Social Security, Medicare, and Fuzzy Math

The figures in the article are bull, because they ignore the time value of money. If you get $10 taxed from you at age 22, you cannot compare that to a $20 benefit received at age 65. That $10 would have grown to $54 at modest 4% interest. At a 4% interest, the medicare payments would be equivalent to $298K.
(I can recreate their $114,000 number by simply mulitplying 2.9% on $89,000 for 44 years, age 22-65.)

Social Security is a huge rip off. If that couple had social security in ultrasafe bonds earning a 4% interest rate, then they would have amassed $1.2 million, versus the $550K they will receive from the gov't. Coca-Cola, a very safe company, pays 4.875% on recent bonds.

AP: WASHINGTON – You paid your Medicare taxes all those years and think you deserve your money's worth: full benefits after you retire.


Nearly three out of five people say in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll that they paid into the system so their benefits shouldn't be cut.

But a newly updated financial analysis shows that what people paid into the system doesn't come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees.

Consider an average-wage, two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers.

But they can expect to receive medical services — from prescriptions to hospital care — worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.

The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely-held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.
"The fact that you put money into the system doesn't mean it's there waiting for you to collect," said Steuerle.
By comparison, Social Security taxes and expected benefits come closer to balancing out.

The same hypothetical couple retiring in 2011 will have paid $614,000 in Social Security taxes, and can expect to collect $555,000 in benefits. They will have paid about 10 percent more into the system than they're likely to get back.

Many workers may believe their Medicare payroll taxes are going for their own insurance after they retiree, but the money is actually used to pay the bills of seniors currently on the program.

Republican Choices in 2012: None of the Above.

Palin can't win. She's nice and I don't disagree with her on any major issues, but she isn't articulate and is too folksy. You can be folksy if you have serious experience, like Reagan, but not if your experience is in question.

Gingrich cheated on his wife plus promoted man-made global warming with Nancy Pelosi. He's a non-starter. If he can keep a promise to his wife before God, what makes us think he'll keep a promise to a voter?
Huckabee is a lightweight. It would be like running Dole again.

Romney would be the best if it wasn't for Romneycare, which is eerily similar to Obamacare, and is failing. He can say it was good in theory and has failed in implementation, but what big government program does not follow that same pattern?

Failures in Socialized Medicine

Continuing to document stories, here are additional stories over the last two weeks:

Dec 3: One in five mothers left alone in labour as maternity care 'still letting down women'


Nov 29: NHS shamed by third-rate hospitals: Needless deaths and thousands of blunders exposed


Nov 22: Retired NHS care worker killed by stomach cancer despite 50 visits to hospital and GP


Nov 20: Woman, 26, died of DVT after being 'fobbed off' by nurse who relied too much on computerised guide






Read more:

Read more:

Failures in Socialized Medicine

I see stories from the UK that highlight the failure of socialized medicine and like to post them because the US media won't. While the care was "free" (funded by taxes), the downside that is hard to quantify is the decline in quality.

These stories will continue and continue. They are a product of NHS being a monopoly. A decline in quality of service is a symptom of all monopolies.We all learn that corporate monopolies are bad, but we somehow think that government monopolies will be better.
 
The aggregate cost of healthcare can be cut if people just die quickly. The poor woman died at 44 and had no costly chemotherapy and hopsital stays because the doctors kept misdiagnosing her.



Daily Mail - A mother has died of stomach cancer after her GP and ten doctors failed to diagnose the disease. Angela Skeffington had reported classic stomach cancer symptoms since April but was not given a specialist CT scan until late August, when the disease was finally spotted. But by then the cancer had spread to her liver and lymph nodes and Mrs Skeffington, 44, from Birmingham was told she only had weeks to live.

The former warehouse worker had previously been misdiagnosed with anorexia, depression and period pain.
Her angry relatives have now attacked the NHS for failing to diagnose the cancer earlier. Her sister Christine Layton, 45, from Rugeley, West Midlands, said: 'Doctors tried giving Angela chemotherapy, but it was too late by then and didn't work. 'I know survival rates are not always very long, but my sister could still be here today if the doctors had listened to her. 'She may not have had a lifetime, but they could have given her more time with her children and grandchildren.' For five months, the grandmother-of-five claimed she complained of stabbing pains to the stomach, blood in her vomit and stools, plus a loss of appetite to her GP, Dr Atta Shah at the Khyber Surgery in Saltley, Birmingham, along with a further ten doctors during 12 visits to Heartlands Hospital A&E. Dr Shah had booked a referral to hospital for Mrs Skeffington in June, but she was still awaiting an appointment when she was diagnosed with cancer in August. Speaking after she was first diagnosed with terminal cancer, Mrs Skeffington, who lived with partner John, had said: 'I was made to feel like a nuisance by all the doctors. 'I was treated worse than an animal.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336057/Birmingham-mother-3-dies-11-doctors-fail-diagnose-stomach-cancer.html#ixzz17L6ajjSg



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336057/Birmingham-mother-3-dies-11-doctors-fail-diagnose-stomach-cancer.html#ixzz17L6Xehti

UK Gives a Big Payout to Terrorists

I wonder if this settlement money is earmarked for attacks against the UK or if it will just go into a general fund?

Giving money to people actively trying to kill you, while your country is going bankrupt. In 100 years, historians aren't really going to need to do a whole of indepth analysis to determine why the Britian collapsed.
"

AP - LONDON – Britain's agreement to pay hefty settlements to former Guantanamo detainees who accused the government of complicity in their torture averts a protracted legal battle that could have compromised national security and disclosed sensitive U.S. intelligence.
The agreement, which came after months of legal wrangling, was a first official step toward distancing Britain from the interrogation tactics sanctioned by President George W. Bush during the U.S.-led war on terror.
The payout could prompt other former detainees to push for compensation in U.S. courts and elsewhere — even though Britain admitted no guilt.
Justice Secretary Ken Clark did not disclose the size of the settlement or who was involved, saying in his announcement to parliament Tuesday there was a binding confidentiality clause.
However, a British lawyer with knowledge of the terms told The Associated Press that at least seven former detainees — all British citizens or residents — would receive payments and one man would receive more than $1.6 million (1 million pounds).
British spies were not accused of torturing detainees themselves, but former detainees alleged that British security services violated international law by knowing about the abuse and doing nothing to stop it.
Speaking to the House of Commons, Clarke said the government had not admitted any "culpability" in the settlement and the plaintiffs had not withdrawn their allegations.
"The alternative to any payments made would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation," Clarke said, adding that the government could not be certain it could "defend the security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security.""

Your Choice: Virtual strip search or Groping.

Recently the TSA unveiled its new security procedures. If you are randomly selected you must go through the new enhanced scanner which can see through your clothes via x-rays or microwaves. The scanners are so detailed that they can tell if a man has been circumcized. If you don't like that, you can get an "enhanced pat-down" which involves the TSA worker feeling all parts of your body including your crotch.

