Pay Attention Moron

Obit for the newspaper

2009-10-29T10:55:00.004-05:00

Today's Class - Media 101

Call me old fashioned, but I always liked reading the newspaper, especially the sports page and the metro section to see what’s happening locally. You may have noticed that I didn’t mention the front page. No, reading the first section of the newspaper would often times raise my blood pressure to dangerous levels. The bias on display in the paper, both subtle and overt, was almost daily and it finally drove me to get my information elsewhere.

Examples are endless but the part that bothered me the most was how they slanted their message in ways that the average person would miss it entirely. Small things like if there was a political scandal involving a Democrat their party affiliation was never stated. If it was a democratic member of the House of Representatives, you’d see things like “Joe Blow Rep. Louisiana” giving the reader the impression he was actually a Republican. Conversely if it was a Republican, there wasn’t a paragraph that didn’t remind you of the fact and quite often it would be “conservative republican John Smith…” Another way they played with words was by the use of “pro” and “anti.” If the point was on the left of the issue it was always “pro choice” or “pro gun control.” On the right it was “anti abortion” never “pro life” which was what they wanted to be called.

You would even see bias in the pictures used accompanying the article. Every time there was a story on gay marriage, the picture was always of a lesbian couple, often times coming out the church in their wedding attire holding hands. There was never a photo of two men in their “kiss the bride” moment.

A while back I sent the following letter to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To my surprise they actually ran it:

I recently read an article on the financial difficulties faced by many of the country’s newspapers. The list included the Star-Telegram which came as no surprise to me. Having been in the business world for over 30 years you learn a few things. I’d have to say tops on the list would be to sell a product or service that the people in your market desire having.

I could ask why would a newspaper in the midst of one of the country’s most conservative areas insist on skewing everything to the left, but I think we already know the answer. It’s simply liberal elitism; you’re secure in the knowledge that you know what’s best. That it’s your responsibility to educate the ignorant rednecks of Tarrant County and show them the error of their beliefs. It’s the same nanny state mentality that is so invasive amongst progressives.

If you decided to open a restaurant in downtown Cowtown would you only serve tofu and bean sprouts? No? Why not? It would be a healthy meal for your patrons. You wouldn’t because you’d know they’d just go next door and order a big steak or some enchiladas.

So back to my earlier question, why do you insist on serving a big helping of leafy green vegetables to your readers instead of the barbecued ribs they want? Well don’t fret too much about it. You’ll be able to hold your head high when they shut down the presses and turn off the lights. You stuck with your principles to the end.

Well either they or their readers didn’t get the sarcasm because there were angry responses from readers of my calling the residents of Tarrant Co. rednecks.

I know I’m not alone in my frustration with the media. I recently read that so many people are reading articles from European online newspapers that they are trying to remake their online advertising appeal to their American readers. It’s sad that you have to go to England to get an unbiased news report, or even more importantly, news that American newspapers don’t even bother running.

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

2009-10-02T09:40:00.007-05:00

Today's Class - Music 101

OK class, I hope you've all warmed up those vocal chords. Let's all sing along:

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Terrorists are not our foes, let’s shut down Guantánamo

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Economy comes to a halt, don’t you know it’s Bush’s fault

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Taxes are just legal theft, take and take ‘til nothings left

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Safe School Czar likes little boys, thinks they should be sexual toys

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Qaddafi, Chavez, Zelaya, they all love the messiah

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Tax those rich folks ‘til they cry, Obamacare let’s seniors die

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

He’s a great apologist, sucking up to communists

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

ACORN scandals everywhere. Investigate? Hey, that’s not fair!

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

His policies are now attacked, you can’t do that because he’s black

mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama

Now, go ahead and teach this to you kids.

Well that's it for today.

Courtesy of The Allamon Cartoon Blog

This is all so very taxing.

2009-07-28T14:56:00.006-05:00

Today’s class: Economics 101

Whether you want to believe it or not, every time you raise taxes there is a trickledown effect that negatively impacts everyone. It you tax people, they have less to spend on goods and services, less to invest, less to give to charities, etc. All of which causes job loss. When you tax corporations they have to reduce costs (lay off people) or increase prices. Increased prices paid by you have the same effect as if your taxes were increased. It’s a viscous cycle and like it or not, it’s the “rich” in this country that create jobs. Next time you see a homeless person holding a sign on a street corner ask him if he’s hiring.

Almost everyone would agree that some level of taxation is good for society as a whole but unfortunately, politicians love spending other people’s money and they do so with reckless abandon. Why should people in Louisiana be taxed to pay for a new bike path in Seattle? If the fine people in Seattle feel they need a new bike path, let them pay for it.

That being said, you can’t turn on a TV or read a newspaper without seeing where someone wants to, or is going to, raise the taxes on someone or something.

Here recently there’s been talk about taxing cosmetic surgery to pay for healthcare. I do find it a bit ironic that the boobs in Washington want to tax boob-jobs. But what about the person whose self esteem is affected by an exceedingly large nose? A lot of dental surgery is also cosmetic.

