Monday, August 27, 2012
Speaking of Abortion...
Todd Akin's misguided and incorrect statements about "legitimate rape" have stirred up yet another hornet's nest about America's currently longest lasting polarizing issue -- abortion.
We are fortunate today to have much more medical evidence about what really happens in the womb than we had when the Supreme Court overreached and set abortion policy in stone in 1973.
Our current medical understanding demonstrates that both sides are incorrect of their view of how a pregnancy starts and how life develops.
A pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall. This happens about the 6th day after fertilization.
However, half of fertilized eggs never attach to the uterine wall. Those 50% of fertilized eggs get flushed out during the next menstruation. So, it's very difficult from a scientific perspective to argue that "conception" should be the criteria for abortion policy, when half of all "conceptions" are naturally terminated.
We now also know that at 21 days the fetus's heart starts beating. There are also a bunch of other pregnancy milestones that science has uncovered that we didn't know about in 1973. Brain waves start about 40 days. Hearing starts about 50 days. Ability to feel pain... Viability outside the womb... more... So, it's very difficult from a scientific perspective to argue that a human fetus with a beating heart, yet alone brain waves, hearing, ability to feel pain, and viability outside the womb is somehow not a human life until it passes through the birth canal (and even after that according to some extremists).
There are reasonable and rational positions on abortion that could be constructed based on actual current scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, one side only cares about their 1960's selfish, hedonistic view of the world, while the other side bases their entire position upon a narrowly defined interpretation of 2,000 plus year old Biblical passages.
Both sides are incorrect according to current medical evidence.
Current medical evidence can and does change based on our increasing knowledge. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overstepped their authority in 1973 and as a result they locked Americans into an endless conflict based on a now obsolete view of scientific evidence.
Almost all of us can agree that if at any point during the pregnancy the mother's life becomes at risk, then it is absolutely the mother's choice on what to do.
Most of us can also agree that if a woman reports a rape, it is also her choice on what to do, at least in the early stages of pregnancy.
But, we as a society also need to get to a point where almost all of us can agree on a reasonable and rational view of abortion in general based on scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, thanks to the overreaching 1973 Supreme Court, we are a long way away from that.
Until we do, we will continue to suffer from the extremists on both sides.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
CO2 Emisions Lowest Since 1992
In a surprising turn of events, over the last few years America has dramatically lowered the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. In fact, current CO2 emissions are back to where they were in 1992.
A triumphant success of government regulations, right???
Wrong.
The reason we've been able to do this is that a market innovation -- hydraulic fracking technology -- has lowered the price of natural gas from over $10 per thousand cubic feet in 2005 to around $3 per thousand cubic feet today. This had made natural gas cheaper than coal.
As a result, the amount of our electricity that we get from coal has dropped from 50% of the total to 35% of the total today, as operators have switched to natural gas.
Most of the world's politicians, regulators, and climate "scientists" had no idea that this was coming because it happened as a result of market innovations, not heavy-handed government regulations.
What is hydraulic fracking? It's a method for extracting natural gas (or oil) from rock deep below the earth's surface. A mixture of pressurize water and sand to used to force fissures in the rock, making it easier for the gas to escape.
Fracking was first invented in 1947, but it wasn't heavily used until 1997 in Texas.
The U.S. has the second largest shale deposits in the world. Fracking technology has unlocked an estimated additional 100 year reserve of natural gas in the U.S.
Here's the fun part: The U.S. should be able to meet it's proposed obligations under the Kyoto protocols (which we never signed) by 2020, without the heavy hand of government forcing the issue.
This is a true triumph of the free market that should teach the busy body politicians to keep their desires to micromanage the economy to themselves and let people be free to innovate to solve our problems.
A triumphant success of government regulations, right???
Wrong.
The reason we've been able to do this is that a market innovation -- hydraulic fracking technology -- has lowered the price of natural gas from over $10 per thousand cubic feet in 2005 to around $3 per thousand cubic feet today. This had made natural gas cheaper than coal.
As a result, the amount of our electricity that we get from coal has dropped from 50% of the total to 35% of the total today, as operators have switched to natural gas.
Most of the world's politicians, regulators, and climate "scientists" had no idea that this was coming because it happened as a result of market innovations, not heavy-handed government regulations.
