The Iceage Cometh

And in Local News….

2 glaciers have been reported missing from Glacier Park, Montana. News flash – they have been found in our backyard here in Durango where the snow is still on the ground in mid-April and the last snowfall was 2 days ago.

Back to the missing glaciers in the National Park: According to sources who believe such things the 2 missing glaciers are not really missing they are “below the 25 acre threshold of what REAL glacier's sizes should be", and the only reason for this phenomenon is……wait for it…..climate change! According to the ‘experts’ at the USGS glaciers in the park have been shrinking since the 1960’s. Yes, you can believe it folks! The Earth has been warming since the last ice age!!!

As for me I am just happy that we are not heading into another mini ice age – although you wouldn’t be able to tell that from the winter we have had here in D-town. Oh, just a minute! Another news flash: Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland and filling the skies with ash causing cancellation of airplane flights all over Europe and ash could seen as far away as the U.S. Could this be the dawn of a new ice age? We will keep you posted…

Capitalism is Freedom and Anything Else is Socialism

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Frank Thomas (Conservatives and the Market for Alienation) took the stance that the true producers in this country were the blue collar workers and that larger government control over business was necessary.

According to Mr. Thomas workers wear blue collars and they are the true producers of goods and services in the United States. But do blue collar workers design the product, create accounting systems necessary to track costs for producing the product or to track sales of the product, decide where the product should be sold, decide what enhancements are necessary for the product to be more effective, or for that matter even where the product should be built?

Why do you think times are worse for blue-collar workers, Mr. Thomas? Could it be because businesses are trying to produce products at a lower cost and can do so by out-sourcing blue-collar work to foreign countries? Could it possibly be that prohibitive taxation by big government is causing this push? Could it be because Unions have a stranglehold on the companies that have not moved to right-to-work States? Mr. Thomas’ problem is he still lives in a perceived past that has Republicans as ‘evil fat cats’ sitting behind a big table in a board room with a bunch of other ‘evil fat cats’ trying to figure out how to take advantage of the workers in their company.

Mr. Thomas, take an Economics 101 class and figure out just who the producers in this country are. Businesses are trying to lower costs so that they will be able to sell more of their products to consumers, and in doing so their company is more profitable and they can spend some of those profits on research and development. They can also share those profits with stockholders in their company, which brings in more stockholders. Wall Street is not evil. Big business is not evil. Big government is evil.

In this country now there are loud voices in support of an expanded role for government. These are policies that have failed time and again; policies that lessen the capacity for human fulfillment and well-being; policies that put individuals in subservience to the state; policies that leech away our inalienable right to be free to choose. The Tea Party protesters are pushing back against those loud voices – we should not be taken lightly.

The Media Gets it Wrong Again: So What Else is New?

Within the past 50 years the U.S. Supreme Court Justices have agreed with each other more than 75% of the time and in certain decades more than 80% of the time Justices vote 9-0 on cases before them. Looking at the current Court configuration since Justice Sotomayor was confirmed and sat down on 10/10/09 there have been 38 cases brought before the Court and only ONCE have the Justices voted along Conservative-Liberal ideological lines.

Presidents have no idea of what they are really getting when they nominate who they think will be a conservative or liberal as President Obama must be realizing right about now with Sotomayor voting with Chief Justice Roberts on numerous occasions, and in one case wrote an concurring opinion with him. Another example of a Justice nomination that didn't quite go as planned was Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor - who turned out to vote very liberally on numerous issues but still fell within the 75% 9-0 unanimous decisions of the past 50 years.

The media has portrayed the Justices as an 'us-against-them' mentality when it just isn't there. Just as the Ginsberg and Scalia families who have been best friends for decades.

Islamic Fundamentalism

1. Shovel Ready
2. Transparent
3. Czar
4. Tweet
5. App
6. Teachable Moment
7. In these economic times
8. Stimulus
9. Toxic Assets
10. Too big to fail

These are some of the words that Lake Superior University in Michigan chose as words to be banned from now on due to overuse and incorrect usage. The students come up with this list every year and it is fun and does not mean anything more than it is - some young people coming up with words that they are sick of hearing. They do not propose that the words actually be banned.

This week the President of the United States, who promised to protect and defend the Constitution, decided that free speech had its limitations when it came to the terms 'Islamic Fundamentlism' and 'Islamic Radicalism.' He has banned them - banned as in never hearing or reading them in the media or from his office staff. Now I do not know how he plans on enforcing this, but as an ex professor of Political Science he should know better. Both phases have been used historically in Universities, at the United Nations, in the media...basically everywhere to explain the difference between Arab Nationalism and Islamic Fundamentalism.

