Do Angels Dance on Pins? Yes, just like humans cause global warming

An article came to my attention showing that during a recent period (in geologic time), atmospheric CO2 fell over 1,000 ppm (its about 350 ppm now) while temperatures rose 7 degrees Centigrade (12.6 degrees Fahrneheit). Many questions came to mind. One, how much higher was global temperature then than now? Answer: about 12 degrees F. As the chart below shows, the Earth is usually warmer, and as expected, atmospheric CO2 was much higher because of the warmer seas and the higher rate of plant growth and subsequent decay. All natural, of course.



Now we are in a period of relatively low temperatures and atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 has increased about 80 ppm in the past 200 years, and warming increased a modest 0.6 degrees Centigrade (1 degree F) since the end of the Little Ice Age about 160 years ago.

Only Al Gore and his Acolytes would think that any of this is remarkable, or not natural. What is an icrease of 80 ppm for CO2 when previous fluctuations have been in thousands? What is an increase of 0.6 degrees C when geological records show rapid swings of 7 degrees C?

I have seen hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that establish such phenomena as a global Medieval Warm Period, a much warmer than present Holocene Optimum, and at least four other periods of equal or greater warming in the past 11,000 years. Arrayed against that is the discredited "hockey stick" of Mann et al, which among many shortcomings attempts to hide the divergence between what the trees are supposedly telling us compared to modern instument records. Can you have it both ways? Tree rings prove there was no Medieval Warm Period, but can't show current warming?

Concerning CO2 levels, 3% is produced by human activity, and 97% by the natural carbon cycle, which includes decaying plant material and the oceans. In terms of the nonexistent "greenhouse effect", water vapor contributes roughly 95% of atmospheric warming as the atmosphere acts as an air conditioner cooling and warming the Earth by a combination of thermodynamics and radiation.

CO2 is an insignificant trace gas, incapable of aborbing heat energy and reradiating it towards an area of greater energy concentration, the Earth. Simply, a cooler body cannot warm a warmer one.

All of the Warmist arguements are like speculating about the number of Angels who can dance on the head of a pin, without first proving the existence of Angels.

To Obscurity, Whoever You Are

I just posted this on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog as a comment to a post by "Obscurity", who accused skeptics of making fun of man-caused global warming by noting the current record lows in Cancun, the UK, and Europe.

Skeptics are not alone in sometimes citing weather (cold snaps, record low temperatures) as climate trend. Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Prize for that very thing. When or where did Al Gore mention that current warming started around 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age? Or that there have been at least six periods of greater or equal natural warming in the Holocene, including most recently the Medieval Warm Period?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is replete with examples of weather (Katrina, floods, a strong storm drowning three polar bears, etc.) that Al Gore cites as proof of AGW (or climate change). Kilimanjaro is prominently featured, even though its glacier retreat occured predominantly prior to 1900 and had nothing to do with warming (the glacier field never warms above freezing - Al never heard of sublimation?). Then there's the 20 feet of sea rise by 2100 compared to about six inches in the past century (and 420 feet in the past 11,000 years, an average of four feet per century).

What explains that cooling always beginnings when atmospheric CO2 is relatively high? If increasing CO2 causes warming, why can't high levels of CO2 prevent cooling?

I'm glad Al Gore brought the Vostok ice cores to our attention, showing that changes in CO2 follow, not precede, changes in temperature. Thanks, Al.

Swept Away and Sinking Fast - Democrat "Leadership"

Nancy Pelosi and Democrat leadership permanently reside in “Fools’ Paradise.” The chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission just released a report proposing sweeping changes to Social Security, Medicare and the tax code. The plan would reduce the deficit by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade by making dramatic spending cuts and overhauling the tax code by lowering tax rates while wiping out some deductions, such as for mortgage interest. Pelosi and union leaders called it “simply unacceptable.”

What is acceptable? Drowning in our current raging, rising deficits? At the Federal level, unfunded liabilities for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security total over $80 trillion, roughly six trillion more than the world’s gross annual product. For state and municipalities, indebtedness plus unfunded public employee pension liabilities exceed four trillion dollars, or $41,000 per household. Very soon every tax dollar will be consumed by entitlement programs. You want to increase funding for education by cutting the military budget? No problem; military spending will have to be cut – to zero! But so too will funding for education, parks, transportation, police, fire, libraries; everything but entitlements will have to be eliminated.

