “
Stupidity definitely explains his and the government’s actions. The inherent stupidity of government must of course be lead by somebody of arrogant stupidity. The press constantly told us of Bush’s stupidity, why should we doubt them? Obama won’t even allow anybody to see his high school, college, or grad school grades. Obviously he is worried that it will expose his stupidity as a tested fact, rather than an observable phenomenon. Stupidity explains his actions and words.
According to George Gissing, “It is because nations tend towards stupidity and baseness that mankind moves so slowly; it is because individuals have a capacity for better things that it moves at all.” Maybe the reason the Tea Party movement has been so successful is because it is made of individuals, as soon as it gets “organized” it too will become stupid. Let’s face it, the Tea Party movement is allowing itself to be co-opted by the Republicans, and they are no more protectors of liberty and freedom than the Democrats.
My last blog entry noted the stupidity of the government continuing a program that their own research demonstrates a failure. Not that the early childhood intervention is a bad idea, just the federal government implementation of that idea in the form of Head Start is a demonstrable failure. This is example of Robertson Davies quote “There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity.”
The Democrats will tell us that even though the data shows that Head Start makes no difference in student performance by the end of first grade, the reasons to keep spending $4billion per year are nuanced, the idea and purpose for the Head Start program are good, even noble. Evan Say was right when he said, “What Democrats call 'nuanced,' most people refer to as 'stupidity.'”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs, that borrowing for a new car, and continuing to use credit cards is not the way to get out of debt. There is only one explanation for believing and implementing a program of extreme spending will help a serious debt situation – Stupid.
Right now the government needs to increase revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton all were leading the government when it was in need of more revenue and succeeded in increasing government revenue by cutting taxes. Bush while fighting wars in two theaters managed to reduce unemployment to historic lows near 5% by reducing taxes on those who create jobs (the rich). Only sheer stupidity would ignore history and the numerous real world examples to ever think that increasing taxes on the people who supply jobs will lead to more jobs and increased government revenue.
Back to president Obama, his presidency proves that Chris Lowe was right when he said, “Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.”
“We face a deficit of trust—deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”
How could he say that with a straight face?
Look at his actions in the first year.
Obama promised transparency during his campaign, but his modus operandi is to do everything behind closed doors.
He promised healthcare negotiations on C-Span, but did the negotiations in secret. He cannot blame congress, when they asked his administration to come to committee hearings, etc. all he had to do was say “only if they are on C-Span”.
He said if someone has another idea he’ll listen, but he the Republicans were not even allowed in the process.
He told us that the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of law, but according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito it's “Not true.”
He promised that lobbyists wouldn't run his White House, but hired more than 40 lobbyists to work in his administration.
A year of openly and contemptuously doing exactly the opposite of what he has told us he would do. He obviously believes the people deserve a lying, un-accountable, arrogant, and elitist government, because that is exactly the administration he has created to govern this country.
Obama’s arrogance is without question; his contempt for the average citizen has become legendary, think “bitter clinging”. There is no doubt than he is a liar of eminent caliber and would make P.T. Barnum proud.
I’ve tended to think that Obama has evil intent for the USA, but alas I do believe I have been wrong and he has no evil intent. Thinking of him having fascist Machiavellian plans gives him too much credit. While trying to ascertain a logical explanation for his actions and proposals, of which history has repeatedly proven to be ineffective and detrimental to society, my ideas on Mr. Obama tended to attribute to him evil intents, trying to purposefully weaken and destroy our country. Reviewing my and others numerous writings on the stupid things government does, and putting in context of Obama being the ultimate government bureaucrat, I no longer think he has evil intent. As a science fiction reader I should have instantly remembered the sage words of the author of Callahan’s Cross Time Saloon Spider Robinson, “Never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity. “
Stupidity definitely explains his and the government’s actions. The inherent stupidity of government must of course be lead by somebody of arrogant stupidity. The press constantly told us of Bush’s stupidity, why should we doubt them? Obama won’t even allow anybody to see his high school, college, or grad school grades. Obviously he is worried that it will expose his stupidity as a tested fact, rather than an observable phenomenon. Stupidity explains his actions and words.