As a former student of Political Science one of my favorite series of lectures was an attempt to explain the thinking among the Arab community with regards to the Qu'ran and Sharia's Law. The series of lectures was given by a Professor from the Middle East. Basically he said there were two types of interpretations throughout the Muslim world of the Qu'ran and Shariah's Law. Depending on how a person did the interpretation they fell into the category of an Arab Nationalist or an Islamic Fundamentalist.

What is the difference between Arab Nationalism and Islamic Fundamentalism? Based on the lectures a very simple explanation is: Arab Nationalism is a celebration of the glories of the Arab civilization, the language and literature of the Arabs, and calling for rejuvenation and political union in the Arab world. At the core of the ideology is bringing certain Western concepts into the Arab world - Modernity, Progress and Socialism. The term Arab is chosen by the Nationalists to replace the word Islamic to separate them from the more radical fundamentalists.

One of the most defining characteristics of Islamic fundamentalism is the belief in the re-opening of the gates of Ijihad. Fundamentalists are not interested in Modernity, Progress and Socialism, and not interested in associating with non-Muslims. Fundamentalists hold that the problems of the world stem from secular influences and that the path to peace and justice lies in a return to the original message of Islam with a rejection of religious innovation. Finally, any Muslim that does not follow the Fundamentalist's interpretation of the Qu'ran or Sharia's Law should be killed, and it should should be considered justified and not considered to be a crime.

I should clarify that these interpretations are mine and based on lectures that impressed me so much I still think of them whenever I hear the words Islamic Fundamentalists or Islamic Radicals. If the President of the United States chooses not to hear those words, for whatever reason, that is certainly his right - a right guaranteed to him in the Constitution. If he tries to prevent others from hearing those words then his oath of office to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' has been violated.

No Need for Macho Guys if you have a Single Payer Health Care System

A Wall Street Journal article discussed a study that took place in Europe with 4,000 participants. The study’s hypothesis was that European women, who have a far superior health care system to the U.S. do not prefer the macho-type guy whereas the U.S. women prefer a more macho man due to our inferior health care system.

Here is an exerpt written up in the Proceedings for the Royal Society: Biological Sciences found.

“To a person unfamiliar with the field of evolutionary psychology, this may sound a little far-fetched. How is it even possible to link a woman's masculinity preferences to the health of her nation? The answer begins with the theory of sexual selection. It goes that women are the choosier sex because they take on most of the risk and burden of reproduction and child rearing. While a man can sleep around with 100 women in a year's time and have 100 kids, a woman who sleeps with 100 men in a year will only have one baby (barring multiples). She has more at stake in each pregnancy. Therefore, it is in her best interest to at least choose a high-quality mate. And one of the hallmarks of a quality male is good health.”

The article also goes on to say that the U.S. health care system ranks 20th out of the 30 countries looked at, and in the study’s estimate the U.S. is one of the most unhealthy countries in the world. And I quote the article, “After all this is the country of James Dean and Clint Eastwood.”

So in a nutshell if you have a single payer health care system in your country you like wimpy guys because you do not need to have some cave man type protect you from a Laissez Faire health care system.

I wrote a response to the Wall Street Journal article:

A recent Variety article asked the question, "Where did America's tough guys go?" It goes on: “Not so long ago Hollywood’s male stars were men’s men. Think John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart and Steve McQueen..

And Variety continues…

"These days, studios are hard-pressed to find home-grown traditional male leads to carry their pictures. Their star rosters include countless boy-men who, even after they turn 40, are less than credible macho movie actors.” If box office is an indicator, with a random sampling of millions, then it is the European countries with their current health care system sending strong, handsome macho actors to Hollywood to replace the tough, macho leading men of the past.

My conclusion: Women do not want just a male in good health. Natural selection has shown that the most beautiful feathers, loudest roar, and most importantly the guy most capable of hunting and gathering and fighting are what women have wanted since cave men and women first went into the light. I know, I know, in this age of enlightenment for women we hunt and gather right along with the men, as well we should, but it doesn’t change any of the dynamics. The conclusion of the Royal Society article should have been that single payor health care goes along with living in a society that will take care of ‘their people’ from cradle to grave, and it doesn’t matter how macho the guys in the country are. No hunting and gathering necessary. Just the highest alcoholism rates in the world.