What is hydraulic fracking? It's a method for extracting natural gas (or oil) from rock deep below the earth's surface. A mixture of pressurize water and sand to used to force fissures in the rock, making it easier for the gas to escape.
Fracking was first invented in 1947, but it wasn't heavily used until 1997 in Texas.
The U.S. has the second largest shale deposits in the world. Fracking technology has unlocked an estimated additional 100 year reserve of natural gas in the U.S.
Here's the fun part: The U.S. should be able to meet it's proposed obligations under the Kyoto protocols (which we never signed) by 2020, without the heavy hand of government forcing the issue.
This is a true triumph of the free market that should teach the busy body politicians to keep their desires to micromanage the economy to themselves and let people be free to innovate to solve our problems.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Government''s War on Business
One of the big questions about the on-going lousy economy is why aren't people starting more businesses on their own, rather than relying on government?
The short answer is that governments at all levels in the U.S., have systematically created rules that make it increasingly difficult to start a business in America.
We've all heard about the police shutting down children's lemonade stands in several states because the kids don't have a license to conduct business on their front lawn.
The problem is much deeper than that.
My wife owns a home daycare business. Over the last three years, she has been very successful, by providing great service to her customers.
Washington State has a program that subsidizes the day care payments of low income kids.
Given where we live, my wife had long ago decided not to take government subsidized daycare students.
Good thing that she didn't.
Washington State recently passed a law stating that if your home daycare accepts low income kids, who get a government subsidy, then you are actually an employee of the state, and therefore need to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
WOW!!!
This may be the first case ever where a small business owner is compelled by the government to join a union.
What happens to the poor kids when small day care owners don't want to join the union? They are left out in the cold.
It's yet another awful unintended consequence of crazy government laws.
This isn't the only case where politicians have enacted rules that prevent small businesses from starting and serving their community.
There are a ton of immigrants who would love to start a taxi company in New York.
They get a driver's license. They buy a car. They get their car inspected. These are all reasonable requirements, but no dice -- government requires them to bid on a Taxi Medallion, which is used to restrict entry into the market. A Taxi Medallion now costs $1 million.
Many poor people who want to start their own business and rely on themselves can't do so because governments across the United States have restricted the market to prevent competition.
Most of these ambitious people wind up becoming someone else's employee, usually at minimum wage... it's hardly the American dream.
The really smart and ambitious ones wind up in the black market, selling drugs or engaging in other questionable activities.
Wouldn't society be better served with them starting and running a legitimate business?
America became a GREAT country because we enabled people to follow their own dreams, open a business, and become their own boss.
Now, governments at all levels systematically destroy people's dreams by restricting entry into markets to create monopolies or oligopolies for themselves or for the special interests.
It's wrong.
The short answer is that governments at all levels in the U.S., have systematically created rules that make it increasingly difficult to start a business in America.
We've all heard about the police shutting down children's lemonade stands in several states because the kids don't have a license to conduct business on their front lawn.
The problem is much deeper than that.
My wife owns a home daycare business. Over the last three years, she has been very successful, by providing great service to her customers.
Washington State has a program that subsidizes the day care payments of low income kids.
Given where we live, my wife had long ago decided not to take government subsidized daycare students.
Good thing that she didn't.
Washington State recently passed a law stating that if your home daycare accepts low income kids, who get a government subsidy, then you are actually an employee of the state, and therefore need to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
WOW!!!
This may be the first case ever where a small business owner is compelled by the government to join a union.
What happens to the poor kids when small day care owners don't want to join the union? They are left out in the cold.
It's yet another awful unintended consequence of crazy government laws.
This isn't the only case where politicians have enacted rules that prevent small businesses from starting and serving their community.
There are a ton of immigrants who would love to start a taxi company in New York.
They get a driver's license. They buy a car. They get their car inspected. These are all reasonable requirements, but no dice -- government requires them to bid on a Taxi Medallion, which is used to restrict entry into the market. A Taxi Medallion now costs $1 million.
Many poor people who want to start their own business and rely on themselves can't do so because governments across the United States have restricted the market to prevent competition.
Most of these ambitious people wind up becoming someone else's employee, usually at minimum wage... it's hardly the American dream.
