Fears of Flying

Yesterday, some nut tried to blow up a plane in Detroit.  After this article appeared I saw many friends commenting on Facebook that incidents like these are the reason some of them don't fly.  I'd like to point out that such thinking is evidence of a total lack of understanding of any facts.  Most of these people get in and out of their cars every day and think nothing of it, without questioning that fact that riding in a car is the single most dangerous thing most of them will do in their lifetimes.  I'd like to point out some facts.

Considering the fact that every day 115 people die in car accidents in the US alone and no one has died on an airliner in quite a while, flying on an airliner is still safer than driving to work.  Cars are so dangerous that they are the leading killer of older teens (38%), meaning, your teenager is safer in the army in Kabul than in a car in Idaho.  In fact, care are SO dangerous that for each of us, our lifetime risk of dying in our car is 1:84 exceeded only by stroke, cancer, and heart disease.  However, we have to remember that cancer, stroke, and heart disease are NATURALLY occurring which means that they occur despite anything that we do so they are not comparable to car/airplane travel and so must be taken out of the comparison.  In fact, natural causes must be taken out in their entirety because we don't control them, we can only influence them to a limited degree.

So here are the things most likely to kill you in the US, by death rate (according to the US Census):

1.  Automobile accidents 15.1
2. Drug OD 12.8
   
3. Suicide 11.1 
4. Guns 10.3
   
5. Accidental poisoning 9.2

Airline accidents are so small in number that the Census doesn't even bother accounting for them individually.  NOTHING is more dangerous an activity than cars.  

What Is a "Right" and is healthcare a "right"?

This writeup does a great job of explaining in clear logical terms why health care is not and cannot be a "right" and why the republicans are just as wrong, from a moral and logical point of view, as the democrats. A great read for real liberals who understand what liberalism really means.

The only thing I would change out of this article is that the author says "A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity." whereas, as an athiest, I think that our rights arise, not from god but from the nature of humans as organisms. Since man must produce his livelihood with his own effort, he has to have certain rights (right to action, right to choose, etc) to produce his livelihood.

What Is a Right?

Cap & Trade Already Infiltrated by Organized Crime

Typical of all victimless crimes (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling), the carbon Cap & Trade system in Europe has already been infiltrated by fraud and organized crime which, according to Interpol.  That's no surprise, though, when you consider that victimless crimes and any politically manufactured market will always be infiltrated by organized crime.  For example, the prohibition of alcohol in the US created an unprecedented rise in criminal activity which slowed when it was repealed.  The situation again appeared when the Federal Government put its clamps on narcotics creating a rise in violent crime on a global scale unprecedented in human history.

In fact, the environmental "market" has already been infiltrated by organized fraud in the US.

Cap and Trade Fraud

And before any of the lefties out there say "how can you believe anything from FOX news who are those right wing fanatics who make 'fake' news"....blah blah blah.  Shut up unless you can disprove the facts.  If you have no evidence of false news, please stop making unfounded accusations.  Lets not forget, ALL news sources are biased.  Your argument that FOX is tainted so you shouldn't believe anything from FOX is based on what is known as the "Ad Hominem" fallacy and is one of the fundamental logical thinking traps that causes failure in reasoning skills. 

Here are other articles about the same thing
Article
Article

So why are we opting for more legislation that will create more laws and restrictions on people's rights in order to get everyone to "obey"?  Especially in light of the fact that we still haven't established anthropogenic global warming as a fact and there is still tremendous scientific and political disagreement on the proposed theory.

Green Cult Gets Aggressive when confornted with facts

Here's a common example of what those of us who question the Global Warming Theory encounter when raising questions: blind hatred and tactics to silence opposition.  Scientists fired from jobs, challenging questions ignored, skeptics assaulted by fanatics.

Climate Cultists Assault Global Warming Skeptic During Live Interview 

During a live interview...a skeptic is assaulted by a global warming follower.  Yes, I say "follower" because the behavior is very much like a religion because : 

A) Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, people still want to believe it

B) People can't prove the point of global warming any more than they can prove their religion so, in what should be rational discussion, they try to resolve the argument by silencing dissenting opinion through intimidation, anger or violence.

Gore Refuses ClimateGate Questions, UN Official Disconnects Mic

 Interviewer tries to question Gore about ANOTHER lie he got caught in but Gore refuses to answer.  UN official illegally disconnects the microphone.  (They don't have the legal right to do that)

The End of "White" America by 2050

The US Census predicts that the America will no longer consist of a "White" majority by about 2050.