Is there a way out? Yes, states and municipalities can default on their debt payments. “Experts” who say this won’t happen consider only bonded indebtedness but ignore the unfunded pension liabilities tsunami. These experts suggest the Feds should rescue states and municipalities, yet they ignore the super-tsunami of unfunded Federal entitlement liabilities. Who rescues the rescuer?

Public employee pensions, “negotiated” between public employee unions and politicians (who are also public employees) seeking their contributions and votes, will be swept away by waves of municipal bankruptcies. In California pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined. That’s unsustainable.

Piloting the “Ship of Fools,” Nancy Pelosi calls that simply acceptable.

E. J. Dionne Jr. doesn’t get it (and never will)

According to liberal columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., Obama and the Democrats did the right things, they just didn’t “sell them” well, and now Republicans should do what Democrats would if they continued to control Congress. Dionne pointed to revenue sharing with the states, especially now that most will have Republican governors.


That’s a dumb idea. The states – and counties, and cities – have unleashed a tsunami of unsupportable spending for public employee pensions. Soon the only funds available to governmental units that can’t print money will be totally consumed by government employee pensions.

If Republicans cooperate with Democrats and governors through revenue sharing they will be enablers of this spending addiction. Simple mathematical analysis illustrates that current and projected tax revenues, even given the most optimistic scenarios, are insufficient in light of unfunded public employee pension liabilities. If private businesses had such unfunded liabilities, the government would immediately shut them down.

It’s inevitable that there will be massive public sector bankruptcies – cities, counties and states – and that the Federal government does not have the will or the means to rescue them from themselves.

The best thing Republicans can do is to practice “tough love” and resist vain rescue attempts, because in fifty years unfunded entitlement liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will squeeze out all “discretionary” Federal spending programs. Right now would-be rescuers would best serve their country by avoiding being part of long-running government incompetence that sees the problems facing later generations and doesn’t do a thing to prevent them.

So, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Obama, and all you “progressives” – give me proof that I am wrong.

Obviously you must believe I am, or else you would be doing something about it.

Wouldn’t you?

The Election is Over!

The election is over, and Republicans did quite well. Let the analyses begin!

First, there will be near universal agreement by the main stream media with Senator Kerry that the American public are “know-nothings” because if they were “know-somethings” they would have voted for Democrats. Another point of agreement is that Republicans are divisive – in fact, Obama considers anyone who disagrees with Democrats not only divisive, but “enemies.” Obama told Latinos that instead of sitting out the election, they should be saying, “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

More agreement – it’s all the fault of Republicans and George W. Bush. This one’s easy, since the Republicans only lost the House and Senate four years ago, and the presidency two years ago. If the Republicans would have just gone along with Democrats, unemployment wouldn’t have doubled in two years to 9.6% and neither would the public debt.

Of course, with total Democrat control of government since 2009, the Democrats didn’t need even one Republican vote to pass anything they wanted. That didn’t change until the voters of heavily Democrat Massachusetts, the only state suffering universal healthcare, elected Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat of Mr. Universal Healthcare, Ted Kennedy, thereby giving Republicans a filibuster option – if no Republican defected. In order to claim “victory,” Democrats then hastily passed the health care bill no one (except the health insurance companies) likes, including almost all Democrats running for House and Senate seats.

Interestingly, the most important issues: enormous unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions, Medicare and Medicaid, and Social Security will soon prevent politicians from spending for anything else. Until these unsustainable entitlement programs are fixed, all else is just “grandstanding on the Maginot Line.”

Temperatures Fall During The Past Five Years

North American temperatures have fallen during the past five years.

So much for global warming.

Can continents opt out of global warming?

That's what this NASA global temperature chart covering the past five years would seem to indicate. (You can click on it to get a much larger image - however, even this small image makes the point.)

Not to be entirely frivolous - continents probably can't vote - but these temperature trends also challenge a primary tenant of man-made global warming (aka climate change): warming is greatest at higher latitudes near the poles.

If cooling, not warming, is now greatest at higher latitudes near the poles, isn't that the opposite of what the alarmists have said?

Doesn't it look like they are totally wrong?

I think so.

It's Too Late, Democrats - Save Your Money!

I mailed in my absentee ballot today, October 13, 2010. I could have mailed it in a week ago when I received it - I had already made all my selections among the candidates and propositions before it arrived, so I should have filled it out and dropped it in the mail immediately.