Now there’s the proposal in the L.A. Times entitled “Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare” What they’re really saying is that we did it with cigarettes, let’s do it to soda and potato chips. Sorry folks, but it wouldn’t be just “fat” people paying this tax, it would be everyone who purchases any item deemed “unhealthy” by your nanny state politicians.

Here's an idea. In a previous post I discussed Cap and Trade. I believe we can take that a step further.

We should make everyone wear monitors that measure the amount of carbon dioxide being exhaled and levy a tax based on the amount that exceeds a set limit. This would be like the Cap and Trade bill but would work on an individual, and not industrial, level. As we ALL know, carbon dioxide is the leading cause of global warming so this would help the environment. Let’s say if you’re a jogger, or a blowhard politician, you could buy carbon credits from couch potatoes. The couch potatoes could then use the money to help pay for their fat tax.

Thanks for attending

This is not another "Where's the Birth Certificate?" blog (per se)

2009-07-16T15:02:00.007-05:00

I’ve avoided this topic up until now for a couple reasons. One it sounded like to much like a conspiracy theory and I prefer to deal with facts, not fantasy. The other reason is that I kept thinking there’s no way someone ineligible to run for President of the United States would actually try to do so.

Then along came the strange case of U.S. Army Reserve Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, who was attempting to make the case that if he was deployed to Afghanistan he could be tried for war crimes. He was not some nut job trying to avoid going to war. His argument was that without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military could be viewed as "war criminals and subject to prosecution" in the eyes of the world court. The reason he was concerned is because there is no evidence proving that Obama was actually born in the United States with is a requirement of Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. No birth certificate has been provided and Obama has spent over a million dollars in lawyer fees to prevent its release along with other supporting evidence such as college records and passport information. According to Obama's grandmother he was born in Africa. During an interview she states ‘Barack, Jr. was born in Mombosa, Kenya and I was present during his birth.’

I’m not going to go into all the details regarding the birth certificate vs. the certificate of live birth, the forgery, etc. A web search will take you to several sites that will break it down for you.

Now here comes the strange part. The day after a judge in California agreed to review Cook's case the Army rescinded (for you PSGs that means withdrew) his deployment orders. It was like the government couldn’t prove Obama was eligible so they took away Cook’s reason for the lawsuit.

This got me thinking. Cook's same tactic could be used against any law that has been signed by Obama. If he’s not legitimate, any law he signs can’t be legal. Here are a few things the come to mind. I'm sure you can come up with others.

1. For you smokers out there, you need to keep your receipts so you can get a refund from the IRS for the 62 cent a pack tax increase that Obama signed.

2. All those auto dealers that were forced to close need to go to court because the GM and Chrysler bailouts were illegal.

3. If someone is brought up on charges for breaking a law signed by Obama, they already have a built in defense. Show me the birth certificate…

Those Rascally Racist Republicans (Part II)

2009-07-07T15:37:00.008-05:00

Today’s class: History 101

In my first blog on this subject I made the statement that Democrats feel that blacks are better off enslaved. I made that statement based on not what they say but what they actually do.

When well intentioned white liberals went into poor black neighborhoods carrying promises of government assistance under LBJ’s Great Society. They also brought the news that “sorry, but you can’t get it if you’re married.” The "Great Society" plan poured billions of taxpayer dollars into a program that paid unmarried women based on the number of children she had. The part liberals didn’t understand was that this would result in millions of men leaving their families so they could get the “free money.” This was the beginning of what we have today, high unemployment, high out of wedlock births, high crime rates, and generation after generation of government dependence.

This program did nothing to lift blacks out of poverty and into self dependence. It only resulted in keeping them on the government plantation and a slave to the masters in Washington. You see, economic freedom is true freedom. You aren’t indebted to anyone but yourself. Today’s slaves, while not in the field picking cotton, are still beholden to their masters for all their needs; food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc., just as their enslave ancestors.

Star Parker puts it this way: “Lincoln took two great lies head on when he emancipated the slaves. The lie that one man should or could control another's life. And the lie that the African slaves could not be free.”

“It is the greatest of ironies that both these great lies animate the opposition of the Democratic Party -- and the NAACP -- to emancipating reforms like school choice and private retirement accounts. They believe that government and politicians should control the education choice of private citizens and should control savings and retirement funds of poor people. And they don't believe that African-Americans can be free and take care of themselves.”

“A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from ‘How do I take care of myself?’ to ‘What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?’ The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families."

There is obviously a belief among the left that blacks can’t improve their station in life on their own, either their not smart enough (Affirmative Action at colleges) or aren’t capable enough to get a job (hiring quotas) without the help of the Washington masters.

As Thomas Sowell sees it: “while most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty, the public image is that government programs were responsible. This has left many whites wondering why blacks can't advance themselves by their own efforts, like other minorities -- and left many blacks likewise convinced that without government programs they would be lost."

“Such myths help race hustlers but hurt the race that they claim to be leading.”

What’s not being said is that wanting to give someone the tools to lift themselves up, wanting government to get out of the way and let people succeed, both of which are at the foundation of conservatism, is not racist. The color of someone’s skin should never matter. Equality knows no color.

