Uncategorized

Sophistry — an evil art.

by asmwizard

When major newspapers and television news networks adopted the business model of supporting the political Left and deriding the Right, they hired experts in sophistry to write the news they present.

As ‘sophistry’ isn’t an everyday word, I’ll quote the Cambridge English Dictionary for a definition:

“the clever use of arguments that seem true but are really false, in order to deceive people”

For newspapers, you see it in almost any “news” article which touches on a subject that is politically debatable.  I used quotes around news because what they write belongs on the opinion page, but is presented as a news article.  Of course it contains news, but only that which supports the newspaper’s point of view.  Facts which bolster the other side’s point of view are de-emphasized or omitted, while any information supporting the Right is omitted, downgraded, or minimized by the insertion of clever adjectives.

Let’s look at an article written by Jennifer Rubin, a leading sophist for the Washington Post.  Her article, reprinted in the Kansas City Star on September 8, 2023, entitled “GOP needs an anti-Trump candidate, even if they won’t win” appeared on the opinion pages, so there’s no attempt to hide the sophistry.  It was there, however.  Here are three examples:

  1.  Speaking of the Republican Party, she wrote “ . . . the party will pose a threat to democracy . . .”

This implies that Republicans pose a threat to democracy.  That is, at least, debatable, and it could be argued equally that Democrats pose a threat to democracy.

  • In the same paragraph, she wrote:

 “ . . . They will only convince the ascendant MAGA crowd that there is no need to become a normal party.”  

Since when are the Republicans not a “normal” party?  And, please define ‘normal.’

  •  Later, “former Vice President Mike Pence, who refuses to condemn the man who egged on the violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol . . .”

This begs the question that Donald Trump instigated the January 6 riot are fact, which is arguable and has yet to be tried in court..

Sophistry can be very subtle or it can be obvious.  Another example, which has appeared in almost every article in which the phrase “claims that the 2020 elections were stolen”, which can be worded in several ways, is the insertion of the adjective “baseless” before the word “claims”.  I have seen it innumerable times, in every article written by a left-leaning journalist.  The phrase then begins with “baseless claims.” 

How does the writer know the claims were “baseless?”  There is a decided lack of objectivity here.

The subtle approach which is often employed is the deliberate omission of facts, or the failure to cover a story which is detrimental to the side the TV news network or newspaper favors.  Try to find anything about the Biden family’s influence-peddling scandal in the Washington Post, for example.

It’s likely that every human who has ever written an opinion has at times committed the  sin of sophistry.  It seems now, however, that it is much too prevalent in this day and age.  The harm it does is hard to estimate. It may account for much of the political polarization of America’s population. 

Can a business defend itself from attack?

by asmwizard

Can a business defend itself from attack?

The short answer is yes, but they rarely do so.

Shoplifting (overt or surreptitious), robbery, looting during riots, and smash-grab attacks are forcing businesses in major American cities to close, because they almost always fail to react. 

What can the business do?  Let’s explore the possibilities.

Background:

Arrests for violent crimes – murder, rape, robbery – have declined since 1990 in the United States and are now at a level of about 400 per 100,000.  This number may  not  reflect actual crime levels; people are getting away with felonies because of the current antipathy among certain people against the police.  Politicians and others want to defund the police and reduce their numbers.  In many cities, members of the police and sheriff’s forces are resigning in droves. 

Major jurisdictions have somehow acquired prosecutors who don’t prosecute criminals after they are arrested.  Police, often not supported by the city/county government, may be slow to respond or do nothing at all.

Riots, which often involve looting of stores, are out of control.  

The many riots which took place by Black Lives Matter demonstrators, beginning in 2020,  resulted in many millions of dollars of damages, stolen and destroyed property, and quite a few deaths, particularly of police officers. While some arrests were made, very few of these demonstrators/rioters were actually punished.  Prosecuting them is tricky, because they claim First Amendment rights to protest, and the mob’s violence doesn’t seem to matter.   

The city of Denver, Colorado, has been paying out millions of dollars in 2022 and 2023 to BLM demonstrators of the 2020 George Floyd riots.  Denver police had dared to arrest them.  Protesters claimed that a curfew was unfairly used as a justification to arrest them, and somehow that violated their free speech rights.  Denver has lost two other very expensive lawsuits, one from seven protesters who were injured, and another from twelve who complained the police used “excessive force” on them.  Denver has paid out about $20 million dollars in total. 