According to George Gissing, “It is because nations tend towards stupidity and baseness that mankind moves so slowly; it is because individuals have a capacity for better things that it moves at all.” Maybe the reason the Tea Party movement has been so successful is because it is made of individuals, as soon as it gets “organized” it too will become stupid. Let’s face it, the Tea Party movement is allowing itself to be co-opted by the Republicans, and they are no more protectors of liberty and freedom than the Democrats.
My last blog entry noted the stupidity of the government continuing a program that their own research demonstrates a failure. Not that the early childhood intervention is a bad idea, just the federal government implementation of that idea in the form of Head Start is a demonstrable failure. This is example of Robertson Davies quote “There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity.”
The Democrats will tell us that even though the data shows that Head Start makes no difference in student performance by the end of first grade, the reasons to keep spending $4billion per year are nuanced, the idea and purpose for the Head Start program are good, even noble. Evan Say was right when he said, “What Democrats call 'nuanced,' most people refer to as 'stupidity.'”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you’re in debt up to your eyeballs, that borrowing for a new car, and continuing to use credit cards is not the way to get out of debt. There is only one explanation for believing and implementing a program of extreme spending will help a serious debt situation – Stupid.
Right now the government needs to increase revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton all were leading the government when it was in need of more revenue and succeeded in increasing government revenue by cutting taxes. Bush while fighting wars in two theaters managed to reduce unemployment to historic lows near 5% by reducing taxes on those who create jobs (the rich). Only sheer stupidity would ignore history and the numerous real world examples to ever think that increasing taxes on the people who supply jobs will lead to more jobs and increased government revenue.
Back to president Obama, his presidency proves that Chris Lowe was right when he said, “Stupidity combined with arrogance and a huge ego will get you a long way.”
Monday, February 8, 2010
Stupid Stuff the Government Does II
If your doctor wanted you to get a treatment for your child that cost you a lot of money, and presented you with a study that showed it offered no real benefit, would you still get the treatment for your child? Your doctor says, “Even though our own research shows this program is ineffective, but at least we’re doing something.” What would you do?
What would you say to a government program that has cost about $4billion a year for the past 45 or years and had zero, none, nada lasting benefit what so ever. Would you want the government to keep doing it, or do you think that reducing the amount the government borrows every year by $4billion would be better?
The department of Health and Human Services released a new study on the effectiveness of a federal program started in 1965. The results show that the program has had no impact. This program is aimed at getting low-income, preschool children prepared for school. You've probably heard of it, it is the Head Start program.
Over $166 billion of federal funds has been poured into Head Start. The governments own study shows that first graders who have been through the program perform essentially the same as those who haven't.
The government has now documented the fact that Head Start is of no lasting benefit. What do you think the government should do with this program that doesn't work? It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, for a feel good program that has no significance, other than being able to say were "doing" something to help the poor. If the government is smart, it will say “this hasn’t worked, were going to end the program.” The government is stupid, so expect to see this proven waste of money either to be continued or expanded.
What would you say to a government program that has cost about $4billion a year for the past 45 or years and had zero, none, nada lasting benefit what so ever. Would you want the government to keep doing it, or do you think that reducing the amount the government borrows every year by $4billion would be better?
The department of Health and Human Services released a new study on the effectiveness of a federal program started in 1965. The results show that the program has had no impact. This program is aimed at getting low-income, preschool children prepared for school. You've probably heard of it, it is the Head Start program.
Over $166 billion of federal funds has been poured into Head Start. The governments own study shows that first graders who have been through the program perform essentially the same as those who haven't.
The government has now documented the fact that Head Start is of no lasting benefit. What do you think the government should do with this program that doesn't work? It is a waste of taxpayers’ money, for a feel good program that has no significance, other than being able to say were "doing" something to help the poor. If the government is smart, it will say “this hasn’t worked, were going to end the program.” The government is stupid, so expect to see this proven waste of money either to be continued or expanded.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Results of Single Payer Health Care
When you hear a politician, like Obama, promote the virtues of single payer health care like they have in Canada, they are deceiving to you.