My second conclusion: How are the mental health care systems in the countries the actually paid for a study like this?

Obama v. Israel

OK, where is the outrage in this country over the treatment of Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu? Perhaps it is because the Jewish community in the U.S. is so entrenched in their support of President Obama that they have blinders on to what is happening to the U.S. - Middle East policies. 78% of the Jewish community voted for President Obama. Are those 78% unwilling to take a critical look at the President’s actions?

The excerpts below are from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and can be read in its entirety at Haaretz.com. The comments are even more of a puzzlement. Again the media in Israel is left-leaning in the political spectrum and anti-Netanyahu even in the face of more aggressive Arab actions towards Israel after what looked to the Arab world like a U.S. President taking an anti-Israel foreign policy position.

Haaretz writes:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his senior partner Ehud Barak returned from Washington yesterday, leaving behind a deep crisis with the world's most powerful country and Israel's greatest friend. U.S. President Barack Obama asked that Netanyahu give him unequivocal answers to his administration's demands, in order to begin indirect talks and advance the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The demands include a complete freeze on settlement construction, including in East Jerusalem.”

Haaretz then shows their political stance:

“The choice here is between continued construction in East Jerusalem during the negotiations and Israel's future as a secure, democratic and Jewish state. A deterioration in relations with the U.S. administration is taking place at the peak of international efforts to block Iran and strengthen the axis of moderate Arab states. In the unnecessary fight with the United States, an essential ally for Israel, the Netanyahu government is showing itself to be the most extremist and dangerous in the country's history.”

An “unnecessary fight with the United States”? Netanyahu is the bad guy?

Obama has traveled to Saudi Arabia and kissed the hand of a Saudi Prince, but he hasn’t taken the time to visit Israel, the only friend of the U.S. in the Middle East. Now he has insulted the Prime Minister of Israel by not even extending his hand to Netanyahu either in greeting or in farewell. He certainly didn’t bow and kiss the Prime Minister’s hand, and actually cut off their meeting so that Obama could go have dinner – not even inviting Netanyahu to break bread. Netanyahu was allowed to leave through the front door of the White House this visit, though, which is better than leaving out the back door by way of the trash cans as he did after the last visit. At the White House there were no questions with the press, no photos of smiling faces, no State dinners, none of the pomp that took place with all of the Arab leaders that visited President Obama.

Perhaps this is what Obama meant when he pledged last June in Cairo that his administration would mean “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.” Perhaps the President hasn't seen the shouts of "death to Americans" being chanted around the Muslim world by Islamic fundamentalists.

U.S. v. Lopez and Health Care

I do not believe that the Supreme Court of these United States will allow the health care law to pass scrutiny and be deemed Constitutional. Initially, the constitutional argument focused on the requirement that everyone obtain health insurance. The federal government has Constitutionally-limited power. Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically authorizes it to do and requiring people to have health insurance is not one of their enumerated powers. But in the past the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted certain congressional powers extremely broadly – such as finding an ‘individual’s right to privacy’, so who knows what their ruling might be.

What does the Constitution say Congress has the right to do under the umbrella of Interstate Commerce – which is what the Dems are going to use as Constitutional authority granted to them to run a national health care system?

First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;

Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).

In the Supreme Court ruling in The United States v. Lopez in 1995 new limits were placed on Congress’ commerce power. A 12th grade high school student brought a concealed .38 revolver and bullets to school and was confronted by school officials. He admitted to having the gun and was charged with violating Congress’ Gun Free School Zones Act. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that ‘the Act was unconstitutional on the basis that the Gun Free law was beyond the power of Congress to regulate control over our public schools.’

The government’s principal argument was that someone with a firearm in a school would lead to violent crime, which would affect general economic conditions, causes damage and creates expense, and raises insurance costs all of which are spread throughout the economy. The government also argued that the presence of firearms would scare the students, inhibit learning, and would keep tourists from travelling ‘Interstate’ to the area the school was in which would weaken the nation’s economic health.

The Supreme Court found that supporting the government in this matter would open the doors to the federal government regulating ANY activity despite its connection to interstate commerce. What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person’s economic productivity? Or, as with the current health care bill, would allow Congress to interfere with an individual’s right to choose how they want to take care of their own health care.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the U.S. v Lopez argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general ‘police power’ over the entire nation.