Right to Mobility

I have another rash of commercials lately for mobility devices primarily for the elderly. Scooters, power chairs, they have a lot of names. The commercials and the concept is very annoying.

It must be a pretty good scam because it has been going for years and more people are getting into it. Sucker the elderly into demanding a product or service for which others will pay. With all the future retirees I don't see this going away any time soon.

People have forgotten what "rights" mean. They must be baffled by civil rights, human rights and minority rights and all such nonsense. There is no such thing as civil rights. Silly words for an obscure concept. Using language like this for a product is absurd. "regain your right to mobility" "restore your freedom and independence" How about paying for it out of your own pocket!? All these companies advertise that the scooters are free because the government will pay for them. Well, that means that I am paying for them. Guess what? I don't want to. You force me pay. That is evil. Of course my beliefs in rights prevents from me retaliation.

I will have to write another post on definition of rights. But in short....It is something universal, extending to all, that cannot be granted or taken away. Mobility is not a right. Freedom on the dime of someone else is not liberty. Indepedence in terms of free scooters is not a right. You have a right to live. To protect that right you should avoid government care. I read this morning about the people killed in New Orleans after the hurricane. Many patients were given lethal doses of painkillers so the "caregivers" could evacuate to safety. Very nice. Ah, but who cares? They are just a drag on the socialist system, right? Lived past their usefulness? What monsters. Socialists pretend to care and offer all the benefits of a more advanced civilization but they lie and they kill.

I won't buy you a scooter but I would never kill you. I would never abandon a loved one to the control of others. My mom and dad would always be welcome at my house.

Unions stink

What is the purpose of unions? They are worthless, corrupt and a waste. They may have served a purpose in the past. I was surprised to read Ronald Reagan speak so highly of them. They resemble communists. Why are they still around? Why do people still pay them dues? They don't guarantee good work or results.

unforeseen consequences

do-gooders. I don't think Woodrow Wilson was evil but a lot of bad things happened while he was president. Complex systems should not be strictly controlled. Especially when they have controls built into them, like a market. I have also complained about the 17th amendment before which greatly disrupts control of Senators and representative government. Senators should not be elected by the people.

American Minute
with Bill Federer
December 28

He thought tariff taxes between countries caused wars, so he worked to replace them the Income Tax. Four years later the United States entered World War I.
After the financial Panic of 1907, he promoted the Federal Reserve Act to prevent future national economic disasters. Eight years after he left office the Great Depression began.

His name was Woodrow Wilson, born this day, December 28, 1856.
While serving as the twenty-eighth President, he married Edith Bolling Galt, a descendant of Pocahontas. His administration saw the completion of Panama Canal, begun under President Theodore Roosevelt, and the purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark.

During World War I, in May of 1918, he proclaimed: "I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim...a day of public humiliation, prayer and fasting, and do exhort my fellow-citizens of all faiths and creeds to assemble on that day in their several places of worship and in their homes, to pray Almighty God that He may forgive our sins and shortcomings as a people and purify our hearts to see and love the truth... beseeching Him that He will give victory to our armies as they fight for freedom."
___www.AmericanMinute.com
P.O. Box 20163,
St. Louis, MO 63123
1-888-USA-WORD

President Bush giving away the country

Remember when everyone got mad at Pres. Clinton for giving secrets to the Chinese? Pres Bush approved technology transfer to the Chinese. Why do they do this? I think it is very ignorant.

Michael Savage was upset about security on the way home from work today. Why are we selling commercial U.S. port operations in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia to UNited Arab Emirates? Because Pres. Bush thinks they are important War on Terror?

(What happens if someone keeps attacking us when we turn around? Are we going to have a War on Back Stabbers?)

p.s. I think Exxon should get an award for the highest profits. Bravo. They are successful. They should get a trophy that they can keep until someone can beat them and make more money.

Gilbert elections and county islands

Vote no on the bonds.
Vote no! Vote no!
Gilbert Bond election March 14 2006.
I am amazed that people will vote for higher taxes. Its crazy but the bond issues always pass. I am sure this one will too. Another $75 million in debt. I was ripping on Queen Creek in an earlier post for their terrible roads. Roads are good to have but bonds are the worst way to pay for them. Why put the whole town in debt? Question of street improvements? Vote no. The roads will have to be replaced before the bonds are even paid off. Stupid idea.

Leave the county islands alone. People like that situation. Town of Gilbert is just looking for more revenue by annexing residents and scaring them by denying them emergency services. I don't know Rural Metro's part in this. They are business so it can't be just turning down customers for them. Very sad.