Why the rush?

No rush. Unlike many other citizens, I've been studying the candidates and issues for months while never watching a political ad on TV. Since the only thing we use our TV for is watching videos and football games, at the start of each game I put the DirecTV unit on record and pause, go off and do some chores, then start watching. When the game goes to commercials, I fast forward to the resumption of play, paying little attention to the fast flickering images of the commercials I zip through. The past weekend I noticed one ad repeated constantly. It featured a picture of Republican candidate for California Governor Meg Whitman with a Pinnochio-growing nose. "How clever," I mused sarcastically, and congratulated myself for not wasting any time watching such sophomoric programming.

The Pinnochio nose was tired and old political advertising when we Republicans ran it repeatedly over 16 years ago about Bill Clinton.

Maybe its use now is a tribute to the Green movement - recycling of old political ads to save the time and energy of creating any that are new, clever, and pertinent.

At any rate, all televised political ads are wasted on me - my ballot's in the mail, just in time as the avalanche of expensive Democrat ads hits the airwaves. I think that interested California voters have already done as I have, and mailed their ballots. The ones who haven't voted yet should get so turned off by the barrage of political advertising that they skip the election in disgust. Since most who lay around watching TV all day are Democrats, Republicans win!

The Pelosi-Reid Deficit

When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a $379 billion surplus over the next decade. Now, after four years under Pelosi and Reid, and two years of Obama, the 2007-2016 projection is a deficit of $7.16 trillion. Obama blamed Bush for the nation's fiscal condition. "When I walked in, wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting right there on my doorstep." Earlier this year he asserted that "we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." However, according to the CBO neither statement is true.


Obama also overlooks the inconvenient truth that Democrats controlled Congress for two years before he began his presidency. While Democrats credit the minority Republicans with blocking Obama’s agenda, vast credit should be given to the majority Democrats for extraordinary spending and dubious achievement. Remember the promise Pelosi made on the day she became speaker? "Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." After four years of Democrat rule, national unemployment rose to 9.5% from 4.4% (California unemployment went from 4.9% to 12.4%) while the Democrat budget will add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

So much for unburdened opportunities. Like a weather report: “According to CBO projections covering the next several years, expect high and rising deficits with persistent unemployment, and no relief in sight.”



As a typical Democrat, Barbara Boxer spent two days talking about jobs and the previous 28 years supporting tax increases and job-killing regulations. Since she, Obama, Pelosi, and Jerry Brown have no experience working in the private-sector, it is no wonder they are clueless about employment and economics. To Democrats, ignorance is bliss.

(I borrowed heavily from an article in the Wall Street Journal for inspiration for this post)

Global Warming - Still Dead, Al Gore

Five years ago Al Gore convinced the World that hurricanes like Katrina were due to anthropogenic global warming, and that the worst was yet to come, and on its way.

Since Al set the standard, what has happened since Katrina is fair game for global warming skeptics.

This chart shows (click on it for a larger image) that world-wide tropical cyclone activity increased in the early 1990's, dipped for a few years then increased again in the late 1990's, fell rapidly in the early 2000's, rose for four years but not as high as in the 1990's, then fell steadily for the last four years to the lowest point in the past 33 years.
Are these fluctuations normal or anomalous?

To answer that question we need to look at a longer time period. How about since 1950, which the global warming alarmists have identified as the beginning since atmospheric CO2 according to their numbers began its steady increase then, corresponding with the rapid industrialisation after World War II.

What do you think? (again, click the chart to get a larger image)

Among many obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this chart, the most important is that for about 24 years strarting in 1970, tropical cyclone activity was very low, even as CO2 increased steadily.

Would you like to comment at this time, Mr. Gore?

Notice 1950 and 1961 had stonger activity than any of the years since.

Mr. Gore, doesn't it look like the steadily higher levels of atmospheric CO2 aren't reflected in the trend of tropical cyclone activity since 1950, and doesn't that mean that there is no evidence that increasing CO2 is causing stronger, thereby more dangerous, hurricane activity?

You showed us Katrina, and said it does.

Florida State University (click on this link - their name - to read Florida State's full report) is showing us sixty years of tropical cyclone activity that says it doesn't.

CO2 goes up, hurricane activity doesn't.

That's not the way you said it happens, Al.

Talk about an incovenient truth.