And finally here’s a fun little fact that I should have included in my first post:

How many realize that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? It was formed on July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, by 150 blacks and 20 whites. Blacks across other Southern states founded Republican parties as well.

After 40 years of failed Democratic promises and programs, maybe it’s time for blacks to come home; back to the Republican Party. Believe me when I say you’d be welcomed with open arms.

Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 non-profit think tank that provides a national voice of reason on issues of race and poverty - in the media, inner city neighborhoods, and public policy.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, Calif. author, economist, and professor.

Welcome to the USSA

2009-07-01T08:45:00.007-05:00

Today's class: Future History 101

Pryvet Comrades,

Welcome to a new and glorious Amerika. Yes comrades, the change we hoped for is upon us.

In our splendid new nation we can finally be done with the outdated vision of the founding fathers, that the government's job is only to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property. With the super majority now in place in the Senate and our superior forces in the House, the magnificent Chosen One can now lead the charge to greatness.

We can proudly become workers for the government, one that is now free to take the property of the productive and use it to bring about "economic justice." The fruits of our labor now belong to government ... and our grand and glorious government can do with them what it pleases.

For the first time in our history, we can use the police power of the state to collect taxes, not for the legitimate functions of government but, to promote "fairness" in our economy. The bourgeoisie will now be brought to their knees. They have had more wealth than they deserved and we now have the right to take it away and give it to those who really deserve it.

Amerika will now be a land where every worker will belong to a union, where our schools can now radicalize and politicize our students just as the messiah and Ayers worked so hard to do in Chicago, where we can proudly serve in Obama’s civilian corps, where we can bring down the evil capitalists and nationalize industry, and care for our comrades with socialized medicine. The arrogant America that was will no longer exist. Its riches will be wiped away and its money made worthless. The new and glorious Amerika is at last a place where someone who chooses to have friends and advisors who are communists, terrorists, racists, and thieves is no longer held back and despised, but is propelled to greatness.

Now stand with me and raise your voices and proudly repeat our new pledge of allegiance!

I pledge allegiance to the workers party and to the United Socialist States of Amerika, and to the government for whom we rely on to fulfill all our needs, one nation, under the chosen one, indivisible, with economic fairness for all!

Those Rascally Racist Republicans

2009-06-29T14:17:00.010-05:00

Today’s class: History 101

We keep hearing that Republicans, and other forms of conservatives, are just a bunch of white bigots and racists. That is why 95% of Blacks voted Democrat in the last election. I thought it would be fun to take an in-depth look at those mean ol’ conservatives (aka Racist Repulicans) and contrast them with the more understanding, tolerant Democrat Party of the left.

And what better place to begin than at the beginning…

The Racist Republican Party was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists that included many who left the Democratic Party due to the party’s position on the Fugitive Slave Law (forcing the return of runaway slaves) and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which allowed for the expansion of slave states). Those Racist Republicans didn’t understand that Blacks were better off being slaves like the Democrats did. The Democrats understood that Blacks needed their white masters. When the slave states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, the north, led by the Racist Republican party, declared war. 360,000 northerners died to free the slaves, 260,000 southerners, led by the Democratic Party, died to keep them enslaved.

After the war, the understanding, tolerant Democratic Party kept a strong hold over the southern states and did whatever they could to keep Blacks in their place (again, for their own good). They were also behind the formation of such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan.

When Thaddeus Stevens, a Racist Republican, introduced legislation to give Blacks the so-called 40 acres and a mule the understanding, tolerant Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it.

Racist Republicans such as General Oliver Howard and Henry Morehouse started Black colleges, while understanding, tolerant Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many Black schools are named after white Racist Republicans.

It was understanding, tolerant Democrats that opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which were introduced by Racist Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all Blacks born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.

In 1883 a new field of studies began call Eugenics which believed you could advance the human race by discouraging “less desirables” (Jews, Blacks, etc.) from breeding and encouraging the more desirable (aka whites of European decent) to reproduce. One of the strong believers in Eugenics was tolerant, understanding Democrat Woodrow Wilson, our 28th president.

Many Blacks begin moving from the Racist Republican Party to the tolerant, understanding Democratic Party during the FDR (one of Barrack Obama’s heroes) administration. FDR admired Wilson and expanded on many of his programs. We can see what FDR thought about Blacks from what he said to Winston Churchill about British controlled Caribbean islands:

I told Winston, listen Winston, those places are nothing but a headache to you – you know that. They cost the British Treasury five million pounds – nearly 25 million dollars - every year. They are nothing but a headache. If you think I want your headaches, you are mistaken. I don’t. Furthermore those places are inhabited by some 8 million dark-skinned gentlemen and I don’t want them coming to the United States and adding to the problem we already have with our 13 million black men. I tell you, Winston, it’s just a headache and you can keep it.

Understanding, tolerant Democrats opposed passage of many laws that were introduced by Racist Republicans:

Civil Rights Act 1866 - Reconstruction Act of 1867 - Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866 - Enforcement Act of 1870 - Force Act of 1871 - Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 - Civil Rights Act of 1875 - Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Civil Rights Act of 1960 - And during the 60's many understanding, tolerant Democrats fought to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act - 1965 Voting Rights Acts - 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act.