Here’s a short Fox News article  about it:

Denver-will-pay-4-7m-settle-lawsuit-regarding-enforcement-curfew-during-george-floyd-protests

I believe those payouts were completely unjustified, and in my opinion, the protesters should have been forced to pay for the damage they did.

I believe that violent crimes, and some property crimes, should not be tolerated by society.  They are counter to civilized behavior and degrade life in America.

Traditionally, stopping crime is left up to the police and the judicial system, but usually we must wait until the crime is complete for their action.  By then the damage is done. Sometimes no police are present when the criminal activity is underway, or, increasingly it seems, the police refuse to intervene.  They step back and watch, or, if arrests are made, liberal prosecutors fail to do their job later.  Crime isn’t deterred, and criminals aren’t put away where they can’t repeat their offense.

Under the law, ordinary citizens are required to suffer crimes against their property without employing lethal force to interfere: criminals are said to have rights.  The use of non-lethal force is allowed, though laws vary by jurisdiction.  If someone is setting fire to your new car, and you shoot him/her, and the culprit dies, police will arrest you and charge you with murder.  It’s generally all right to use non-lethal force, however the level of non-lethal force must be “reasonable”, as the judge may interpret.  The law does seem to give more protection to the criminal than to the victim.

Protection-of-property

Violent crimes — murder, manslaughter, rape, assault to do bodily harm, and robbery – should never be tolerated.  In my opinion, using lethal force to stop any of these in the act is well justified.  The law disagrees with me.  It requires that the victim must retreat, if possible before engaging, and may only use a level of force comparable to the threat.  The law regarding intervention in the act of a violent crime is complicated, and you may have to make an instant decision which could create immense difficulties for you if your decision is at odds with the law in your jurisdiction. 

The crimes against property which I believe should never be tolerated are: looting during a riot; looting after a natural disaster; intentional destruction of property – such as setting an auto or building on fire, and smash-grab tactics inside a business. 

When I say never be tolerated, I mean just that.  Once the crime is complete, it should be investigated by the police and hopefully prosecuted in the judicial system.  Retaliation by victims or onlookers should not be allowed.  But during the crime itself, perpetrators should be stopped by any available means.

For these crimes, I believe it is morally, and should be legally, allowed to use lethal force, during the act, against the perpetrators.  Of course, if it’s possible to stop the crime with non-lethal force, that would be preferable.

 What can a business do to protect itself, customers, and employees?

Here’s a link to Findlaw’s take on the subject:

Is-it-legal-to-defend-your-business-from-looters/

A business may use “reasonable”, non-lethal means to protect property.  Here are suggestions a large business, such as a jewelry or department store, might employ:

  • Record the customers as they enter.  Have them show photo ID, briefly remove their mask, and allow their picture to be taken before they are allowed into the store.
  • Low-level reaction: For overt shoplifting (such as filling a cart and walking past check-out) , seal the exit door, summon guards who will reclaim the merchandise and detain the customer until police arrive).
  • Emergency reaction: For smash-grab, seal the front door.  Use loudspeakers to play a loud audio script directing customers and employees away from the action. 

               An example: Emergency!  A coordinated theft is underway.  All exit doors are now locked and will not open until the police have arrived.  Customers and employees should move to the back of the store.  If you are part of this smash-and-grab attempt, you should stop immediately, and remove your mask.  Stand still.  Do not show a weapon. Our security officers are armed and will employ deadly force against anyone who appears to be a threat.

  • Brilliant flashing strobe lights as part of the emergency reaction might help reduce the threat.

For an armed robbery in progress, call the police, and activate a silent alarm or special announcement which alerts employees.  Supervisor to department seven is an example of a special announcement.   Best let the robbery continue, as shooting may otherwise break out.  Employees may arm themselves for self-protection, but should not threaten or fire at the robbers unless they seem out of control or actually harm someone.

In a small business, armed robbery is more personal, and is much like home invasion.  The threat to the owner or employee is more dangerous.  The use of lethal force against the intruders is justified for self-defense, but don’t shoot the criminal in the back. It’s best not to shoot unless the criminal’s weapon is up and ready in your direction, or the robber is inflicting physical harm on someone, yourself included.  Also, it’s important to have a camera record, because it’s almost certain you will face a judge.

 The best defense against looting during a riot is to protect all entrances with barriers – steel plates? — heavy enough to withstand crowbars and sledgehammers. 

Here’s a link:

Shall-we-shoot-looters?