Consider the Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams. He is a popular 59 year old politician, who is in need of heart surgery. He is getting that surgery in the good ol’ USA not Canada. You see the procedure he needs simply isn't available in Newfoundland. He’s not on a waiting list, the procedure just isn’t available. Even if he wanted to pay for it, in Canada he can't, they don’t allow the procedure, it’s a expensive service that the system cannot support. So Canadians have two choices; to travel to the USA and pay for it themselves or die.
That’s one hell of a way to save money isn’t it? I can’t wait for US to have a system like Canada, can you?
Consider the Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams. He is a popular 59 year old politician, who is in need of heart surgery. He is getting that surgery in the good ol’ USA not Canada. You see the procedure he needs simply isn't available in Newfoundland. He’s not on a waiting list, the procedure just isn’t available. Even if he wanted to pay for it, in Canada he can't, they don’t allow the procedure, it’s a expensive service that the system cannot support. So Canadians have two choices; to travel to the USA and pay for it themselves or die.
That’s one hell of a way to save money isn’t it? I can’t wait for US to have a system like Canada, can you?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Why don't Liberals Think?
You’ll have to forgive me I’m making a generalization, I should have titled this “Why Don’t Democrats Think”, but I have trouble telling the difference between Liberals and Democrats, and there are too many RINOs that are liberal to exclude. Then again, maybe I should have titled this “Liberals are Like Helicopter Parents.”
To a liberal, if it sounds good do it, don’t think about what the consequences. They want to sweep away all the obstacles that keep everybody in the country from having the best health care in the available, they don’t think about the cost. As politicians they don’t have to, they don’t suffer the costs or take any risks because they exempt themselves from their mandates, so it’s even easier for them to not think about what they are doing.
Liberals tend to act like mommies; they want to make sure everybody is safe and happy, and make sure everything is “fair”. They don’t want to see their children (or any other child) suffer, or feel uncomfortable, even from the consequences of their own choices. Not to be sexist, since there are a lot of liberal men, it would be fairer to compare them to helicopter parents than mommies. It doesn’t matter that the kid didn’t do the work, give a helicopter parent’s kid a bad grade, or take away his cell phone for texting in class, and the helicopter parent is at the school ranting and raving that it’s un-fair, yada yada yada. Liberals, like helicopter parents don’t think. They want results for their kid and don’t care if the kid didn’t earn them, or if their kid caused the problem; they won’t tolerate their kid suffering for any reason, even his own actions. They weasel their way into every part of their child’s life seeking to remove all obstacles from their child’s path, and are risk averse to the extreme. Like Helicopter parents liberals want to constantly supervise their “children.” They have extreme risk aversion and a disproportionate paranoia about risks; such as allowing corporations to buy political ads. The “Nanny-ism” that is liberal thought, has lead to the stupidity we now see in government.
If you choose to have a baby without a partner to help you support and raise that baby, the associated cost is paying for child support; the associated risk is a possible lower standard of living for both you and the baby. If you choose not to take advantage of all the education you can, the associated cost is less employment opportunities, and the associated risk is having lower wages or unemployment. All our choices have risks and costs associated with them. If you choose to not exercise, the cost is poor health and you risk increased medical bills. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, the cost is paying all of your personal medical bills and risk being denied medical services you cannot afford. Liberals like most mommies don’t want their “children” to have choices that may put them at risk, so seek to take away choices because their “children” might choose something that has a higher risk. Go Wiki “Helicopter Parent” and see if it doesn’t describe liberals.
Consider health care, and the President’s attack on the insurance companies. The liberals attack insurance companies as outlandish profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 Obama said Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now." The problem is they make around 2.2% profit, hardly immoral or obscene profits. In fact 2.2% profit is kind of anemic compared to other industries. Coke-a-Cola makes around 28% nobody is attacking them as outlandish profiteers.
Liberals also claim that if the government runs health care they won't heartlessly reject claims the way private insurance companies reject them. The problem is that the government has a history of doing just that. The American Medical Association found that that Medicare's claim denial rate is higher than that of any other private insurer, and almost 70% higher overall than the private insurers' average denial rate.
