Sunday, February 21, 2010

The Climate on planet Earth

I am struck by the following article:

We must be careful. Now that the socialist, nanny-state advocating administration has had their healthcare agenda snubbed by the electorate, they are turning their sights to global socialism. Their ultimate goal, in my opinion, is what they refer to as “economic equity”. They have failed to bring this economic equity to the world by propping up under-developed areas of the world through governmental charity. Through cap-and-trade(tax) they will take money from industrialized nations and give it to developing nations “so that they can develop green-friendly economies”. The United States government through USAID (this does not include all of the money from other US governmental organization, non-governmental organizations, and charity organizations) has given more than 3.2 Billion dollars to Haiti since the end of WWII. That money did not help their corrupt government to create an economy much less a “green” one.

So, the alternative is to crush the economically successful areas of the world down to the level of the under-developed world. Blindly they think that some sort of balance will result where everyone will be happy, well-fed, and cared-for. This is not an altogether unworthy goal; it is just misguided in it approaches. Here is a direct quote from the article:

“For carbon dioxide, cap and trade would eventually make the cost of using coal and other dirty-burning fossil fuels so high that cleaner, more expensive energysources such as wind and solar power would emerge.”

They are not talking about making wind and solar power cheaper so that they are more viable alternatives, they are talking about making the use of coal and fossil fuels so expensive that we have no alternative but to use the energy sources that they want us to use.

And here is another quote from the author of the article:

“The Senate trio's success or failure likely will have a profound impact on international efforts to reduce carbon emissions and prevent Earth's temperature from exceeding a possibly dangerous 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) increase from pre-industrial times.”

Again, the author is not quoting an expert. He is just giving his own personal (probably non-expert) opinion. This is conjecture at best. In my “opinion” the sun has more to do with these changes than we can possibly hope to have at any point in the foreseeable future. Our ability to affect or control the Earth’s climate is extremely limited.

Most of the global-warming fanatical proponents of cap-and-trade(tax) ignore the fact that water vapor is the component of the Earth’s atmosphere that is most responsible for the greenhouse effect that allows life on Earth to exist at all. If not for Earth’s greenhouse effect the Earth would look more like Mars than the beautiful life supporting planet that it is. They, instead, concentrate on gases like carbon dioxide, and methane. Carbon dioxide constitutes four hundredths of a percent (0.0004) of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is up from three hundredths of a percent (0.0003) over the last 300 years. Methane constitutes two ten thousandths of a percent (0.000002) of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is up from seven hundred thousandths of a percent (0.0000007) in the last 250 years. These numbers are not impressive.

So I ask, what is more probable. Is it more likely that mankind that has reined Earth for 2 million of the Earth’s 4.5 billion year life-span has done so much damage to the Earth that we now threaten our own existence through our misguided attempts to live comfortably on this planet or is the alternative more likely. Could it be more likely that a rapidly spinning planet that wobbles on its axis spiraling around a medium-sized star that bobs up and down on its trek around the outside of an average-to-large galaxy that is one of a countless others in the universe. Life is tenuous and it is precarious. If we wander through life thinking that everything revolves around us that that we through our actions can control everything then we are doomed to failure. We must be resilient and robust. We must learn to deal with everything that the Universe has to throw at us, whether it is a stray comet or asteroid or if it is a natural shift in our climate.

Abandoning our long-term goals of venturing into space worries me. Like children that grown up and head out into the world on their own, we must leave the nest and make it out on our own if we are to survive

For more information check out the following link that has a lot of good information.

It draws the following conclusion: "The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key roll in global temperature variations as well.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Your Family's Health Care: Who do you trust?


Your sister is 62 years old. After having some speech problems she see a doctor. The doctor either a) immediately sends your sister to get an MRI or b) consults a government-appointed, bureaucratic "specialist" to determine if an MRI is warranted. (Or, if some other less expensive option would be better.)

Assuming that the MRI option is given, the doctor tells you, your sister, and your family the unfortunate news that she has a brain tumor called a Glioblastoma Multiforme. Because you have seen this before, you die a little inside. You know that there is virtually no chance that your sister will survive this diagnosis. You, being a caring individual, want your sister to live as long and as happily as she can.

The doctor can a) start an aggressive treatment of radiation and chemotherapy, with the help of steroids and pain medicine, that can give your sister the chance at two to four years of more life. This time, however long it is, can give your sister more time to see loved ones not long seen and to say goodbye to loved-ones. Or, b) the doctor could consult a government-appointed, bureaucratic "specialist" who could say that since the condition holds virtually no hope of survival that using expensive procedures/techniques/surgeries to prolong the inevitable would not be appropriate. In stead, steroids and pain pills are given to your sister. She then succumbs to the tumor in just a few weeks (the last part of which are spent with low mental functions that are so bad that she does not even recognize you).

Should this difficult decision be made by a) your sister and your family or b) by a number-crunching bureaucrat. If you are a freedom-loving, independent American you will probably have chosen a) in every situation. If, on the other hand, you choose b) then your would most likely rather have the tough decisions in life made by the government and "those that know better".

For effect, I wanted to leave it there: “those that know better”.
But, there is more to say, important stuff that must be said.

What if your sister had a disease that is relatively rare and has been found to be fatal in most cases. Your sister could a) with the direction of your doctor, seek a treatment center that specializes in the treatment of this, and similar other, rare diseases. The treatment could yield a breakthrough for your sister, it could offer more time, or it may not yield much success. In any case, however, the treatment facility will have gained valuable knowledge from the treatment of your sister that will help others down the road, posterity benefits. Or, b) the treatment is deemed too risky, not cost-effective, not immediately beneficial, and is denied by the government-appointed healthcare-Nazi. Bad for your sister but worse for American (Human) posterity. These treatment centers will not get the patients that they got before under the evil, Capitalist-Pig health care system. Slowly they will go away, not right away (at first), but surely they will disappear. No innovation or improvement, just stagnation and mediocrity.