The really smart and ambitious ones wind up in the black market, selling drugs or engaging in other questionable activities.
Wouldn't society be better served with them starting and running a legitimate business?
America became a GREAT country because we enabled people to follow their own dreams, open a business, and become their own boss.
Now, governments at all levels systematically destroy people's dreams by restricting entry into markets to create monopolies or oligopolies for themselves or for the special interests.
It's wrong.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Limited liability -- the bogyman of leftists
Leftists love to bellyache about the horrors of "limited liability", which they perceive as some corrupt conspiracy to put corporations in charge of the world, "over people".
What is "limited liability"?
It's the system where your personal financial liability for an organization is limited to the extent of your involvement in that organization.
Let's imagine a world without limited liability...
You buy one share of stock in IBM for $209.
You don't own the company. You don't control the company. You certainly don't manage the company. You don't even work at the company.
Something happens where the company is sued.
The people suing can now claim your house, car, everything else you own, and potentially garnish your wages until you die.
A world without liability that is limited to your involvement in an organization results in a primitive world, devoid of cars, airplanes, computers, and everything else that requires huge investments in time, money, and people.
Unlimited liability results in no one ever being able to assemble the resources needed to create these things.
Making people liable for things that they don't control is undoubtedly the dumbest of all the leftist fantasies.
Yet we keep hearing about this nonsense from leftist no-nothings over and over and over again.
This should tell us all something important about the leftist mindset and why we should completely dismiss everything that they say.
What is "limited liability"?
It's the system where your personal financial liability for an organization is limited to the extent of your involvement in that organization.
Let's imagine a world without limited liability...
You buy one share of stock in IBM for $209.
You don't own the company. You don't control the company. You certainly don't manage the company. You don't even work at the company.
Something happens where the company is sued.
The people suing can now claim your house, car, everything else you own, and potentially garnish your wages until you die.
A world without liability that is limited to your involvement in an organization results in a primitive world, devoid of cars, airplanes, computers, and everything else that requires huge investments in time, money, and people.
Unlimited liability results in no one ever being able to assemble the resources needed to create these things.
Making people liable for things that they don't control is undoubtedly the dumbest of all the leftist fantasies.
Yet we keep hearing about this nonsense from leftist no-nothings over and over and over again.
This should tell us all something important about the leftist mindset and why we should completely dismiss everything that they say.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
How Consumerism can fix our Healthcare System
Americans are the greatest shoppers on the earth.
Yet, government prohibits us from shopping for some of the most important needs in our lives like heath care as well as education services for our children.
In the early 1960s, America spent 6% of GDP in health care. So did Singapore.
America and Singapore both reformed their health care systems in very different ways.
America created two single payer systems -- one for old people (Medicare) and one for poor people (Medicaid).
Singapore created a nation of health care shoppers who have health savings accounts and who must make their own healthcare decisions.
Today, America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare and Singapore spends less than 4%.
Singapore has better outcomes as measured by life expectancy and infant morality.
The 20th century model of big government making decisions for average people has failed in healthcare, education, and just about everything else.
It's long past time that America stops listening to the self-serving 20th century reactionaries and undertake true government reform that will put the country on the right path to a successful future.
Yet, government prohibits us from shopping for some of the most important needs in our lives like heath care as well as education services for our children.
In the early 1960s, America spent 6% of GDP in health care. So did Singapore.
America and Singapore both reformed their health care systems in very different ways.
America created two single payer systems -- one for old people (Medicare) and one for poor people (Medicaid).
Singapore created a nation of health care shoppers who have health savings accounts and who must make their own healthcare decisions.
Today, America spends 18% of GDP on healthcare and Singapore spends less than 4%.
Singapore has better outcomes as measured by life expectancy and infant morality.
The 20th century model of big government making decisions for average people has failed in healthcare, education, and just about everything else.
It's long past time that America stops listening to the self-serving 20th century reactionaries and undertake true government reform that will put the country on the right path to a successful future.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Obama's New Scheme to Control the Internet and Spy on Americans
The Obama administration has been quietly plotting new controls on the Internet, including an ill-advised scheme to issue everyone a single Internet ID.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced that the government is drafting a plan called the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" to centralize efforts to create a "trusted" identity eco-system.