White Majority Article

One area where I realize this will have an impact, is in the diversity initiatives of many companies.  As a manager in a large organization, I wonder what Diversity implementations will look like in the workplace of the future.  I imagine that we will start seeing managers who were previously "minorities" being trained on cultural sensitivity toward whites; Latinos being trained in the workplace on dealing with WASPs in the workplace, etc. This change won't eliminate the need for diversity initiatives but certainly will change the focus of it.  In fact, it will probably increase the need for Diversity initiatives as the relationship between the "white" majority and other ethnic/racial groups is forever altered.

Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join $100B Climate Aid Fund

So to be clear...the US (or...the people in charge of the US) is willing to spend $100,000,000,000 (of your money and my money) on an unproven scientific theory.  Nice.  I'm glad she sees fit to increase our federal deficit even more!  We, the taxpayers, don't mind working like dogs to pay for smoke and mirror pseudoscience.

FOXNews.com - Clinton: U.S. Ready to Join $100B Climate Aid Fund

Posted using ShareThis

Health Insurers to Benefit From "Reform"

If you put a blind man in front of a dartboard, his odds of hitting the target are pretty slim but he will eventually hit the target of he throws enough darts.  One of the few observations Dean makes that rings of sense is that the requirement for all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine essentially guarantees health insurers more customers.  Dean calls the proposed plan an "Insurance Company Bailout".  Although this is, typical for the left wing, as wildly simplified view of how insurance works but there is truth to it.  Essentially, your money and your government will guarantee a steady flow of customers for the insurance companies.

I should start buying stock in Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna right away.

Of course the blind man at the dart board will only get one good shot and the next one will go wildly wide of the mark much like Dean who thinks that offering a public option is the right solution....which basically makes you and I pay for everyone else's medical care.

Americans Want Government OUT of Healthcare

The numbers speak for themselves

So basically, there are more Americans AGAINST healthcare reform than for it, according to Gallup & Rasmussen.

So why are the Washington's socialists ignoring Americans again?

Growing Disbelief of the Global Warming Hoax

As early as March 2009, increasing numbers of Americans were doubting the "truth" of Gore's doomsday prophecies about Global Warming, according to Gallup


52% of Americans disagree with Al Gore that the "debate is over" on Global Warming while 59% think its based on falsified information.  47% think its totally natural and NOT man made.

 Americans are increasingly sceptical of global warming:Rasmussen Poll

And yet...despite the fact that American people are so divided on this issue and that so many people are unconvinced...our government is going right ahead with plans to hamstring our struggling economy with climate change deals that may be totally wasted efforts and will result in decreased human quality of life,  more controls over how people live and work and more government oppression.

What else is new?  Government stopped representing us a LONG time ago.

Obama Gives Himself a "B+" : Americans grade him much lower

During an interview with Oprah Winfrey, one of Obama's worshippers, the President says he grades his performance a "B+". 

But, according to Gallup, the American people give him a resounding thumbs-down!

I suppose they're grading different criteria.  Maybe Obama thought he was being asked to grade himself on how fast he is throwing away American civil liberties and tax money?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and call it a "misunderstanding".

Al Gore Caught Fudging the Numbers AGAIN!

Scientist Quoted by Gore Says "Al, I NEVER said that!"

This is another example of the spin machine behind certain elements of the environmentalist movement.  In a move that has become typical of Al Gore and his Ilk, Gore has used fear mongering based on falsified or selectively chosen data.

Notice Big Al's quote and what it means:
"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

• Fresh figures - Bull!  Read further down "Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore."  So that was a pure lie.
• "Some of the models suggest..." So this also means that other models don't suggest what he's proposing.  So there is no scientific agreement on this!!  Some models also suggest that I am going to suddenly disintegrate into vapors in 10 minutes but there's no reason for me to expect that its likely to happen
• "75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Again....the word could so even Big Al thinks its only a chance.  This also means that there is a 75% chance that it might happen, not that it will happen.  His statement also means that there is a 25% chance that it definitely will not happen.

Tell me again why everyone listens to this clown?  Ultimately all he has communicated through his statement is that he has no facts and the only fact we know of for sure is that he selectively picks his data and doesn't hesitate to make up information when he finds the facts to be inconvenient.

Mind you, I'm not opposing the concepts of environmental responsibility and proper stewardship of our natural resources.  I am simply advocating intelligent decision making based on scientific facts.  Think about it...would you let a doctor operate on you who told you "there is a 75% chance that you might survive but there is a 25% chance that you will not survive"?  Of course not, you would realize that he's pulling numbers out of the air!  So why base our policies and the direction of the human race on something that doesn't pass basic scientific muster?