I don't have time to write a flowing narrative on my thoughts, so I've providing it in bullet format.

1. I don't like being given the choice between low-tech molestation (aka groping aka enhanced pat-down) or high-tech molestation with a dose of radiation.
2. The TSA refuses to profile, which would be much more effective. Instead they put on security theater designed to fool people into thinking they were safe, while maintaining strict politcal correctness.
3. Randomly searching people when there is a discernable pattern present is not effective. A random search would be appropriate if previous terrorist attacks were commited by people with the following characteristics: a 4 year old girl, a 35 year old woman, a 80 year old woman, 40 year old male, and a 73 year old male in a wheelchair. Is that true? No. Terrorists have all been single males between 20 and 40. (You can't necessarily determine someone's religion necessarily by looking at them, so that is not even included). 
4. Janet Napolitano blatently lies when she says that images are deleted immediately, because it's been news that 35,000 were found saved.
5. Janet Napolitano is snide when she says "people are free to other means of transportation if they don't want to be virtually strip searched or groped" (paraphrase of course). People aren't always free to choose any form of transportation. Some people have to travel to work.  Some people have to fly for medical treatments. Some people find it difficult to visit family 2,000 miles away by driving. What is next? Can a city say, "We can search your house without a warrant. If you don't like it, you are free to live outside the city limits." When did the 4th amendment stop being applicable?
6. The Feds are reactionary. If terrorist hijack a plane with box cutters, they will ban box cutters, even though box cutters wouldn't be sufficent next time due to other passengers, an armed pilot, and a reinforced door.
7. The Feds refuse to enforce border protection. Drug cartels and who knows what are coming into the US through the southern border. It's like have a window locked tight, but leaving the front door open.
8. A lot of liberal groups that screamed when Bush was wiretapping phone calls to Yemen are surprisingly quiet when Obama's TSA goons are trying to frisk little girls. Why are liberals so willing to give up their rights when its a liberal making them do it?

For Reference, The 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Revealing Cost of Trip May Endanger National Security

Re: Obama's $200M/day trip to India

Obama denies it cost $200 million per day, but refuses to state what it does cost and cites "security concerns."

It's almost laughable excuse. Why would disclosing the cost of a trip to a ally be a security risk?

Additionally, it's apparently not a security risk to let us know that it didn't cost $200 M per day. However, indicating whether the price is higher or lower, is a security risk.

Obama borrows $200M per day from the Chinese to pay for his opulent trip while there is 10% unemployment here. Obama knows he's toast in 2012, so he's going to live like a King.

Next Up 2012 - The Senate Elections

In the 2010 elections, Democrats had 18 Senate seats up for re-election, and about 10 were in play (Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylavania,, Washington, West Virginia). They will lose 6-8 of them.Republicans had 19 Senate seats up for reelection and defended them all.

For 2012, Democrats have more seats up for reelection: 21, plus 2 independentst that caucus with the Democrats. I think 14 are in play (in blue) and 10 have higher potential (in bold)

Republicans, on the other hand, have only four seats in play (in red), only which 2 have a higher potential  (in bold)


 2012 Senate Elections Democratic incumbent elections

1. Dianne Feinstein of California
2. Tom Carper of Delaware
3. Bill Nelson of Florida
4. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
5. Ben Cardin of Maryland
6. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
7. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
8. Claire McCaskill of Missouri
9. Jon Tester of Montana
10. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
11. Bob Menendez of New Jersey
12. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
13. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
14. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
15. Sherrod Brown of Ohio
16. Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
17. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
18. Jim Webb of Virginia
19. Maria Cantwell of Washington
20. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
21. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Independent incumbent elections

1. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
2. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Republican incumbent elections

1. Jon Kyl of Arizona
2. Richard Lugar of Indiana
3. Olympia Snowe of Maine
4. Scott Brown of Massachusetts
5. Roger Wicker of Mississippi
6. John Ensign of Nevada
7. Bob Corker of Tennessee
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
9. Orrin Hatch of Utah
10. John Barrasso of Wyoming

Election Predictions

First the semi-professionals:

Electoral-vote.com (run by a Democrat)
Senate: 51 Dem, 48 Rep, 1 Ind
House: 217 Rep, 201 Dem, 17 ties

Electionprojection.com (run by a Republican)
Senate: 49 Dem, 49 Rep, 1 Dem (+8 Rep)
House: 241 Rep, 194 Dem (+62 Rep)

For the Senate, Republicans are projected to pick up: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylavania,
Dems hold onto: Oregon, Washington, California, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York (2), Vermont, Connecticut.



Me:
Senate: 51 Republicans
House: 255 Rep, 180 Dem

I think the turnout among Democrats is going to be low. Ancedotally, yesterday I posted "I've been looking forward to tomororow for a long time". All my friends that are Republicans knew what I was talking about. Friends that are liberals, asked, "What's tomorrow?"

In addition to the predictions by electionprojection, I think Republicans pick up two of three of the following: West Virginia, Washington, California.

Since polls only track about a third of the races that pundits have deemed competitive, I think there are several races which are not being considered in the equations. No pundit would have predicted the Scott Brown Senate win in Massachusetts, five months before he got elected. I think an additional 10-15 seats may break Republican.

It all may be wishful thinking, but I don't see a reason for Democrats to go to the polls.

Why ARE so many modern British career women converting to Islam?

People instinctively know there is a God of some sorts. Career women are have inquisitive minds, so they are also seeking truth. They learn there is emptyness in debuachery. They also want structure from a faith. The Church of England has been saying "believe what you feel like" for the last several decades.

Muslims are aggressive in prostalytizing. When learning about Islam, these women hear about all good things. Of course, some women who marry Muslims get a rude awakening into the finer points of their new subservient role.

People are also converting to Catholicism, because the Catholic Church still stands for things and resists pressure from secularists to modify their belief system. Catholics are also moving Catholicism towards orthodoxy rather than the liberal Catholicism that was prevelent in the 1970s. Look at the surging interest in the old style (Tridentine) Mass.

Tony Blair’s sister-in-law announced her conversion to Islam last weekend. Journalist Lauren Booth embraced the faith after what she describes as a ‘holy experience’ in Iran.

She is just one of a growing number of modern British career women to do so. Here, writer EVE AHMED, who was raised as a Muslim before rejecting the faith, explores the reasons why.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324039/Like-Lauren-Booth-ARE-modern-British-career-women-converting-Islam.html#ixzz13ZewuYsN

Predicting November 2nd.

When looking at predictions for election, I think looking at the betting can be better than the polls. Intrade lets people bet on the election. Right now, the odds are 89% that the Republicans take the House. There is a 72% the Republicans will get 48 seats, but only 18% that they will get 51.

Of course, after the election, the media will circle the wagons. The media is already asking Democrats questions like, "how come you could not get your message out?" We've gotten the message. We don't like it.

