bricolagia

Thoughts on Conservative strategy for the 2010 Midterm Elections and beyond

2010-06-26T12:31:00.000-07:00

To date the news from the primaries has been mostly good. Conservatives are winning big. That's good, but if we are going to turn this country around we need to be thinking about our message for November. Obviously we want to halt the slide toward socialism, but independents, who may be crucial in this election, will want to know where we are planning to go. For example, we have said we want to repeal and replace Obama Care. Independents legitimately ask, "Replace it with what?" To avoid sounding negative, Conservatives should simply say they want to replace Obama Care with an approach to health care that gives the patient choice and control and won't break his bank account. Some good examples of health care initiatives can be found at the Center for Health Transformation (http://www.healthtransformation.net/cs/health_solutions_lab)

Illegal immigration is another hot button issue that needs to be handled carefully. The first issue that needs to be addressed is border enforcement. Illegals who commit crimes (in addition to violating our borders) need to be criminally prosecuted. But what of the 12 million or so illegal immigrants who work, pay taxes and don't cause trouble? Why not offer those who can document that they have been in the US for say 10 years a path to citizenship? And once the borders are secured a guest worker program should be started to enable those who want to work in agriculture, construction or any other field where they are needed to come to the US for a definite period of time. Since they would be required to register with ICE the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to cheat them on salary and benefits would be limited, and terrorists trying to cross th border could be caught.

One thing Conservatives should unequivocally oppose is further deficit spending. No more "stimulus" bills. Conservatives should also advocate making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Thinking beyond the November election, Conservatives need to develop a strategy to avoid mischief by the lame duck Congress between the election recess and January. Filibusters can be mounted in the Senate. In the House no provision for a filibuster exists. However, Congressmen can begin introducing bills that will be part of their legislative agenda for 2011. Each bill will occupy some House time and thereby delay the Democrat majority bills. Discharge petitions can be used to unlock bills tied up in committee.

Keynesian Economics has not been practiced

2010-06-15T14:55:00.000-07:00

Frequently you hear that the government is practicing Keynesian economics because it is running a deficit budget.

Named for John Maynard Keynes, a British economist of the mid 20th century, Keynesian economics was popular in the Depression era, when it indeed led to budget deficits.

But that was not the whole of Keynesian economics. Keynes was preoccupied with stabilizing the economy -- keeping the value of money from going up or down excessively. His approach to doing this was to make government spending counter cyclical. When the economy was good the government should run a surplus, and when it was bad the government should run a deficit. In this way, at least in theory, the government would build up a "rainy day" fund during good times to tide it over during bad times.

Unfortunately, our leaders in Washington have almost never practiced Keynesian economics. They have run deficit budgets year in and year out, leading to today's 13 Trillion accumulated debt (and if the off-budget debt due to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements is included it's much larger)

Should the government practice true Keynesian economics? Well, it would be better than the current situation, but the potential for abuse is great. Economic projections are notoriously inaccurate, giving politicians excuses to pour out benefits in the hope that it will lead to more votes for their reelection. Better to have expenditures in line with the budget Congress adopts.

Are the oceans cooling?

2010-06-12T07:40:00.000-07:00

A recent discussion among myself and two friends brought up the contention made by a couple of Climatological web sites that the oceans have been cooling recently. The web sites in question are:
here and here.
Another source of ocean temperature data is here.

Plotting the data from the third source (the NOAA data for 180W - 100W, which covers most of the tropical Pacific Ocean) doesn't give much insight into cooling. A linear regression gives a very slight cooling, but that's probably just an artifact of where the regression starts and ends:

One fact that jumps right out is that the ocean temperature fluctuates quite a bit, and this can translate into greater atmospheric temperature fluctuations near the surface because of the higher specific heat of water.

The decline in ocean temperature my friend and the two web sites were referring to is the decline from late 2009 to the present (latest data May 2010):

This represents nearly a 3 degree (C) decline, but it's not all that much compared to earlier fluctuations (see the first figure). A Google Scholar search turned up a number of papers on ocean temperature, mostly showing warming, but all with considerable up and down fluctuations.

Still, it's of interest to assess the causes of ocean temperature fluctuations. It doesn't seem the oceans should be affected as much by the greenhouse effect as the atmosphere, since greenhouse gases trap rising heat. It would seem the ocean temperature would be more directly affected by the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and by cloud cover, which in turn is driven (among other things) by cosmic rays. Sunspots affect the TSI, and sunspots are currently in decline, as shown in the following figure:
When sunspots are low, less energy is released by the sun, contributing to less warming due to TSI. Furthermore, the magnetic field of the sun is at its lowest, letting more cosmic rays impinge on the atmosphere. This in turn causes more air to be ionized, which provides nuclei for clouds to condense around, increasing cloud cover and increasing the reflectance of solar radiation back into space. This of course cools the atmosphere. Also, some recent research by Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Waterloo, links the decline of CFC gases (chlorofluorocarbons once used as refrigerants and according to Professor Lu, "well known greenhouse gases") under the influence of cosmic rays to the recent cooling of the atmosphere.

My conclusions:

The study of earths temperature cannot be complete with the main emphasis on CO2
Although the oceans temperature fluctuates considerably, the higher heat capacity of water argues strongly for including the influence of the oceans on earth's temperature
Factors like sunspots and cosmic rays must be taken into account.

References

Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions
of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces:
Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
and global climate change
Physics Reports, Volume 487, Issue 5,
February 2010, Pages 141-167,
ISSN 0370-1573, DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TVP-4XVC4M5-
1/2/643db802d858c3d6e2ec9b78627fea24)

Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation
Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 1. Theory
Authors: Vitaliy D. Rusov, Alexandr V. Glushkov,
Vladimir N. Vaschenko, Oksana T. Mykhalus,
Yuriy A. Bondartchuk, Vladimir P. Smolyar,
Elena P. Linnik,
Strachimir Cht. Mavrodiev, Boyko I. Vachev
The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
Physics Vol. 72 (2010) p. 398-408
arXiv:0803.2765v3 [physics.ao-ph]

Galactic Cosmic Rays - Clouds Effect and Bifurcation
Model of the Earth Global Climate. Part 2.
Comparison of Theory with Experiment
Authors: Vitaliy D. Rusov, Vladimir N. Vaschenko,
Elena P. Linnika, Oksana T. Myhalus,
Yuriy A. Bondartchuk,
Vladimir P. Smolyar, Sergey I. Kosenko,
Strachimir Cht. Mavrodiev,
Boyko I. Vachev
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial
Physics Vol. 72 (2010) p. 380-497
arXiv:0803.2766v3 [physics.ao-ph]

Testing the proposed link between cosmic rays
and cloud cover
Authors: T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale
Lancs-HEP/080309
arXiv:0803.2298v1 [physics.ao-ph]

Update -- Myeloma

2010-06-08T08:41:00.000-07:00

See my post from Friday May 28.
Linda and I drove to Houston June 2 to see Dr. Orlowski, our oncologist at M. D. Anderson. The results of two cycles of chemo look excellent. Not all results were in yet, but the immunoglobulin IgG went from 6200 March 15 to 2330 June 2 -- a 62% reduction. Dr. Orlowski estimates I will need 4 to 6 cycles before the stem cell transplant.

Meanwhile I started the third cycle of chemo yesterday. Today I feel good, which is a contrast from previous cycles. I have been a little anemic, from prior to being diagnosed, and the nurse practitioner suggested I eat liver, dark, leafy greens, etc. She thought that would be better than the constipation that might result from taking iron pills. Since I've had enough constipation to last me the rest of my life, we stopped at Luby's on the way home and I had liver. Maybe that was a factor.

To anyone out there who is praying for me: Thanks. I know many people are praying for me.

A Tale of Two Registry Cleanup Utilities

2010-06-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

My wife has a PC, I use a Macintosh. Several years ago I got a registry cleanup program from Iolo that did a good job of straightening out registry issues. But then Iolo decided to go into the firewall, antivirus, antieverything business and bundled their registry cleanup utility with everything else. However, I was using another firewall/antivirus program and had no desire to switch, After all, I had a license valid for a year, the program worked fine, and I had three total installations, including one under Parallels on the Macintosh and one under VMWare on the PC (the license allows this). Iolo included the ability to detect third party antivirus/firewall programs, but their program failed to detect the antivirus/firewall program I was using. So I got bogus warnings, "No firewall detected. Antivirus not detected."

Meantime my wife's computer ran more and more slowly. Finally I got an email from Smith Micro announcing a registry cleaner called Checkit. I ordered it and installed it last night. I ran it and my wife is happy. The computer runs much faster now. It's a shame Iolo had to take a simple program and tie it together with other layers of code to do much more than I wanted done, but from initial experience, Checkit will do the job.

Some fun questons

2010-05-29T17:11:00.000-07:00

Following is a list of short questions I've wondered about for years.

Why is Tucson (Arizona) pronounced Tooson? Shouldn't it be Tuckson? Don't tell me it was originally Spanish, because in Spanish it would be Tuckson (or maybe Tookson). Maybe it comes from an Indian word?
Why is Boston cream pie pie instead of cake? Pie has a crust, cake doesn't.
Similarly, why is cheesecake cake and not pie, since it has a crust?
Why do they call movie previews trailers?

Any takers?

Where I’ve been

2010-05-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

From sometime in February until this week I didn’t update Bricolagia. Where have I been?

On December 28 I got a call from my doctor, who urged me to see a hematologist ASAP because a blood protein test indicated I might have multiple myeloma, a cancer of the white blood cells.
In January, my appointment with the hematologist had to be canceled because I got pneumonia. Multiple myeloma interferes with the making of the various components of the immune system.

Finally in February I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, stage 1. The treatment is chemotherapy until 90 – 95 % remission is achieved, followed by a stem cell transplant. I will get an autologous stem cell transplant, in which my own stem cells will be harvested and reintroduced after intensive chemotherapy to remove all (or most) of the remaining cancer.
Texas Oncology, the cancer treatment center providing the chemotherapy, doesn’t do stem cell transplants, so we opted to go to M. D. Anderson Center Treatment Center in Houston for the transplant. The doctors at Texas Oncology and M. D. Anderson were willing to work together, with M. D. Anderson in charge, so that meant I could get most of my early treatment in Austin.