Once Again Obama the Populist Reveals his Ignorance of How Things Work!

FOXNews.com - White House Tells Bankers to Boost Lending After Bailout Successes

Posted using ShareThis

Yes, Mister Obama, bankers are "fatcats".  They get together in smokey rooms chewing on big cigars and rub their fat greedy hands together and laugh like this "Mwahahahahaha!" then rake piles of cash onto their bellies.

Global Warming : The Debate is NOT Over

20/20 Article on Global Warming Conspiracy

Science does not work by silencing contradictory theories or suppressing individuals who disagree with a proposed theory.  Real science works by proposing a theory and then allowing and encouraging scientific scrutiny and testing. 

• Climate change is an established fact.  No one argues that.  The data proves it
• The data also proves that climate change has always been the norm.  In fact, the data shows that change in the environment is the norm.  The Earth's climate has never been static.
  
• Global warming is a theory.  No one has proved conclusively that the earth is warming all over the globe.  For example, studies show that arctic is is melting away but also shows that antarctic ice is growing thus...any warming isn't really "global".
• Catastrophes from global warming are also theories because no one really knows what will happen if the entire planet were to go up in temperature.  Which is also assuming that the entire earth is going up in temperature.
  
• Anthropogenic Global Warming (global warming caused by human activity) is even more theoretical because science hasn't proven a causal relationship between global warming (which is still unproven in the first place) and human activity.  

All of it still theory. Much like the Theory of Evolution, since no one can really prove that human evolution took place, even the scientists who are the most ardent supporters of the concept still refer to it as a "Theory".  It may be the most prevalent theory...almost every scientist thinks its probably what happens.....but....it remains a theory.

The Coming Week

This week is the final week of my semester.  I've got two classes going on right now, World Lit and Accounting I (which is an online class, by the way).  I'm doing well and enjoying both classes and expect to have very good grades.  I have a few items pending to wrap up the semester:

1. Final Chapter Test for Accounting
2. Final Exam in Accounting
3. Final paper for for World Lit

 Nothing I can't handle and not too worried about it.  I have some deliverables due at work too which will keep me busy but nothing crazy.  I'm really looking forward to having a bit of time off.  Maybe I can get in a little winter night cycling in.  I want to hook up some strong lighting on my bike for safety, of course.  I added lights to my cycling stuff wishlist.


At the same time though, Dina will be undergoing surgery, having an abdominal hysterectomy to bring an end to her five-year struggle with undiagnosed endomitriosis.   We are really grateful to Doctor Levey for being the kind of doctor who takes the time to listen to his patients and work with them.  Of course, this means that I'll be spending more time on household duties since Dina will be in recovery.  And like a good capitalist, I will be working on delegation of responsibilities and pushing tons of work on the kids.  After all, why have teenagers if not for that.  Some might think its wrong...I think its giving them work ethic.

A big issue on my mind is what classes I should take for next semester.  I might pick up one extra class just to see if I can handle it.  I am thinking something along these lines:

• Accounting II
• Economics I
• Geology (I know .... you're wondering where this is from but its required for my major and, frankly, its something I've never studied before.  I did chem and bio and astronomy in my youth...why not learn something new?)

We'll see how it goes. 

Hitler's Remains

Location of Hitler's Remains

Missing my bike

Winter has set in and as all of my friends and family know, I am not a fan of the winter.  First off, I am not a fan of the cold and then there's the lack of daylight.  I simply can't stand this Daylight Savings Time nonsense.  I know that there is a reason for it that has something to do with saving energy or something along those lines, I've even heard that there is some benefit for farmers as well.  That's all fine and dandy but for me, its simply a source of lethargy and fatigue.  From the time daylight savings time starts until about mid January every year, I go through a serious struggle to stay ahead of depression.  The coming and going from nightfall to nightfall with daylight only available for a few precious weekend hours causes me to lose a lot of my energy and I often find myself dozing off in the early evening because my eyes convince the rest of me that its bed time. 

At this time of year I develop a strong tendency to let my fitness regimen slip, my focus slips at work and I struggle to keep my grades up in school; all because I become so demotivated. 

But the most painful part of winter for me is that I can rarely find time to get on my bike.  Once winter hits there amount of rideable time seriously drops.  The temperature is sometimes too low, plunging to below freezing which exceeds the temperature limits of my cold weather riding gear or, too often, its very windy out, sometimes dangerously so.  This week has been like that.  Usually the good weather seems to hit during the work week which, of course, doesn't do me any good since, by the time I get home from work, its fully dark outside and a bit risky to be riding on ice patched roads when even the cars with  brilliant headlights can't see the black ice that can send me into a terrible fall or worse.