Now let’s actually think about this. Why aren't insurance companies currently covering the conditions and people that the government wants to force them to cover? Answer: Costs, what the government wants to do will mean additional costs. At 2.2% profit insurance companies can’t absorb those additional costs so will be force to pass those costs on to customers. Insurance companies don't think we are willing to pay for those particular additional costs for those particular conditions. If insurance companies choose to cover everybody, and not exclude certain pre-existing conditions the cost would be higher premiums and the risk would be less customers willing to purchase their service. They are not willing to take this risk, and risk assessment is their business. They are correct, if we as consumers were willing to pay for additional coverages then the insurance companies would be selling them to us. In a free society individuals have a right to pick and choose with whom they do business and what services they purchase, and assume the costs and risks associated with our choices.
Costs associated with choices are a problem. They are our problem not Obama’s or any politician’s problem. It doesn’t cost anything for a politician to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. Those costs exist, they don’t go away, and aren’t magically absorbed by somebody else, they must be paid. When a politician mandates some insurance coverage it forces both the companies that sell insurance and the consumers of insurance to pay, whether they want to or not, whether it benefits them or not. The shinny eloquent words of Obama or any liberal politician leave out the dirty little secret of cost. They don’t expect people to think, because they are liberals, and they don’t think.
Liberals they don’t think about the costs to liberty the policies they want to force upon everybody to mitigate perceived risk. Freedom and liberty are not in the thoughts of liberals.
To a liberal, if it sounds good do it, don’t think about what the consequences. They want to sweep away all the obstacles that keep everybody in the country from having the best health care in the available, they don’t think about the cost. As politicians they don’t have to, they don’t suffer the costs or take any risks because they exempt themselves from their mandates, so it’s even easier for them to not think about what they are doing.
Liberals tend to act like mommies; they want to make sure everybody is safe and happy, and make sure everything is “fair”. They don’t want to see their children (or any other child) suffer, or feel uncomfortable, even from the consequences of their own choices. Not to be sexist, since there are a lot of liberal men, it would be fairer to compare them to helicopter parents than mommies. It doesn’t matter that the kid didn’t do the work, give a helicopter parent’s kid a bad grade, or take away his cell phone for texting in class, and the helicopter parent is at the school ranting and raving that it’s un-fair, yada yada yada. Liberals, like helicopter parents don’t think. They want results for their kid and don’t care if the kid didn’t earn them, or if their kid caused the problem; they won’t tolerate their kid suffering for any reason, even his own actions. They weasel their way into every part of their child’s life seeking to remove all obstacles from their child’s path, and are risk averse to the extreme. Like Helicopter parents liberals want to constantly supervise their “children.” They have extreme risk aversion and a disproportionate paranoia about risks; such as allowing corporations to buy political ads. The “Nanny-ism” that is liberal thought, has lead to the stupidity we now see in government.
If you choose to have a baby without a partner to help you support and raise that baby, the associated cost is paying for child support; the associated risk is a possible lower standard of living for both you and the baby. If you choose not to take advantage of all the education you can, the associated cost is less employment opportunities, and the associated risk is having lower wages or unemployment. All our choices have risks and costs associated with them. If you choose to not exercise, the cost is poor health and you risk increased medical bills. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, the cost is paying all of your personal medical bills and risk being denied medical services you cannot afford. Liberals like most mommies don’t want their “children” to have choices that may put them at risk, so seek to take away choices because their “children” might choose something that has a higher risk. Go Wiki “Helicopter Parent” and see if it doesn’t describe liberals.
Consider health care, and the President’s attack on the insurance companies. The liberals attack insurance companies as outlandish profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 Obama said Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now." The problem is they make around 2.2% profit, hardly immoral or obscene profits. In fact 2.2% profit is kind of anemic compared to other industries. Coke-a-Cola makes around 28% nobody is attacking them as outlandish profiteers.
Liberals also claim that if the government runs health care they won't heartlessly reject claims the way private insurance companies reject them. The problem is that the government has a history of doing just that. The American Medical Association found that that Medicare's claim denial rate is higher than that of any other private insurer, and almost 70% higher overall than the private insurers' average denial rate.