I began chemo treatment on April 26 – 2 weeks on chemo and one week off, for 2—4 cycles, whatever it takes to get the disease under enough control that I can go on to the next stage. After the first cycle the proteins indicative of multiple myeloma have gone down dramatically and Dr. Kasper, the oncologist at Texas Oncology is pleased.

I am just finishing up with the chemo stage of the second cycle and the results aren’t in yet.

One of the drugs I’m getting is Revlmid, which is derived from Thalidomide, the drug that was given to pregnant women in the 60’s that caused birth defects. The FDA is paranoid about Revlimid and makes you sign your life away to get it. You have to promise you won’t have sex with a woman of childbearing age, or even let her touch the pills. And it’s very expensive, a problem for me since I don’t currently have any drug coverage.

You’ve heard about the various side effects of chemotherapy – they’re different for everyone, but they include constipation, diarrhea, mouth sores, general aches and pains, fatigue, etc. I’ve had fairly constant constipation and occasional aches in my rib cage. I lack energy, but all in all it hasn’t been too bad.

You’ve heard how people who are in bad situations and the church is praying for them say they can tell people are praying for them. Well, I can attest to that. I have a huge prayer team – it overwhelms me how many are praying faithfully for me, and I can tell that they are.

I will keep you updated as things progress.

A More Satisfying view of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Controversy

2010-05-28T05:31:00.000-07:00

H. Leighton Steward is a geologist who has been interested in climate and what drives it for some time. His book, Fire, Ice and Paradise (Bloomington, IN, Authorhouse, 2009) describes the various climate drivers through earth’s history in layman’s terms. The title roughly outlines earth’s geological history: from the time the earth was formed (fire), through the “snowball earth” period 850 million years ago to 650 million years ago, to the present period, which he designates “Paradise”.

Steward’s most important points are that CO2 is not the only climate driver and that many interacting factors control our climate. Factors Steward deals with include

Variations in the sun’s activity, especially the magnetic activity which controls the incidence of cosmic rays in the lower atmosphere, which in turn form ionization trails for clouds to condense on. The clouds increase the earth’s albedo (tendency to reflect light) and have a cooling effect.
The tendency of CO2 to become less effective as a greenhouse gas as it becomes more concentrated.
Variations in the earth’s orbit, together with variations in the sun’s position caused by gravitational interactions with Jupiter and Saturn.
Various geologic processes such as weathering of rocks and plate techtonics which release calcium to combine with and sequester CO2.
Changes in earth’s albedo due to desertification, vegetation growth, and the exposure of more or less beach as sea levels advance and retreat.

In Chapter 7 Steward discusses two scenarios that show how the various factors can interact. The first is pretty typical of the conventional wisdom of the AGW advocates, although it includes some drivers such as water vapor, methane, changes in albedo due to increased vegetation and melting snow. In this scenario the earth warms.

In the second scenario Steward notes that

The earth’s orbital alignment is moving in a cooling direction
The greenhouse effect of CO2 saturates as the CO2 concentration increases
Warming of the atmosphere allows it to absorb more water vapor, which in turn leads to more low-level clouds, increasing albedo and leading to a negative feedback, mitigating the heating. But water vapor is itself an important greenhouse gas, and whether increased albedo due to clouds or the water vapor greenhouse effect wins out is a matter of research.

Steward gives extensive charts showing temperatures and CO2 concentration throughout geological history. Important points to glean from these charts include

In the past, the Paleocene period for example, CO2 concentration was as high as 1200 PPM but temperatures were around 27 degrees C (80 deg F). Since then CO2 and temperature have both declined to the present levels (with some ups and downs) of 380 PPM and 59 deg F (15 deg C)
The great civilizations of the past have been associated with warm periods, not cool periods.

Steward does not advocate expensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, neither does he propose doing nothing. He advocates continuing research, and some reduction in CO2 emissions (including sequestering CO2 and storing it for later release if needed)

Evolution for Christians

2010-02-17T06:01:00.000-08:00

Conservative Christians frequently reject evolution out of hand for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are sound, others are not.
I’m going to try to explain what evolution is and demonstrate that it is a very broad science, containing many elements that ought to be perfectly acceptable to Christians.

Definition of evolution
An academic definition of evolution is Change in the distribution of alleles in a population from one generation to the next.

Alleles are defined as alternative DNA sequences at the same physical gene locus, which may or may not result in different phenotypic traits.

A phenotype is defined as any observable characteristic or trait of an organism

Common descent is the notion that all organisms today are descended from a smaller number of organisms that lived in the past. For example, amphibians evolved from fish, etc.

Common descent begins with speciation – the separation of an interbreeding population into two populations that cannot interbreed.

Why the definition is important

It’s difficult to get anywhere in a discussion without being agreed on definitions – or at least understanding how the other side defines its terms.
Some hint of where I’m going should have already shown up in the definition. Note that it says nothing about fish evolving into salamanders, etc. Note that most evolutionary biologists believe that new species can evolve from earlier species. But in academia far less controversial changes go under the rubric of evolution. (e.g. bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics) The form of evolution conservative Christians object to (often called macroevolution, but more properly called common descent) begins with speciation—the separation of an interbreeding population into two populations that can’t interbreed.

Objections

Conservative Christians have developed a number of objections to evolution. Here I deal with the most common ones.

The genetic code doesn’t permit evolution. This is entirely too restrictive. First, the genetic code does permit evolution defined as above. One example has already been mentioned: the development of resistance to antibiotics among bacteria. A second example is the peppered moth in England. In the early part of the 20th century there were more white peppered moths than black. Later it was noted that the proportion of black peppered moths had increased. Finally, in the latter part of the 20th century the proportion of white peppered moths increased. Eventually it was noted that the reduction in the proportion of white peppered moths coincided with the increasing use of coal in British industry, which caused the tree barks to darken in color. When clean air legislation began to take effect there was less soot in the air and the tree barks lightened. The proportion of light colored moths increased. In each case the moths that contrasted with the tree bark were more visible to predators and were removed from the population, causing future generations to increasingly match the tree bark. This is just natural selection in action. Note that evolution provides populations of living creatures with a very effective, elegant defense against environmental factors that could result in their demise. If for example the peppered moths referred to above did not carry the genes for white spots on a dark background as well as those for dark spots on a white background, the population of peppered moths might have been wiped out. What about macroevolution? Here the genetic code does provide some barriers. Evolutionary researchers don’t believe they’re insurmountable, many conservative Christians believe they are. First, for one population to separate into two that can’t interbreed (in other words, for one species to become two) all that is necessary is for a mutation to occur that prevents the mutated members of the population from interbreeding with the non-mutated members. The mutated members don’t necessarily differ from the non-mutated members in physical appearance – they just can’t interbreed with them. However, for a new species to be formed (an interbreeding population) the same mutation must occur in at least two individuals of the opposite sex. If this occurs, then you have two populations that can evolve independently.
Evolution depends on death – those individuals that are less fit for the environment they live in die off. Thus death preceded Adam’s sin, which they claim is contrary to Scripture. However, the Scriptures say nothing about animal death resulting from sin. Gen 2:17 says
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.
Since Adam did not die physically for many more years, you could make the case that God is talking about spiritual death here – separation from God. Since animals are not spiritual beings, the warning does not apply to animals.
Another problematic aspect of evolution for many Christians is the contention that random mutations provide the richness of variation that natural selection works on. Here we need to be very careful. What appears random to a human researcher does not necessarily appear random to God, who is omniscient. Indeed a Christian view would eliminate “necessarily” in the previous sentence. Furthermore, nonlinear processes can exhibit behavior that appears random but is not. Without knowing the differential equations or the recursion relations and the initial conditions to infinite precision, trying to predict the evolution in time of a complex process is a hopeless task. One would achieve as good a prediction using random numbers.

What does all this mean to Christians?

Rejection of evolution by the Christian community leads some Christian young people to avoid careers in the biological sciences, and it leads secular biologists to reject Christianity. In Matthew 28 Jesus tells the disciples

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus did not say to avoid making disciples of scientists.

Worse, rejection of evolution by the church will lead some Christian students to abandon their faith when they are faced with the evidence for evolution. A good friend of mine, who has had a very successful career as a petroleum geologist, nearly abandoned Christianity for exactly this reason.
If Christians accept evolution but not necessarily common descent, they are accepting a very large part of the science of evolution, without compromising any Christian principles. This opens the field of evolutionary biology to Christian students. This is important for several reasons:

Scientists are more likely to hear Christian testimony if some of their colleagues are Christians
They are less likely to reject Christianity if they have colleagues whom they respect, who are Christians
Much progress has been made in immunology and biology by evolutionists. Let’s encourage Christians to potentially make advances in these fields

One caution: don’t go around saying “I accept microevolution but not macroevolution.” Academics don’t make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. If you must, say, “I don’t accept speciation.”

Quotation from John Adams

2010-01-22T07:16:00.000-08:00

With the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Republicans and conservatives are rightly celebrating. But there is a great deal of work ahead of us until November, if we expect to increase our representation in Congress. And I'm sure we can expect some dirty tricks from the Democrats between now and November. Today I viewed a PJTV Trifecta discussion that's perhaps a few days old. In it Bill Whittle finished with this quotation from John Adams:

Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times more than ever calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack on our liberty, we encourage it and we involve others in our doom.

He finished by admonishing viewers to celebrate over the weekend and be ready to work Monday.

Good advice. Let's follow it.

The PJTV show I'm referring to can be viewed here

An example of stochastic resonance

2010-01-10T12:49:00.000-08:00

This post is a response to some discussion that has been going on on the American Scientific Affiliation list, which is archived here
The specific discussion this refers to is here Also see my previous post on this blog. The ASA list does not currently support uploading graphics, so I will post this part of the discussion here.

Last month I posted an example of a resonant system in which an input excitation that varied only by 0.1 % caused the system output to grow without limit, to refute the argument that solar input could not cause the warming experienced in the 20th century because TSI only varies by 0.1 %. Rich Blinne responded with

Even though resonance is theoretically possible before you go there you need to answer the question of why wasn’t there resonance for thousands of years and suddenly in the mid-20th Century things just changed?