After the 1994 election, the media talked about "angry white men." This time we will see a similar line of dialogue. Voters will be classified as either irrational, emotional, or impatient. Essentially, all voting was illogical.

Men Vs. Women Salary Differential Explained.

This dumb statistic again. They try to use it to show some sort of systematic discrimination. All it is, is the average of all salaries.

If a man in West Virginia goes into the coal mines, and a woman answers telephones for the coal company, the man will make more. It's more dangerous, it's hot, it's dirty. There's compensation.

Show me a male and female college graduate in accounting who hire into the same firm, doing the same job, and get paid different salaries.

As careers progress, people make different choices. With lawyers, some men work 100 hours a week and make a lot of money. While some women do as well, more women choose to work 50 hours a week and make less money. This is a lifestyle choice, not discrimation.

ABC NEWS: In fact, from Alaska to Rhode Island, only women located in one place brought home more than the estimated $45,485 average median salary for men in all 50 states -- the District of Columbia, where women earned an estimated median salary of more than $54,000 in 2009.

While the women earners in D.C. trailed men in the same area by more than $7,000, the capital is likely to pay women 88 percent of the earnings of men -- a high percentage for the United States.

Yawn: New Spitzer / Parker show on CNN

Spitzer has no credibility and poor ratings will show for it. Who wants to listen to commentary from a man who wrecked his family by sleeping with countless prostitutes?

And where supposed to listen to his commentary on Palin? She's a idiot? She didn't wreck her career over a fling like Spitzer. That's pretty idiotic.

All Spitzer will do is spout the party line. Look for Geitner to be sacked in a couple months. He will be the fall guy. It's the entire administration headed by Obama that is pushing bad economic policy after bad economic policy.

Parker is a pretend conservative. She's too interested in being liked by the Washington elite (read: liberal) that she doesn't have any true principles. She's not conservative enough for conservatives to watch and not liberal enough to bring in liberal viewers.

Failures in Socialized Medicine

The understated problem with socialized medicine is that quality suffers.

Daily Mail: A brave mother found the strength to be at her son's first day of school before cancer claimed her life the following day.
In a final act of defiance against the disease, 31-year-old Gemma Hogg checked out of the hospice where she had gone to die to see four-year-old Thomas go to infant school.
She then returned to the hospice in Crawley, Sussex, and passed away a day later on Tuesday, September 7, surrounded by her family....

Her husband, an IT project manager, considered taking legal action against the NHS, for what he believes was a 'long summer of misdiagnosis' after a lump, initially discovered by his wife in around 2007, was dismissed as harmless breast tissue, then mastitis, and was later treated as a cyst.
It was only when Mrs Hogg paid to go private that the severity of her condition was discovered.....

Continued Media Bias

Yahoo headline says "Glenn Beck lashes out at media portrayal"

More bias. "Lashing out" is what the media says about conservatives who respond to liberal accusations.

When liberals responds to conservative accusations, the media says that "Obama rebuffs..."

"Rebuff" is very clear headed and logical. "Lashing out" is done by people who are not in full control of their emotions.

Bill White & guns

Just because Bill White owns a gun doesn't mean he is pro-gun. Ever hear of "do as I say, not as I do." Al Gore wants you to cut your carbon footprint but flies a private plane everywhere. Rosie O'Donnell, staunch gun control activist, -- her bodyguard carries a gun.

AUSTIN, Texas – If he were running for governor of New York, Democrat Bill White would probably be considered a pro-gun enthusiast. He's got a shotgun and a 9 mm pistol, opposes any new laws on firearms and says he'd like to sign up some day for a concealed weapons permit.

But this is Texas, where incumbent Rick Perry recently shot a coyote while out jogging and enjoys hunting deer with a bow and arrow. The love of weaponry is so ingrained in state culture that having a legal permit to carry a handgun will get you waved through the Texas Capitol security lines without going through a magnetometer.

Against that backdrop, the former Houston mayor heads into the 2010 governor's race playing defense on a powerful political issue. The biggest liability for White is his past membership in a New York-based gun control group. White says he resigned after finding its positions too restrictive, but his participation in Mayors Against Illegal Guns riled up those who live to preserve Texas' pro-gun culture.

"Anywhere in the civilized world you would be able to make the argument that everybody should be able to be against illegal guns. But we're not in the civilized word. We're in Texas," said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson.

White only needs to look a few years back to find candidates who have lost campaigns over the issue. The last Democrat who was elected governor, Ann Richards, lost her re-election bid in 1994 in part after opposing concealed handgun legislation and vetoing a referendum on it.

George W. Bush signed the bill into law in his first year after defeating her to become governor....

Levi Johnston - As Predicted

Last year, I predicted what would happen to Levi Johnston, naive baby-daddy to Bristol Palin, and today I was proven correct. (Trackback: Levi Johnston - use and discard)

He finally realized that the media used him to bash Palin, while Palin was probably someone who actually cared about him.

Producers probably told him about how bashing Palin would lead him to Hollywood career. Once his purpose was done, those producers who promised connections, didn't return his voicemails.

Then he probably realized what a mistake he made and who is real friends were. (Not the producers of the Tyra Banks show and the editors of Vogue).

Nonetheless, he was man enough to publically apologize, so good for him.

The former boyfriend of Sarah Palin's daughter has admitted telling lies about the Republican vice presidential candidate and her family.
Levi Johnston, 20, said in an online story that since his untrue statements were made in public, 'I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologise'.
It is unclear which statements he was referring to. In the past he has accused Sarah Palin of trying to adopt the child he had with her daughter Bristol so people would not know she had been pregnant.

Mr Johnston told People magazine: 'Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry.
'Unfortunately, against my better judgement, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true.
'I have already privately apologised to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were made public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologise


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1292676/Levi-Johnston-apologises-untrue-Sarah-Palin-jibes-split-Bristol.html#ixzz0t2Hhtl00

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1292676/Levi-Johnston-apologises-untrue-Sarah-Palin-jibes-split-Bristol.html#ixzz0t2HbNlYJ

Will on Kagan

George Will has proposed a list of questions that Kagan should be asked. I like the list and hopes that Senators use some. My favorite:


-- Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?


Lists here and here

More Bias (This time on guns)

Headline AP: Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

No, they affirmed gun owner rights. The headline as written implies that the rights were not there. Gun rights were already nationwide, just not in Chicago and some other places.

Media Bias Example

So this is the headline from Yahoo:



Yahoo actually modifies it from the AP, which read "GOP senators: Can Kagan be impartial judge?"

Now if there was a Republican President and Kagan was a conservative, the headline would read perhaps:

1. Kagan faces tough questions of controversial stances.
2. Does Kagan's positions lack compassion?
3. Many Senators uneasy about Kagan's ability to be impartial

McChrystal Falls on his Sword?