I miss my bike, even though its gotten squeeky and needs some maintenance.  Tomorrow morning I'm going for my first ride with the Fatmen.  During the warmer days and into the fall I was riding with the guys constantly and got to make some great new friendships.  Unfortunately, school started again and then the cold and dark came.  BAM!   No rides.  Tomorrow.  Hope for tomorrow.

How Labor Unions Drive Wages DOWN

The Fallacy that Unions Raise Wages

Health Care

So a few points on why health care "reform" and Obamacare is bad for America. There's a million arguments on either side and all of them focus on what's the best way to "solve the problem" and really, I think "solving the problem" is redundant because this is not a pragmatic issue.

First of all, what is this supposed problem? Below I will respond to what I have heard from the socialists who don't realize that they are socialists and from the socialists who think socialism is great because they've never been stuck having to live with it.

But first, let me get some premises established so we all are clear on what we are truly saying:

• Health care isn't a thing that simply exists. Health care is a group of services and products (like doctors' knowledge, surgical skills, insurance coverage, dental skill, nursing skills, medications, medical devices, etc) which must be created and/or provided by people. Unlike rights like speech or movement, no one simply has them; they must be provided by other people; people who have rights too. You can get up and walk without anyone's help much as you can speak without help. Health care, however, is the result of the life's work of other people. So when you want to control health the health care industry, you are in reality saying that you want the government to control your neighbors.
• All health care services are the results of people who also have rights and this applies to all elements of health services. The doctor you see is a human being with a name and a life's story and a family, just like you and me. The imaging center you go to for an MRI or XRAY is owned by a person or a group of peope like you and me.
• Even the big, impersonal Health Insurance company or pharmaceutical company is owned by people like you and me, whether the company is owned by one person, a group of partners or is a corporation with twenty-thousand shareholders. When you say "The Greedy Insurance Company" you are really saying "That greedy bastard next door"; you are referring to people, many of whom you may know who are part owners of the big bad insurance company through stocks they own or through mutual funds that they own through their 401(k) which they depend on for their retirement.
• All of these people have invested in these things (whether through money that they spent to buy stocks in an insurance company, drug company or hospital, or business partners who invested in a hospital, or a nurse's aide or pharmacist who invested in her education) with the expectation of making a profit by selling their skills or services or products. In the case of doctors, the investment is in hundreds of thousands of dollars in eduction, startup business costs and up to 12 years of their lives amassing specialized, life saving knowledge. In the case of an insurance company, it can be a lifetime of savings earned by a low income worker who needs the company to profit to be able to eat. In the case of a pharmaceutical company, the pill you take is the result of billions of dollars of research and development costs, hundreds of thousands of man hours of work and sometimes over ten years of effort. No one works that hard for free!
• Government doesn't produce health care. Governments don't produce anything. The only thing a government does is use force on the people. Governments use force to either make people do things or they use force to prevent people from doing things. Behind every action a government takes is the threat of violence. If you disobey you will be fined. Fail to pay the fine, and you will be arrested. Fail to comply with the arresting officer and you will be beaten or tazered and, if your resistance is sufficient, you will be executed. Make no mistake about it, whenever you say "the government ought to do...." the sentence ends in "or arrest/execute anyone who doesn't comply" If you support welfare what you are saying is "the government should force working people to pay for non-working people and arrest/execute anyone who doesn't pay." This isn't an extreme example, its the truth. Ask yourself...."Why do I pay my taxes?" Because ultimately, you know you may go to prison if you don't.
• There is no right that includes the right to take away another person's rights. If there were, then we wouldn't have rights...only permissions.
• For the rest of this post, I will speak in the 1st person singular (me, I, my, etc) or the 1st person plural (us, we, our, etc) because I am speaking as if I were the doctor, the nurse, the pharmacist, the stockholder in the HMO or the pharmaceutical company.

So what are the "health care reformers" really saying here? Here are some of the arguments I have heard:

Too many Americans can't afford health care and don't get the health care they need.