From the link, we see that the Department of Justice doesn’t like shooting looters.  Perhaps we need new laws addressing the subject.

Demonstrations which turn into mob violence:

I believe these new federal laws are needed to deter violent mob action:

  • If a violent act is committed by demonstrators, such as throwing of stones or other objects at police or destroying property, the demonstration loses free speech protections and may be considered a riot; if so declared by police;
  • If police declare that a riot is underway, they will inform the demonstrators/rioters.  They may order all participants to remove their masks, if any.  Failure to  comply is a misdemeanor;
  • Conspiring to conduct a demonstration which includes violence should be a felony; example: bringing a firebomb or a club to a demonstration.
  • Crossing state lines to participate in a riot should be a felony;
  • Police should have the right to arrest and require photographic and fingerprint evidence from participants of a riot;
  • All participants in a riot are jointly responsible to pay for damages done, and any crimes of violence or property destruction.

Can a private person protect his property?

These links will inform you:

Castle-doctrine-overview

May-i-shoot-an-intruder?

Self-defense-defense-of-another-defense-of-property

What’s wrong with American health care?

by asmwizard

Why are American health care costs rising?  There are many processes that drive up health care costs.

Some we can’t control are:

  • ever-improving technology (which requires expensive new equipment);
  • the aging and expanding population, and consequent increase of chronic disease;
  • the continuing development of new prescription drugs. There are others – see the two links which immediately follow.

A good reference on health care costs: Trends in health care spending as published by the American Medical Association.

A dated but still pertinent article  by Doctor Lundberg:

Reasons why health care costs are rising

There are other processes we can possibly change:

Medicare/Medicaid. These programs drive up medical costs by creating a game between the federal government and the health care providers. The government will allow the minimum possible fee for medical services. To make what they think is a fair profit, the providers charge more, trying to raise the basis on which the government sets fees. The hospitals and doctors also bill for every charge they can conceivably think of. Patients don’t protest, because the government – a 3rd party – adjudicates and pays, except for moderate costs to the patient. Taxpayers are on the hook for it all.

Free care of necessity: America may be the only country in the world where very few are ever turned away from a hospital due to inability to pay. Doctors and hospitals (in effect) give a lot of free care away, and customers pay much more to support it. The hospitals and doctors try to collect later, but write off large sums as uncollectable.

Malpractice litigation and insurance costs. Juries award huge sums to patients. Doctors have to buy increasing amounts of insurance to protect themselves, and most order expensive and possibly unneeded tests to document that they’ve covered all the bases.

Federal laws that prohibit health insurance companies from crossing state lines restrict competition.

The long-term decline of the dollar.  Inflation is a big contributor to rising costs.

Now, some points made by Doctor Lundberg (see 2nd link above) – from his list of factors that drive up costs:

–Patients with insurance who consider medical care a “freebie” with no cost consequences.

– Physicians who neither practice evidence-based medicine nor include costs in their decisions.  Decisions are often driven by the pervasive mystique of “defensive medicine,” which now dictates hugely expensive (and lucrative) “defensive practice standards.”

– Hospitals want to fill beds, especially ICU beds, and aggressively market the newest and most expensive technology, beautifully performing tests, and treatments that patients often do not need.

– Drug companies successfully push use of their most expensive drugs.  (TV broadcasts are now swamped with drug commercials.)

A new health care plan would need to address as many of these points as possible.  The two extremes of howthe federal government could deal with it:

Don’t deal with it. This was the approach for most of our nation’s history.

A pay-all federal system, funded by taxpayers.

Here’s a 2016 study of Lifetime medical costs in the United States from RegisteredNursing.org. 

This article gives a rather ridiculous estimate of average lifetime health care costs as greater than $400,000 per person, based on average lifetimes of today averaged forward.  The breakdown: a third of that in middle age, half of it as a senior, and only a sixth before middle age, seems right. These are staggering costs. How can the taxpayers come up with enough money to pay for 330 million Americans? The answer is, they can’t, because 330,000,000 * 400,000 is approximately 132 trillion dollars. That number might even impress politicians.

However, the AMA reference gives a better picture.  The US spent, in total, 414.0 billiondollars in total in 2020.  There is a nice pie chart which shows the breakdown. 

There’s more to consider: the cost isn’t distributed equally.  Costs go way up after you approach the age of 65.  White Americans spend more than Blacks or Hispanics.  Women spend more than men. 