News items

News Items

Some of these are old since I haven’t written for a while but here are some important stories and my comments

Walmart vs. Maryland or Walmart and health coverage
Why does government think they have an ability to determine how a corporation spends it profits? A state is forcing a company to spend more money on health care for its employees. Absurd. This must be rejected. If allowed this will not end. Right now the limitation is companies with more than 10,000 employees. Why? No reason. This is an arbitrary number because some person hates Walmart. Why only 7% or 8% of profits on health benefits? No reason. Because it doesn't sound outrageous. In a few years every state will require every company to spend 65% of its money on health insurance and benefits just like the federal does with its budget. Do you think someone will question the rationale then?

Coal miners and nuclear energy
Sad that people died. Why don't we have more nuke plants so we don't need so much coal and oil? Because people are afraid of things like stupid movies with Jane Fonda that show nuclear near misses. BTW America still has the best safety record for mining. Proof that we care about people more than money.

Chinese competition
Is Chinese our competetitor? They are winning in one area but we are catching up fast. That is the race to bad government and excessive bureaucracy. They had a huge head start with the Great Leap Forward but we have George Bush.
Regarding manufacturing: clarification is needed in debate because we may be losing jobs but we are not losing manufacturing. America produces more than ever but much is automated. Effeciency gains means less people are needed. That is a good thing. But people need jobs. Sure but that is not a reason to hold back on effeciency and productivity. I heard an example that illustrates the situation. America produces far more food now with less farmers (less than 1% of population?) in 2006 than we did in 1906 when 30 or 40% of people were involved in agriculture. Why? Automation. Did America crumble because of changes in farm equipment?

Muslims and cartoons
Religion of peace rioting over a cartoon. Get a sense a humor. Freedom of religion does not include rioting in my book. If they try that here they should be shot. Best commentary I heard was from Ann Coulter.

p.s. minimum wage laws hurt the poorest the mostest

Build your own roads

Build your own roads
Traffic in Queen Creek is horrible.  I won’t describe geography or growth statistics that have made the problem in this corner of Arizona unbelievably bad. The Mayor of Queen Creek isn’t taking prompt action to improve roads but is asking the county to improve the roads in the nearby area.  Build your own roads.  Pinal County doesn’t have a magic pot of gold to pay for road building.  Pinal County needs to improve roads in the county.  The towns need to improve roads in incorporated areas.  Transferring these costs up to the county or state (or federal government) solves nothing because it is a form of socialism.  
Pinal County can’t put all its resources in Queen Creek.  Coolidge and Florence and Casa Grande are also begging for money.  Why pretend to steal money from the county as though it won’t raise taxes?  And then you pay for it anyway.  Build your own roads.  You can’t live off everyone else.  

Medved sells out?

Medved sells out?
I heard a few minutes of Michael Medved’s radio show yesterday when he spoke about hybrid vehicles.  Interesting ideas but I was disappointed by him again.  He said one of the selling points was the $3,000 tax break.  You get money from the government for buying the car.  Government wants to promote alternatives to gas-fueled cars.  Good for the environment?  Socially conscious?  No, vile socialism! and behavior control.  We the people must be self-governed.  Don’t sell out for $3,000.   Medved said he has principles but he isn’t stupid.  He disagrees with the tax law but isn’t stupid enough to turn it down.  

I understand what he means.  I get a tax credit for my child.  Should I turn it down on principle because it requires me to enroll my child in Social Security, ensuring that my children can never work in this country without the government taking what wages they want in withholdings?  

Are Medved’s principles worth $3000?  Phrase it in the language of Bastiat – I know the law is illegal but I will plunder $3000 from my fellow citizens.  Everyone claims to have the advantage, living off of everyone else.  The government does not have $3000 to give him without taking it from me.  I can gain nothing through the government without taking it by force from someone else.  In fact, we are taking money from our children and grandchildren because the country is so many trillions of dollars in debt.   It is all legal theft.  Might as well steal from others because they are stealing from you.  

A new budget

A new budget
We have a new budget for 2006.   The government will spend over $2.5 trillion dollars. They will confiscate nearly $2.2 trillion in taxes.   They plan to spend $390 billion more than they make.  That deficit will be 3% of GDP for this year.  Over 60% of the budget is spent on socialist programs.  No way you can argue we are not a socialist country.  It is taking from one to give to another – legal theft.   When you look at the numbers it is amazing what a low percentage goes to military and defense.  Social Security and Medicare are continuing to ruin the country.  

Budget surplus?

Budget surplus?