Pharmaceutical Stockholder: True. Its a shame. However, its not my obligation to fix it. If I can donate money to charity I will and I often do. But their need is not a mortgage on my life.Someone else's need doesn't give them the right to take over my life. Their need doesn't give anyone the right to force me to accept less money than I am willing to charge for the pill I manufactured in my pharmaceutical company. That pill cost me $3,000,000,000 to develop and 8 years. I want to make my money back and turn a profit, damnit. If you don't like me charging $50 per pill, then don't buy it. I don't force the money from their hands and no one should take the pill from my hand. If we agree on a price and you exchange money for product, its a sale. You may think the price is too high and I may think its too low but we voluntarily made the exchange. Once you bring the government regulators in, though, there is no choice, there is only a gun in my face. How would you like it if I hired you to work for me for $20 an hour then, after you did the work, I said I was only going to pay you $12 an hour and then had a cop put a gun in your face and tell you that you had to accept $12? Not fair huh? Well then don't do it to me, damnit! I didn't hurt you in any way; I've commited no crime. Why are you punishing me?

HMO Stockholder:It saddens me that some people can't afford health care. Truly it does. But I invested in this company with what little money I have so that I don't have to work until the day I die. I am an old woman so this money has to keep growing. If my insurance company doesn't turn away some patients and try to push back on some questionable claims, its bad business and I lose my life's savings. Besides, if the HMO doesn't stay profitable by making tough decisions then it goes out of business and then no one gets insurance so everyone loses. Just because you need insurance doesn't give you the right to point a gun at me and tell me how I have to run my business. How would you like it if I put a gun in your face and told you how you have to do things in your house? You wouldn't like it, would you. Well don't forget that I own the business so its my property and I can run it the way I choose to.

One of the reasons care costs are so high is because people can't afford insurance so they flood the hospital Emergency Rooms because they know the ER must provide them with medical care so the hospitals and care providers pass the cost to those who CAN pay which means bigger costs for the insurance companies to pay.

Hospital Owner: So let me get this straight...first you tell me that I can't turn people away, even if they show up without the ability to pay. Even though I invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build this place and pay millions to pay doctors, nurses, janitors, pharmacists, cooks, electric bills, water bills, you tell me that if someone can't pay I have to give all of that to him at a loss. Then, to try to stay in business, I pass that cost on to people who can pay but then I'm the bad guy? You put a gun in my head, command me to do business in a way that loses money and I'm the bad guy?

And now you idiots tell me that you want to solve the problem of people being forced to take on the medical costs of other people....by legally forcing people to take on the medical costs of other people? Are you dense or did you just eat lead paint chips as a child?

Here's a thought...just because they need medical care, doesn't give you the right to use government force to make me provide it. What if the same guy showed up at your door and said he needed food. Would you like it if a Federal agent told you that you HAD to feed him or you would be arrested? No? Then don't put me in that situation, stupid!

__________________________

What amazes me is that so many Americans have this muddled notion of what it means when we say that something is required by law or that the law mandates, this or that. No one realizes that it means "a government agency has dictated that you have no right in this matter and that you will be killed if you don't comply". And yet.....we treat it so lightly. We are so willing to send our own neighbors into slavery to solve a problem, like the NAZI (also socialists) gassing retarded people, autistics, and the mentally handicapped because they were technically a burden on the economy. This is why I say that this is not a pragmatic issue of how best to "solve a problem". Man's morals cannot depend on "what works". If that was our moral standard then we are on the same moral ground as NAZIs were for exterminating the mentally or physically disabled. Yes...the plan really did efficiently solve the problem of the cost those individuals imposed on the people. They used the justifaction of "what works".

But was it moral?

ANIMALS operate on the morality of pragmatism. Humanity cannot.

Why I Don't Buy into Global Warming

So let's be clear on something; no one is denying that the earth's climate is changing. Climate scientists and meteorologists that I have read about seem to all agree that the planet is in flux. As Al Gore says, "the consensus" is that our climate really is changing (by the way...I had no idea that science worked on consensus...I thought it worked on evidence, but what do I know?)

Here is where consensus seems to stop.

Where I see a lack of consensus is on the issue of weather the climate change is anthropogenic, or, caused by human activity. That's the real issue, right? If climate change is normal, we probably wouldn't see much activity by politicians on it. The issue is weather or not we are casing it and, if so, what we need to do to stop it. After all, if we are doing something to destroy ourselves, its probably a good idea to try to stop it. But here is where the problem is; there seems to be no conclusive evidence that we actually are the ones causing it.

I'm not one to buy into hype and panic and, since I pride myself on my rational thinking ability and ability to apply reason in the face of challenging situations, I am a natural skeptic. Hysteria and political propaganda mean very little to me. I go by facts, science, proper interpretation of statistical information. Suffice it to say that I like to check things out and look at both sides of an issue.