After signing the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a Racist Republican started what we know as Affirmative Action.

Racist Republican President Ronald Reagan signed into law the bill to make Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.

Understanding, tolerant Democratic President Clinton (the 1st Black President according to him) sent 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the Black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacred.

Blacks have voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the past 25 years yet they would be pressed to name one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the understanding, tolerant Democratic Party.

Today the tolerant, understanding Democratic party believes the same things the Democratic Party believed prior to, during, and after the Civil War: that Blacks are better off on the plantation and still need their white masters.

In a future class, I’ll be happy to explain that last statement.

Thanks for attending.

Welcome to the Plantation

2009-06-25T10:46:00.007-05:00

Today’s class: History 101

I’d like to begin today’s class with a quote from one of the most brilliant thinkers this country has ever seen, Benjamin Franklin. ‘When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.’

I promised you in my very first post an explanation on why we need to tap the brakes on government intervention and spending. So let’s begin.

There has been a slow but steady trend in this country towards government dependence and with every step we give up more and more freedom. We are becoming slaves to the D.C. plantation and we have only ourselves to blame. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor. We fall, to varying degrees, into either looking to the government to solve all our needs and/or are paying the bill. Either way, we’re giving up our liberty.

When this country was founded we were warned this might happen and the writers of the Constitution tried to include as many safeguards as possible.

Thomas Jefferson – ‘Dependence begets subservience and venality’ (for you PSG’s venality means you’re open to bribery or being “bought”).

See what I mean. Mr. Jefferson understood that as we become more dependent on government, the more we serve the master. Government “bribes” us all the time. “Give up your freedom and well give you free healthcare” is the latest example. What freedoms are we giving up? The freedom to spend our own money and not have it taken from us by force, the freedom to make our own medical decisions and not have them made by a bureaucrat in Washington are two that come to mind.

James Madison – ‘Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

What the brilliant Mr. Madison was trying to tell us is to look at the history behind the Constitution to understand what was intended. We’ve chosen to ignore his advice and the results are not pretty.

The government’s role is not to take care of your every need from cradle to grave. Let me again quote Mr. Madison:

‘The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.'

So, go ahead and continue giving up your freedoms to the “Mastah” in Washington and we’ll see you on the plantation.

Thanks for attending.

Political cartoon byAllamon: http://allamon-theallamoncartoonblog.blogspot.com/
click the link to view full size

CAP the gas AND TRADE in your paycheck

2009-06-23T10:48:00.003-05:00

Today’s class: Government 101

Well here it comes; the innocent sounding American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, HR 2454. My goodness, how can one be against clean energy and security? I bet it’s “for the children.”

Well the main provision of the bill calls for cap-and-trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (also known at carbon dioxide). For more details on this deadly gas, please read my Science 101 class posted on June 11.

Here’s how cap-and-trade works. Under cap-and-trade, the federal government puts limits (the Cap) on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced by companies. The cap would be divided into billions of permits that gives the permit holders the right to emit approximately one metric ton of carbon dioxide. Companies would have to purchase enough permits to cover their gas emissions and give them to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If the don’t use all their permits, they can sell them to companies that need more (the Trade). Anyway, why should we care?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates it will cost us $22 billion a year by 2020, or $175 for every household. If you know anything about the CBO, they always way underestimate. This “cost” to you is the amount the CBO guestimates that companies will increase their prices to cover the cost of the permits. The biggest increases will be in utilities (electricity and natural gas) and gasoline.

Others, far smarter than me, have researched the effects of cap-and-trade and they’re estimates come in a bit higher than the CBO’s. They’re saying the increases are somewhere closer to $3600 a year for electricity and natural gas as well as $7 or more per gallon of gas.

Will it get that high? I have no idea, but if I had to guess it will probably end up somewhere between the CBO figures and the smart guy analysts. And that’s why we need to care.

So what do we do in the meantime? Guess you could try holding your breath so you don’t breathe out too much CO2 and have to buy a permit.

Thanks for attending.

Unhealthy Healthcare (continued from previous post)

2009-06-22T10:17:00.007-05:00

Today’s class: Health 101

You’re hearing a lot about the terrible healthcare crisis we have in this country. You’re told that there are millions of uninsured, that costs are spiraling out of control, and we have to do something now before it’s too late. Geez, there must be thousands of people dropping dead in the streets for lack of coverage if things are so bad out (sorry, but I haven’t had to step over any bodies yet). And what solution does the government come up with to solve this crisis? Destroy our current healthcare system. Before we let that happen, let’s take a look at some of facts.

First of all, there aren’t thousands of people croaking out there due to lack of coverage. Did you realize that they’re only talking about 15% of the population? That’s right, 85% of you are covered and surveys have shown that 89% are happy with the coverage they have. Who are these fifteen-percenters? They include people who could afford coverage but choose to spend their money elsewhere, people between jobs, and some 2 million behind bars (for you PSGs no, I’m not talking about bartenders but about those in jail or prison) who have access to medical services.