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal.

by asmwizard

A war crime is defined as an action by an individual which goes beyond the rules of warfare, whatever they are, particularly as actions against civilians.  War Crime described by Wikipedia.

Russia’s war against Ukraine contains countless war crimes, such as shelling, bombing, and firing rockets into civilian residential areas.  Thousands of  civilians of the Ukraine have been killed by the Russian military.

Even though Ukraine has been a part of the Soviet Union and the people are not very different from the Russian population, there have been several attacks by Russia against her. 

In 1932-33 Joseph Stalin demanded the ‘collectivization’ of farms in the Ukraine.  Farms were taken from their owners, by force, and organized into communes.  The result was a deadly famine which killed an estimated 3.9 million people in the Ukraine.  See Holodomor: the Great Famine of 1932.

 In 2014, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimea, wresting it from Ukraine by force.  This followed resistance in Ukraine against Russian domination.   See Revolution of Dignity.  For a more complete story of the annexation, see Annexation of Crimea.

The current war against Ukraine is a war against a civilized, peaceful people, initiated  for no real reason.  Vladimir Putin, dictator of the Russian Federation,  is solely responsible for the killing of thousands of women, children, and peace-loving men, and the wrecking of homes and schools, and  the disruption of water, power, and the economy.

The full military power of a huge country is directed against an independent territory the size of Texas.  Russia has employed warplanes, cruise missiles, long range artillery, drones, and tanks against the Ukraine, which initially had none of these weapons.  The brutality of this is off the charts.  I therefore declare Putin to be a war criminal.  I wish the rest of the international community would follow suit.

In my opinion, as a war criminal, Putin should be subject to arrest and prosecution if he ever steps outside of Russia.  The verdict of the prosecution should be guilty, and he should be sentenced to death. 

A rational and sustainable universal health care system.

by asmwizard

As an enemy of the Affordable Health Care Act, I want something else, yet I see the need for universal health care.  So, here I outline what I believe would be a sustainable and fair system of health care that would cover every citizen and would work in the United States.  I believe it would be far superior to Obamacare, if designed according to these principles.  It’s modeled after but differs from the Australian Medicare System, established 1984.  Link: Health Care Australia.  Australian Medicare covers 20 million people, or about a fifteenth of the number of people in the US.   I chose Australia because their system is more recent than the UK’s, it seems to work, and I suspect Aussies in the mass are a bit more rational than Americans.

Any universal health care system needs to satisfy the following goals:

  1. It needs to provide a reasonable level of care;
  2. It should be affordable for the patients, properly remunerate providers and hospitals, and be sustainable for the public purse;
  3. It should be free or nearly so for the poor and of moderate cost to the middle class.  The wealthier population should not be covered;
  4. It should be designed to minimize fraud and cheating by the public and by providers;
  5. It should allow competition from the private sector;
  6. It should not impose unnecessary regulations and restrictions;
  7. It should cover all aspects of health care including physican services, hospitals, pharmacy, rehabilitation, hospice, and long term care;
  8. It should cover major medical expense;
  9. It should make some provision for pre-existing conditions.
  10. It should totally replace the current Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Plan, and Tri-Care plans, as well as care for inmates of federal prisons.  Like them, it should be funded from the public treasury with revenue from special taxes.    Except where lives are at risk, providers should not treat any person without ability to pay.  Hospital emergency rooms should no longer be clinics for the poor and uninsured. 

My plan:

  1. Issue a National Health Card (NHC) to every citizen or family requesting it.  It would be assigned a unique number.  Providers would charge fees to this number.  Duplicate cards would be given on request to each family member.  Family members would use a suffix on the NHC number to establish which patient is being served.  Each card would contain magnetic identification information,  as well as essential medical information such as blood type, chronic medical conditions, and date of birth.
  2. Establish a centralized health record in a national database accessible only by providers.  This is similar to the database provided for in Obamacare.  It should contain photos and fingerprints as well.
  3. Establish a health tax: say 2% off the top of all income.  No deductions, all would pay, including businesses.  The percentage is only a suggestion and would be adjusted as necessary to fully fund the National Health System (NHS).  The tax on business would be exactly equivalent to a sales tax, as businesses would pass the tax on to their customers.   Exceptions: food sales, medical expenses, and utilities would not be taxed.   Real estate and auto sales would not be taxed.
  4. Establish means testing: single persons with more than (I suggest) $100,000 income and couples with more than $170,000 income would not be eligible for NHC benefits.  They would need to purchase insurance or self-insure.  Persons with incomes up to three times the poverty level (3X poverty) would receive full benefits; above that level, benefit amounts would progressively decrease so that patients would have to pay more from their own resources.   Means testing parameters are only a suggestion and could be adjusted.  Means would also be tested by evaluating the patient’s net worth.  If more than $250,000 but less than $500,000, an NHC+ card is issued regardless of income less than 3X poverty.  The card for someone who earns more than the poverty threshold would be an NHC+ card for which there would be two levels of deductible.  The member would pay all charges up to say, $1000, and half of all charges above $1000 and less than $3000.   NHS would pay the remaining charges.
  5. A patient with a NHC who earns less than 3X poverty pays nothing at a hospital or clinic.  The NHS is billed by the provider, but does not pay the provider until the encounter is authorized by the patient.   With an NHC+ card, the patient pays any due amounts to the NHS. 
  6. Patients are free to take  out insurance to pay for their medical care, or to pay the percentage deductible. 
  7. The NHS would also pay for nursing home, rehabilitation, in-home, mental illness confinement, and hospice care on the NHC card.  It would also provide prescribed medical devices. 
  8. A patient who loses income and net worth may apply for an NHC anytime within a year.  The means test is applied annually; the NHC must be renewed annually.

Notes:

  1. Some health services would not be covered by the NHC, including: cosmetic procedures, sex change, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and conditions caused by drug/alcohol abuse.  Cosmetic repair procedures would be paid for injury or illness related disfigurement.
  2. The Department of Defense would still provide health care for military personnel without change.  Civilian employees and contractor personnel posted outside of the United States would be treated by the military health service, but Tri-Care would go away. 
  3. The Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service would continue unchanged.
  4. The President and Vice-Presidential health plans would not change.  The health plan now available to Congress would be eliminated.
  5. Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, and FEHP (Federal Employee Health Plan) will be totally eliminated.  The changeover might require as much as a year or more to implement.
  6. Once voted into law, no amendments, modifications, exemptions, exceptions, or rebates to the plan may be granted without being passed by a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and an endorsement by the President.
  7. The greatest potential for defrauding the NHC is in fraudulent billing by doctors, clinics, hospitals, and other approved providers.  For this reason, my plan would require a three  entity approach to provider reimbursement.   During a medical encounter, the provider will swipe the patient’s NHC to obtain current eligibility, and give the patient or representative a receipt with provider number, encounter number, and date.  The provider will render a statement of billed services, itemized by patient, to the NHS.  The NHS will forward it by mail or email to the patient (or designated representative) who would have to affirm the service was provided and return it with the receipt or the receipt information to the NHS, responding within thirty days.  If properly authorized, the NHS will forward payment to the provider, who eventually would be paid even if the patient failed to respond.   This system may prove too cumbersome, but there may be a workable variation.
  8. If a patient or representative fails to respond within thirty days, their NHC would be invalidated and they would be subject to a fine to reinstate it.  The medical provider will receive payment as if the charge had been authorized.
  9. The NHS will investigate discrepancies.  If fraud by a provider is proven and the patient or representative has authorized an invalid statement, the patient or representative would be subject to prosecution.  If the patient denies the charge the NHS would charge it back to the provider, who could submit it to adjudication at their discretion.
  10. Providers will be free to decline service to anyone who cannot prove capability to pay, without legal liability, providing the patient is not in immediate danger of death.  Prudent business practice would allow providers to take a deposit of credit card, cash, or proof of insurance from patients they do not know.
  11. It might be wise to take some of the revenue from the taxes and use it to subsidize education for more doctors and nurses.
  12. There will be a need for an arbitration process for patient-provider disputes, and a limitation in malpractice awards.  Malpractice should be redefined as deliberate injury or gross negligence.  Remembering that medicine is more art than science, no physician who has diligently worked to help the patient should be penalized if the result is unfortunate.
  13. The NHS will set reasonable fee schedules for each service to prevent providers from overcharging.  The NHS should take care to allow providers to thrive and prosper.
  14. Data collected during the billing process would allow extensive computer analysis to detect provider fraud, patterns of unnecessary services, and excessive charges for supplies and equipment.   
  15. Patients who walk in without an NHS card can give information to allow the provider to pull up their NHS record.  Undocumented non-citizens or persons with expired visas would be treated, but the police will be called, who will arrest and turn them over to the INS for deportation.  Non-citizens with work permits will be able to purchase an NHC good for two months, paying a fee of about $30.  Travelers entering the US will need to be insured.