The example I posted was a simple, second order linear system. The resonant behavior shown was constant -- it just caused the response to grow and grow forever. If the earth/sun system were a second order linear system, Rich's comment would be right on. Nonlinear systems, including the sun/earth system, are far more complicated. To illustrate I programmed the example given by Tobias and Weiss in [1].

By fiddling with the system parameters I was able to produce the plot shown below, which demonstrates one of the characteristics of nonlinear systems: the ability to show little activity for long periods of time followed by a burst of activity. (The plot is of the variable Tobias and Weiss label T.)

Not to say that this is an accurate model of interactions between the sun and climate, although Tobias and Weiss use it to illustrate sun/climate interactions — only that in nonlinear systems like the sun/climate system you can have long periods of little activity followed by a burst of activity. The sun/earth system is highly nonlinear and probably chaotic. This sort of behavior is common in chaotic systems. So the answer to Rich's comment is that the resonance was always there -- it just wasn't as active before the 20th century.

In case anyone is interested, I will be glad to make the mathematica notebook I used to generate the plot available.

Reference
[1] Tobias, S. M., Weiss, N. O. “Resonant interactions between solar activity and climate”, Journal of Climate, V 13, 1 Nov 2000, pp3745-3759

A simple example of resonance

2009-12-17T06:23:00.000-08:00

In the climate change debate there is a faction that claims that the global warming we have experienced since approximately 1900 is due to changes in the sun's irradiance. The conventional wisdom among climate scientists is that since the solar irradiance varies only by 0.1%, solar irradiance variations are not powerful enough to bring about the observed temperature increases. However, Scafetta, West, Grigolini and others claim to have identified a stochastic resonance phenomenon that allows small variations to grow over time. Scafetta et. al.'s papers and analyses are quite challenging to follow. I am not convinced the climate change community is taking into account the resonance phenomenon. To demonstrate the potential of resonance to build up a large response from a small input I have put together a simple example using Mathematica. The example consists of a spring-mass system excited by a sinusoidal force at the resonant frequency. A small amount of damping is employed to keep the solution from growing too fast.

The system dynamics are given by
x'' + 2.0*delta*omegan*x' + (omegan^2)*x =b*omegan^2 +a*(omegan^2)*Sin[omega*t]

where x'' is the second derivative of x with respect to tim, and x' is the first.

Two runs were made. For both runs
omega = omegan = 10.0
delta = 0.001
b = 1.0
x'[0] = 0
x[0] = 1.0

For the first run a = 0.0. Thus the excitation is just a constant 1.0.

Here is a plot of the results of the first run

Note that since the excitation is the constant value 1.0, the output is the constant value 1.0
For the next run I set a = 0.001 - 0.1 percent of 1.0. Here are the results of the second run:

The addition of a 0.1 percent variation of the excitation makes a huge difference in the output.
A few comments are in order:

This is the simplest possible example. In no way do I intend to claim that this is what's going on in global warming. The point of the example is that a resonance in a system can lead to large swings of the system variables
Obviously for the resonance to occur, energy storage is required (the spring in our simple example) In the earth/sun system the energy storage may be in the oceans, the atmosphere, or eaven the earth itself
Scafetta suggests that one possible source of cycling of the earth' temperature is the wobble of the sun's position caused by the gravitational pull of the Jovian planets (Jupiter, Saturn)

References

Scafetta Talk at EPA:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
Various publications on Scafetta's web site:
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/index-publications.html

Keep fighting

2009-11-22T14:37:00.000-08:00

Well, we didn't stop Obamacare on this vote. But that doesn't mean it's sure to become law. There are many disagreements among Democrats on what the bill should contain, and a number of Red-state Democrats are anticipating tough reelection battles. Even if Obamacare passes, there are sure to be challenges over the constitutionality of a program that requires every person to purchase health insurance. So hang in there. The battle is still raging.

Medicare for everyone

2009-11-21T07:47:00.000-08:00

Medicare for everyone is what Obamacare looks like to me. And that’s not good news. Several events in my life and the lives of those close to me will illustrate.

I turned 65 in September 2007 and my wife and I moved from Rochester, MI to Austin, TX in April 2008. Shortly after we moved I developed a swelling on the left side of my face. We must have called a dozen doctors trying to get an appointment. Each doctor, when he/she found out my primary insurance carrier was Medicare, wouldn’t see me. Finally we saw a physicians assistant at a clinic attached to hospital. He correctly determined that it was an allergic reaction to enalapril, a blood pressure medication I was taking. A few days later we were able to see an internist at the same clinic and he concurred with the PA’s opinion. He prescribed another blood pressure med and the problem hasn’t reoccurred. Our former physician in Rochester agreed with the diagnosis and new prescription and remarked that the reaction I had had could have been life-threatening. But doctors don’t like to take new patients who are on Medicare because of the poor reimbursements, the time required to get reimbursed, and the paperwork.

My mother has used a walker for several years, since she had a hip replacement. A few months ago I noticed a chunk missing from the tire of one of the wheels. The walker was made in China and wheels weren’t available for it. The nurse practitioner who looks after my mother told me that Medicare would pay for a new walker, but that seemed extravagant. I eventually found a wheel that fit perfectly at a local hardware store for $9.95. That’s where your tax money goes: $275 for a new walker instead of $9.95 for a wheel.

You would think that an organization like Medicare, with millions of subscribers, would use the clout of numbers to negotiate the best deal for its subscribers.
This may be true with health care practitioners, but not with vendors.
Billy Eberle’s column from GOPUSA (October 6, 2009) documents how Medicare overpays for equipment they pay for.

$7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.
$4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.
$1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.
$3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.
$82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web

Under ObamaCare you will have government bureaucrats looking over your shoulder as you fill out your tax forms. It’s bad enough that they’re watching, but watch out when they draw the wrong conclusions. I retired in 2006 at age 63 and went immediately on Social Security. In the next few months my employer paid me $4000 in “Invention Awards” – awards for inventions I had submitted for patents prior to retirement. In September 2007 I got a letter from Social Security stating that since I had earned money following retirement, I was not entitled to the $12075 they had paid me. An envelope was enclosed in which to send my check for the $12075. Alternatively, if I chose not to reimburse them, they would stop Social Security payments until they had recovered $12075. I contacted my employer and they wrote a letter to Social Security explaining that the $4000 was for work I had done prior to retirement. However, they cautioned me not to get my hopes up. They had recently had a similar case and Social Security had required a form to be filled out that required signatures from officers of the company. And that would take considerable time. Apparently the letter worked. I say “apparently” because in January 2008 I got a letter from Social Security that said, in part

“We used $12075 of your benefits to recover all of your overpayment.
We have recovered all of the money you owed because of an overpayment.
In your next check we will pay you the difference between the money we have already paid you and the money you are now due.”

Huh? Perhaps they were thinking in terms of the fiction that everyone has a Social Security account with a fixed amount of money in it. In any case why was it necessary to “recover” their overpayment? They are the ones who made a mistake. They need to back out the claimed overpayment in their records, not “recover” it. We did receive a check for $368 from Social Security that month, in addition to the regular payment. Apparently it was for a cost of living increase they had withheld while my appeal was being decided. I complained to my Congressman that Social Security needed to train their letter writers to write more clearly, but I doubt that will do any good. Do you want to deal with letters like that on a regular basis? You will have to if Obamacare becomes law.

Several years ago my younger son was denied health insurance because he had a mild case of diabetes. I suspect that was due to government regulations limiting how much premiums could vary based on preexisting conditions.

The upshot of all this is that a government-run healthcare system will enormously complicate your life, with government bureaucrats looking over your shoulder as you fill out tax returns, frequently drawing the wrong conclusions, which you are then obligated to straighten out. In addition there will be no rhyme nor reason to how money is spent. Millions will be laid out to replace walkers that need only a new part, while you will be denied a medication or procedure because it costs $100.

We need a Constitutional Amendment

2009-10-26T14:18:00.000-07:00

A scary event is about to take place in Copenhagen in December . Nearly 200 nations are meeting to approve a treaty to replace the Kyoto accord on climate change. The scary thing about this treaty is that, according to people who have read it, it will establish world government. If President Obama signs it and 2/3 of the Senate concur, it will become the “supreme law of the land” according to Article 6 of the United States Constitution. The President and 2/3 of the senate can supersede the Constitution.

This is obviously a dangerous provision. The framers probably put it in the Constitution to reassure nations we conduct relations with that the United States’ signature on a treaty is binding. But the power is too broad. We need a Constitutional Amendment that says something like

Any treaty signed by the President and approved by 2/3 of the Senate must be approved by ¾ of the state legislatures.

An alternative might be

Any treaty commitment signed by the President and approved by the Senate which is found to conflict with this Constitution as amended, shall be declared null and void

Getting on message

2009-08-19T06:44:00.000-07:00

Good for the Republicans. More and more I hear Republicans saying that the best way to reduce medical costs is by tort reform. Tort reform makes it more difficult to bring a frivolous lawsuit against a doctor or a hospital, and this in turn reduces the cost of malpractice insurance. Texas has implemented a review panel that reviews lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. To go forward a lawsuit must have the review board's stamp of approval. This in turn has reduced the cost of malpractice insurance, and has attracted more doctors to Texas.

Will this gain traction in Congress? It's questionable because the trial lawyers are big givers to Democrats. So keep pressing your congressman and senators.

I smell a rat

2009-08-18T07:28:00.000-07:00

After weeks of fighting to include a “public option” in the health care bill the Obama administration suddenly backs off, saying the public option “is not the heart of the health care bill”. This may be good news, but there is still much to dislike in the health care bill:

Funding the health care system in part by taking $500 billion from Medicare over 10 years. Many doctors already refuse to take new Medicare patients, as I found out when I moved from Michigan to Texas last year. Currently Medicare pays 80% of the amount Medicare has established for a procedure (not 80% of the price the doctor quotes). If this reimbursement goes down to 60% or lower, fewer doctors will be willing to take Medicare patients. Seniors beware if you are contemplating a move.
Not only does the bill cover the 48 million Americans who allegedly lack health insurance, it extends to illegal aliens – upwards of 20 million people. With the bill’s stringent limits on how much doctors can be paid for their services, the number of doctors in the U. S. is likely to decline, leading to rationing of health care.
The so-called “Insurance coops” proposed by the health care bill can serve the same purpose as the public option: Giving the government control over coverage and treatment, eventually squeezing private insurers out of the health insurance business.
The public option is still in the House version of the bill and could be reinserted in conference.