There are already several options available for those who can truly not afford coverage - Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and many other federal and state plans. And don’t forget that the law requires emergency rooms to see anyone free of charge. They may have to wait awhile before getting to see a doctor, but hey, we’ll all have to wait a long time if the government’s plan goes into effect.

OK, that blows the uninsured crisis out of the water, what about the out of control costs crisis? If you ask doctors about it, they point to two main factors; government regulations and malpractice lawsuits.

Let’s take a look at the malpractice issue. Because we’re so damned lawsuit happy in this country, doctors are forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year for protection and much of these costs are passed along to the patients. Doctors are so afraid of missing something in a diagnosis and getting sued that they often put patients through a battery of unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover all the bases, thus adding more to the cost of healthcare. This problem could easily be addressed with national tort reform but that will never happen. Why? Because tort lawyers are some of the biggest campaign contributors. So once again, our representative will not do what’s right for you but only what’s best for themselves.

Government intervention is also driving up the costs for insurance. Insurance companies would love to be able to offer “shopping cart” type plans but state and federal laws prevent them from doing so. Under this type of plan, insurance companies could develop low-cost alternatives where people could choose the best coverage for them. If you just want a plan that covers catastrophic illness and accidents, it would cost a lot less than a plan to cover every single visit to the doctor. Insurance companies are forced to cover things like smoking cessation (don’t smoke? Too bad, you’re paying to get help stopping), and mental illness (you may not be crazy but you’re paying for someone’s shrink). Adding to the problem is that every time someone gets the sniffles they’re running to the doctor because it’s covered. If you had to pay out of your own pocket, you’d probably just stay home, take a couple aspirin, and drink chicken soup.

Bottom line, there’s really only one thing to keep in mind. Ask your representatives (Senators and Congressmen) this: “If the government’s health plan is so great why aren’t you going to sign up for it?” You see, when they write these sweeping laws that are “good for the people” or “it’s for the children” they also add in clauses exempting themselves from participating.

Well that’s all for today.

Thanks for attending.

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Unhealthy Healthcare

2009-06-19T09:28:00.004-05:00

Today’s class: Health 101

O.K. class, I’d like every one of you who enjoy going to the post office to raise your hand. How ‘bout the DMV? Gee, I don’t see many hands out there. Another thing not too many of us enjoy is going to see the doctor. Unless it’s for your annual physical, you’re usually sick or in pain. Just wait until we get to combine the fun of going to the doctor with the fun of going to the post office. Woo Hoo!

Well that scenario is coming faster than you think. It’s the future of healthcare in the U.S. It’s already the Canadian system and the British system and it’s coming to a clinic near you. Here’s what it’s like:

You’ll go to your neighborhood government healthcare facility (oh by the way, you no longer get to see your doctor, you get to see a doctor) you’ll check in with some bored, unmotivated government employee, you’ll get your number, and asked to take a seat. When the next Dr. becomes available you’ll be ushered back, given a rushed examination, and then be shown the door as quickly as possible. You see, the plan is to reduce the amount paid for various procedures so the only way to make up for it is in volume.

We will then begin seeing a huge shortage of doctors because who would want to spend 12 years in college and tens of thousands of dollars, then spend another 4 years in residency, only to end up making far less than doctors do today; and a good portion of that income is spent on malpractice insurance. We will have to begin importing doctors from other countries, just like England does today. These foreign doctors, most of which are from India, the Middle East, and Africa, are far less educated and competent that their U.S. counterparts. The Canadians haven’t experienced this yet because most of their doctors spend half of their time practicing in the United States. Once we implement our government run healthcare system, the Canadians will begin to experience the same. (As an aside, thousands of Canadians come to the U.S. every year for healthcare because they can't get it at home).

Right now you’re hearing all kinds of phrases like “government option.” Believe me, it won’t be an option when companies drop their health insurance coverage and force their employees into the “government option.” This will occur because private insurance companies will be unable to compete with a government-run insurance program, one with nearly unlimited resources.

Think I’m exaggerating? All I can say is that once it happens it’ll be too late to do anything about it. So if you don’t pay attention to what’s going on now, don’t go whining about it when you’re living it.

In our next class I’ll continue this discussion and explain why this is happening and some alternatives we should look at.

Thanks for attending.

Deficit Disorder

2009-06-18T08:10:00.003-05:00

Today’s class: Economics 101

When I saw the following quote I about fell out of my chair:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The United States government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy, President-elect Barack Obama said in a television interview.

Well I for one do worry about the deficits, as should you. It is currently estimated that in 2012 the federal debt will be more than $15 trillion and the annual interest will be between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion depending on the interest rate. Now folks, this number is just debt. This is money they’re planning on spending over what they’re taking in. These are last year’s figures, but the total taxes collected by the federal government were $2.67 trillion. That would mean if they stopped spending a dime, it would take 6 years just to pay it off.

It’s hard to get your mind around such big numbers but I’ll try to put them in perspective. The total income for all U.S. households is around $8 trillion. The total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total of all domestic goods and services produced, is estimated at $13.8 trillion, making it the largest in the world. Pause here for a second… Our debt will be higher than our GDP.