Is it a) or b) folks.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Thoughts on funding the "Stimulus" package - Where should the money come from to insure our National sovereignty

To fund the “stimulus” package the government needs to have the money. Other than printing more money, devaluing the dollar, and running the risk of causing an inflationary bubble, the government will need to float bonds. A majority of these bonds, if sold openly, will, no doubt, be purchased by foreign investors and foreign nations. So, when it comes time for the American government to pay off these bonds, they will be beholden to foreign interests that will be looking for the payment.

This is, in my opinion, what we should do. Now, it will not make everyone happy. It is a foregone conclusion that the “stimulus” package will become a reality. Whether or not you like it is of no consequence. We must think forward. We must make sure that our Nation is not sold wholesale to the highest bidder. Again, in my opinion, we should institute the following program for a designated period of time. I recommend 3 years (the length of time can be adjusted). A 5% (percentage can be adjusted) tax/fee/surcharge/whatever-you-want-to-call-it on anyone making more than $100,000 (nice round number, it too can be adjusted). This money is a mandatory bond loan to the government. Anyone in this bracket can, of course, volunteer to “purchase” more. Furthermore, perhaps mandatory bond loans could go at current market rates while volunteer bond rates could be sold at incrementally higher rates of interest. Additionally, tax incentives could be given to those making less than “$100,000” if they choose to purchase the government bond loans. The money for these government bond purchases would go to help offset this monstrosity of a bail-out/stimulus package (again, whether you like the thing or not - there it is) while helping to maintain the sovereignty of the Nation. Just like regular bonds, after a specified period of time the bond loans can be collected by the American people. I liken it to borrowing from your 401k. You pay yourself back with interest.

This is an idea, please comment and let me know what you think. I would like to get this to our Congressional Servants as soon as possible. I will do my best to take your thoughts on the mater and incorporate them into the “presentation” to Congress. Thanks, in advance, for your help.

Monday, October 13, 2008

"sharing in both the misery and prosperity"?

My own intellect drives my opinions and not those of any one media source. I did not wait for this election to start paying attention. I am a careful and deliberate thinker. I have run across hateful things on both sides of the political spectrum and ignore it as idiotic rhetoric. I do not define my ideal by information thrown at me. I seek information, process it through the prism of The Constitution, and make my own judgments as to what is Democratic-leaning and what it Socialist-leaning.

I, like John McCain, do not fear an Obama Presidency. I just rue the prospects of having to spend a half century undoing all of the socialist programs that he will institute once it is shown, by the slow progression of time, that these types of programs only promote mediocrity. We offer free education to all. Many choose to thumb their nose at this opportunity and their parents who traveled similar paths offer no assistance. Now, when these people find themselves at the lower rungs of American society, there are those that want those that have worked hard to offer up even more, "sharing in both the misery and prosperity". I'm sorry but this sounds a little too much like making those that work hard a little more miserable and trying to bring prosperity to those without the skills to find it for themselves.

I have no problem with offering assistance to those who are down on their luck. Down-sizing and loses of jobs happen at all-too-inopportune times. We do have to have security nets to catch those that fall. America is far to great a place to let people suffer without essential healthcare. I do have a problem with throwing money into a well where those that choose to procreate to get a bigger check and spend the change from their food stamps on cigarettes scramble to pick-up a bigger hand-out. In stead of money for nothing and the continuation of the poverty cycle, job retraining and easier access to adult education should be the American mantra.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Democracy vs Socialism

The basic difference between Democracy and Socialism is the balance between struggle and suffering. The Socialist will seek to rid the world of all struggle and suffering. While on the surface this seems to be an honorable and virtuous goal it does not take a basic tenet of nature into account; struggle makes an individual strong. The democratic minded person, on the other hand, seeks to find a balance whereas struggle is part of the richness of life and suffering is limited to the lowest possible minimum without infringing on personal/individual freedoms.

Americans seem to be OK with an athlete who has little of no education making millions of dollars playing a game. Conversely they demonize an individual who uses their brains, whether gained from a formal education or the education one gains from the struggle of life, to rise through the ranks of business to run a major business or corporation. The former primarily benefits the individual through a large paycheck. Other wealthy individuals are benefited in the process such as team owners, league officials, etc… Of course it must be conceded that there is a trickle-down effect as lower paid jobs are created in the process of putting on the great spectacles that we all love to watch on our TVs. The latter, however, is just as worthy and deserving of praise as the former. These people of business create companies that provide the people of the world the things that they want and need. When profit is made they will tend to take this money and find ways to make their product, whatever it is, better so that they can be more profitable. Better is “good”, isn’t it? And besides this direct benefit. They too also create countless employment opportunities for others. Jobs at multiple levels so that no matter what the skill level everyone can have the opportunity to live the American Dream.

Socialist in America want you to believe that the founders of this great country, when they said “All men are created equal” meant that no one person should be able to attain any more that any other one person. That is not what they meant at all. Not everyone is equal when it comes to skills of speech. Not everyone is equal when it comes to skills of math or science. The founders knew this. They simply meant that no one person should be allowed to be master of another. It was the premise that was placed in the Declaration of Independence that a king from across the sea could turn people into second-class citizens of lesser value than those that chose to stay behind in Europe. Remarkably this premise was also used later to justify the abolition of slavery. Thank God for the sanity that our forefather brought into this world. They guaranteed “Life” and “Liberty”. They did NOT guarantee “Happiness”; they guaranteed “the Pursuit of Happiness”