Two Random, Unrelated Thoughts

The headline, "CBO: Health bill would reduce premiums on average" for the following AP story should really read:
CBO: Premiums on average in health bill will be paid for by someone else.
Subsidies don't lower costs, they shift who pays them.

Thomas Friedman wrote this in an opinion piece today (emphasis mine):
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.
Wouldn't it have been enormously helpful if editorialists had included that nuanced caveat while relentlessly repeating the Abu Ghraib/torture narrative?


An Actual Inconvenient Truth

Scientific progress depends upon accurate, complete and reliable data. Unfortunately, none of this seems to be the case when it relates to “climate change”, formerly know as “global warming”. In emails that were uncovered from the Climate Research Unit (the “CRU”, which should not be confused with the fictional “CTU” of 24 fame – except as we here at RSP have long thought, both are really engaged in fiction.) at the University of East Anglia in England, some of the world’s so-called leading experts on climate change (I say “so-called” because how can you be an expert in something that doesn’t exist) are, and have been, engaged in a conspiracy to destroy and hide data that did not support their global warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of CRU, and professor Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, another so-called expert on global warming, were caught in an email exchange wanting to engage in the “trick of adding in real temps to each series to hide the decline in temperature.” There is no explanation that can justify this exchange. These so-called scientists are engaged in efforts by to falsify data. No reasonable person should believe any explanations provided by these two, considering their fraudulent research.

It is also comical that the New York Times, while reporting on this incident, has refused to re-publish the emails by claiming that they were not meant for public consumption. I wonder if the Gray Lady will take the same position the next time someone presents it with classified CIA documents. I’d guess not.

Unfortunately for Professors Jones and Mann, this is not their only act of malfeasance. In another email exchange, Prof. Jones to Prof. Mann, “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” He goes on to say, “We have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Prof. Jones then urged Prof. Mann to join him in deleting email exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.

In other emails, Prof. Jones complains that he has been told by a UK government official that due to the Freedom of Information Act, he should not be deleting emails. Mr. Jones concocts a rationalization for his continued actions of deleting data and emails unfavorable to his position on climate change and his repeated failure to comply with lawful requests by saying that since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international organization, it is above any national Freedom of Information Act. So much for Her Majesty’s sovereign government. I wonder if the Crown Prosecutors, even under this sympathetic Labour government, would buy that argument.

Throughout the emails, proponents of global warming refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Unfortunately, only the emails from Prof. Jones’ university have been made public. And, of course, we only know part of the picture since the good professor has deleted data and emails that did not support his position of global warming. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, apparently, we may never know what we don’t know.

It is time that the other institutions involved in this controversy release data and emails that are relevant to the situation. Penn State University must immediately conduct an investigation to determine the extent of its faculty’s involvement in this cover-up.

In light of the fact that global warming has to a large extent been debunked by this conspiracy, it is unfortunately that President Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen for the United Nation’s next conference on this topic. Instead, the President should call for an investigation of all of the data regarding global warming. In the end, such action may save the economies of the free world.


Happy Thanksgiving

Thursday I go into the belly of the beast: Thanksgiving dinner with my flaming lefty family. I do not intend to bring up ObamaCare or Obama generally but, if challenged, here are my responses:
  • BHO is neither a socialist or the devil incarnate. He is, however, a standard issue left wing partisan ideologue with a gift for convincing a tiny but sufficient slice of the electorate that he's not.
  • ObamaCare will subsidize the illusion that health insurance (vs. health care) is cheaper for a few politically important constituencies. Those of us in the real world know subsidies don't change actual cost, they just change who pays. Accordingly, Washington's love affair with something-for-nothingism ensures that the underlying cost drivers remain unaddressed, now and forever. If it's true that Republicans are determined to stop anything called HCR, then it's also true that Democrats are determined to pass anything they can remotely call HCR. Neither party has any interest in actually stopping the distortions caused by our employer based model, which is the source of the rescission problem and the pre-existing condition problem. Dems. are too indebted to Big Labor to tackle it and Reps. know they'll be scorched if they do (not that they otherwise have a coherent policy approach). Obama scorched McCain for it during the election and he'll do it again if necessary. Our current system deploys price rationing, the system Obalosi envisions uses political rationing. The former can be fixed, the latter only gets worse over time.
Have a great Thanksgiving. If you eat too much, Thursday or any other day, you're raising my health insurance premiums.


Can't Wait For This Answer

How will Khalid "Shake Shake Shake" Mohammed answer this question, put to all criminal defendants who enjoy the presumption of innocence and the freedom from self-incrimination:

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"


The Post-Freedom Presidency

As I transported my daughter aboard a gas guzzling sedan to middle school Wednesday morning, even one the of the local FM rock stations was getting in on the Veterans’ Day spirit. We sang along to the Lee Greenwood classic, “Proud to be an American”.