Now let’s make this personal. There are approximately 306 million people living in the United States. That means that there will be $50,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. If you’re a family of 4, your share is $200,000.

Don’t worry you say. We won’t have to pay it; we’ll just stick it to the rich and make them pay. OK, great idea. If you tax everyone who makes $250,000 a year at 100%, for you PSG’s that means you take everything they earn, the country would run out of money in 3 months. Guess that won’t work, how about those mean evil corporations. We’ll just tax the hell out of them and solve our problem. Remember that GDP figure I threw out earlier? Sorry, not enough money there either. Besides, you raise their taxes and they can only do 2 things in response. Raise their prices (in other words pass their taxes on to you) or cut spending. And what’s the largest expense that most companies incur? Personnel. That’s right; more of you will be out on the street.

I do have a radical idea to help with this mess. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FREAKIN’ MONEY!!!

There, problem solved.

Thanks for attending

We’ve tried all this before...

2009-06-17T08:21:00.006-05:00

Today’s Class: Economics 101

In our last economics class I talked about how the government’s intervention in our current recession wouldn’t work.

There have been numerous economic downturns throughout our U.S. history, many of them mild, others catastrophic. One thing they had in common was that they were short lived, most of them over in a couple years. The other thing they had in common was that the federal government did little or nothing to intervene. That was until…

In 1929, there was an economic downturn followed by a collapse of the stock market. Then came massive government intervention, let’s call it the country’s first “stimulus package.” In response to the collapse, President Herbert Hoover and the U.S. Congress enacted many of the policies Obama and Congress want to do today. They bailed out banks, farmers, and businesses, raised tariffs, and sent financial help to various states to fund relief efforts.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President, he took all of these intrusive programs and “super-sized” them and then piled more programs on top. The result of all this “stimulus” was a deep depression where the economy didn't fully recover until 1946.

Think about it. When the government wasn’t overly interventionist during an economic downturn, the economy rebounded in a few short years. When they did the opposite, it took over 15 years to recover. Many economists feel that if it were not for World War II, it might have taken even longer.

Now let’s take a quick look at an opposite reaction. There was another recession in the early 1980’s. In response, the government dramatically reduced income taxes and deregulated business (for you PSG’s, that means they stopped telling them how to run their business). Many in congress fought the tax reductions fearing that it would drastically reduce the amount of available federal funds. The results were nearly 20 years of sustained growth. Those fears of less money coming into the federal government were proved wrong as well. There was actually in increase.

How can that be you ask? There’s no way that lowering taxes could actually bring in more money. Well it turned out that the tax reductions made more money available for investment. That investment resulted in a roaring economy in which more people were employed, new companies were created, and existing companies expanded. And that generated more taxable income.

So class, we must ask ourselves. Considering the current economic situation, what should the government be doing? “Stimulating”, or maybe just getting the hell out of the way? Let’s just hope that it won’t take 15 years and another world war for us to get out of this mess.

Thanks for attending.

The Female Schindler

2009-06-16T08:20:00.003-05:00

Today’s class: History 101

As a follow up to yesterday’s class I’d like to tell you about a remarkable lady by the name of Irena Sendler who passed away a little over a year ago.

Irena was a Polish social worker who lived in Warsaw during World War II. She obtained a special permit as sewer specialist ostensibly to inspect for typhus. Her real motive was to use her access to smuggle out the small children and babies of the Jews living in the Warsaw Ghetto.

She carried them away hidden in boxes, suitcases, backpacks, and even burlap sacks and placed them with Polish Catholic families. Approximately 2,500 children were saved as a result of her efforts.

She was eventually captured by the Germans, severely tortured and beaten, had both her arms and legs broken and was sentenced to death. Before her sentence could be carried out her guards were bribed to obtain her release.

Irena kept the names of all the kids she smuggled out in a glass jar buried in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived to reunite them with their children. Most of them had perished in the Ghetto or in concentration camps.

In 2007 she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Unfortunately, what Irena Sendler did and the sacrifices she made were nothing compared to the man who beat her out for the prize and the cash award. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize went to Al Gore and his bogus Global Warming slide show…

Thanks for attending

Show me the money!

2009-06-15T08:04:00.003-05:00

Today's Class: Science 101 (Cont.)

O.K. Class, just as I said last time, make you to read the previous Science Class 101 post(s) prior to continuing with this one.

Billions of dollars in grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon, $20 billion from the Bush administration alone. Nothing wrong with making money. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is just a big cash grab.

National, state, and local governments are salivating at the thought of selling carbon credits and fining homeowners and businesses for excessive energy use.

For the last 2 years NBC has been touting itself as the “Green Network” and promoting its green week as it worked environmental message into all of its programming. Last year it was the only network that would carry Al Gore’s global warming awareness concert. Amid its calls for individual sacrifice and for “green” legislation, it’s funny how they failed to disclose that its parent company stands to get rich off of environmentalist laws.