The legislature is going to decide how to spend the $700 million surplus. How about using it to pay for part of the $1,000,000 shortfall they had last year for spending too much? I think the state is still $300,000 in the red

Morgan Freeman on Black History Month

I recall thinking Black History Month was silly when I was in school. Of course saying so is "racist". So I am glad Morgan Freeman says we can help by stop talking about it

link to article and video

Bogle

I heard a review of “The Soul of Capitalism” by John Bogle on a podcast (Constitution hour I think). He was complaining about morality justice of CEO salaries. As though he owned the company. You have no say. Who cares what money they make? Don't buy their products. He claimed it was obscene compensation and that the people were looting. Fine, then fire them. Oh you can't. Don't work for the company. Don't buy their products if you want to protest. Keep your socialist government out of business.

Government Schools

I think government schools are a bad idea. I can think of much better ways to educate children. They seem to be obvious but many are opposed to them and state control of school has nearly unanimous support.
I like home schooling. No one is better suited to teach a child than its mother. Mothers do not cease to teach and educate their children from birth to a period extending beyond teenage years. The reasons given to turn this education over to others are pretty shallow. There is one good reason. Moms give their kids to specialists who will teach their children things that they do not know. That is a great sign of progression in the family. A daughter learning to play piano from an instructor because a parent cannot teach it is acceptable, for example. Advanced education will be difficult for a parent to provide (examples: calculus, quantum physics). So let’s limit this discussion to elementary school.

What is the purpose of school for children? Why does a mother turn her young child over to others for many hours to educate them? What are they supposed to learn? Why is home schooling a bad idea?

The main accusation against home schooling refers in some way to a lack of socialization. The first complaint is that the bulk of socialization received is very poor. I don't want my kids to act like those kids.

Pooling of resources
Worthless. A joke. See my posts on socialism. Don't force me to give my money for education at gunpoint (taxes!)

This was a comment I received after writing about the bad quality of government schools.

"And yet, despite (I'm assuming) your government education your entire life, you turned out okay."

Yes, children and society are resilient. Family and church help a great deal. I survived in spite of public schools not because of them. Homeschoolers consistently outperform public school education. It is not a drain on the system and doesn't crowd school buildings but instead of encouraging it, government fights against it because they control. The goal is controlled submissive kids, not smarter kids

Random Topics

My friend, Kevin, called and wanted to give me some blog topics. No time to write now but here is the summary:

Patriot Act – I have mixed feelings on this. It could be re-written I suppose to be safe but as it is gives government too many powers. It needs to define exactly what police and intelligence agencies may do and restrict all else.

Christmas – Say Merry Christmas, not Happy Holidays

Drilling in ANWR – Do it! The arctic desert isn’t going to care. I want the cheap oil that isn’t coming from islamists.

Pres. Bush and wiretaps

I wrote some comments about secret wiretaps on Small Green World

Specialization is for insects

quote from Robert Heinlein

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

supposedly from "Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long" I didn't verify

Atmospheric changes

Atmospheric changes
I watched various discover channel shows recently. Someone commented on the size of plants and animals. It was unknown why everything was so big in the fossil record. The largest dragon flies now are about 20 centimeters. The largest in fossil record are 75 centimeters. That is more than 3 times increase in size. I don’t know anything about the behavior of the old dragonflies but assuming they are similar to dragonflies we see now they flew and hunted prey. That requires some speed and agility. Their bodies appear similar. If their flight patterns were the same and body construction was the same then it should require a different environment to allow the larger size. I wouldn’t expect a 75 centimeter dragonfly to be able to turn or sprint like a smaller dragonfly. Mass to lift ratios don’t match. Nature’s design appears to limit size. Although bird construction is very light there is a limit to the size of birds. Condors and vultures are the largest. I remember the old nature shows which would show these birds struggling to take flight after eating because they had reached their weight limit. Yet these are dwarfed by flying dinosaurs called pteranodons or pterasaurs. Some of these had wingspans of more than 35 feet. Again more than 3 times what we have today. Scientists agree that the designs could glide but debate about how they would have become airborne.

My guess is that the atmosphere was 3 times as dense as it is today. There must have been changes in the atmosphere. The size of dragonflies should be optimized for prey and environment. They would not have grown so large if flight was hindered. Fossils don’t seem to show structural differences to decrease weight or improve flight. The air must have been thicker to allow lift/buoyancy required.

I thought about it and did a search and found that some people have put a lot more effort into this.
http://www.levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaur1.htm

Death Penalty stuff

I pulled comments from Federalist Patriot who quoted Jeff Jacoby on the death penalty. I imagine it was inspired by Williams the gangster's excecution. This is for the benefit of the silly protestors who don't understand justice and the value of life. "When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition."