At the end of the day the health care bill is not about health care at all. It’s about the Federal government taking control of health care decisions that ought to be made by private individuals and their doctors

Town Hall Meetings

2009-08-07T19:27:00.000-07:00

With the arrival of the August Congressional recess, lawmakers are back in their districts holding town hall meetings. This year many of the meetings are experiencing large turnouts of not always polite participants. Conservatives, especially, are deeply concerned about the program President Obama is pushing:

Will it increase taxes?
What will happen to Medicare, with partial funding of the program coming from Medicare?
Will it result in long waits for treatment and rationing of treatment?

Unfortunately, feeling is running so high that meetings have degenerated into shouting matches. As a conservative, I sympathize with the protesters. But are they accomplishing anything? I wonder. And the liberals are beginning to react with counterprotests. This is a recipe for violence, which no one in his right mind ought to want. Vigorous debate in a democracy is desirable. Disruption of meetings which ought to be forums for vigorous debate is not, and is destructive to democracy.
A month remains until Congress reconvenes. That’s enough time for Congress to hire a polling organization to sample every legislative district to find out what the electorate thinks of President Obama’s healthcare proposal and what reforms they advocate in health care. Then Congress can proceed with good information about what the public supports and does not support.

Dangerous lawmakers

2009-07-02T12:44:00.000-07:00

Twice now in the past few months Congress has voted on bills that many members have not read. The Stimulus Bill was over a thousand pages and members were given barely 24 hours to read it. The "Cap and Trade" Bill was 1000 pages, and 300 pages were added at the last minute. Our President insists that these bills are so urgently needed that Congress must act quickly. But what happens to people who sign papers they haven't read? Answer: whatever the writer of the paper wrote would happen. If an individual signs a contract without reading it, he's stupid and deserves whatever he gets. But when a member of Congress votes yea on a bill he hasn't read, he's voting to bind the nation to whatever reckless provisions are written into the bill. This ought to be grounds for the voters who elected him to recall him, and possibly grounds for criminal prosecution.

To prevent mischief, the following ought to be added to Congress' rules for processing bills.

For bills longer than a specified number of pages, x days must be allowed for every y pages to give members an opportunity to read the bill
The bill shall have a table of contents and an index
The bill shall address only a single subject
The bill must be readable by a sixth grader of average intelligence
Any member caught voting on a bill he has not read will be suspended

2009-06-23T18:28:00.000-07:00

A letter sent to the retirees of a large company ends with
[The company] reserves the right to change, amend, modify, suspend or terminate its employment practices, policies, employee benefit plans or programs at any time…

One can easily understand why this company includes such warnings in its employee communications. Over the years they have been sued many times.

But consider the message this sends to salaried employees: You can’t count on any future benefits from the company. Forget about all the enticements we offered you to join us. They aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. It’s no wonder people graduating from college today often go into business for themselves. There’s no point working for someone else for 30 or 40 years if he fails to keep his promises.

Eventually this trend will take its toll on large companies. People involved in design and engineering are salaried, so they don’t have the protection of a union contract. The absence of any guarantees that would entice such people to stay on board long term will lead them to job hop or work as independent consultants. But design, engineering, software development and other technical functions need continuity, and continuity is lost when the work force is constantly shifting.

One solution might be for these people to unionize, but professionals are generally too independent to work under the constricts of a union, and experience has shown that most unions are not good for the employer, either. Another solution is 401(k) programs that don’t require employees to invest in their employer, and medical savings plans. In both these programs the money contributed to date is under the employee’s control – within the strictures of the laws governing such programs.

It’s clear that some solution is needed if our large companies intend to remain competitive and in business.

Why regulation fails

2009-06-17T09:33:00.000-07:00

An article reported by AP June 17, 2009 says in part:

Obama's sweeping change of business regulation also embraces new powers for the Federal Reserve and new rules that would reach into currently unregulated regions of the financial markets. An 85-page draft details an effort to change a regime that Obama's economic team maintained had become too porous for the innovations and intricacies of the today's financial markets.

This of course is not the first attempt to close up loopholes in the regulatory structure. Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to improve reporting on corporate governance and prevent disasters like Enron and MCC. Before that many other regulations were published to deal with other loopholes.

But people are resourceful. Whenever a strategy that makes money for its practitioners is prohibited by regulation, people put their lawyers to work to find workarounds, or entirely new strategies. Over time the regulatory structure begins to look like Swiss cheese, because it’s impossible to anticipate and evaluate every strategy an innovative investor or his lawyer will devise. Some of the strategies of course are perfectly reasonable and perhaps even benefit society. Legislators and regulators don’t always make that distinction.

So what’s the solution? I argue for minimal government regulation and lots of transparency in the conduct of business affairs. The transparency ought not to be achieved by government regulation however, or we will end up with another expensive nightmare like Sarbanes Oxley. Transparency can be best assured by the most basic of laws, trade associations, and customer due diligence. With less regulation customers will realize enough additional profit to more than make up for the occasional shyster that slips past law, trade association policies, the Better Business Bureau and customer due diligence.

Windows Vista x64 and other software don't mix

2009-05-02T11:05:00.000-07:00

Last September our apartment was burglarized. Among the items stolen was my wife's Toshiba Satellite PC. Since we had been quite satisfied with the Toshiba (It was good -- for a PC. I'm a Mac user myself) we bought another Toshiba. But this one had a 64 bit processor and came preloaded with Windows Vista x64.

We have a Canon printer/scanner/fax that we love. So naturally it was one of the first devices I wanted to get working with the new computer. On Canon's web site I found a driver for the printer, but the scanner toolbox wasn't available for Vista x64. I contacted Canon and they had no idea when or if one would be available. After sending them a somewhat sharply worded email I got a promise to bounce my request up to a higher level, but so far nothing has come of this.

Other software that doesn't work with x64 includes Palm Desktop and the driver for Belkin's USB Bluetooth adapter. This is particularly annoying because Palm states on their website that Palm Desktop isn't available for Windows X64, "but some users may be able to synchronize using Bluetooth"

I wouldn't be so steamed about this if the Canon was old, but we bought it in 2007. If I wanted to play the blame game, I'm sure Microsoft, Toshiba and Canon/Palm/Belkin would all point the finger at one another. But my vote goes for Canon, Palm and Belkin. Vista x64 has been on the market for some time now. Canon, Palm and Belkin have had ample time to write drivers.

I have been a Macintosh user for 20 years, and never have I had problems like this with new architectures. I started out with the Motorola 68xxx version, moved to the PowerPC version and finally to the Intel version (which can run Windows, and seems to run Windows with fewer glitches than a PC) and never had these kinds of problems.

My advice: stick to 32 bit versions of Windows, or, better yet: Get a Mac.

Review of Climate Change Papers by Nicola Scafetta, Bruce West et al

2009-04-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Climate scientists in general attribute global warming to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere[IPCC]. Since the variation of the sun’s irradiance amounts to only about 0.1 percent[IPCC], this seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

However, Nicola Scafetta of Duke University, Bruce West of the Army Research Office and several colleagues have identified a stochastic resonance phenomenon between the sun and the earth that indicates a substantial part of global warming may be due to solar influence.

In part this result is not new. C. Nicolis studied the nearly periodic recurrence of ice ages using stochastic resonance theory [Anishschenko 2002, Scholarpedia Stochastic Resonance article] and concluded there is substantial solar influence on climate over the approximately 100,000 year period of the ice ages [Nicolis 1981]. What is new is that Scafetta et. al. find evidence that the 11 year Schwabe (sunspot) cycle and other short term cycles in solar output influence earth’s climate. This review provides a roadmap of several of Scafetta et. al.’s papers that lead to their results.

Their result doesn’t contradict the overall conclusion that global warming has been occurring since the early part of the twentieth century. However, if correct, their result indicates that limiting CO2 emissions may not have the desired effect. Indeed, their results indicate that we may be on the verge of a global cooling cycle, in which case limiting CO2 emissions is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Outline of Scafetta et. al.’s approach

Scafetta and colleagues demonstrate three points:
1. Solar flares can be characterized by a time series in which the probability density of the waiting time between solar flares is an inverse power law. The solar flare time series exhibits Levy scaling with an inverse power law scaling exponent between 2 and 3
2. Temperature changes in earth’s atmosphere exhibit a slight Levy component with inverse power law scaling exponent between 2 and 3
3. When two coupled processes, one, the source, delivering energy to the other, the sink, are characterized by Levy scaling with similar inverse power law exponents, the sink becomes synchronized to the source and energy transfer is maximized.

Frequency of solar flares

Scafetta et. al. present the results of a statistical analysis of several records of sunspot activity dating back to 1600, [Scafetta 2007] postulating that periods of high sunspot activity correspond to periods of high solar irradiance. They verify this assumption with 20th century data records, which include both sunspot activity and solar irradiance.

They analyze the solar irradiance data using wavelets, [Grigolini 2002] Diffusion Entropy Analysis (DEA) and Standard Deviation Analysis (SDA) to show that the solar irradiance exhibits Levy statistics.

Frequency of atmospheric temperature fluctuations

In [Scafetta 2004, Scafetta 2008] atmospheric temperature fluctuations are studied and a Levy component is identified. They show that the temperature time series is a nonpoisson renewal process with an inverse power law exponent close to that of the solar irradiance time series.

The Complexity Matching Effect

In [Allegrini] 2006] the Complexity Matching Effect (CME) is studied. Briefly the CME is a phenomenon in which two coupled systems whose time evolution is described by inverse power laws with similar exponents can become synchronized, achieving maximum energy transfer between the two. They demonstrate that when the inverse power law exponent of the perturbing system (the sun, which they denote by P) approaches the value of that of the driven system (the earth, designated by S), that energy transfer is maximized. I am less certain that they demonstrate that the earth’s temperature fluctuations can inherit the sun’s solar flare power law exponent. However, if the two power laws have similar exponents, energy transfer is maximized. They display a figure (their Figure 1, reproduced below)that looks very much like the resonance experienced when a second order system is driven near its resonant frequency.