NBC Universal is owned by General Electric. They’re making a killing offering products with low demand and then lobbying for mandates or subsidies. An example is wind turbines. Absent subsidies, there might be no windmill industry because windmills cannot reliably produce energy, and certainly not as affordably as traditional fuels such as coal. And remember those little CFL light bulbs I talked about in the last post? Guess who makes those. It wouldn’t happened to be GE would it?

GE has also launched a venture dealing in “greenhouse gas credits,” which are literally worthless unless Congress limits greenhouse gas emissions.

How about Mr. Chicken Little? Think Al Gore’s doing this out of concern for the environment? I’m sure as he’s flying around the world in private jets and being driven around in limos he’s worried about his carbon footprint. His gas and electric bills on his Tennessee home was over $30,000 in 2005. Well is seems he too has ulterior motives. He has 9.5% ownership in Camco, which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios, works with companies to identify and develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits.

The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, the projected death of our oceans, and even global cooling. None of these predictions came true and it looks like global warming is the next doomed prophecy.

As more and more people have come to realize that global warming is a hoax, the environmentalists have changed tactics. Think about it. When was the last time someone used the term global warming? It’s now “Climate Change.” Boy how can you argue against that one. The climate changes in my back yard almost every day. My God! I’ve got to do something! It was 98 degrees yesterday and today it’s 95! We’re all going to die! OK that was just sarcasm, but you get the point.

So hopefully the truth will come out sooner than later. In the meantime, we can always plant more trees.

Well that ends our little science lesson for today.

Thanks for attending.

Baby its cold outside.

2009-06-12T08:58:00.005-05:00

Today's Class: Science 101 (Cont.)

O.K. Class, if you haven’t already done so, you need to read the previous post prior to continuing with this one.

According to studies by paleoclimatetologists, heating and cooling cycles have been going on since dinosaurs roamed the earth. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet and global temperatures have gone into decline. The earth has cooled for almost eleven straight years. Despite this trend the British government's Meteorological Office announced in 2006 that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998. Well, guess what? Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA, and the University of Alabama/Huntsville say that temperatures dropped last year between 0.59 and 0.75 degree C. Woops. In fact it was so bad it set record lows in South America, Buenos Aires saw its first snow in 89 years, it snowed in Johannesburg South Africa, New Hampshire set an all time record for snowfall, and Canada had the coldest winter in 15 years. Wow, if this global warming thing gets any worse, we’ll all freeze to death.

We are asked to believe computer models that predict the dire consequences of global warming and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet, yet Britain’s head meteorological agency couldn’t even get one year right. Hey, good luck getting an accurate forecast for next Sunday, let alone for the year 2025.

And to make matters worse, the proposed cures for this non-existent global warming are already wreaking havoc around the world. Here are a couple quick examples:

First of all is the pressure to move to the more eco-friendly ethanol. Food prices are now rising for all grains as farmers stop growing other crops in favor of the more lucrative corn. We are also paying more for everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including cereals, bread, animals that are fed corn, and foods that use corn or corn syrup. Food shortages and/or high costs have led to food riots in third world countries. The fertilizers used to grow the corn have now washed into the Gulf of Mexico and is wreaking havoc on that eco system.

Did you know congress is mandating the use of compact fluorescent bulbs and banning regular incandescent light bulbs by 2012? Gee how nice. One minor problem. The Environmental Protection Agency says breakage of the energy-saving, mercury-containing CFLs can cause serious health hazards. If bulbs break over carpeted areas, the cleanup may require cutting out pieces of the carpet to avoid toxic exposures. And did anyone stop to think about the effect of millions of those bulbs breaking in landfills and mercury getting into our water supply? It’s already unsafe to eat certain fish because of mercury content, so now we add to the problem?

O.K., by now you must be thinking ‘if you’re right and global warming is fiction, how could so many scientists, news agencies, governments, and businesses be saying otherwise?' Well it’s all about the money.

Well that’s it for today. Come back Monday for the conclusion of our discussion.Thanks for attending.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

2009-06-11T08:20:00.004-05:00

Today's Class: Science 101

I’m sure most of you remember the classic fable of “Chicken Little” who while eating lunch one day under and oak tree had an acorn fall on her head. She was convinced that the sky was falling and rushed off to tell the king while getting everyone in the kingdom worked up along the way. We have the same scenario happening today but we’re not being told the sky is falling, we’re being told it’s getting hotter.

We can’t turn on the TV or read a newspaper without being hit over the head with dire Global Warming predictions. It doesn’t matter if it’s raining or dry, hot or cold, many hurricanes or no hurricanes, we’re told it’s due to global warming. The ice is melting and polar bears are swimming for their lives, islands are sinking, thousands will die from the heat, our food supply will be disrupted killings thousands more. And to top it off, we’re told it’s our fault, and that’s a fact, no further discussion needed. Newsweek ran a cover story that declared the global warming debate over and Al Gore, the biggest chicken little of them all, declared that there’s a consensus amongst scientists.

Well I’m here to declare that maybe we ought to pause a second and let me give you a few inconvenient truths you’re not hearing from the mainstream media.