AP WASHINGTON – The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan was fighting for his job Tuesday after being summoned to Washington to explain a magazine profile that included derogatory comments about President Barack Obama and his colleagues.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Gen. Stanley McChrystal's comments were "distractions" to the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, has been ordered to appear at the White House Wednesday, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

He'll be expected to explain his comments in the magazine's profile, titled "The Runaway General," to the president and top Pentagon officials, officials said.

One of the more intriguing analysis is here:

Big Government: The interview of General McChrystal and his in Rolling Stone was not an accident, it’s a perfect example of suicide by interview. The General knew that every criticism would be “on the record.” He also knew that the President will have no choice but to relieve the General of his command after their meeting tomorrow.


McChrystal is a Four-Star General, a position you do not achieve by being an idiot. Today’s military leadership is well schooled not only in war-making but in diplomacy. He knew what the content of the article would be. He also knew that the article would lead his own dismissal (or the proverbial resignation letter where he says he’s quitting to spend more time with his family).

The Rolling Stone interview highlights the difference in the leadership styles of the President and the General. When this President faces a crisis, he looks for someone either internally or externally to blame. On the other hand, the General sees the War in Afghanistan reaching a crisis point because of the way it is being waged, rather than looking to find a scapegoat in his ranks as Obama would do, McChrystal found a way to let the country know what is really happening, while at the same time redirect any criticism for the war effort, away from his men and on to his own wide shoulders.

.... The Military commander was sending his troops and the administration a message. To the troops he was saying ” I have your backs even to the point of hurting my own career.” The message for the administration was, “Your way isn’t working, let us do what is necessary to win this war. Even though this was a violation of the Code of Honor, the General’s statements were a service to America and to his men by confirming what we all suspected, the President and his administration does not have a clue.

Minerals in Afghanistan - No Good Outcome?

I don't see how the discovery of minerals in Afghanistan has a good outcome for most of the people living there. Foreign companies will come in and setup all the mining operations and pay royalites to the current dictator in charge. They'll use that cash to extert control over the general population or export religious ideology across the globe. There is no undeveloped economy where the discovery of vast natural resources has benefited the general population. If the US leaves Afghanistan, there are four outcomes:


Possible Outcomes:

1. A Secular dictatorship - Strong man keeps wealth for himself. He's so dominant that there isn't much rival wars, but he's too busy with himself to bother exporting jihad.
   
2. A Saudi Arabia - nominally peaceful, but exports extremist Islam across the globe.
   
3. An Ivory Coast or Congo - an African diamond rich country full of internal bloodshed as people fight over minerals
   
4. An Afghanistan circa 2000, with tons of money - Actively recruits and trains jihadists and pretends to be an innocent peaceful country.
   

NY Times — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war. ...

Obama and the Oil Spill

Now that oil spill in the gulf has continued for over 50 days, there has been chatter about whether this is "Obama's Katrina" referring to the seemingly ineffectiveness of Bush in providing leadership during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

So is Obama to blame?

Can Obama propose the engineering solution to fix the leak? No, but he could do more than just leave it to BP. He could coordinate bringing in other experts, other companies, even BP's competitors. More importantly he could help lift the bureaucracy that is standing in the way of preventing environmental damage. There are twelve bureaucracies involved in the oil spill and they often get in they in the way. As the Chief Executive, he could get them out of the way!

Human Events: On May 11, [Louisiana Gov. Bobby] Jindal applied for 24 permits to create sand barriers for the coastal marshes; the administration did not respond until eight days later. Even worse, they waited for 15 days to approve just six of the permits, and to this day, BP has only funded one so far.

The government/BP reaction horror stories continue. Terrebonne Parish requested 180,000 feet of hard boom. The Coast Guard approved 90,000 feet, but, under BP orders, didn’t deploy it all, and the hard boom was left on the docks while the oil hit the beaches.

The Student Loan Debt Crisis for Worthless Degree Receipients

For years, increases in university tuition have heavily outpaced salary growth. Mindless people have gone to college, taken out student loans in order to major in a degree than have little job prospects. Now we are supposed to feel sorry for them?

The primary driver of her problem is that she major in "women's studies", a degree with non-existent career options. So she spent $100K to get a degree than is essentially worthless. We've heard the term "worthless liberal arts degree", but now that comes at a heavy price.

I've had massive student loans, which could have easily hit $100K if I deferred it a few years. The big differential is that I majored in engineering and then business, degrees that offers job prospects. But before taking out the loans, I evaluated the cost of the degree against the benefits BEFORE going to school. And of course, while I was giving up weekends and nights to study, I'm sure she was out on the town.

Here's the story [with my comments in brackets]

NY Times: Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she's been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments.

This is not a long-term solution, because the interest on the loans continues to pile up. [Yeah, and 8% interest on $97,000 is about $650 per month! It's a car payment just to keep the status quo]. So in an eerie echo of the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people like Ms. Munna are facing a reckoning. They and their families made borrowing decisions based more on emotion than reason, much as subprime borrowers assumed the value of their houses would always go up.
Meanwhile, universities like N.Y.U. enrolled students without asking many questions about whether they could afford a $50,000 annual tuition bill. Then the colleges introduced the students to lenders who underwrote big loans without any idea of what the students might earn someday — just like the mortgage lenders who didn't ask borrowers to verify their incomes

Ms. Munna does not want to walk away from her loans in the same way many mortgage holders are. [Awfully nice of her]. It would be difficult in any event because federal bankruptcy law makes it nearly impossible to discharge student loan debts. But unless she manages to improve her income quickly, she doesn't have a lot of good options for digging out. [Things she should have thought of yesterday].

It is utterly depressing that there are so many people like her facing decades of payments, limited capacity to buy a home and a debt burden that can repel potential life partners. For starters, it's a shared failure of parenting and loan underwriting. [Why is a failure of loan underwriting if they can't discharge the loan with bankruptcy?]

But perhaps the biggest share lies with colleges and universities because they have the most knowledge of the financial aid process. And I would argue that they had an obligation to counsel students like Ms. Munna, who got in too far over their heads.

How many people are like her? According to the College Board's Trends in Student Aid study, 10 percent of people who graduated in 2007-8 with student loans had borrowed $40,000 or more. The median debt for bachelor's degree recipients who borrowed while attending private, nonprofit colleges was $22,380.

The Project on Student Debt, a research and advocacy organization in Oakland, Calif., used federal data to estimate that 206,000 people graduated from college (including many from for-profit universities) with more than $40,000 in student loan debt in that same period. That's a ninefold increase over the number of people in 1996, using 2008 dollars. [The big question is why has university tuition increases doubled or tripled inflation year after year.]

The Family

No one forces borrowers to take out these loans, and Ms. Munna and her mother, Cathryn, have spent the years since her graduation trying to understand where they went wrong. [You took out too much money]. Ms. Munna's father died when she was 13, after a series of illnesses.

She started college at age 17 and borrowed as much money as she could under the federal loan program. To make up the difference between her grants and work study money and the total cost of attending, her mother co-signed two private loans with Sallie Mae totaling about $20,000. [Mama should have checked her degree].