Locke said that one of the goals of the program is to reduce or eliminate the need for people to memorize multiple passwords.
The plan will rely on private identity providers, rather than government to issue ids and run the system.
There are several problems with the Obama's Administration plan:
First, having one id is not a good idea. Why is identity theft becoming such a big problem? Because all of your financial information is tied to one government issued id called a Social Security number. Once a criminal gets a hold of that, they can unlock you entire financial life. Having multiple ids enables you to segment your life and reduce the overall damage that can be done if one of the ids is compromised.
Second, there are already multiple identity providers on the internet whose ids can be used across web sites. They include Microsoft Live, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
Third, There are already open standards for authentication (OpenID) and authorization (OAuth) that are widely used by these identity providers and various web sites.
Forth, since the government is sponsoring the system, they will undoubtedly mandate that the companies running the system provide access so that the government can spy on our activities.
As usual, the government is claiming that there is a problem when no real problem exists, for the sole purpose of gaining power and control over yet another aspect of our lives. As always, the end result will be the exact opposite of the government's stated goal -- internet privacy will be completely destroyed.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced that the government is drafting a plan called the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" to centralize efforts to create a "trusted" identity eco-system.
Locke said that one of the goals of the program is to reduce or eliminate the need for people to memorize multiple passwords.
The plan will rely on private identity providers, rather than government to issue ids and run the system.
There are several problems with the Obama's Administration plan:
First, having one id is not a good idea. Why is identity theft becoming such a big problem? Because all of your financial information is tied to one government issued id called a Social Security number. Once a criminal gets a hold of that, they can unlock you entire financial life. Having multiple ids enables you to segment your life and reduce the overall damage that can be done if one of the ids is compromised.
Second, there are already multiple identity providers on the internet whose ids can be used across web sites. They include Microsoft Live, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.
Third, There are already open standards for authentication (OpenID) and authorization (OAuth) that are widely used by these identity providers and various web sites.
Forth, since the government is sponsoring the system, they will undoubtedly mandate that the companies running the system provide access so that the government can spy on our activities.
As usual, the government is claiming that there is a problem when no real problem exists, for the sole purpose of gaining power and control over yet another aspect of our lives. As always, the end result will be the exact opposite of the government's stated goal -- internet privacy will be completely destroyed.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rick Santorum is no Conservative Savior
Rick Santorum's virtual tie in Iowa has propelled him into the national spotlight overnight.
Just three weeks ago, Santorum was polling in the low to middle single digits in Iowa. Many people questioned why he was even in the race. I thought that he was probably running for Vice President -- someone who could give Mitt Romney credibility with social conservatives.
Now that Santorum has emerged as the latest front-runner among the GOP Presidential contenders, it's time to take a close look at who Rick Santorum really is.
Santorum was born in 1958 in West Virginia. His parents were government employees who worked at a VA Hospital in neighboring Pennsylvania. After graduating from college with a Law Degree, Santorum went to work for the government as a legislative aide to a Pennsylvania State Senator. He later served on a Pennsylvania government transportation committee.
Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. In 1994 he was elected to the Senate as part of the Gingrich revolution. In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform and he helped steer that important piece of legislation through the Senate.
However, during the Bush the administration, Santorum helped lead the GOP away from their principles, by concocting all kinds of government spending programs designed to create new government dependent constituencies that would be loyal to the GOP.
Rick Santorum voted for the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ (Medicare Part D), the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (the failed No Child Left Behind), the largest pork barrel infrastructure bill in history (including the infamous "bridge to nowhere"), thousands of earmarks, Bush's two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East, and much more. Santorum and his buddies turned a balance budget into huge deficits and set the stage for the Democrats to regain control of the Congress and White House.
Rick Santorum is the poster boy for everything that was wrong with the GOP during the Bush administration. As a result, he got booted out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. He lost to a conservative Democrat by a whopping 59% to 41%.
During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill from a Democrat Congress because it contained 150 earmarks. During the Bush Administration, Santorum helped to Sheppard a transportation bill through a GOP Congress that contained over 1,000 earmarks (including the "bridge to nowhere"). Bush signed it. This alone should tell us all how much so-called "conservatives" like Santorum have veered off of the course set for us by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Santorum also endorsed liberal GOP Senator Arlen Specter over his conservative challenger Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter won the primary and the election. Thanks to Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter was around to cast the 60th and deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate.