"No passage in the Bible—Old or New Testament—disapproves of the death penalty... The penalty for those who violate 'You shall not murder' (Exodus 20:13) is made explicit just a few lines later: 'Whoever strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death' (Exodus 21:12). The text goes on to specify that this applies only to deliberate murder, not unintentional killing. Accidents are not capital crimes. But for a willful killer, there can be no sanctuary: 'Take him even from My altar and put him death' (Exodus 21:14). Similar declarations appear in all five books of Moses, nowhere more dramatically or universally than in Genesis. Speaking to Noah after the Flood, God enjoins him—and through him, all of human society—to affirm the sanctity of human life by making murderers pay the ultimate price for their crime. 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made' (Genesis 9:6)... Scripture could hardly be more explicit... When murderers keep their lives, human blood is cheapened. That is why reverence for life and capital punishment belong to the same ethical tradition. Civilized communities have not only the right but the responsibility to execute murderers. It may be a difficult responsibility to carry out. It may involve an assertion of moral authority that modern thinkers condemn. But easy or not, popular or not, the duty is ours to perform. The protection of human life is a grave obligation—never more so than when it involves taking a life away." —Jeff Jacoby

Rachel Carson is a fraud

Before I begin -
I only write things when I get excited or mad so this blog represents the loudest of my opinions. I realize that sometimes it may sound crazy. There are lots of things that are correct but don't sound right without proper introduction. But I usually only login and type when there is something more interesting than a million other distractions.
-

As for Rachel Carson, I don't know a lot about her. I don't really care. I would never read her book because I think it is stupid. I described her and other environmentalist as human-hating creeps. I think they are. Or they just use it to make money and get power. The results are terrible and I think the motives are worse.

I thought the article that Mel shared was interesting, informative. But far too diplomatic for the damage that is done in countries plagued with malaria and other diseases. Steve Milloy has assembled a report here. Milloy's death clock estimates that 90 million people have died since malaria was banned.
Some statements from the Reason article are good

-"effects of DDT on wildlife, especially birds, still vexes researchers." Eggshell thinning is shown to be a fraud.
-"Carson improperly cited cases of acute exposures"
- "Carson’s statistic is essentially meaningless unless it’s given some context, which she failed to supply. It turns out that the percentage of children dying of cancer was rising because other causes of death, such as infectious diseases, were drastically declining."
-In fact, cancer rates in children have not increased
-Meanwhile, Carson’s disciples have managed to persuade many poor countries to stop using DDT against mosquitoes. The result has been an enormous increase in the number of people dying of malaria each year. Today malaria infects between 300 million and 500 million people annually, killing as many 2.7 million of them
-the legacy of Rachel Carson is more troubling than her admirers will acknowledge.


Article from Front Page illustrates some of the damage done by banning the chemical. Poor people die from diseases that are easy to eradicate. For example

"Malaria keeps Africa down, and down is where the rest of the world wants us to be. If this was a disease of the West, it would be gone," Mamadou Kasse, medical editor of Senegal's largest newspaper, Le Soleil, told Atlantic Monthly's Ellen Ruppel Shell for her August 1997 article, "Resurgence of a Deadly Disease."
If Carson's crusaders are really concerned about saving lives and helping developing countries, then must allow DDT to be used without repercussions.
"Malaria kills a few million every year; each life lost is a potential Mandela, Shakespeare, or Edison, and nothing is less reversible than death, nor more tragic than the death of a child," Dr. Roger Bate said. "Hundreds of millions suffer chronic illness, which creates a painful economic burden and perpetuates poverty. This may not be the intention of those who are debating a DDT ban, but it surely will be the outcome."
If that is not enough to convince them, Carson's crusaders should realize that their actions against DDT might eventually boomerang.
"[B]anning DDT worldwide is beyond ignorance, it is just plain stupid," Koenig said. "[Although m]alaria still is prevalent in the countries in the equatorial regions . [it] is only a matter of time, a short time, before we see these diseases again in the regions between the tropics and the poles."
Until that time comes, the malaria plague seems to be off the public radar. However, let there be no mistake: Rachel Carson and the worldwide environmentalist movement are responsbile for perpetuating an ecological genocide that has claimed the lives of millions of young, poor, striving African men, women and children, killed by preventable diseases.

I saw a headline from Milloy that people want to name a bridge in Pennsylvania after her. Her picture is on the wall at Bookman's. The Reason article said her book is the most influential of the last 50 years. So how does a person like this get a bridge named after her? One could argue she is responsible for more deaths than Hitler. (How is that for sensationalist?)

Response to Katrina

I thought I had previously posted a link to this article. Couldn't find it so here it is again. Author questions the response to Katrina from the government. If their goal was other than helping (like grabbing power) than they did pretty well.

Government did not fail