What I see in my own reading and research is that there are a lot of climate scientists who think people burning fossil fuels have anything to do with our climate change. Apparently almost all of them seem to indicate that climate change is a constant. It sort of reminds me of the lyrics from RUSH's song Tom Sawyer : "He knows changes aren't permanent, but change is". It seems that our planet's climate has never been a constant and changes all the time. Who knew, huh? Oh wait...no...we all sort of knew it. After all, didn't most of learn that in the age of the dinosaurs the earth was much warmer than it is today? Didn't we learn that millions of years later the earth was in the grip of a global ice age? Haven't we noticed with our own eyes that we are not living in a hot dinosaur time or frozen woolly mammoth time any longer? Yes folks...we all know that the climate always shifts but when politicians, media and Hollywood (and let's face it...Hollywood and politics are often in bed together) start screaming "panic!!" we tend to throw our common sense out the window. So the scientific consensus is that the climate actually is supposed to change and will continue to change long after mankind is gone. It seems that, contrary to our own arrogant sense of self importance, we are either totally irrelevant when it comes to climate change or we are no more than one data point in the large equation of what contributes to climate change.

There also seems to be disagreement among scientists on the role of Carbon Dioxide, the proverbial smoking gun, of climate change. The Global Warming proponents would have us believe that the relationship between CO2 and Global Warming is a clear causal relationship, with increases in CO2 directly causing temperature increase. It turns out that there is no consensus on that fact either. In fact there are many of climate scientists that argue that the ride in CO2 is a result of warming not the cause. Go figure.

And, on that note, why do they always argue that warming is a bad thing? Isn't warm weather a good thing? Doesn't the melting of thousands of trillions of gallons of water from the ice caps, etc mean that there is more water available on earth? According to many climate scientists and geologists, if the ice caps were to melt, the world would not end up as scary as the watery planet envisioned in Kevin Costner's Waterworld (a film that is quite scary in its sheer badness). More than likely, the water would rise no more than a few inches. Sure some people would have to relocate but isn't greater water availability and more areas of warm, arable land for agriculture a good thing? If that's the result...why is that so bad. Frankly, I'm sure there are plenty of Innuit who would start heating their homes with burning tires if they could accelerate global warming.

But don't take my word for it, folks let's hear from some of the advocates of unpoliticized science:

Opposing view by the founder of the Weather Channel

Climatologists calling Global Warming a Hoax

UK Court blocks schools from airing Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth because scientists testify that the book contains 11 factual inaccuracies

Link to list of resources opposing the idea that there is a scientific consensus on global warming

My point folks, isn't that global warming is definitely not being caused by humans nor is my argument that we shouldn't reduce pollution and be responsible with our environment, after all, no one wants to live in a trash heap that smells. My point is simply that we need to use legitimate science as a basis for our policies and decisions, not half baked, politicicized pop-science. We need facts, not politics and facts are the realm of science. Trying legislate controls into the lives of people's lives so that they stop causing global warming is simply premature because there is no conclusive evidence that we are causing global warming.

I will leave you with this quote:
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

A Lesson on People

Here's a key lesson I've learned about people...

People are fundamentally good.

I know that its an age old question that has been pondered by philosophers for centuries. They've often asked if man is fundamentally good and noble or is he fundamentally evil and corrupt. My answer is that man is fundamentally cooperative and wants to do, what he considers to be, good.

We have to recall that man is fundamentally a monkey and is, at his core, ruled by the same principles as all animals pursuing certain key goals

1. Survival of the self
2. Survival of the species
3. Perpetuation of the species

Like all animals, man interprets these priorities and brings them into action in ways that are appropriate to himself. All organisms do this; a violet pursues these goals by having natural immunities, turning as it grows to find the best sunlight, sending out roots to find nutrition and spreading its seeds; lions do it by killing prey, defending against predators, nursing cubs, and developing mating strategies to ensure survival. The violet cannot use the techniques of the lion nor can the lion use the techniques of the violet. For them to do so would be suicidal.

Likewise, man must use the techniques available to him. Since we have such massive brains, what is an appropriate way of living for us is far more complicated than what is appropriate for animals. One of the complicated survival mechanisms we have is our social drive and our communication skills. The social drive is one of the reasons we have the need to have moral codes: simply put, we need to agree on certain standards of conduct to allow us to know what the rules of cooperation were. These rules would vary from culture to culture and society to society but they are always there.

Essentially, moral codes of conduct are ingrained in us so we all want to do good. It doesn't mean that we always do good...but we all want to do good, whatever that code of good behavior is.

I've known a lot of cynics who would disagree with me. Frankly, for a time, I didn't think man was essentially good either. Frankly, I was a bit of an asshole when I was younger so its no surprise. I've noticed something about those cynics though; in general, they aren't happy people and happiness is my ultimate measure of success. Sure some of them may have made more money than me or maybe they got prettier dates than me etc. True, some of them had greater success than I did in certain areas of life but the one trait they had in common was that they simple were not happy people.