FIG. 1: Inset: fitting of Eq. (9) (solid lines) to Monte Carlo
data (open circles) using TS = TP = 1, μS = 1.6 with μP =
1.35 (upper) and μP = 1.85 (lower). Dashed lines are the
asymptotic dominant term in Eq. (9). Our Monte Carlo used
107 system-perturbation pairs. Main figure: Amplitudes AP
(squares), AS (triangles), Eqs. (8) (solid line) and (7) (dashed
line) as a function of μP , with μS = 1.6.

References

Note that the papers for which Scafetta is author/coauthor are available from Scafetta's web site: Scafetta web site

[Allegrini] 2006] Paolo Allegrini, Mauro Bologna, Paolo Grigolini, and Bruce J. West, Response of Complex Systems to Complex Perturbations: the Complexity Matching Effect, Draft kindly furnished by Bruce J. West

[Anishschenko 2002] V. S. Anishschenko, V. V. Astakhov, A. B. Neiman, T. E. Vadivasova, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Nonlinear Dynamics of Chaotic and Stochastic Systems, Berlin, Springer 2002

[Grigolini 2002] Paolo Grigolini, Deborah Leddon, and Nicola Scafetta, Diffusion entropy and waiting time statistics of hard-x-ray solar flares, PHYSICAL REVIEW E, VOLUME 65, 046203

[IPCC] Various Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
IPCC

[Nicolis 1981] Solar Variability and Stochastic Effects on Climate, Solar Physics 74 (1981) pp 473-478

[Scafetta 2007] N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West, Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (2007) D24S03

[Scafetta 2004] Nicola Scafetta, Paolo Grigolini, Timothy Imholt, J.A. Roberts and Bruce J. West, Solar turbulence in earth's global and regional temperature anomalies, Phys. Rev. E 69, 026303 (2004)

[Scafetta 2008] N. Scafetta, T. Imholt, P. Grigolini, J. Roberts, Statistical analysis of air and sea temperature anomalies, (Preprint retrieved from Scafetta’s archives)

Reflections on the firing of Rick Wagoner

2009-04-02T06:42:00.000-07:00

I worked for GM during most of Rick Wagoner’s tenure as President/CEO and chairman of GM.
On balance I believe Rick was a good chairman. He reputedly got GM’s management into the computer age by requiring managers to take courses in computer literacy, and he pushed for GM to develop its internal and external web presence.

He certainly had his share of mistakes. The abortive deal with Fiat comes to mind. GM purchased a 15 or 20 percent equity stake in Fiat, which was perhaps defensible. But the contract also required GM to buy the remainder of Fiat if the management of Fiat decided to sell out. They did and GM had to pay several billion dollars to get out of that obligation. Perhaps that infusion of cash has made Fiat healthy enough to be able to contemplate an alliance with Chrysler.

On another occasion, before he was chairman, Wagoner orchestrated one of GM’s many reorganizations. This reorganization had people all over the corporation not knowing who they should be talking to in order to get things done. In the midst of all the confusion Wagoner said, “If we didn’t get this one right, we’ll do another one tomorrow.” That of course was the exact opposite of what was needed. Like many GM managers Wagoner seemed to think that you could change how something functioned by renaming it.

But at least he didn’t get caught in any major snafus like Roger Smith’s BOC/CPC reorganization which did away with Fisher Body – the only organization in GM responsible for maintaining standards for making dies.

Whether or not Wagoner was an able chairman, it must be asked whether the Obama administration made a wise choice in asking him to step down. It seems incredible that a government task force, after few months of study, can make such a decision. Other corporations should look at this example carefully before accepting loans from the government

Why layoffs?

2009-04-02T06:27:00.000-07:00

Corporations in financial straits lay off people “to protect the future of the corporation”. There are at least two fallacies inherent in this reasoning:
1) If the people laid off are developing future products, the ability of the corporation to bring these products to market will be impaired. You may think no corporation would ever lay off product developers, but based on 34 years working in technology-based companies, I can assure you they do.
2) If the number of corporations laying people off becomes too large, the impaired purchasing power of consumers may sink the economy.

Alternatively some companies have simply cut the salary and hours of staff members. The individual remains employed and therefore available to the corporation, albeit at a lower salary, but with more free time, which he can use as he sees fit.

Why isn’t this done more frequently? I suspect the main reason is the cost of keeping an employee on the payroll: Insurance, withholding, social security, paperwork, various government mandates … There is a minimum cost just for maintaining an individual on the payroll.

There are financial considerations for the employee. A company cannot pay an individual’s medical insurance if he works less than 30 hours per week. There is no such thing as partial unemployment. Either an individual is employed and ineligible for unemployment, or he’s not employed and can’t earn any money without endangering his unemployment.

One solution is simply for the employer to change the employee’s status to that of a contractor, so the company doesn’t have to withhold Social Security and income tax. This might require a change in the law, or a reinterpretation of existing laws defining what a contractor is, but it would allow the employer to reduce the cost of keeping the employee on the payroll.
Better yet would be looser laws about employment. Let employees opt out of social security, medicare and withholding . Let the employer decide what level of employment is necessary to extend healthcare benefits.

Thanks to Bob Kuhl for a discussion that gave some insights into the consequences of part-time employment.

What should conservatives do now?

2009-03-03T12:45:00.000-08:00

Conservatives have spent plenty of time and words lamenting the socialist bent of the Obama administration and the current Congress. While telling our friends and neighbors and, indeed, the nation, what is wrong with the administration’s and Congress’ policies, we need to be actively pursuing an agenda of our own.

One part of that agenda ought to be the formation of planning/study groups to formulate plans for undoing the damage the current administration and Congress do. I am tired of hearing talk show hosts say that if, for example, the current government institutes nationalized health care we will never be able to undo it. True, we won’t, if we don’t plan a strategy for undoing it. Such a strategy must address not only what laws and regulation need to be repealed, and how to protect innocent people who have come to rely on them, but also how to justify the plan to the voters.

Plans need to be made for dealing with the huge debt that government is likely to run up. Dare we simply declare a part of it null and void? I doubt it. Historically the US has been faithful about paying its debts. We will need to plan tax reductions to encourage business and innovation. It’s a historical fact that reducing taxes increases government revenue, and we will need increased revenue to pay down the debt. And we may need to plan how to approach creditors to obtain extended terms.

Should criminal or civil prosecution be brought against any of the members of the government? Probably not, except in cases of provable criminal or unethical activity, such as (possibly) the sweetheart mortgages obtained by Barney Frank and others. In any case lists of those culpable should be compiled and appropriate disciplinary measures decided on. A caution is that any disciplinary action should be for real crimes or actions not in the best interests of the nation—they should not be a vendetta.

Every action of the government needs to be studied and responded to – not with criticism, but with alternatives that involve market mechanisms and preserve freedom. Here it’s important to formulate responses in positive terms so that voters can see that we are offering solutions, not merely criticizing.

Candidates for Congress in 2010 and 2012 need to be vetted and evaluated on their positions, their records and their appeal. The same goes for Presidential candidates. Several talk show hosts have said that Republican candidates need to return to their conservative roots. True, but they also need to have appeal. While some of Ronald Reagan’s positions may no longer be relevant (I doubt this) two of his characteristics we must retain are his conservatism and his appeal. Reagan was difficult to dislike, even by those who disagreed emphatically with him. His humor and his “Aw shucks” attitude forced even his political enemies to like him. Conservatives need to be conservative and likable.

You may ask how conservatives should organize. Who do you call? A good place to start is Newt Gingrich’s organization American Solutions. (http://www.americansolutions.com/) American Solutions works by convening groups of people to think through potential solutions to the problems facing our country. Although the solutions proposed will generally please conservatives, they are presented in a common sense way that will convince independents and even a few liberals.

Why I signed a petition about Obama's Birth Certificate

2008-12-04T07:57:00.000-08:00

The issue of whether a candidate for the Presidency is a "Natural Born Citizen" has come up in the past. One instance I remember is in the 60's when George Romney was running in the primaries for President. It was alleged that he was born in Mexico and therefore wasn't a natural born citizen. In the election of 2008 not only Obama's natural born status was questioned, but McCain's as well. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. In 1790 Congress passed a law which defined the son or daughter of an American born overseas as a natural born citizen. The Wikipedia in the entry which can be found by Googling "natural born citizen" states

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

But in 1795, according to the Wikipedia

the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S.

I had always been under the impression that the son or daughter of an American citizen was considered a citizen even though born overseas, and I was vaguely aware of the 1790 law which defined "natural born" to include the sons and daughters of Americans born outside the U. S.
But I signed the petition in the hopes that the Supreme Court would hear the case and rule and clear this issue up once and for all. So far as I'm concerned Obama won the election fair and square. He will be our next president. But please, Supreme Court, clear this issue up.

Saving the auto industry

2008-11-25T12:52:00.000-08:00

The airwaves and the print media are brimming with prescriptions for saving the US auto industry, warnings about what will happen if it is allowed to collapse, and finger pointing at auto executives, unions and governments.

Much of the rhetoric assumes that if the government fails to bail out the automobile industry, it will collapse, leaving millions of people jobless and millions of retirees without their pensions.

Clearly the auto industry is in serious straits, and some serious measures will be needed to save it. However, a government bailout, or loan as the auto executives insist on calling it, is precisely the wrong solution. A bailout will give the auto companies breathing space – which they can use to wait for the programs they already have in place to bear fruit, and for economic conditions to improve. But the auto companies have serious problems that need to be dealt with now: worker and retiree pay and benefits, union contracts that give overseas manufacturers a huge advantage, management’s tendency to concentrate on big cars and SUV’s because they have higher profit margins (or did until recently). These problems can only be solved by the auto companies, possibly under new management. A Chapter 11 reorganization would allow the auto companies to continue operating while they sort out their problems.

Does government have a role in the automotive turnaround? Certainly. Government can help by freezing the unfunded mandates they have imposed on the auto industry: fuel consumption, emissions, crashworthiness. Not that anyone is opposed to cleaner, safer, more economical cars, but how much better off would we be if the government offered a prize to the first auto company to meet a goal instead of fining those who don’t meet it?