Now let’s actually think about this. Why aren't insurance companies currently covering the conditions and people that the government wants to force them to cover? Answer: Costs, what the government wants to do will mean additional costs. At 2.2% profit insurance companies can’t absorb those additional costs so will be force to pass those costs on to customers. Insurance companies don't think we are willing to pay for those particular additional costs for those particular conditions. If insurance companies choose to cover everybody, and not exclude certain pre-existing conditions the cost would be higher premiums and the risk would be less customers willing to purchase their service. They are not willing to take this risk, and risk assessment is their business. They are correct, if we as consumers were willing to pay for additional coverages then the insurance companies would be selling them to us. In a free society individuals have a right to pick and choose with whom they do business and what services they purchase, and assume the costs and risks associated with our choices.
Costs associated with choices are a problem. They are our problem not Obama’s or any politician’s problem. It doesn’t cost anything for a politician to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. Those costs exist, they don’t go away, and aren’t magically absorbed by somebody else, they must be paid. When a politician mandates some insurance coverage it forces both the companies that sell insurance and the consumers of insurance to pay, whether they want to or not, whether it benefits them or not. The shinny eloquent words of Obama or any liberal politician leave out the dirty little secret of cost. They don’t expect people to think, because they are liberals, and they don’t think.
Liberals they don’t think about the costs to liberty the policies they want to force upon everybody to mitigate perceived risk. Freedom and liberty are not in the thoughts of liberals.
More Proof/Reason that AGW is about Power not Science
Noted columnist and economist Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. He watched the Weather Channel's hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. This video lays out evidence that weather data has been manipulated to promote the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I've been saying for years that AGW is bad science. Williams then laid out in his article (see below) exactly why even if AGW is false, corporations and government will lie to prove it true. They have too much invested in power and control to allow little things like the truth get in the way of what AGW theory allows them to do.
I'be been saying for a long time that AGW is about power not science, here's more proof, and reasoning to show you just that.
Watch "Global Warming: The Other Side" here:
Read Walter Williams Column Here:
Why climate-change alarmists can't tell the truth
February 03, 2010 © 2010
By Walter Williams PhD.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen online.
The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their loss made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global-warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.
Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global-warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions, including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."
Then there's the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts, have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global-warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.
It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
What would all the beneficiaries of the global-warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know, but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.
I'be been saying for a long time that AGW is about power not science, here's more proof, and reasoning to show you just that.
Watch "Global Warming: The Other Side" here:
Read Walter Williams Column Here:
Why climate-change alarmists can't tell the truth
February 03, 2010 © 2010
By Walter Williams PhD.
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen online.
The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their loss made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global-warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.
Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global-warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions, including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."
Then there's the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts, have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global-warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.
It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."
What would all the beneficiaries of the global-warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know, but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Going Green = Stupid Investment
The New York Times Sunday online edition, had a picture of the newly renovated Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Oregon. This 18 story federal building was made "Green". It even has nearly 20 stories of plants growing on one side, that will bloom in the spring and summer when you want shade and go away in the winter when you want the sun. How cute, it has the latest in green innovations to be a "High Performance Green Building", at a cost of $133 million dollars.
Caren Auchman, spokeswoman for the General Services Administration (G.S.A.), the federal government’s property manager, said "The idea is that the cost savings are in the energy efficiency." The NY Times notes that according to the Obama administration the renovations will dramatically reduce the building's energy use, saying that it will save $280 thousand a year in energy costs. Personally I think that saving the tax payers $280K a year is cool.
“It’s going to be an amazing building,” Auchman said. It should receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certification. Automatically adjusting lighting systems, including reflectors, will cut lighting use 50 percent. Rainwater reuse and low-flow plumbing fixtures will reduce water use by 68 percent. A roof-top solar array will generate up to 15 percent of the building’s energy use, and vegetated fins on the building will help reduce heat gain in summer but allow light to come in during the winter.