When they applied for a third loan, however, Sallie Mae rejected the application, citing Cathryn's credit history. She had returned to college herself to finish her bachelor's degree and was also borrowing money. N.Y.U. suggested a federal Plus loan for parents, but that would have required immediate payments, something the mother couldn't afford. So before Cortney's junior year, N.Y.U. recommended that she apply for a private student loan on her own with Citibank.

Over the course of the next two years, starting when she was still a teenager, she borrowed about $40,000 from Citibank without thinking much about how she would pay it back. How could her mother have let her run up that debt, and why didn't she try to make her daughter transfer to, say, the best school in the much cheaper state university system in New York? "All I could see was college, and a good college and how proud I was of her," Cathryn said. "All we needed to do was get this education and get the good job. This is the thing that eats away at me, the naïveté on my part."

But Cortney resists the idea that this is a tale of bad parenting. "To me, it would be an uncharitable reading," she said. "My mother has tried her best, and I don't blame her for anything in this."

The Lender

Sallie Mae gets a pass here, in my view. A responsible grownup co-signed for its loans to the Munnas, and the company eventually cut them off.

But what was Citi thinking, handing over $40,000 to an undergraduate who had already amassed debt well into the five figures? This was, in effect, a "no doc" or at least a "low doc" subprime mortgage loan. [Not really. A buyer could walk away from a house and mortgage debt in bankruptcy. If the lender can't walk away from student loan debt, why would a bank hesitate giving a loan.]

A Citi spokesman declined to comment, even though Ms. Munna was willing to sign a waiver giving Citi permission to talk about her loans. Perhaps the bank worried that once it approved one loan, cutting her off would have led her to drop out or transfer and have trouble paying back the loan.

Today, someone like Ms. Munna might not qualify for the $40,000 she borrowed. But as the economy rebounds, there is little doubt that plenty of lenders will step forward to roll the dice on desperate students, especially because the students generally can't get rid of the debt in bankruptcy court.

The University

The financial aid office often has the best picture of what students like Ms. Munna are up abbgainst, because they see their families' financial situation splayed out on the federal financial aid form. So why didn't N.Y.U. tell Ms. Munna that she simply did not belong there once she'd passed, say, $60,000 in total debt?

"Had somebody called me and said, 'Do you have a clue where this is all headed?', it would have been a slap in the face, but a slap in the face that I needed," said Cathryn Munna. "When financial aid told her that they could get her $2,000 more in loans, they should have been saying 'You are in deep doo-doo, little girl.' " [Come on, you're a big girl. It's always someone else's fault]

That's not a role that the university wants to take on, though. "I think that would be completely inappropriate," said Randall Deike, the vice president of enrollment management for N.Y.U., who oversees admissions and financial aid. "Some families will do whatever it takes for their son or daughter to be not just at N.Y.U., but any first-choice college. I'm not sure that's always the best decision, but it's one that they really have to make themselves."

The complications here go well beyond the propriety of suggesting that a student enroll elsewhere. Colleges don't always know how much debt its students are taking on, which makes it hard to offer good counsel. (N.Y.U. does appear to have known about all of Ms. Munna's loans, though.)

Then there's a branding problem. Urging students to attend a cheaper college or leave altogether suggests a lack of confidence about the earning potential of alumni. Nobody wants to admit that. And once a university starts encouraging middle-class students to go elsewhere, it must fill its classes with more children of the wealthy and a much smaller number of low-income students to whom it can afford to offer enormous scholarships. That's hardly an ideal outcome either.

Finally, universities exist to enroll students, not turn them away. "Aid administrators want to keep their jobs," said Joan H. Crissman, interim president and chief executive of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "If the administration finds out that you're encouraging students to go to a cheaper school just because you don't think they can handle the debt load, I don't think that's going to mesh very well." [Actually the big issues is that if NYU and other colleges with a big liberal arts program would be comitting harikari if they started telling their students, "How are you going to pay back these student loans with this worthless degree that will never net you any higher salary than your high school diploma alone. ]

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the financial aid office is still in the best position to see trouble coming and do something to stop it. University officials should take on this obligation, even if they aren't willing to advise students to attend another college.

Instead, they might deputize a gang of M.B.A. candidates or alumni in the financial services industry to offer free financial planning to admitted students and their families. Mr. Deike also noted that the bigger problem here is one of financial literacy. Fine. He and N.Y.U. are in a great position to solve for that by making every financial aid recipient take a financial planning class. The students could even use their families as the case study.

The Options

The balance on Cortney Munna's loans is about $97,000, including all of her federal loans and her private debt from Sallie Mae and Citibank. What are her options for digging out?

Her mother can't help without selling her bed and breakfast, and then she'd have no home. She could take her daughter in, but there aren't good ways for her to earn a living in Alexandria Bay, in upstate New York.

Cortney could move someplace cheaper than her current home city of San Francisco, but she worries about her job prospects, even with her N.Y.U. diploma. [It's a worthless NYU diploma]

She recently received a raise and now makes $22 an hour working for a photographer. It's the highest salary she's earned since graduating with an interdisciplinary degree in religious and women's studies. [Finally the article gets to the core of the problem. I see she isn't using her degree. What kind of job did she expect with women's study degree? It's not like you got a degree in construction and are having a tough time finding a job given the economic environment. She never stood a chance of getting a job in any economy. What was her rationale? Students will have to learn the cost and benefit of majors. Perhaps perspective students will think twice about majoring in "women's studies" in the future.After taxes, she takes home about $2,300 a month. Rent runs $750, and the full monthly payments on her student loans would be about $700 if they weren't being deferred, which would not leave a lot left over. [And interest keeps accruing. Is she waiting for a bailout?]

She may finally be earning enough to barely scrape by while still making the payments for the first time since she graduated, at least until interest rates rise and the payments on her loans with variable rates spiral up. And while her job requires her to work nights and weekends sometimes, she probably should find a flexible second job to try to bring in a few extra hundred dollars a month.

Ms. Munna understands this tough love, buck up, buckle-down advice. But she also badly wants to call a do-over on the last decade. "I don't want to spend the rest of my life slaving away to pay for an education I got for four years and would happily give back," she said. "It feels wrong to me." [It is wrong to have spent a lot of money on a worthless degree.]

U.S. Government Anti-Piracy Tactic Manual

US Government Anti-Piracy Tactic Manual

Increased levels of piracy in East Africa are largely being driven by African-Somolians who face economic hardship at home and racial discrimination abroad. Some of the drivers of the rate they turn to piracy have been the lack of US action to pass legislation to combat global warming, the Arizona immigration law, the increasing gap between rich and poor in America, golden parachutes for bank executives on Wall Street, and the lack of full and equal civil rights for the LBGT community in the United States.

Piracy in East Africa and the world abroad is expected to be completely eliminated on August 25, 2010 as the IMO's "High Seas Gun Control Act" goes into effect the same day. The new IMO regulation bans all handguns and assault rifles on the high seas unless you are a member of the military and have registered with the United Nations.