In effect, the NHC would be a means-tested national health insurance plan funded by taxes, but it would not substantially dictate the fee schedules of providers, and would allow insurance companies to still provide services.  Patients would be free to choose any doctor or hospital who will accept them.  The only acceptable reason for providers to reject new patients is lack of capacity to treat them.  Doctors and hospitals would be free and encouraged to provide services outside of the NHC system.  If the tax rate is set at the proper level to balance revenues vs. expenditures, it will not drain the public treasury or add to the federal deficit.

Direct payment by the NHS might be controversial.  Many schemes try to generate competition through insurance.  My plan has some competitive pressure due to deductible payments for NHC+ members, who will pay two thirds of the first $3000 themselves, and would therefore be wise to accept providers with reasonable rates.  I believe these features of the plan will help to reduce costs: malpractice redefinition and award limits; deductibles, reduction in unpaid provider fees, and possibly subsidized medical education to train more doctors and nurses.    

Universal health care in the United States will be very difficult to sell, because the American public has been accustomed to high cost but has received high quality care.  The crazy patchwork of care programs we have now (individual insurance, provider unpaid, Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, Tri-Care for the military, Federal Employee Health Plan for the federal employees, etc. ) is what we’re used to, and other than individual insurance, most of the cost is paid by the federal government — directly or indirectly.  The idea of more taxes to pay for a health care system is abominable, yet those taxes are built into our tax bill now.  I believe my proposed system would actually reduce health care costs, because unpaid provider costs would decline, and this would bring provider fees down. 

A final comment: the NHS tax should be set at a level to fully fund the system.  It might cost quite a bit to start.  Yet, Australia is currently taxing at 1.5 %.

 

People said it didn’t matter . . .

by asmwizard

A lot of anonymous material flows through the internet.  This is based on such a post I recently received.  It’s anonymous, so it’s fair game.  I’ll plagiarize it, modify it a bit, and post it.

WHEN – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary Communist radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into something else, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – Tom Daschle, Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – as President of the United States , he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , people said it didn’t matter..

WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time ally, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States , people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’ that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

WHEN – he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people woke up— but it was too late. Add these up one by one and you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Barrack Hussein Obama is determined to turn America into a Marxist-Socialist society.

BUT – it did matter.  All of it.

2.13

by asmwizard

Suppose you had 100 women.  Each has one daughter in her lifetime on average, and the daughter has 1 in hers.  You would have 100 mothers, 100 daughters, and 100 granddaughters.  The population (of active mothers) would stay the same for 3 generations, and the fertility rate would be 1.0 female babies per lifetime. 

Now, let’s factor in the males.  Suppose the 100 women had 100 husbands.   To keep the population stable, each mother would have to produce 2.13 babies, including the male ones, because there are more male babies than females.  The 2.13 number is an estimate, the exact figure depends on other factors.

If you have 100 couples, and they each have only 1 child, the birth rate per couple would be 1.0, and they would produce only 50 couples in that generation.  If the fertility rate of 1.0 held again, then there would only be 25 couples after two generations.  Inevitably, the population would decline.

Population size is complex, and you would think that if the birth rate exceeds the death rate, It would grow.  This is not always true.  Other factors, such as the number of immigrants to a country and the number of people who leave, play a role.  But for most countries, a population, has to maintain an average fertility rate of about 2.13 births per mother (or better) to keep from declining. Here’s more: Human birth rate replacement level

Why do I bring this up?  Because, many countries, including the U.S., have fertility rates below 2.13; others are expanding rapidly.  The CIA World Factbook is an excellent reference, and you can find fertility rate estimates for every country in the world, so you can learn which countries have declining populations.  CIA World Factbook.  To locate the fertility rate, select a country (in my example, Belarus), and expand the section on People and Society (click on those words.)

Going down through People and Society, you come to population growth rate in Belarus, which is (today) –0.362%.  It’s negative!  The birth rate is given as 973 per 1000 people per year, or in my terms above, .973%!  The death rate per 1000 is 13.73 deaths per thousand per year, or 1.373%.  But, the birth rate is not the number we’re looking for.  The total fertility rate per mother is given farther down, as 1.27 children per mother.  A country comparison to the world is given, and  you see that Belarus is 213th.  Notice a line under the number 213, which means it’s a link to a list of all the countries and their fertility rates.  Click on it, and you see that Niger is the country with the highest fertility rate in the world, with 7.52 children per mother.  In last place is Singapore, with only .78 children per mother.  Not every country is rated, but Canada is 177th at 1.59, and the United States is 121st at a comfortable 2.06, which is a very modest decline, so why worry?