First of all, yes the planet has warmed. We’re told that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is acting as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and warming the planet. And what is this horrible substance that’s ruining our planet. (For you PSG’s) It’s the gas we exhale every time we breathe out, the same stuff Mr. Tree breathes in order to live. Oooohhh, scary stuff. Well it’s true what Mr. Gore’s charts show. As temps go up, so does carbon dioxide. What he failed to mention was that warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release more carbon dioxide. That’s right, higher carbon dioxide levels follow increases in temperatures, not the other way around. It’s like saying cancer causes smoking.

So if not carbon dioxide, what caused us to warm up? A growing number of scientists are blaming it on the big yellow ball in the sky. And guess what, we’re not alone. Pluto, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn all are experiencing global warming and I’d venture a guess that’s it’s not being caused by aliens driving SUVs.

Well that will wrap it up for day. We will continue our discussion tomorrow.Thanks for attending.

Let’s get stimulated!

2009-06-10T07:54:00.009-05:00

Welcome back students. Today’s class is:

Economics 101

Did any of you happen to see the AP (Associated Press for the PSG’s) story yesterday which stated “President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history? Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.”

Well, sorry to tell you, but that’s not going to help matters any more than the previous spending. All anyone has to do is take a look at what’s in the stimulus package to quickly realize that it contains nothing that would stimulate an economy; it’s just political pork (spending that only brings money to a representative's district). And most of it isn’t even scheduled to be spent until late 2009/2010. Tell me how the promise of spending more money in future years is going to do anything to help the economy today.

The stimulus bill was never intended to stimulate anything with the possible exception of the politicians’ weenies (or clitoris in the case of the Speaker of the House). It was just an opportunity to get their agendas passed. If you don’t believe me look as what Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, said in November, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It provides the opportunity to do things that were not possible to do before.”

You can't stimulate the economy by taking money from one person (taxing) and giving it to another to spend because now the taxed person has less to spend. You are only moving the money elsewhere. As Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University, put it: "It's like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of a pool and dumping it into the shallow end. Funny thing -- the water in the shallow end doesn't get any deeper."

I think that should be enough to mull over for today.

Thanks for attending.

Time to wake up, schools about to start...

2009-06-09T11:40:00.008-05:00

I was lucky to have gone to school where the educators were concerned about teaching us math, science, history, geography, reading and writing. And guess what? We were expected to learn it. Believe it or not, those subjects actually helped me throughout my life. Now kids are taught fairness, self esteem, that there are no winners or losers only participants, that little Tommy has two daddies. .. Kids are no longer expected to learn. If they don’t perform they’re passed along to the next grade anyway so they don’t get their little egos bruised. They end up dropping out or, if they do graduate, they do so at a 3rd grade level or worse. I’m not saying this is true in all cases, but even a few are far too many. Call me old fashioned, but how the hell is that going to help prepare them for the “real world?”

So class, get your pencils sharpened and prepare to take notes.

Today’s Class: U.S. History 101

Nearly two and a quarter centuries ago an amazing event occurred. Call it a perfect storm if you will. A group of brilliant thinkers and doers came together and, for the first time in recorded human history, created a nation that gave its people the power to govern themselves. OK, pause a second and let that sink in.

Why did this come about? In a nutshell a bunch of people got mad as hell and decided they weren’t going to take it anymore. And what was it that got them so pissed? They were being told what to do by a bunch of guys in pantaloons and powdered wigs living almost 4,000 miles away. Well that’s not totally accurate. It wasn’t so much being told what to do; it was the fact that no one from the colonies had a voice in British Parliament. And to make it worse, they were being taxed on top of it. Remember that phrase “Taxation without representation?”

Alright, by know you’re thinking “what the crap is all this about? We learned this boring American Revolution, Founding Fathers, yadda yadda yadda BS in school.”

Yea I know but bear with me a bit. I just need to throw out some background info for you public school graduates (PSG's), at least those of you who graduated in the past decade. I promise I’ll get to the point shortly.

OK where was I? That’s right, Taxation without representation. Well on the flip side you can kind of see where the Brits were coming from. They had just accumulated some massive debts. First there were those pesky Spaniards that had to be dealt with and then trouble started across the pond. Now they had to send troops to protect the colonist’s butts during the French and Indian War and that was by no means cheap. So in their minds, who better to pay for it than the colonists themselves?

So anyway, this group of ticked off colonists got together, declared their independence from England, fought and defeated the British, and then that perfect storm occurred and a Democratic Republic was formed. The U.S Constitution was written to clearly outline the responsibilities of the Federal Government, and those that were left to the states and the people. And then fearing that the Constitution did not go far enough, they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Why is this all so important? Well maybe at this point I should turn the class over to Mr. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and let him tell you in his own words. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

Madison wrote this in a group of documents called the Federalist Papers. And what were the Federalist Papers? After the Constitution was written it had to be ratified (for you PSG's that means approved). The Federalist Papers were written to explain to people across the country why they should ratify the Constitution.

Now go back and read what Madison said about the powers given to the federal government. I don’t know about you, but I think that they’ve overstepped that a bit and maybe, just maybe, we need to see that they tap the brakes.

Why? We’ll get into that in a future class. Thanks for attending.