Until then, it is advised to continue practicing the approved U.S. government anti-piracy tactics. The economic hardship pirates have faced means outreach is more important than ever. While the US policy has been that the US is for the pirates, but against the piracy, the words "piracy" and "pirates" is divisive and can lead to discrimination. They will be hence-fore replaced with "compulsory redistribution" and "economic equalizers"

If approached by a pirate ship, stop your ship immediately and welcome them for they are hungry and lack money for basic necessities like food, water, and affordable housing. If you surrender quickly, the pirates won't be as mad at you. It is also advised for you to quickly convert to Islam if requested by your new guests, so as not to harm their self-esteem. Have a travel bag ready, because they may insist that you take an extended vacation in Somolia while some haggling over the future of your former ship takes place.

No government healthcare?

I thought the Democrats told us there was no government healthcare in the Obamacare bill?



VPR: "If you're sick - or have ever been sick - and can't get insurance, the new health-care law promises fast relief: access to guaranteed coverage through a special federally funded insurance program starting in July. The goal is to provide comprehensive and affordable coverage to more people."

On the Shroud of Turin

The Pope visited the Shroud of Turin, as it is on display for the first time since 2002, so it's been in the news.

The basic evidence that Shroud is real.

1. Biblical account of the crucifixion are verified: There is wounds from the crown of thorns, the spear, and the scourging. There are nail marks in the wrists and feet. The legs are not broken.
2. The cloth is a very expensive cloth for the time. This lines up with the Biblical account of Joseph of Aramathea who purchased an expensive cloth.
3. Pollen fibers in the cloth are local to Israel.
4. There is no paint.
   

I can provide the validity of the shroud by being able to disprove the arguments against it.

The most popular argument against it is that it is a medieval hoax by an accomplished artist. This is the most popular, driven by that records of its existance prior to to the mid 14th century is unclear and a 1988 carbon dating test placed in in the 13th century.

The most compelling argument against the hoax theory is simple logic:

1. I'm supposed to believe a hoaxer in the middle ages created an magnificent fake that wouldn't really be visible for another 500+ years by technology unknown at the time?
2. Im supposed to belive that this hoaxer want to make a very faint image such that it would attract little attention. What kind of hoax is that? Remember the Shroud's prominence only really grew after it was first photographed and revealed to be a negative.
3. I'm also supposed to believe the 13th century hoaxer also used some other method creating a faint image instead of paint because he knew that paint could be identified by scientific testing in 500+ years.

The other theory is that it is another man that was crucified, not Christ. However there are two major arguments against that:

1. The crown of thorns was not a common practice. It was unique to Jesus due to being mocked as a king.
2. While common criminals were crucified, the were not buried in expensive burial cloths.

So if it isn't a fake and it isn't someone else from the time period, who else could it be?

I believe God put evidence out there for people to believe, and I think it is keeping with his style to not make the evidence irrefutable. Jesus certainly provided evidence to His divinity when he was on Earth through discrete miracles, but His works were done in such away that an active unbeliever could convince himself that Jesus was not the Christ.

The evidence in the Shroud is strong enough to help believers solidify their faith yet he leaves out that definitive proof so people who don't want to believe can find an out. He's given everyone evidence just as he presented himself to "Doubting" Thomas.

If you believe that the Shroud is real, then you must believe Christ is real, and everything he said is real too.

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona's new law that makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and allows police to check citizenship at traffic stops and in arrests. Liberals have been up in arms that it is "racist" and will promote "racial profiling."

Democrats pander to illegals because they want to add 30 million voters who can be swayed by the Democrats efforts to give away other people's money.

Establishment Republicans think they can win the support of "Hispanics" by giving amnesty. Why would legal Hispanic immigrants have a lovefest for illegals who "cut the line?" It's a stupid play in identity politics.

Mexico's Calderon doesn't like the Arizona law, but has he looked at Mexico's laws and they way they treat their illegals from Central America?

Obamacare is going to force us to prove to the IRS that we have health insurance. Why is it so unreasonable to prove citizenship (via a drivers license) if pulled over? We need a drivers license to drive anyway.

Every politicans who opposes the Arizona law should be required to move their summer house from the Hamptons to the border. They are out of touch with reality.

Aborting Girls in India

Daily Mail - It is difficult for those of white British origins, who come from a culture where the safe arrival of a healthy baby girl is a cause for celebration, to understand the deep-rooted commitment of British Indian families to what has become known as 'son preference'.
You have to travel to India itself to even try to understand it. For it is only there that you begin to grasp the extraordinary paradox that is modern India.
On the one hand, you have one of the most vibrant and fast-growing economies in the world; on the other, you have a deeply patriarchal society, where women are not just seen as second-class citizens but as potentially ruinous economic liabilities, too.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1276902/Britains-hidden-gendercide-How-Britains-Asians-copying-Indian-cousins-aborting-girls.html#ixzz0neEoJimX

More proof that not all cultures are equal, yet we are taught multiculturism ad nauseum. Britian and the Western culture have been relentlessly criticized for decades. Few in Britian are even proud of their heritage. They self-flagilate themselves over colonialism and revere third world countries as being noble.

Honor killings in Islam, aborting girls in India, and leaving infant girls out to die in Atheist China are just the tip of the iceberg. Slavery still exists in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Ethnic genocide is rampant in other parts of Africa and south Asia. Mortality rate of Chinese construction workers is extremely high because human life is not valued.

What made the West different had been Christianity. Now that many in Britian have lost their faith, it won't be long before they are doing the same. The British and others in the West are aghast that girls are aborted because girls and have been deemend inconvienent, but are many Westerners much different?

In the West babies are aborted becuase:
--- a test says they may not be physically perfect
--- people don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
--- they are inconvienent --- they get in the way of their lifestyle.

Before we look down on Indians for aborting baby girls, we should hang our heads in shame because we abort babies that aren't deemed perfect or are deemed inconvienent.

Fuzzy Math for Stay-At-Home Salaries

NEEDHAM, MA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 05/05/10 -- Salary.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLRY) announced today the results of its annual Mom Salary Survey. For 2010, Salary.com determined that the time mothers spend performing the 10 most popular "mom job functions" would equate to an annual cash compensation of US$117,856 for a Stay-at-Home Mom. Working Moms would earn US$71,860 above their regular salary for their mom duties....

The job titles that best matched a mom's definition of her work in both countries are: laundry machine operator, janitor, van driver, computer operator, housekeeper, day care center teacher, cook, chief executive officer, psychologist, and facilities manager. The salary benchmarks for these jobs are based on salaries for a small company, as company size is a key factor that affects pay.

According to the Salary.com survey, the working mom puts in more than 96 hours a week when you combine her full-time job, mom hours, and mom overtime -- an increase of four hours from last year....