Democrats' Ignorance is Bliss

When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a $379 billion surplus over the next decade. Now, after four years under Pelosi and Reid, and two years of Obama, the 2007-2016 projection is a deficit of $7.16 trillion. Obama blamed Bush for the nation's fiscal condition. "When I walked in, wrapped in a nice bow was a $1.3 trillion deficit sitting right there on my doorstep." Earlier this year he asserted that "we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade." However, according to the CBO neither statement is true.


Obama also overlooks the inconvenient truth that Democrats controlled Congress for two years before he began his presidency. While Democrats credit the minority Republicans with blocking Obama’s agenda, vast credit should be given to the majority Democrats for extraordinary spending and dubious achievement. Remember the promise Pelosi made on the day she became speaker? "Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt." After four years of Democrat rule, national unemployment rose to 9.5% from 4.4% (California unemployment went from 4.9% to 12.4%) while the Democrat budget will add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

So much for unburdened opportunities. Like a weather report: “According to CBO projections covering the next several years, expect high and rising deficits with persistent unemployment, and no relief in sight.”

As a typical Democrat, Barbara Boxer spent two days talking about jobs and the previous 28 years supporting tax increases and job-killing regulations. Since she, Obama, Pelosi, and Jerry Brown have no experience working in the private-sector, it is no wonder they are clueless about employment and economics.

To Democrats, ignorance is bliss.

Obamacare - Arbitary and Capricious, A Liberal Dream

Commerce Clause abuse is a Liberal mainstay. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, simply states: “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Thus, the original purpose of the Commerce Clause was primarily to eliminate trade barriers among the states.


Nowhere in the Commerce Clause does it provide the power to regulate commerce within a state. This is in keeping with the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In a 1942 Supreme Court ruling against Filburn, a small farmer was fined for growing 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment on his own land for his own use.

More recently and closer to home, the Court decided that the Commerce Clause permits Congress to prohibit the medicinal use of cannabis (Gonzales vs Raich), even though two California women following doctors’ recommendations only grew six cannabis plants on their own property for their own use .

However, as our new local marijuana dispensary illustrates, enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act is arbitrary and capricious. For example, Congress has permitted all fifty states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down, the barring of insurers from selling policies to people in another state.

Which brings us to the mandated healthcare so lavishly praised by Liberals. In the words of Ben Stein, "(It’s hypocritical) that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens."

It can’t get any more arbitrary and capricious than that.

Obama Immigration Hypocrisy

Federal authorities arrested 596 illegal immigrants with prior criminal convictions, according to John Morton, head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Most of them will be deported, though 22 may be prosecuted for illegal entry after previous deportation. He said the Obama administration is focused on deporting immigrants who break the law.


The sweep exposed holes in the U.S. immigration enforcement system, since 572 of the criminals, some previously convicted of murder, sex crimes, assault and fraud, had been released from jail or prison without being turned over to immigration authorities as the law requires, Morton acknowledged.

There are as many as a million such criminal illegal immigrants in the U.S., Morton said.

The sweep illustrates the hypocrisy of the Obama administration towards immigration enforcement as it opposes Arizona’s law.

Obama officials say they are focusing their efforts on people convicted of crimes, but acknowledge that they continue to remove noncriminals.

Meanwhile, the administration is also facing criticism from Congress that it is not aggressively enforcing immigration laws. In response, officials say they are removing a record number of immigrants, about 400,000 per year. A majority of those have not been convicted of crimes.

Arizona proposes doing what the federal government does poorly – enforce immigration laws. Under the legal doctrine of "concurrent enforcement," states are allowed to ban what is already prohibited by federal law. As an example, courts have upheld efforts by Arizona, California and other states to enact sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants.

If I were stopped for a driving violation, the officer would ask to see my driver’s license. If an illegal immigrant were stopped for the same violation and asked to show a driver’s license, that’s not racial profiling, unless illegal immigrants have more civil rights than citizens.

Perfect Financial Mismanagement Storm

Who said? “Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”


John F. Kennedy, January 1963. And it worked. Lower tax rates produced higher tax revenues. Interestingly, the greatest increase in tax revenues came from the wealthiest taxpayers. In the past forty-seven years, as a percentage of GDP, the top one percent of taxpayers now pay 3.3 percent, compared to 1.3 percent in 1963. In fact, they are now paying the same in total as the bottom 95 percent, who are only paying at half the rate they were prior to the Reagan tax cuts.