On Bailouts

As a cold hearted capitalist, my friends and family often ask me my opinion on the government bailouts of American businesses (or, as I like to think of it, the socialization of American business)and I generally avoid talking about the topic. I've tried to steer clear of this topic on my blog to avoid irritating my friends and family since I already routinely irritate them. But, the bug to write on this topic has bitten me. Fortunately, this argument is simple for me so I can answer it pretty easily:

No free person should be forced to support another person. Welfare is slavery, whether its providing welfare to the poor or welfare to a company.

I am stuned at all the complex arguments people come up with, for or against, the bailouts.

Even those who, like me, oppose bailouts are missing the point using arguments like "Business only works on the survival of the fittest principle." or "ultimately the ups and downs of the free market are what raises the standard of living for all of us in this country so we are all better off in the long run." blah blah blah yada yada yada. These arguments are true and neither of them matter. Ethics aren't pragmatic and are not based on "what works". Does capitalism always make everyone richer? No it doesn't. If pragmatism were our goal then we could justify an any means necessary mentality to improve our lot. So what's wrong with that?

Let's ask Hitler....that was his principle too. Few people can argue that, from an economic perspective, the mentally handicapped are a burden on society in general. From a pragmatic perspective then, we'd have to agree that his efforts to exterminate all the retarted and mentally disabled people in the Reich was the right thing to do. After all, by eliminating this burden from the economy he was helping out Germany. Pragmatic, right? But does that make it right? Is it appropriate for humans to act like that? NO! Only animals operate on the "whatever it takes" mentality. Among animals its okay to destroy the runts of the litter so that the stronger ones can survive. Humans do not work on that same principle. Sometimes, humans take the tough path or take on the burden because it is the right thing to do.

Clearly pragmatism isn't the basis for us to choose right and wrong. (Although...it is true that welfare for the poor or for businesses aren't pragmatic because they lower standards in the long run.)

On the other side of the argument is the view supporting the bailouts. "Woe are the 'victims' of the (insert name of aleged social problem here) who are suffering" is their mantra. "Let's help the victims of (insert name of aleged social problem here)." And so they write their senators and rally and get up in arms until a law is passed to solve the problems of the latest "victims" of the social issue du jour. So what's wrong with that? Accusingly I am asked, "Don't you want to help the poor?" or "people without healthcare?" or "the people who will lose their jobs if the auto industry dies in America?"

And to them I answer and emphatic......"Yes I do!" Surprising isn't it? To hear that a ruthless capitalist like me wants to ....gasp....help people? But its true. I'm a humanitarian. I do volunteer work, participate in fundraisers, donate to charities I believe in.

I really do want to help.....but no one should be forced to help which is exactly what happens the second the government makes any kind of help mandatory.

Once the government makes helping anyone do anything part of its policy, the people are forced to help, even when its against their will. You don't think you're forced? Then you are grossly misled, mon ami. All government aid comes from tax dollars which you have no choice in paying. You are forced to do it. You are forced to help. That's not help...that's slavery.

I will not be forced to help the auto industry any more than I will be forced to help a senior citizen get medical transportation, a child get a free education, or a cancer victim get treatment. No matter how you slice it....all welfare is slavery.

The Latest "Big Bad Rich People" Bandwagon

So here's an issue that's been bugging people; fat bonuses and pay scales for executives leading organizations that are being bailed out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bailout

What I think is being overlooked here is that executives work for profit and will go to where the pay is highest. The most capable executives go to where the highest compensation is. If you cut the pay, you no longer get the cream of the crop to run these troubled organizations and you end up getting inferior leadership. With inferior leadership the company will definitely go under, taking all of the bailout money with it.While its true that the government has the right to reuest certain conditions from anyone it lends money to (banks sometimes exercise the same way technique to influence companies, offering loans on the condition that the loan recipient take certain steps), by expecting the executives to lose pay the government will basically be forcing the capable executives to leave which will only make the situation worse. After all, wouldn't YOU quit a job where you got low pay and knew that you could definitely mke more money somewhere else? A better solution is to continue with the expected high pay so that quality leadership will come but tie the money to clearly defined performance goals so that failure is not an option for the executive leadership.Unfortunately, too many people have gotten on the "big bad rich people" bandwagon and are looking for any reason to tear others down and point fingers.

Why do people who sit behind a desk all day get paid more than people who do back-breaking physical labor?