This is the stupidest thing I have to read every year. The value of something, when unknown, can be defined by the cost of alternatives. I could hire a full time nanny AND a maid for well less than their $117K figure. If stay-at-home Mom's would have such a high salary, then people that substitute for their duties would be paid more.

The value of raising your children to be good responsible adults is invaluable. No one needs outside valadition for the work they do by trying to valuate their job.

Is the US Going to the Greek?

Let's recap:

1. Greece spend public money frivulously.
2 .Raised taxes on "the rich" (code for everyone)
3. Economy suffered and tax revenue fell
4. Now Greece can't pay back loans

Where is the US on this list? Why is it that the worst states economically (California, Michigan, etc) are the ones that the Democrats and the unions have controlled? Why do we want to repeat these failed policies on a national scale?

Red States are Actually in the Black

Missing from the article is the mention of the lack of unions and low taxes. The lack of unions helped maintain a competitve cost of labor and allows companies to fire people when needed. Companies that can't fire people, are hesitant about hiring them.

Also not mentioned is lack of land use restriction laws. California has land, you just can't build on it because you might disturb the natural habitat of the spotted earthworm. Thus housing supply is artifically constrained.

While less strict zoning was mentioned as a driver of Texas missing the housing bubble, it is liberals that always push for zoning. Texas companies could turn an old commercial property into residential housing units without having to bribe government officials or deal with massive bureaucracy.

Credit was given to Texas's natural resources, but other states have their own natural resources. The residents just can't use it. How many jobs are lost in California because they can't drill off the coast?

Why is it that the blue states are the ones doing poorly economically? Why would we want to export those failed policies onto a national scale?

Lone Star - Why Texas is doing so much better economically than the
rest of the nation. (Daniel Gross - Slate)

On several measures of economic stress, Texas is doing quite well. The state unemployment rate is 8.2 percent—high, but still one many states would envy. (California's is 12.5 percent; Michigan's is 14.1 percent.) It entered recession later than the rest of the country—Texas was adding jobs through August 2008—and started slowly adding jobs again last fall, thanks mostly to its great position in the largely recession-proof energy industry....

The Texas housing market also has fared better than many. The mortgage delinquency rate (the portion of borrowers three months behind on payments) is 5.78 percent, compared with 8.78 nationwide, according to First American CoreLogic. That's partly because relaxed zoning codes and abundant land kept both price appreciation and speculation down....

As it has for decades, energy is driving Texas' economy. In recent years,
natural gas has been undergoing a renaissance.....

The state has its own electricity grid, which is not connected to neighboring states. That has allowed it to move swiftly and decisively in deregulating power markets, building new transmission lines, and pursuing alternative sources.

Manufactured goods like electronics, chemicals, and machinery account for a bigger chunk of Texas' exports than petroleum does.

Freeloading - The New American Dream?

As the percentage of people who don't pay any income tax increases, look for the demand for government services to increase. If people get benefits paid for by others, why not vote in further benefits.

This spells disaster in the long run as deficits are unsustainable. Increasing the tax burden on "the rich" will further reduce the amount of money they have to buy things. When the rich buy boats, the boats are built by those who are not rich.

Democrats want the control and power of taking an ever-increasing share of people's money and then allocating it as they see fit. Part of it can go to fund "community outreach groups" which are shell organizations to recruit voters for Democrats.

History dictates that this will cause economic decline.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax– AP- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization....

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. "We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation,alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property....

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it's time to pay up. The nation's wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769. With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly. The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

Democrats' November chances

Time thinks the Democrats should be worried for five reasons:

1. Michael Steele - Says he makes gaffes and the result of the incident
with the staffer blowing RNC money at nightclub 2. Fundraising - RNC hasn't raised as much money as in 1994
3. Tea Parties - Says there's a disconnect between the tea party GOP
candidate and the establishment GOP candidate and that will hurt them. Also references the loss of House seat in upstate NY where there was essentially a very liberal Republican and a conservative running against a Democrat.
4. Who's the Leader? - No Newt
5. Legislative Wins - Democrats have had legislative wins
unlike 1994.

My Take:

1. The RNC may be hurt by scandal, but donors will just give money to candidates directly. I don't see how aggregate funding of candidates is hurt

2. Today its easier ability to donate directly to a candidate via the web. I think people are preferring to do that, especially the small donor.

3. Times assumes that the "tea party" candidate is not a Republican. Charlie Crist is typical of the establishment Republican that can win an election, but often votes for government expansion. Marco Rubio is a Republican and will win Florida. The NY state election was a one-off incident based on the extreme liberal views of the Republican candidate and the late entry of the Conservative candidate.

4. There is a bit of a leadership void, but there are some candidates that may jump in such as Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan. Anger at the Democrats alone will win several seats, but Republicans do need a clear action plan, like the contract. They need to clearly state how they will dial back government overreach, instead of just being the slow road to socialism instead of the fast road.

5. Just because Democrats passed something, that won't help them. People are angry with the Democrats forcing healthcare bill despite huge opposition. The Dems can't hook people onto benefits since they dont' start until 2014.

The Fall of Detriot

Time: "Detriot's Beautiful Horrible Decline. Two French photographers immortalize the remains of the motor city on film"

Beautiful, but sad photos.

It is a stark reminder of the long-term effect of corrupt unions, taxes, and heavy regulation on business. Companies either moved out of state, move out of country, or went out of business.

If companies priced in the cost of taxes, regulation, unions, they would not be competitive with products made in Tennessee. Why would a consumer buy the widget made in Detriot for $100, when he could buy the one made in Tennesse for $80?

Even if they could lower prices and break-even, investors would flee. Who's going to invest in a company whose projected rate of return in 0%, when safe T-bills pays at least 4%? How would they raise capital or get loans?

The media is still in the tank for Democrats. Here's the headline off Yahoo from the AP:

Senate Republican holds up jobless benefits

WASHINGTON – As Congress raced to leave Washington for its Easter recess, a Republican senator blocked a stopgap bill to extend jobless benefits, saying its $9 billion cost should not be added to the national debt.

As a result, some people who have been out of work for more than six months will at least temporarily lose benefits. Newly jobless people won't be eligible to sign up for generous health insurance subsidies.

At the center of the battle is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who's insisting that the measure be "paid for" so as not to add to the nation's $12.7 trillion debt.

"What we are doing is stealing future opportunity from our children," Coburn said Thursday.

Republicans offered legislation to finance the monthlong extension of jobless benefits by rescinding unspent money from last year's economic stimulus bill. The effort was killed on a party-line vote.

All Coburn wants to do is to have the benefits paid for. Here's how it should read: Senate Democrats Refuse to Fund Benefits Plan

Thoughts on Health Care "Reform"

Where to begin?

First off, my general feeling is that is a big step towards socialized medicine... where government decides who gets covered, medical advances cease, waits for surgery increase, and taxes skyrocket.