Observations November 5, 2008

2008-11-09T19:13:00.000-08:00

Now that the fears of conservatives have been realized in the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency and the increased Democrat majority in the House and the Senate, it’s time to assess what went wrong.

Usually there is not one single issue that leads to the demise of a party, and this case is no exception.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America fired the imagination of voters and led to Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 Republicans controlled the legislative and executive branches.

But all Republicans are not conservatives. Some Republicans played the same games the Democrat majority had played for years: earmarks, big budgets, appointing cronies to positions under their control.

The Bush Administration began with great hopes: The “No Child Left Behind” act; the promise of saving Social Security by establishing personal investment accounts with a portion of the Social Security tax money; the Bush tax cuts. The events of 9/11/2001 gave Bush an opportunity for greatness that he seized. But the attack on Iraq was a far messier affair. Faulty intelligence and a utopian idea that democracy could be established in the Middle East, combined with underestimates of the needed resources led to a long and bloody war. It’s true that we are winning, but are we fighting for the right reasons? Perhaps because of the Iraq war the Bush Administration lost sight of Social Security reform, and failed to push it when they had a majority in both houses.

In November 2006 the voters, fed up with the war in Iraq, and perhaps with the Bush Administration’s failure to enact initiatives like Social Security reform, installed Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Since that time there has been a leadership vacuum in the Republican Party. Conservatives have battled with the liberal Republican establishment—the so-called “Country Club Republicans”. Some Republican actions like the House members who refused to vacate the House last August following an adjournment that occurred before Congress had dealt with the energy issue, attracted favorable attention, but it was too little, too late. Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions and his books, “Real Change” and “Drill here, drill now, pay less”, have attracted a strong following, but not yet enough to turn any tides.

Conservatives need to unite around a program the voters can support. The outlines of such a program might be:

1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent
2. Reform Social Security, ideally by establishing personal accounts, but any program that protects taxpayers and recipients without bankrupting the government should be fair game
3. Work toward a foreign policy that observes the ideals of America’s founders as embodied in the Constitution and the pronouncements of men like John Adams. While I don’t agree on every point, Ron Paul has valuable insights into what America’s foreign policy should look like
4. Develop a comprehensive energy program that encourages exploration and drilling for petroleum in the near term, clean coal, nuclear and other sources such as wind, solar and bio, and aims for energy independence
5. Reconsider our association with the Republican Party. This doesn’t mean we should desert the Republicans for a third party (although that’s a possibility), but that we should work for the election of conservatives, whether they be Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or whatever.

Bill Press at journalistic crime scene -- again

2008-10-19T20:38:00.000-07:00

Bill Press is at it again, with his recent column “McCain using 1980’s dirty tricks plan”. Specifically he takes issue with the McCain campaign’s bringing up Mr. Obama’s connections with Bill Ayers. Mr. Press writes

And finally, in an instant replay of the Willie Horton ad, they accused Obama of being an accomplice to former Weatherman Bill Ayers in planning to blow up the Pentagon.

I have not heard any accusations that Obama was an accomplice of Ayers, and I would be rather surprised if I did. As Press himself points out, Obama was only eight years old when Ayers bombed the Pentagon and the Capitol Building.

The Ayers connection, especially, is an absurd stretch. Yes, Ayers and fellow Weathermen plotted to bomb public buildings as part of their opposition to the war in Vietnam.

Not only did they plot to blow up public buildings, they actually did blow them up.

But that was in 1969 — when Barack Obama was only 8 years old. Twenty-six years later, when Obama met Ayers, the former radical was a tenured professor of education at the University of Chicago and a counselor to the mayor of Chicago on school reform.

But in 2001 Ayers publicly regretted that he hadn’t bombed more buildings. Obama has no excuse for not knowing he was befriending a terrorist.

They served on two charitable boards together, Ayers hosted a coffee for Obama's first run for public office, and they live in the same neighborhood. Obama hasn't seen or talked to Ayers since 2005. Yet pit bull Sarah Palin accuses Obama of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

The point is that anyone who aspires to public office ought to choose his associates very carefully – as Mr. Press would preach to any Republican who befriended, say, an ex-grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Why I plan to vote straight Democrat

2008-10-18T09:39:00.000-07:00

I don't usually repost something I got from someone else, but this is priceless:

This is why I am voting a straight Democratic ticket:

I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse. I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people. I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius. I'm v oting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive. I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit. I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters. I'm voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @#% it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view. 'A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own.'- William F. Carling -

Nucular?

2008-10-05T18:36:00.000-07:00

That's how many people pronounce "nuclear". Observe: there is no u between the c and the l. It's new - clear, people. People in government seem especially prone to this error. I was glad to hear that John McCain pronounces nuclear correctly. However, Sarah Palin says "nucular". I don't know what Obama and Biden say. Let's hope that if Mr. McCain wins he convinces his VP to say nuclear correctly. It would be nice not to have to hear a pronunciation that grates for four years.

McCain and the “Keating Five”

2008-09-27T12:34:00.000-07:00

I have been wondering how long it would take for the “Keating Five” scandal of the late 1980’s to become part of the Presidential campaign rhetoric. In his Column September 27 in The Oakland Press (http://de.theoaklandpress.com/Default/Skins/OPDigital/Client.asp?Skin=OPDigital&Daily=OLP&AppName=1) Bill Press takes McCain to task for his role in the Keating Five scandal. Because this column doesn’t appear on Press’ web site as of today, and you need a subscription to access the Oakland Press online, I’m reproducing most of the column here:

Take this to the bank, if you can still find one open for business: Two months from now, we will look back and assert that the week of Sept. 15 was the week John McCain lost the presidential election of 2008.
Why? Because that’s when Wall Street collapsed, causing real economic pain to tens of millions of Americans and exposing the failure of those conservative, unfettered free-market economic policies John McCain has championed his entire career.
This isn’t the first time McCain has been caught at a financial crime scene. Remember his first appearance on national radar? When the dust cleared from the 1980s failure of 747 savings and loans, there stood so-called reformer John McCain, right in the middle of it all: One of five senators investigated for pressuring the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to drop its investigation of crooked Lincoln Savings and Loan owner Charles Keating.

This is not the first time Bill Press has been caught at a journalistic crime scene. To lump McCain with DiConcini, Riegle and Cranston is just plain inaccurate. According to the Wikipedia entry for the Keating Five scandal,

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

The Wikipedia entry goes on to report on a meeting on April 9 1987 between Senators Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and Riegle and three members of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board San Francisco Branch:

The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.
It seems likely, if not perfectly clear, that McCain was simply trying to get the investigation of Keating, a constituent and admittedly a friend, off dead center.

At one point in the meeting McCain said "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs."

Press continues

Suddenly, in response to this week’s disastrous economic news, and in one of the most daring flipflops of American politics, McCain is trying to reinvent himself as the champion of government regulation, promising to push for new regulations on financial institutions.

This is not quite accurate. It appears that the reason the negotiations in Congress on the $700 billion bailout failed was that McCain sided with the House Republicans who were pushing for a lower level of government intervention – loans instead of government takeovers, and possibly repeal of the “Mark to Market” rule and the Sarbanes-Oxley act.

But it’s too late for McCain to change his spots.

Suppose McCain is changing his spots. If he is changing based on the lessons of hard experience, let’s congratulate him for learning from experience.
McCain was implicated in the Keating scandal and interviewers and Barack Obama ought to question him about his involvement and what he learned from it. If his answers are satisfactory he shouldn’t be defeated for his peripheral involvement in a scandal 20 years ago.

Telegraphing your moves

2008-09-11T07:07:00.000-07:00

According to an article in the Sept 11, 2008 Oakland Press (Pontiac, MI) Joe Biden has engaged Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm to serve as a stand-in for Sarah Palin in preparation for the vice presidential debate. Whatever her record as Michigan governor (mixed at best), Granholm is a good choice for debate coach. But read what Biden says

Biden predicted that Palin would try to make their debate personal and said he wouldn’t respond in kind if she attacked him.
“She’s going to try to make it as personal as she can. She’s going to take a lot of straight lefts and jabs at me, she’s going to try to get me to respond, she’s going to try to get me to respond in a personal way,” Biden said at a fundraiser Tuesday night in Chicago. “That’s not my style. I’m not going to do it.”

Let's hope that Biden comes to the debate with all the lines he needs to deflect personal attacks, and Palin sticks to the issues.

The Bible and the law

2008-08-15T19:05:00.000-07:00

In his column of June 26 Bill Press took James Dobson to task for his criticisms of Barack Obama’s theology. He wrote

James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, recently blasted Obama for his now famous “Call to Renewal” speech of 2006, in which he pointed out that there’s an inherent difficulty in attempts by evangelicals to establish the Bible as the road map for public policy. “Would we go with James Dobson’s interpretation (of the Bible),” Obama asked his audience, “or Al Sharpton’s?” For Dobson, even raising that question is pure heresy. “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology,” Dobson told his national radio audience. He even accused Obama of having a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.” But unlike previous Democratic candidates, Obama didn’t back down. He questioned what Dobson meant by the “traditional understanding” of the Bible. “Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy?” Obama asked. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?”

When it comes to public policy the government’s chief concern is maintaining order and protecting the helpless. Issues like the commandment against eating shellfish are not a government concern. But the government must have some principles to back up law enforcement. For example, polygamy was outlawed in the 19th century. How was that decision justified if not on Biblical grounds? To take another example, Muslim Sharia law prescribes penalties that would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by the 8th amendment to our Constitution. The New Testament provides the basis for excluding cruel and unusual punishment: the worth and dignity of each individual. The example from Deuteronomy 21:18-21 makes it clear that the New Testament as well as the old has something to say about the administration of justice. Jews don’t stone their children for being rebellious, but presumably must say, “we just don’t do that anymore” in justification. Christians can point to any number of passages in the New Testament to justify a firm but loving approach to raising children. He continues

Again, Obama tackled head-on what Dobson, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have been saying for years: that we are a Christian nation; that public policy must be based on the Bible; and that every word of the Bible must be taken literally.

Of course the founders of our country were not literalists. They were products of the enlightenment and had a more sophisticated understanding of the Bible than Dobson and Falwell. Nevertheless, they believed that the Bible should serve as a guide to the writing of laws and the administration of justice. John Adams said,

"We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'"

“Religion” in the thinking of the founding fathers meant, specifically, Christianity. He continues

In our pluralistic society, it’s not that simple. Because not all Americans are Christians, or even believers, you can’t find common ground for legislation based on the Bible.