I saw this thread on Yahoo Answers and it caught my eye. As a "heartless" Capitalist this seemed very interesting to me. Answers ranged from that most nebulous of the blue collar blame bucket "politics" (which is like blaming "the rich" which, of course, in America means almost everyone) to "life isn't fair" (another failed panacea of thinking). What no one seemed to touch on is the simplest answer, the market.

Salaries are no more than a cost of labor. Someone is paying a worker to provide a service to them. The employee is a seller and the employer is a buyer; its that simple. A buyer is always going to shop for the lowest price he can get for a product. We all do it, whether buying a tube of toothpaste or buying the skills of a carpenter to build a deck or an accountant to prepare tax returns. What an employee is selling is his ability to do a certain type of work but it is no different than selling any other product or service. So if you're the type who thinks all bosses are jerks, don't forget that when you go into 7-11 to buy a cup of coffee, since you're paying for all of the work of the people who went into getting that cup of coffee into your hands all the way back to the farmer in Costa Rica, you are also that jerk of a boss. When you go to the doctor, you become his boss because you pay him for the medical knowledge and care he's giving you.

Welcome to being the boss, jerk!

The point of all this is that employee/employer are really just different words for seller/buyer. The only difference is that, in general, employment relationships are more long term and often contractual. So welcome to the world of whoredom! You and I are whores selling ourselves! Hopefully you will think twice now before you criticize a prostitute. But I digress....

When you are out on the job market, you are looking for a customer to sell your skills and abilities to. The job market is a market like any other, subject to the same rules of supply and demand and you and your ability are the products. Two factors will determine how much you will be paid:

1. How much does the customer want it? (market demand)
2. How hard is it to get? (availability)

Remember...it ultimately come down to what the customer (the employer) wants, not what the seller (employee) thinks the product is worth. I can try selling my old Lucky Lefty Carmichael baseball card for $500 bucks but I am not likely to get it because no one really wants it but I can easily get $100,000 for a 1933 Goudey #53 Babe Ruth. People want the babe, but they don't care about Lucky Lefty. You may think you're worth $100,000 a year but if all you can do is hang drywall, you're unlikely to get it. How hard the work is has absolutely nothing to do with how much someone is paid for the work. This about it; wrestling a polar bear is hard, dangerous work and is far more difficult than negotiating a divorce but most of us would not pay someone $2000 to wrestle the bear. Most of us will pay $2000 for a good divorce attorney to protect us even though the polar bear wrestler is risking his life while the divorce attorney won't even break a sweat.

On to the second factor is the question of scarcity...how hard is it to get your product (an employee who can do what you do). The other reason the #53 card is so valuable is because there are so few on the market. Poeple want them badly and they are hard to get so customers are willing to pay alot for them. If all you can do is hang drywall for a living then you are easy to replace because hanging drywall is a low skill job and so anyone can do it. Basically, they are a dime a dozen.

Look at the examples below to see how this plays out:

Lucky Lefty Card - Low Availability - LowDemand - Low Price $.02

#53 Babe Ruth Card - Low Availability - Very High Demand - Very high price $110,000

Lawyer - Moderately Low Availability - High Demand - High Price $120,000 avg

Mechanic - Moderately High Demand - Moderately Low Demand - Moderately Low Price$35,789 med

Bank teller - High availability - Low Demand - Low Price $23,000 med

Fortune 500 CEO - Extremely Low Availability - Extremely High Demand - Extremely High Price $4,000,000 and up

The bottom line is that if you're skills are hard to replace and needed on the job market, then your salary will be high. If you don't have skills or your skill is easy to replace and no one wants what you do anyway, you're pretty much guaranteed to make very little money.

So get educated on hot skills and then learn those skills!

Another Disappointing Politician

So....its only been a few months since Obama got voted in and he's not even sworn in yet and already he's pissing me off. Not that I'm surprised; in fact, I find it disappointingly predictable. Don't get my wrong, I'm not from the McCain camp or the Republican camp. Frankly, I think the biggest political challenge we face is to break the stranglehold of the two major parties, but that topic will need to wait for another day.

The first pissing off was last week when I saw that he wanted congress to hold off on the whole switch to HDTV for all TV broadcasters. Never mind the fact that I can't understand how the government became empowered to tell private citizens (the owners of the broadcasting companies) how to transmit; my qualm is with Obama's assertion that we have to provide more money for people who want to watch broadcast TV in HDTV.

Really? How'd we come to this? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of....TV????

I don't have time to watch TV most of the time because I have to feed my family....and pay the tax burden of providing TV for others?

WOW...how far we have fallen.

And thus socialism marches on in America.