I've watched every GOP debate during this election cycle. One thing that really strikes me is that of all of the current GOP Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum seems to have learned the least from Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Bush, Santorum seems to believe that the U.S. government can force a western civilization on a country like Afghanistan, where no reasonable civilization has ever existed before.
Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh was bellyaching about people questioning Santorum's conservative credentials. Limbaugh stated that "conservatives" actually do believe in big government -- just not the same kind of big government that liberals believe in. Oh really???
So sure, if our new definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the growth of government over the last 80 years and the corrupt cronyism that it spawned, then Santorum is indeed a "conservative".
However, if our definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the Constitution, limited government, the free market, and our individual liberty, then Santorum isn't even close to fitting the bill.
I hope and pray that the good people of New Hampshire take a hard look at Rick Santorum in the context of their state motto -- "Live Free or Die" -- and render their verdict accordingly.
Just three weeks ago, Santorum was polling in the low to middle single digits in Iowa. Many people questioned why he was even in the race. I thought that he was probably running for Vice President -- someone who could give Mitt Romney credibility with social conservatives.
Now that Santorum has emerged as the latest front-runner among the GOP Presidential contenders, it's time to take a close look at who Rick Santorum really is.
Santorum was born in 1958 in West Virginia. His parents were government employees who worked at a VA Hospital in neighboring Pennsylvania. After graduating from college with a Law Degree, Santorum went to work for the government as a legislative aide to a Pennsylvania State Senator. He later served on a Pennsylvania government transportation committee.
Santorum was elected to the House of Representatives in 1990. In 1994 he was elected to the Senate as part of the Gingrich revolution. In 1996, Santorum served as Chairman of the Republican Party Task Force on Welfare Reform and he helped steer that important piece of legislation through the Senate.
However, during the Bush the administration, Santorum helped lead the GOP away from their principles, by concocting all kinds of government spending programs designed to create new government dependent constituencies that would be loyal to the GOP.
Rick Santorum voted for the first new federal entitlement program since LBJ (Medicare Part D), the largest federal intrusion into the classroom in history (the failed No Child Left Behind), the largest pork barrel infrastructure bill in history (including the infamous "bridge to nowhere"), thousands of earmarks, Bush's two ill-conceived wars in the Middle East, and much more. Santorum and his buddies turned a balance budget into huge deficits and set the stage for the Democrats to regain control of the Congress and White House.
Rick Santorum is the poster boy for everything that was wrong with the GOP during the Bush administration. As a result, he got booted out of office in 2006 along with the rest of the GOP Congress. He lost to a conservative Democrat by a whopping 59% to 41%.
During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation bill from a Democrat Congress because it contained 150 earmarks. During the Bush Administration, Santorum helped to Sheppard a transportation bill through a GOP Congress that contained over 1,000 earmarks (including the "bridge to nowhere"). Bush signed it. This alone should tell us all how much so-called "conservatives" like Santorum have veered off of the course set for us by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Santorum also endorsed liberal GOP Senator Arlen Specter over his conservative challenger Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter won the primary and the election. Thanks to Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter was around to cast the 60th and deciding vote for Obamacare in the Senate.
I've watched every GOP debate during this election cycle. One thing that really strikes me is that of all of the current GOP Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum seems to have learned the least from Bush's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Bush, Santorum seems to believe that the U.S. government can force a western civilization on a country like Afghanistan, where no reasonable civilization has ever existed before.
Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh was bellyaching about people questioning Santorum's conservative credentials. Limbaugh stated that "conservatives" actually do believe in big government -- just not the same kind of big government that liberals believe in. Oh really???
So sure, if our new definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the growth of government over the last 80 years and the corrupt cronyism that it spawned, then Santorum is indeed a "conservative".
However, if our definition of a "conservative" is someone who wants to conserve the Constitution, limited government, the free market, and our individual liberty, then Santorum isn't even close to fitting the bill.
I hope and pray that the good people of New Hampshire take a hard look at Rick Santorum in the context of their state motto -- "Live Free or Die" -- and render their verdict accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