That’s right. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the rich are paying at twice the rate, and the bottom 95 percent are paying at half the rate. So much for the Democrat mantra that Reagan gave tax cuts to the rich on the backs of the poor (and middle class).

That won’t stop Democrats from playing to the same old class envy and demanding more taxes on the rich so they “pay their fair share.” However, as always, if the taxes on the rich go up, total tax revenues (and employment, and investment, and job creation) will go down, and the deficit will go up.

It’s a “Perfect Financial Mismanagement Storm.”

Obama and FDR's Ant

About a matter of profound insignificance, FDR once said, "Did you ever hear an ant break wind in a hurricane."

Obama's proposal to cut $100,000,000 (that's one hundred million dollars) from a $3,5 trillion budget (that's $3,500,000,000,000 - I don't know if I have enough electrons in this computer for that many zeros!) has the same effect as the ant in the hurricane.

Since it's easier to show than tell, click on this link (Illustration of the Federal Budget) for a short (one minute 38 seconds) video that puts Obama's proposed budget cut in perspective.

A Job is a Right?

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder she won't get a job!

If having a job is a right, then someone is obligated to provide that job.

Usually, someone is hired based upon skills, education, experience, appearance, intelligence - usually a combination of these, and more. If each person has a right to a job, then the use of such discriminators would not be allowed, except...

There are jobs that are so menial that the qualifications for them don't go much past being upright and breathing. However, since the value of the work done is low, the pay is low. The only ones who will take such jobs are illegal aliens.

Any person who has a right to a job wouldn't be caught dead accepting such employment.

So we have citizens with very low value as employees demanding high-value jobs as their right.

What good is it to have the right to a job if the only jobs you are offered because of your lack of employment skills are the ones you wouldn't accept anyway?

So how do you exercise your right to a job you would accept, if no one will offer you such a job?

It's simple. The government has to hire you. And pay you what you think you're worth.

So the government hires you into a good paying job - one you're not qualified to do.

The stress and frustration of not being able to do the work cause you to have health problems and spend a lot of time on sick leave.

However, the job still needs to be done, so the government hires another employee who can do the work, keeps you on the job too, and lowers your stress level by not requiring you to do anything.

You celebrate your good fortune by producing many children, secure in the knowledge that, no matter their lack of skills and education, they will have guaranteed good paying jobs for life, just like you.

You congratulate yourself for being such a responsible citizen, and adding many more to the workforce just like you.

Life is good!

Obama's "Mission Accomplished" Moment

Today everyone is a spin doctor. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy F. Geithner does his part for Obama in the New York Times (of course), in his Op-Ed piece "Welcome to the Recovery." For being tone-deaf and clueless, this is a prize winner.

It's a "blame it on Bush" piece, conveniently overlooking that Democrats controlled Congress for two years before the recession bit, and that Barney Frank, the Congressional Black Caucus, Franklin Delano Raines, and the clowns at Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac sowed the seeds and nurtured the crop of mortgage malpractice activities, then attempted to "wash their hands" of any and all responsibility.

Hitting with great backspin, Newt Gingrich has an article with superb charts (click on the links) chronicling the "Indisputable Failure" of Obamanomics. There's the Obama Jobs Gap, the Obama Jobs Deficit, and a comparison with past recessions and recoveries.

Democrats suffer from schizophrenia about government stimulus. They say Bush's was bad, but about half of Democrats think Obama passed TARP instead of Bush, and think that was good.

From one of the least likely sources, an article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek, "Obama's CEO Problem," we find that the major problem is not government inaction, but the threat of government action. Zakaria admits that government cannot do what business can to end the recession, and that what is holding business back is uncertainty concerning taxes and regulation.

"The key to a sustainable recovery and robust economic growth," wrote Zakaria, "is to get companies to start investing in America." And why won't they? One CEO told Zakaria about uncertainty about government actions, “Almost every agency we deal with has announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally makes me concerned about what’s in store for us for the future.”

We don't need the government to take our money, then give it back to its chosen winners. That's the path to making us all losers.