The central lyric is so familiar it just rolls off the tongue: “And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.”

As we coasted through suburbia on a sun-washed autumn morning that line hit me like a brick wall. At least I know I’m free? Do I? Am I?

In the age of Obama, we were promised the post-racial Presidency. Looks like we were handed the post-Constitutional, post-Declaration of Independence Presidency. For now, we’re still essentially “free” but the scope of that freedom no longer feels like it has infinite boundaries.

It begins with speech. With words. With meaning. And with manipulation of meaning in the name of political correctness and the crushing Socialist agenda sweeping across Washington, D.C.

Consider the following list I drew up in just a matter of minutes. It could be much lengthier for sure, but I fear it demonstrates where we are in the post-Lee Greenwood era.

Not Islamic radicalism … religious diversity.

Not terrorism … alleged shooting incident (Ft. Hood).

Not free-market capitalism … unregulated wealth building.

Not death counseling … an affordable health care option.

Not politically correct … tolerant and fair-minded.

Not Socialist … transformational.

Not a War on Terror … routine law enforcement.

Not freedom of speech … hate-crime speech.

Not productivity … greed.

Not Communism … redistributive justice.

Not Tea Party patriotism … angry white people.

Not Commander in Chief … Campaigner in Chief Barack Hussein Obama.

As Veterans’ Day 2009 slips into history, I am proud to be an American because our brave men and women who wear the uniform make me proud. And because civilians who rise up in the face of violent Jihadist insanity make me proud. I’m thinking about the NYFD and NYPD on 9/11, and about the brave Ft. Hood police officer, Kim Munley, who last week gunned down the terrorist Nidal Hasan.

I’m proud, but I no longer know I’m free. In 2009, my fellow Americans and I are left to pray that we are.


Political Correctness and the Military

We now know that political correctness has killed Americans. The 13 deaths at Ft. Hood last week were a result of political correctness in the United States military turning a blind eye to Islamist extremism. As ABC New has reported, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with Al-Queda members in Yemen and that this was known to US Intelligence. US Intelligence then notified Army counter-intelligence, who, apparently, decided to do nothing with the information. Also, Maj. Hasan's superiors at Walter Reed Army Hospital knew that Hasan was engaging in anti-American propaganda with his patients (the worst kind of malpractice that a psychiatrist can commit). Political correctness on the part of the Army was as much to blame for the 13 deaths as underlying Islamist behavior itself.

While most rational people knew that Maj. Hasan’s actions were a terrorist attack, the President and his chain of command were apparently in denial about the motives for the attack. Despite Maj. Hasan’s calls of “Allahu akbar!”, the American people were being told by President Obama not to jump to conclusions. The elite media in this country was saying that just because Maj. Hasan has a Muslim name, the “right wing” was going to get all riled up (see the comments of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas).

Not only did the Army allow the Major’s terrorist connections and anti-American postings on Islamic websites to go unchallenged, we have the political leadership and the news media continuing to engage in the same political correctness that led to the massacre in the first place. Someone should remind President Obama of the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The only problem is that lives are at stake so we cannot afford to be fooled again. The military in this country does not abide by the same stand of free speech that governs the rest of our society. Therefore, at the first instance of Islamic radical behavior, the military must take action to ensure that any such serviceman is removed from the military. Lives depend upon this.

Last Thursday’s actions were the worst act of Islamist terror on US soil since the attacks of 9/11. When an extremist plans and executes a plot to kill our soldiers to protest our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is an act of terror, regardless of whether the perpetrator acted alone. But, has the President or his military commanders called Maj. Hasan’s actions that? Not as of this posting, almost 5 days after the incident.

A strange juxtaposition occurred within hours of Maj. Hasan’s rampage. On one hand, there is the President of the United States in the Rose Garden telling the American people not to jump to conclusions. On the other hand, you have the FBI Director, Robert Muller, telling the American people that this was not a terrorist plot. Considering the timing of Mr. Muller’s statement and that an investigation had just begun, wasn’t he jumping to a conclusion in direct contradiction to the President’s statements? It seems so to me. The consequence of the nations top investigator jumping to a conclusion without investigation should be his immediate dismissal. Unfortunately, however, Director Muller will keep his just because he was just toeing the party line - more political correctness.

If President Obama is really as smart as his supporters claimed during the campaign, he should be able to learn from his mistakes. Being the Commander-in-Chief of a military that is beholden to political correctness resulted in the deaths of 13 American soldiers in their home base. Political correctness, therefore, is a mistake in the American military. The President should immediately put a stop to it and make sure that this type of thing never happens again. If the doesn’t the next terrorists attack against our soldiers could be even worse.