No, it’s not that simple. But laws must have a basis and must be enforced, even on people who don’t agree with the basis. The alternative is anarchy and chaos. A good many immigrants come here because they know that the rule of law is respected here. Denying the religious basis for law just undermines it. Finally he writes

Even though most Americans are Christians, we are not a Christian nation: never have been, never will be. Therefore, in making the laws that govern our nation, we don’t turn to the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran. We turn to the only sacred text that all Americans worship: the U.S. Constitution.

Please let’s not call the Constitution a “sacred text that all Americans worship”. It is the best founding document for a republic ever written, and ought to be deeply respected by every American, but not considered sacred or worshiped. Sacredness and worship are reserved for God, who gave us many of the principles written in our Constitution.

The cost of putting your name on something

2008-07-18T07:24:00.000-07:00

Last night my wife and I went to a concert with a number of people from our church at an outdoor amphitheatre once known as Pine Knob. We were eager to hear Steven Curtis Chapman and Michael W. Smith. Although we normally sit on the lawn when attending concerts at this facility we were fortunate to have received free tickets in the pavilion, along with VIP parking and even a buffet supper, through the generosity of a local supermarket chain. But the concert – most of it anyway – wasn’t to be. After the opening act Steven Curtis Chapman sang his first song, after which the power in the theatre went out. The lighting around the park outside the theatre was still operating. After a few minutes without sound and light the power came back on and Chapman sang a verse of his next song, then the power cut out again. This went on until around 9:00 when Linda and I decided to leave. It was hot and Linda was beginning to wilt. And we worried about being able to find our way out in the dark. As if to underline our concern, as we walked through the parking lot, all the power in the facility went down. Not even an emergency light shined in the parking lot. This morning we called the church office and found that the power failures continued until 10:00 when the performers gave up and everyone went home.

Why am I writing this? Because several years ago DTE Energy, the electric company in the Detroit area, paid probably several million dollars to name the theatre “The DTE Energy Music Theatre.” Talk about getting egg on your face. Perhaps DTE should invest in a backup generator for the DTE Energy Music Theatre.

Bill Press on energy: More liberal misconceptions

2008-07-16T13:30:00.000-07:00

Bill Press’ column (http://www.billpressshow.com/column)
For 6/19/08, titled “MCCAIN SELLS OUT TO BIG OIL” repeats a number of liberal misconceptions that need to be corrected.

He says

Just look at the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on energy. Obama proposes a windfall profits tax on big oil companies to help develop wind and solar energy, research new alternative energy technologies, and wean ourselves from fossil fuels. McCain proposes drilling for oil off the coast, one of the oldest and worst ideas in the Big Oil pipeline.

Since when is the government a source of innovation? Government labs don’t have to show a profit, so they don’t have to develop practical, market-oriented technology. Government grants go to universities and research labs that also don’t have to show a profit. True, useful products and technologies come from university research, but they would come much faster if the universities would partner with profit-making corporations. Generally the government doesn’t require this. Jimmy Carter proposed a massive “Synfuels” effort during his administration. Whatever happened to that?

He continues

Offshore drilling will destroy our most beautiful stretches of coastline, and wreck our valuable tourism and fishing industries. And it will continue our dependency on fossil
fuels.

This is based on the drilling technology of the 60’s. It’s true that some spills occurred during drilling then, but drilling and production techniques have improved since then. During Hurricane Katrina no oil was spilled from platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Compared to spills from tankers, the spills from drilling are miniscule.

He writes
Even if the moratorium were lifted tomorrow, it would take at least 10 years to develop the offshore rigs and onshore tanks, pipelines and roadways necessary to begin production.

This is like saying, “Why should I start college? It’ll take 4 years to get a degree.” If we had continued to explore for petroleum deposits, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now. If we start now to explore, the potential for new production will calm speculation in oil futures, which will apply downward pressure to oil prices. And in ten years we won't be experiencing the shortage we are dealing with now.

Continuing, he writes
By that time, with a new energy policy, we could be well on our way to a new, alternative-energy future.

No one is saying we shouldn’t develop alternative energy sources. But this will require considerable time, and current estimates indicate that known alternative energy sources are not capable of supplying the energy we currently use. So time will be needed to develop new energy sources and implement conservation measures. In the meantime we need petroleum.

Finally he writes

Offshore drilling won’t bring any relief for consumers, either. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates there are 18 billion barrels of oil in the moratorium areas. At present rates of consumption, those fields would be exhausted in less than 2 1 /2 years. According to the Campaign for America’s Future Online, lowering the price of crude by $1 per barrel saves roughly 2.5 cents per gallon. Which means that getting rid of the ban on coastal drilling would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents — by 2025.

Mr. Press fails to mention the huge petroleum reserves locked in the oil shale deposits in Colorado and other western states. Extraction technology for getting at that oil in an environmentally safe way is not yet available, but progress is being made.

The alternative energy sources Mr. Press mentions should be developed. But at present they are expensive compared to petroleum and not capable of supplanting the role of petroleum. For the present we need to continue to explore for and develop petroleum, while continuing to develop alternative energy sources.

Of what use are those bubbles?

2008-07-13T13:40:00.000-07:00

What good is foam? I’m not talking about foam rubber or Styrofoam – they have their uses. But in the form of cleaning products that foam or the head on beer, the value is questionable.

Years ago a New York brewer advertised “The ten minute head”. Another brewer advertised, “Don’t pour it down the side of the glass.” What does a head on a glass of beer accomplish? It prevents the beer drinker from getting at the beer – unless he wants to coat his face with foam.

Cleaning product manufacturers like to show how their product foams. Presumably the foam shows that the cleaner is doing its job. But what the commercial doesn’t tell you is that you’re going to have to rinse and rinse and rinse to get the foam to go down the drain. When I clean the bathroom I don’t use water with the cleaner – just wipe it off with a paper towel. This cuts down significantly on the work of removing the foam. And I avoid cleaning products whose manufacturers tout their foaminess.
And foam from detergents can be a big contributor to pollution of streams and rivers. Better to do without those suds.

Reforming McCain

2008-07-10T19:49:00.000-07:00

The following is the text of a message I sent to John McCain's campaign web site this evening:

As a conservative Republican, I am not happy about some of your positions on issues. I will vote for you, but if you want me to contribute to your campaign, please promise to work for the repeal of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act. This law restricts free speech and should never have been passed.

Cleaning up Congress

2008-06-30T12:53:00.000-07:00

In 2006 the voters gave the Democrats control of the House and the Senate, in part because the Republicans controlling Congress had not lived up to their promises of sound budgeting. However, under the Democrats deficit spending and earmarks continue.

The problem as I see it is that it's too easy to attach earmarks to bills passing through Congress. True, there are major projects approved by Congress that should never be approved. But earmarks represent a constant drain on financial resources that, if controlled, could yield substantial savings. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not proposing to completely eliminate earmarks. Some earmarks are worthwhile and ought to be passed. But the practice of simply attaching them to unrelated bills passing through Congress guarantees that they will not get the scrutiny they ought to.

The solution as I see it is twofold:

Require that each bill approved by Congress must address a single subject
Give the President a line item veto

The first provision would prevent bills from getting cluttered with unrelated special interest legislation. It would reduce the size of each bill and facilitate lawmakers concentrating on the main subject of the bill.

The second provision would help enforce the first by enabling the President to strike out provisions in a bill that do not address the subject of the bill.

Needless to say, this change could result in a vast increase in the number of bills Congress has to consider in each session. However, each bill would be smaller and address one subject, making evaluation easier. Some legislation would never come up for a vote, because of the logistics of steering it through Congress. That's not bad. A bill that really needs to be passed will be passed. The ones that don't come up for a vote are probably not worth passing anyway.

I want out (of Medicare)

2008-05-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

This morning I woke up with a swelling in my left cheek. It didn’t hurt, but it had happened once before and Linda and I decided I needed to see a doctor. We’re new in town, having recently moved to Austin, TX from Rochester, MI. So we first called a doctor Linda had just started seeing. We got an appointment, but while I was filling out the forms they saw I had listed Medicare as my primary insurer. They stopped the process right there. “We don’t take Medicare,” they said. We called another doctor they recommended, with the same result. In all we called 6 doctors, and in every case either they were booked or they didn’t take Medicare. Finally we went to an outpatient facility associated with a hospital.

This is what Americans can look forward to if Hillary Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s health care plans is implemented. Because of the bureaucratic delays, below market reimbursement rates and excessive regulation, many doctors in private practice won’t want to deal with the government system. But in my case it’s not a matter of looking forward. My care crisis is here. If I am going to have health insurance I don’t want to be treated like a skid row bum or a third world peasant. I would far rather pay an exorbitant premium that gets me prompt service, especially when I have a serious concern. It’s time to go back to work, get into a health plan and tell Medicare to go suck eggs.

You may say, “The government can correct this problem by passing a law requiring all doctors to take Medicare patients.” Then we would have the situation that exists in Canada. Doctors, overloaded with mandated patients who don’t pay market rates, would choose to retire earlier, and for similar reasons fewer young people would choose to enter the medical profession. The result for patients would be long waits for treatment. Better to let the market determine the cost and availability of care. That way people won’t die while waiting for treatment.

Who are we to believe?

2008-04-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

30 or so years ago university nutritionists and health food advocates were at one another’s throats. At that time I went to a seminar in which a university nutritionist and a health food advocate were accusing one another of jeopardizing people’s health. During the question period I said, “You are debating these issues, and to you it may seem like an academic debate. But what’s at stake is my health. What am I supposed to do while I wait for you to agree?” They were speechless. That controversy is still playing itself out today, although government and the nutrition establishment have made some concessions to organic foods. But the controversy is far from resolved. Dr. Mirkin (www.drmirkin.com) recently quoted some research that claims taking some vitamin supplements can actually shorten your life (http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine042708.html). Drs. Roizen and Oz, in their www.realage.com website, recommend specific amounts of various vitamins, including the ones Dr. Mirkin recommends against taking in supplement form. While Drs. Roizen and Oz recommend getting as much as possible of your daily vitamin and mineral intake from food, they recommend making up any deficits with supplements. I have considerable respect for both Dr. Mirkin and Drs. Roizen and Oz, but they disagree and what’s at stake is my health.