Arthur's War

I remember Arthur in war
Now that Arthur’s gone
His memories are mine

I remember a man just eighteen
On the quiet North Africa morning
Standing by his shining gun
Its master and its servant
Their war began and ended
Before they fought in it
Destroyed by bigger and more powerful German guns
Death arrived before announced by sound
Of gun and friends only Arthur survived

I remember Arthur in a Yankee hospital
Blessed with luck and youth
And skills and labors of doctors and nurses
Gifted him sixty more years of precious life
Months later returned to England
In a Suffolk hospital cheerfully met
Then married Nurse Molly
And went again among the friendly Yanks
Working in Supply at RAF Bentwaters

I remember RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge
Were birthed by war in 1944
Spitfires and Mustangs fluttered like butterflies
Rising from wheat stalk-paved runways
Then circling in droning swarms
Until a sputtering flare arcing high
Signaled formations in great V’s
Eastward across the English Channel

I remember Suffolk, an immobile aircraft carrier
Sending fighters and bombers over German factories
And farms, and cathedrals, and villages
Aircrews never seeing the frightened German faces
Scanning leaden skies for raining death
Or the faces of the prayerful Jews
In abandonment of hope for life
Wishing death equally on captive and captor

I remember Arthur
Serving in the Home Guard
Old men and boys and the wounded
Patrolling the Suffolk beaches
Scanning the North Sea horizon
Searching the leaden skies
Waiting and watching
For the ones that never came

I remember borne in war in 1942
With all the world’s mad pain and suffering
I was softly pulled from Mom’s belly
A triumph over her crippled hip and leg
My most precious gift from Mom and Pop
Brother Ron arrived less than a year later
Against long odds our little family grew
As other families perished all together

I remember when I arrived at Bentwaters
And met Arthur my first day on the job
The Cold War raged, and our 72 Phantom jets
Were in England to fly a deadly mission
A one-way trip to the Fulda Gap
Ending in a high-speed dive
A sudden pull up and release
A nuclear bomb powered by inertia and gravity
Flashing above the Eastern Army tanks and trains
Bringing death before sound announces its arrival

I remember fighting a thermo-nuclear war
Every month for over five years
Strangely war always arrived quietly
Dilly and I would be in the field
Dilly chasing a hare as I approved
Then on the dirt farm road
Our old Ford Anglia bouncing
Marilynn waving, shouting “Alert”
I changed to my uniform and raced to the Command Post

I remember plotting nuclear detonations
Of differing megatonage and how the winds
Distributed the nuclear fallout pattern downwind
Soon the first nukes would fall
London would be gone
The millions of people and the thousands of years
Living and building gone in a flash
Next Manchester, deadly for us
Prevailing winds would soon bring fallout
And we rushed to launch our flights of death
Before its silent and invisible shroud
Covered us

I remember, I remember
Another exercise is over
Released into the cold English night
From the bustling Command Post
The quiet, the silence, the peace

I remember telling Arthur
“Mate, I can’t imagine war,
What was it like?”
“Mike, I don’t know
My war was over before I knew it”

The Public Option - We're Going There When England is Coming Back

My recurring healthcare theme has been that our demographics are lagging Europe's, and that we can learn from their mistakes and not mess things up.

One of the liberal's guiding lights to lead us all to the public option has been the British National Health Service (NHS). It gives universal coverage for free, so the liberals say, and is a model of what our healthcare should be.

I've begged to differ, since I observed the NHS on a first-hand basis for five years living in England (1970-1975). A bloke who worked for me then was one of my best friends, the late Arthur Sharman. Arthur suffered under the NHS for a decade until he died waiting vainly for a hip replacement. Each year he would be scheduled for the operation, and each year higher priorities and budget crunches would cause his hip replacement to be rescheduled for the following year.

For several years before his death, it became obvious that the damage done by not having the hip replacement earlier had gone too far for the operation to restore his quality of life.

The new British government, the conservative party named Tories, have now made clear what has been known for decades: the NHS will have to severely reduce and ration healthcare, and in particular such procedures as hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery, services for the terminally ill, and long-term care. (click here for the article on the massive cuts proposed for the NHS)

The slang name for the English healthcare screening units could easily be "Death" panels. That's obviously what must be part of a publically funded universal healthcare system. The "free" systems, like the NHS, depend on government taxing half or more of income away from its citizens, and healthcare has to compete for a share against education, transportation, welfare, and all the other government programs.

Also, to an extent greater than the other government programs, healthcare must serve a rapidly aging population and at the same time intergrate inceasingly expensive improvements in medical detection and treatment of illness.

We're lucky in the United States. We can watch Europe go blindly where we're headed, and learn from their mistakes.

Unless our leaders persist in following Europe blindly.

Experience is a great teacher, and teaches best when we can learn from the mistakes of others rather than our own.