I looked at the numbers, and considered them the same way I would if I'm upgrading my home to be more energy efficient, much smaller scale but still a valid comparison. I have some very small scale experience with this. This year I put in a tank-less water heater, because it saves $35 per month in electricity, and cost $800 to put in, the payoff is less than 2 years, and the life expectancy is around 20 years, so it's an excellent green investment.
Looking at this "High Performance Green Building" we see: $133,000,000 renovation vs. $280,000 annual energy savings. Some simple math and we see that the return on investment takes about 480 years. Wow! In a mere 480 years the "High Performance Green Building" will start to save money.
How can anybody ever justify this? It's like retrofitting solar panels on your house. The reason very few people do so is because it is a very stupid financial decision. I considered it for my house; I use 12KW of electricity on average every month, so to take my small house off the power grid it using photovoltaic cells, batteries, inverters, and all the other ancillary components will cost about $75,000 dollars to have the system installed. The maintenance costs that would average around $1000 per year, this is for batteries, electrician to do maintenance, etc. Yes there are government programs to help pay for part of the installation but that doesn’t change the cost whether I pay it all or get you the taxpayer to help me pay for it. My current electric bill averages $150 per month. It would take me around 40 years to recover my installation, but since the solar system has an expected life span about 30 years, I can never catch up. When I take the cost of the retrofit to my house and annual maintenance into account, by going green I would pay $350 per month for electricity. That’s 233% more for less reliable energy, and requiring me to come up with $75K dollars at one time. A stupid financial decision.
Boasting about saving $280K per year in energy costs by renovating the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building into a "High Performance Green Building" at a cost of $133 million is the typical cost-benefit analysis promoted by Obama, Al Gore, and the left in the name of “environmental responsibility”.
Caren Auchman, spokeswoman for the General Services Administration (G.S.A.), the federal government’s property manager, said "The idea is that the cost savings are in the energy efficiency." The NY Times notes that according to the Obama administration the renovations will dramatically reduce the building's energy use, saying that it will save $280 thousand a year in energy costs. Personally I think that saving the tax payers $280K a year is cool.
“It’s going to be an amazing building,” Auchman said. It should receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design platinum certification. Automatically adjusting lighting systems, including reflectors, will cut lighting use 50 percent. Rainwater reuse and low-flow plumbing fixtures will reduce water use by 68 percent. A roof-top solar array will generate up to 15 percent of the building’s energy use, and vegetated fins on the building will help reduce heat gain in summer but allow light to come in during the winter.
I looked at the numbers, and considered them the same way I would if I'm upgrading my home to be more energy efficient, much smaller scale but still a valid comparison. I have some very small scale experience with this. This year I put in a tank-less water heater, because it saves $35 per month in electricity, and cost $800 to put in, the payoff is less than 2 years, and the life expectancy is around 20 years, so it's an excellent green investment.
Looking at this "High Performance Green Building" we see: $133,000,000 renovation vs. $280,000 annual energy savings. Some simple math and we see that the return on investment takes about 480 years. Wow! In a mere 480 years the "High Performance Green Building" will start to save money.
How can anybody ever justify this? It's like retrofitting solar panels on your house. The reason very few people do so is because it is a very stupid financial decision. I considered it for my house; I use 12KW of electricity on average every month, so to take my small house off the power grid it using photovoltaic cells, batteries, inverters, and all the other ancillary components will cost about $75,000 dollars to have the system installed. The maintenance costs that would average around $1000 per year, this is for batteries, electrician to do maintenance, etc. Yes there are government programs to help pay for part of the installation but that doesn’t change the cost whether I pay it all or get you the taxpayer to help me pay for it. My current electric bill averages $150 per month. It would take me around 40 years to recover my installation, but since the solar system has an expected life span about 30 years, I can never catch up. When I take the cost of the retrofit to my house and annual maintenance into account, by going green I would pay $350 per month for electricity. That’s 233% more for less reliable energy, and requiring me to come up with $75K dollars at one time. A stupid financial decision.
Boasting about saving $280K per year in energy costs by renovating the Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building into a "High Performance Green Building" at a cost of $133 million is the typical cost-benefit analysis promoted by Obama, Al Gore, and the left in the name of “environmental responsibility”.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