Someone needs to evaluate the conflicting claims in layman’s terms and help laymen develop a sensible strategy for eating and supplementation.

For my part I intend to continue taking vitamin pills, while trying to get as much as possible of my nutritional needs from food. The experts change their minds too frequently for me to follow every recommendation.

Who's dictating to whom? Michigan and Florida delegates

2008-03-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

It strikes me as ridiculous that the political parties are trying to dictate to the states when they can hold their presidential primaries. By refusing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, the Democrat Party is disenfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida. Both states ought to sue the Democrat party for disenfranchising their voters. The alternative of redoing the primary elections is significantly expensive. Perhaps Florida and Michigan should hold new primaries and sue the Democrat party for the costs involved. Similar reasoning applies to the Republican party, although it only cut each state's delegation by half.

On limited government

2008-02-13T19:20:00.000-08:00

As a conservative with libertarian tendencies – at least at the Federal level, I believe in limited government. Some of my liberal friends would say I believe in hogtied government. Why? The short answer is that the less power the government has, the greater the freedom individuals have.

While it has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, there are some changes in laws that would help put a damper on expansion of government. Since taxation is one of the ways the government limits freedom, let’s start with the tax code. The US tax code encompasses thousands of pages of text, and the IRS publishes thousands more pages “explaining” the tax code. Companies and individuals collectively spend millions of hours computing their taxes. I propose a constitutional amendment along the following lines:

The entire tax code of the United States shall require no more than (say) 100 pages of 8.5 X 11 paper, printed in 11 point type with 1 inch margins all around. It shall be comprehensible by a 6th grader of average intelligence. The burden of proof shall rest with the government. It shall be possible to prepare one’s tax return using only the tax code. The burden of proof shall rest with the government.

A second amendment would do much to reduce the volume of laws passed by Congress:

The entire US code shall require no more than (say) 1000 pages of 8.5 X 11 paper, printed in 11 point type with 1 inch margins all around. It shall be comprehensible by a 6th grader of average intelligence. The burden of proof shall rest with the government.

What happens when the entire quota is filled up? In order to pass a new law, Congress would have to repeal enough old laws to make space for the new law. In addition to keeping the body of law reasonably compact and concise, this would help eliminate obsolete and archaic laws, as well as slow down Congress’ deliberation. To paraphrase Mark Twain, I feel safer on days when Congress passes fewer laws.

Two additional changes that would reduce waste and favoritism would be
1. A Constitutional amendment requiring each bill to address a single subject. This would virtually eliminate earmarks and help limit the size of bills.
2. A line item veto. This would enable the President to eliminate provisions in a bill that don’t address the bill’s single subject.

2008-01-30T19:15:00.000-08:00

Are we serious about saving energy?

Saving energy (and reducing pollution as well) are very much in the news these days. We are advised to buy cars that are fuel-efficient, and even to consider hybrid cars. But most of the advice misses a significant source of fuel consumption – and pollution: idling. Even if you don’t idle your car excessively, what do you do when you go through a drive-through? If you’re like most people you idle the engine while waiting. But an idling engine can use close to a gallon per hour. Drive by a bank or a fast food restaurant. There will usually be several cars waiting, all with engines idling. The main street of the town I live in has 3 banks, two fast food restaurants, a car wash, two drugstores with drive through prescription pickup and a Starbucks with a drive through. If there are 5 cars waiting at each drive through, 45 gallons per hour are being burned just waiting. If we were really serious about saving fuel, we’d ban drive throughs. Alternatively we could restrict them to hybrid vehicles, which would both save fuel and encourage people to buy hybrids. Since that isn’t likely to happen, just remember that if you’re going to idle the engine more than 10 seconds, you save fuel by turning the engine off.

Armenian Genocide

2007-11-25T13:38:00.000-08:00

Bill Press’ column October 18 (http://www.billpress.com/columnsarchive.html) raises several questions:
1. If no time is the wrong time to declare genocide, why haven’t previous Congresses done it? Could it be that the current leadership is so invested in defeat in Iraq, that they see a resolution condemning the Armenian genocide as a way to split the Turks from the U. S., thereby making defeat in Iraq more likely?
2. With current issues like the war in Iraq and global warming to worry about, it’s difficult to see why Congress would spend time on an issue that dates to the First World War.
3. Congressional resolutions are a poor way to conduct diplomacy. In World War II when the U. S. and Britain had differing views about how to deal with the future of India, President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill hashed out the issues privately, thereby avoiding a public squabble that would have hindered the war effort.
4. What is the value of beating the Turks over the head about what their ancestors did during World War I when a serious, immediate issue requires trust and careful diplomacy: Turkey’s difficulties with their Kurdish minority, which threaten to spill over into Iraq?
5. What deterrence to future dictators will result from a Congressional resolution? One can imagine a future Hitler saying, “We don’t have to worry about the Americans. The Turks tried to wipe out the Armenians and all the Americans did was approve a piece of paper in their Congress 90 years later.”
Congress should concentrate on current issues that it can do something constructive about. The world will take far more heed of our actions than of our high-sounding rhetoric.

After whose kind?

2007-11-15T18:24:00.000-08:00

Gen 1:24 is one of those “proof texts” creationists use to claim that the Bible teaches against evolution. In the NIV this verse reads

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

The creationist will say, “See, the animals reproduce after their kinds.” I have never understood how the creationists can logically attach this interpretation to Gen 1:24, since reproduction isn’t mentioned. This verse isn’t about reproduction. It’s about creation. The Lord appears to be saying "Let the land produce living creatures [according to the specifications I have in mind]” Also note that the land is being commanded to produce living creatures.

The passage gets more interesting and suggests a possible alternative interpretation when you look at other versions. The New American Standard Bible for example says:

24(A)Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

My NASB Open Bible flags the first “their” with a dagger, indicating that “their” has been inserted by the translators to improve readability. Another NASB footnotes the first “their” with “Literally its”. The King James Version renders 1:24 as

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And this raises an interesting question: Could “his” refer to the earth rather than the creature? Young’s literal translation gives some support to this idea:

24And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so.

If “its” refers to the earth, then this passage is saying that the creatures and the earth are the same kind. In other words, the creatures are made of the same elements as the earth.

Am I arguing that Genesis 1:24 supports abiogenesis? I suppose one could make that argument, but if my interpretation is correct, I believe the passage is saying something quite different. It’s saying that the creatures are material beings made from the same elements as the earth, just as the earth is a material entity. This is absolutely true. And it removes this passage from the creation/evolution controversy. This makes sense, in view of the Bible’s role as God’s letter to humanity rather than a science textbook.

Genesis 1:24 sets the stage for Genesis 2:7, in which God breaths the breath of life into the man he has made from the dust of the earth. The animals are brought forth by the earth and immediately go about their lives. Man too is made from the dust of the earth, but then an additional step takes place: God breathes the breath of life into him. Thus in a material sense, man is of the same kind (made of the same elements) as the earth, but in addition man has a spiritual component, since the Hebrew word interpreted as breath can also mean spirit.

So Genesis 1:24 and 2:7, taken together, establish that man has a spiritual component, animals don’t.

Notes
1. Later (in ~ Genesis 6) it says all creatures having the breath of life died [in the flood]. However only man’s breath of life was acquired by a direct act of God.

Murdering the language

2007-11-15T18:15:00.000-08:00

The purpose of language is to communicate. That would seem to be a no-brainer. But like Newspeak in the novel 1984, language is also used to obfuscate or head off “undesirable” thoughts. Witness for example the many terms that have been used to designate African-Americans: In the 50’s it was “Negro”. Starting in the 60’s we went through “Black”, “Afro-American” and “African-American”. Rumor has it that the government changed the term used to designate African Americans every time they suspected people were “catching on” to the meaning of the term.

“Native American,” used to refer to American Indians is another attempt to obfuscate. “Native” means “born here”. If you were born in America, you are a native American. The correct term for American Indians is “aborigine”. Perhaps, though, the arbiters of language can’t bear to use a word that conveys the image of “primitive people”. Why not just refer to them as Indians, or better yet, refer to them by their tribe? Many Indians have no objection whatever to being referred to as Indians, and none will object to being referred to as Chippewa, Sioux, etc. (so long as you get it right). On a recent visit to Plimoth Plantation I encountered the term “native peoples”. That doesn’t grate like “native American.”

Why is there a proliferation of “hyphenated American” terms: Italian-American, Irish-American, Vietnamese-American? An American is an individual who is an American Citizen, by birth or by naturalization. The hyphenated terms might be useful for first generation immigrants, but when they are applied to people whose families have lived in America for generations, all they succeed in doing is dividing us into separate ethnic groups.

What on earth is “reverse discrimination”? Logically it should mean “the opposite of discrimination” – a very desirable goal for any society to strive for. A dictionary definition however, is

Discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group

In other words, in our society discrimination against whites would be reverse discrimination. No wonder kids grow up confused, with poor language skills.

Still another abomination of language is the use of made-up words. GM got itself in trouble a few years ago by shortening “Berlinetta” to “Beretta”. Unfortunately, as any James Bond fan knows, there is a real Company with that name, and they sued GM. A few years later GM named a van “Savana”. How many kids will misspell “Savanna” as “Savana” because their father bought a Savana? One of my favorites is “Cingular”. Why does a company name have to look like a misspelled word? Fortunately for the language,
“Cingular” was replaced by “AT&T” now that AT&T owns BellSouth.

Welcome

2007-08-06T19:38:00.000-07:00

This is a blog about what I think -- about science, theology and politics. The name, Bricolagia, derives from "bricolage" -- (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things -- Oxford Compact Dictionary. What are my credentials?

Retired electrical engineer/computer scientist. Most recently I worked on connected vehicle projects at GM R&D Center. Prior to that I worked on robotics projects -- also at GMR
Conservative Christian leaning toward Calvinism, with a long-standing interest in evolution and how it can be reconciled with Christian doctrine
Lifelong political junkie -- mostly of the right-wing Republican flavor
Stickler about language (see my first post)
History buff