Democrats Bail Out on Cap and Tax

A farmer once told me he had a donkey that would do anything he said. When I asked for a demonstration, he walked up to the donkey and hit its head a hard blow with an ax handle.

"I thought you said the donkey would do whatever, you asked," I said. "If so, why did you hit it with the ax handle?"

"Well," said the farmer, "first you have to get his attention."

Just like the farmer's donkey, the first thing you have to do with Democrats is get their attention. Unfortunately, that means you have to wait for an election year to roll around before they will listen. The Democrats passed their so-called health care reform even though roughly sixty percent of American voters oppose it, because the Democrats thought the voters would forget about it by election time.

However, while they were trying for a radical makeover of health care, and then settling for a mishmash that no one liked, their ominous Cap and Trade legislation passed by the House just sat there mouldering in the Senate while the bloom was coming off the Obama rose.

Now Democrats are blaming Republicans for the death of Cap and Trade, but truth be known, many Democrats vainly praying for re-election want nothing to do with passing it in the face of high unemployment and persistent recession. Obama is looking ahead to 2012 and wants Congressional Democrats to "win one for the Capper," but those Democrats know a vote for Cap and Trade is their sure ticket out of Congress.

With a Congressional approval rating of 11 percent, many of them are on the way out anyway. Their only hope is a sudden economic turnaround, and that is sure not to happen if they mess up energy and make it more expensive. The recent modest economic improvements we see are rooted in the markets' certainty that Cap and Trade won't happen.

Democrats know that public attention is focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, and that messing up the economy now will prove that they have been ignoring the voters.

Time to get out the ax handle.

The Left's Census, Post Office, and Healthcare Follies

The Left here in northern California has an incredible faith in government, quite unlike the Left of thirty or thereabouts years ago. For example, they want a single payer system for healthcare, the total abolishment of private insurance companies; in other words, a government monopoly.

Not long ago Alice and one of our leading leftists were comparing notes about another government program, the Census. Every ten years the Census lays an egg in our area, since the Post Office will not do home delivery in our rural area, and the Census will not allow post office box delivery of the mailed Census forms. Therefore, all the Census forms mailed to our area are returned to the Census office as undeliverable, since they are addressed to our property addresses instead of our Post Office boxes.

Knowing this to be the case, we do a variety of things to comply with Census requirements, such as getting forms from a local non-government social services office and mailing them in.

However, even after we do that the Census hires and sends in an army of Census workers hired outside of our area and therefore paid wages plus transportation, lodging, and meals expenses to come here and go house to house to complete the census. The landlady of one of the downtown inns said June was her best month in years because she was full of Census workers. At the same time, we had an abnormally high rate of unemployed in our area who, if hired by the Census, could have worked from their homes and saved the government the expenses of the out-of-towners, plus cut down on unemployment and welfare benefits paid to locals.

After I filled out and sent in our census form ahead of the deadline, Alice and I went on an African safari vacation. When we came back we found notices from three different census workers, two pinned on our front door and one on a side gate we rarely use. They had made their calls over two weeks after we sent in the completed form.

(The Census chief says that their shaky computer system won't be a problem in getting an accurate census. For more about this, click here.)

We called one of the numbers and answered the same questions that we had previously provided via mail almost a month before.

When Alice and the prominent local lefty discussed this, Alice asked: "Is there anything the government runs well?" and the Lefty replied: "The Post Office."

At this point, we need to recap that the root of our Census problem every ten years is that the Post Office will not deliver mail to our home addresses, and will not put mail addressed to our homes into our post office boxes - even though the Post Office employees know our names and our box numbers from memory.

Meanwhile, every week day United Parcel, Federal Express, and other delivery companies drive throughout our lightly populated rural area delivering to our home addresses. Frequently their service is amazing. I'll buy an item over the internet in the evening, and often the next day it will be delivered to my door, even though I haven't paid extra for expedited delivery.

And concerning healthcare, the very low Medicaid (called MediCal in California) reimbursement rate drains so much money from our small local medical center that evening and weekend services have had to be reduced severely. In Texas many doctors are dropping Medicaid patient service completely because they can't afford to provide it.

Yet the Left wants the government to run more things.

I know what the Left is smoking, because this area is one of the leading sources of marijuana, but its users say that it's supposed to be harmless.

Not if it makes the Democrats think that the government should run everything, it isn't!