Many developed countries suffer from declining population. Forty countries, including the Vatican (for obvious reasons) are at zero to negative annual population growth rate. Russia, for example, is at –.48% per year. You can get that from the CIA World Factbook. If we wait long enough, Russia will be empty, and there should be real estate opportunities there. A writeup on Russia’s fertility problem.

Take a look at The U.S. Census of 2010.  Check the growth since the 2000 census by race: white alone, 5.7%, all others, much higher.  It sounds as if our nation’s white women aren’t doing their job. 

Should we worry?  Probably not, we have enough other stuff to worry about.  But, the world is always changing.  The trends are there, and we’ll have to wait and see what comes of them.  

 

 

 

 

Who holds the moral high ground?

by asmwizard

As published in The Leavenworth Times, April 3, 2012.

Liberals routinely claim the moral high ground.  They believe government should directly help the poor and other groups of victims, and assert that conservatives just want to make things better for the rich.  An air of superiority permeates the demeanor of many university professors, wealthy movie stars, and cable network personalities.  For them, there is no debate: they are morally superior.  To that end, they push for ever bigger, more intrusive government.  That has a feedback effect: the more people depending on big government, the more downtrodden to vote for Democrats to continue it, and the more superior they feel.

But are they more moral, as a group, than conservatives? Should we hold them up as models of morality? First, a disclaimer – politicians of all stripes are often corrupt and self-serving, but let’s ignore that and just assume liberals and conservatives act for what they believe is the greater good, not just for themselves.

First of all, liberals reside on the left of the big-to-smaller-government spectrum, as well as the left of the government-power-to-personal-freedom spectrum. They always push for bigger, more powerful government – with more regulations, more taxes, and less freedom for the individual.  Point for conservatives.

Liberals want government to decide who is poor, keep raising the poverty line, and do all they can to keep government largesse flowing to them, rather than improve their overall circumstances. They don’t really want the poor to help themselves. They have allowed nearly half of the public to get away with paying no taxes whatever.  In effect, they attempt to make many voters dependent on government money.  Conservatives want to make it possible for people to help themselves.

Liberals aren’t fiscally responsible.  They’ve grown the deficit and the public debt under Obama, and despite holding all power for two years, have made no move to reform anything.  They’ve run the government on continuing resolutions, never daring to produce a budget which might have to cut a government program.

Leftists are notorious for dishonesty.  They believe the end justifies any means.  Liberals dance dangerously close to that attitude.  For example, liberal journalists and TV personalities routinely pretend to be objective while pushing the liberal agenda.  This is hypocrisy. 

LIberals consistently attack family values, such as traditional marriage and religious freedom. They have asserted rights that never existed before, and imposed them on the majority.

Liberals have no compunction in using mobs to enforce their minority will on the majority.  The huge, organized demonstrations in Wisconsin are an example; the various Occupy movements are another.  Mob action is the opposite of rational discourse and democratic process.  Conservative movements like the Tea Party have behaved properly, and have never used mob action to try to enforce their will.

Liberals seem to hate capitalism.  They want totally regulated economy.  Never mind that such has never worked – even Russia and China have had to back away from it.  Vigorous capitalist economies have done more to raise the standard of living than anything else, particularly in America.  But Liberals still fight it.

From all of the above, and much more, conservatives in general really hold the moral high ground.  The Obama administration proves that.  Obama flaunts the will of the majority – mostly conservatives who want smaller, simpler, less intrusive government, personal freedom and responsibility, and a lawful society.  He has increased government power: ignoring congress on many issues, increasing government size, allowing the debt to grow more than all previous presidents combined, taking over health care, spending ever more, refusing to even consider entitlement reform (while saying he is interested in doing so), pushing irrational energy ideas, and on and on.   

He does all that with an arrogant, confident air.  But you can’t blame him: he’s a liberal, therefore he believes he is morally superior.  He’s wrong.  

 

   

 

 



This is how it all turned out . . .

by asmwizard

(This, for obvious reasons, was never published in the Leavenworth Times.  It’s how I see things as of March 25, 2012.  Of course, things could change, but I doubt they will.)

OK, I’m a historian, writing fifty years from now.  My subject is how things worked out for the nation and the candidates after Super Tuesday in 2012. 