With passage of the law, people will have to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the government. At the same time, insurers can't deny people with pre-existing conditions. The fine is much less than the cost of healthcare insurance. What's the downside for someone to pay then fine and then get insurance once they get sick. Insurance works by people paying a small premium to offset the risk that they would need to cover large expenses. You can't call an auto insurance after you get in an accident or get homeowners insurance after your house burns down. Insurance rosters will be made up of a greater percentage of sick people than they have been. As a result, insurance companies will have raise premiums faster than before the law.

Is this naivete on the part of Pelosi and Obama or is it designed to collapse the healthcare insurance companies? If a law was passed that prevents the insurance companies from fiscally surviving, then the government can step in a take them over.

Bart Stupak caved and got his 30 pieces of silver. He got a face saving "executive order" to implement the Hyde Amendment, but it won't trump law.

Stupak and Abortion

The Hill: "Leading a revolt against President Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation over abortion has been a “living hell” for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)."

In 50 or 100 years, abortion will be viewed as slavery is today. Those who supported abortion will be viewed as monsters and their legacy will have a big stain on it. Those who bucked the status quo and fought for life, will be hereos.

William Wilberforce wasn't widely lauded in his day.

2010 Census = 17 choices for race plus one for "white"

The Census wants to know three things

1. Name
2. Age
3. Race

Under Race

1. Mexican, Chicano
2. Puerto Rican
3. Cuban
4. Other Hispanic - with space to input the specific origin
5. Black, African American
6. American Indian or Alaskan Native
7. Asian Indian
8. Chinese
9. Fillipino
10. Japanese
11. Korean
12. Vietnamese
13. Native Hawaiian
14. Guamanian or Chamorro
15. Samoan
16. Other Pacific Islander - with space to input the specific origin
17. Other Asian - with space to input the specific origin
18. White

So white people get lumped into one category without distinct. My suggestions:

• Anglo-Saxon,
• Mediterranean,
• Scandinavian,
• Gaulic,
• Slavic,
• Other Caucasian

Thoughts on Recent Political Events

Yeah for Massachussetes - In 2008, voters favored Obama 62%-36% and favored Kerry in the Senate 66%-31%, spreads of 26% and 35%. Last night, Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley 52% - 47%. Obama and Pelosi's teams are blaming Coakley as a candidate. Sorry, although she said a couple dumb things and ran a poor campaign, that won't cause swings of 31-40%.

Democrats won't get the message. I thought attitudes of moderate Democrats would change after Democrats got trounced in the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. If Jon Corzine couldn't win re-election in a blue state that he's won twice, any Democratic seat in Arkansas, Montana, or North Dakota would be in serious jeopardy. No one flinched and the healthcare votes continued.

Doesn't Ben Nelson look stupid? - He sells out his re-election chances for the healthcare bill that won't pass now because Scott Brown won.

Why should voters believe Obama's promises on healthcare - "You'll be able to keep your doctor", etc. If Obama can't keep promises on things he can directly control (airing debates on C-Span, posting bills on-line for five days), why should anyone believe his promises on the effect of the healthcare plan?

Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs

Photo District News: A New Mexico wedding photographer who refused on freedom of speech and religion grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006 has lost her anti-discrimination appeal.

Photograph Elaine Huguenin was challenging a 2008 ruling by New Mexico's Human Rights Commission(NMHRC). Last month, a state court judge affirmed the commission's finding that Huguenin had violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The case arose after Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque contacted Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, about photographing her commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin told Willock by e-mail "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," but gave no explanation.

The next day, Willock's partner, Misty Pascottini, asked Elane Photography via e-mail if the studio would photograph her wedding in Ruidoso, New Mexico. Pascottini didn't identify herself as Willock's partner. Huguenin responded that she would be willing to travel to photograph Pascottini's wedding, and sent her pricing information.

Willock filed a discrimination claim in December 2006 with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. She sought attorney's fees, but no other damages. The NMHRC finally heard Willock's claim in January 2008, and handed down its decision against Elane Photography in April, 2008.

Under the state's Human Rights Act, it is discriminatory (and illegal) for "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services" on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation and several other factors.

This case has provoked a lot of debate in the photographic community. Most it comes down to political views. Should the photographer have a right not to photograph an event that she objects to on religious grounds? Does her 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion supersede the civil law.

Here are some common talking points and my responses:


She wasn't asked to change her views, just to photograph the event:
If a religion doesn't think homosexuality is kosher, then photographing a gay wedding would be involving yourself in a "scandolous activity" and wouldn't be kosher either. Forcing someone by law to violate their religious principles isn't the basis of a just society.

• Would you make a Hindu photograph cows being slaughtered?
• Would you make a Muslim photograph a pork eating contest?
• Would you make atheist photograph a Christian baptism?
• Should laws force a Orhtodox Jewish photographer to work on the Sabbath?

It's the law and she should have followed the law:

Should have Rosa Parks just went at sat in the back of the bus because it was Alabama law?

Non-religious people are going to say that the Christian photographer should be forced to photograph the ceremony because of the existing civil law. Civil law is the only law they know, so I don't see why they would argue anything else.

Religious people also have religious law, which they feel trumps civil law and are sometimes think that religious law first. While these don't often clash, there may be more cases like this come up. (Catholic doctors being forced to perform abortions is another issue)


Should a medical doctor being allowed to decline services to a black person?
Equating being forced to photograph a gay union and not providing emergency medical care to a person of a different skin color is a complete red herring. To begin, it's not a life and death situation. I do think that a doctor has a right to refuse to do an abortion or a sex change.


What specifically do you disagree with the Court's ruling:
The Court said that she wasn't required to participate in the ceremony, just photograph it. As such, that shouldn't violate her religious views (page 12). I think that they have taken a very narrow view of participation. I think photographing a ceremony has a sufficient degree of participation in it.

She can't deny services based on sexual orientation:
The photographer is objecting, on established religious grounds, to the action being performed, not the people involved. Remember, the photographer didn't deny any services to the lesbians, they declined photographing the event. If the straight mother-of-the-bride would have tried to hire her for the ceremony, and she declined, would it be illegal? Some photographer don't do weddings at all or some don't nudes. I imagine if she hired by the lesbians to photograph them and their dog in a studio session, she would have said yes.

The photographer is a bigot:
Some people have been quick to throw out the term bigot. If disagreeing with certain behavior or activity is bigotry, then most of us have a level of bigotry

For all of those who call the photographer a bigot, consider this:
--Do you approve of polygamy?
--Do you approve of an adult brother and sister marrying?
--Do you approve of father selling his 6 year old daughter off to be married?

All of these things happen today or have happened in the past. If you think they are wrong, then you could be classified as a bigot by those that support these activities.

Now if you disagree with a Sudanese man selling his 6 year old daughter to be married, would that make you a racist? No, because you are disagreeing with the action being taken, not the race of man doing it. The photographer wasn't refusing to perform photographic services at all for gays, but declined to photograph a gay union.