Ron Paul, who was 76 in 2012, never changed.  He ran again five more times in presidential primaries, before finally retiring from politics.  At the age of 100, he ran in the New York marathon and finished second. Shortly after that, Libertarianism was recognized as a mental illness, and he spent the rest of his life in a low-security mental hospital, where he taught classes on the Constitution to his fellow inmates.

Herman Cain never participated in politics again.  His continual hang-dog look was a result of incessant nagging from his wife, who never forgave him for the indiscretions revealed during his candidacy. 

Rick Perry ran for the Senate in 2018.  He was well liked but was always in the minority side, and had few real accomplishments in his three terms there.

Michelle Bachmann remained a gadfly in the House of Representatives for another few years before retiring.  She spent the next twenty years as a little old lady in Minnesota.

John Huntsman spent the rest of his life just being rich.  He eventually bought a vacation home in Roatan and lived there most of the time.  He did visit China several more times.

Newt Gingrich was the first of the remaining four to drop out of the race after Super Tuesday.  He won a total of two southern states, but did miserably everywhere else.  After that, he wrote and lectured extensively, and became the de facto intellectual leader of the Republican Party for several years.  His reform ideas were admired by many, but none were ever really tried. 

Rick Santorum fought on, but the Romney snowball eventually overwhelmed him.  Afterward, he served as Secretary of Health and Human Services during Romney’s presidency.  He retired after that, and devoted his life to writing and lecturing about social issues.  

Mitt Romney won a close, heavily contested election and became President of the United States in 2013.  He lost in the popular vote but won the Electoral College by a few votes.  This re-energized the Popular Vote advocates, but they never quite managed to pass the amendment.

As President, Romney was made ineffective by a Senate which remained under Democrat control.  Although he rescinded many of Obama’s regulations and fired the many czars Obama had appointed, he was unable to balance the budget, have Obamacare repealed, or make any serious reforms in entitlements.  Thus, during his term, the balance of people on government aid — as opposed to those earning wages and paying taxes — finally tipped so that there were more takers than taxpayers.  No Republican or fiscal conservative could win as long as this situation lasted.  Romney was defeated in his bid for re-election, and Michelle Obama became President in 2017. 

Barry Obama was content to be “First Husband” in the White House.  He founded and ran his centers for Islamic Studies, and traveled extensively on Air Force Two – at public expense — while his wife ran things.  She was no more competent than he had been.

During Michelle’s third year in office, the United States suffered a financial collapse similar to that of Greece when China suddenly stopped loaning money to the American government.  The United States could no longer pay Social Security, extend unemployment, hand out food stamps, provide medical care, or employ anyone. No one in the world offered bailout money.  Michelle ordered a lot of money printed, but it was almost worthless. So, millions of older folks starved to death, as did all those depending on the government for their living.  Only people with private sector jobs survived.  It was the greatest catastrophe in world history.

We now have a leaner, meaner America.  Much meaner, and much less crowded.  On the bright side, there’s no unemployment.    

   

  

Newt’s fatal flaw

by asmwizard

Note — revised 2/8/2012 after initial publication — D’Amato doesn’t particularly like Newt, according to various sources.

This morning, February 8, Former New York Senator Al D’Amato appeared on Fox News.  He explained the trap that his opposition can spring on Newt at any time.  Note that Al is a Republican and apparently isn’t too fond of Newt for some reason.  I don’t believe any Republican will do so, but if Newt becomes the Republican candidate, I’m certain that the Obama campaign wouldn’t hesitate.  The only question is the date they would spring it.  I think it would likely be the last day of October.

All they have to do is dig up 2 or 3 public officials, honest or otherwise, who will swear that Newt made contact, and tried to influence some favor for Freddy Mac while he was contracted with Freddy Mac.  Many would believe the accusation, because it’s already a sensitive subject for Newt, and Democrats have no trouble lying.  Since Newt was not registered as a lobbyist, that would constitute a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $200,000.  Here’s the relevant information: Unregistered lobbyist.

Remember that in the eyes of the public, once accused, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  While Newt, if innocent, would likely be acquitted in a court of law, the accusation would be crushing.  I seriously doubt that Newt could win.  It breaks my heart to say so, because I absolutely believe he would have been the president we need: a conservative reformer who would make fundamental changes in all the important areas.  In my view, Santorum, though young, is the next most likely to do so.  I believe Romney is too ready to compromise. 

Politics is a dirty business, and just barely beats out the alternative, which is deciding who will be the next leader through bloodshed.