Pelosi - A Thousand Years Late

Nancy Pelosi stopped at Greenland on her way to Europe.

The California Democrat pointed to her delegation's weekend stop in Greenland, "where we saw firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality; there is just no denying it."

"It wasn't caused by the people of Greenland - it was caused by the behavior of the rest of the world," she said.

Scientists have noticed that Greenland's output of ice into the North Atlantic had increased dramatically, doubling over the decade that ended in 2005.

A thousand years ago the Vikings stopped at Greenland. They found a lot less ice than Pelosi saw. The Earth was experiencing a long period of much warmer temperatures than we have today, all caused by natural force.

The Vikings had farms on Greenland then that are still covered by ice today.

Those that are ignorant of history can make the dumbest remarks, and those that are equally ignorant believe them.

President Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Islamophobia

Not long ago the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) concluded that Islamophobia was the worst form of terrorism.

As I read their complaint in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily,” I was immediately struck by how little damage the Danish cartoonists who drew Mohammad caused, and by how much more blood the Muslims reacting belatedly to the cartooning caused to flow.

If these Danish drawings are as vicious as it gets, to label them as the worst form of terrorism would seem to greatly devalue the more deadly forms.

I concluded my post: “So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?

First, it is a myth.

Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.

Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.

Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.

It's Islamophobia-phobia.”

A recent reader of my blog, and now a constant Commenter, waded in:

“Islamophobia refers to irrational fear of Islam, not Islamic terrorists. Fearing Muslims just because some Muslims are terrorists is as irrational as blaming every white American for the past sins of slavery, or every Christian for the excesses of the crusades.

There are two issues. One is that most muslims aren't terrorists. That is why we shouldn't fear Islam, but violent extremists everywhere. Did you know that pre-Iraq the most common use of suicide bombings was by atheists? They didn't (and don't) do it because they expect some heavenly reward. Terrorism - of all kinds - has nothing to do with religion.

The second issue is that terrorism is dangerous, but it is hardly the biggest threat of our time. To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US, the increasingly unchecked power of the central government, the snowballing public (and private) debt, the poor quality of many schools and the lack of highly trained professionals. More acutely, the endless kowtowing to China is a more direct and persistent threat to the West's long-term economy and living standards than anything AQ can cook up.

And if you missed it, please check on the recent events in Turkey. I'ld (sic) like to see a million Americans march in the streets because they think the president does not believe in the separation of church and state. Moderate muslims are speaking up, and very loudly at that. They just don't get airtime in the West.”

I answered

"One is that most muslims aren't terrorists."

True, but most terrorists are Muslims.

Do you believe, as the Arab foreign ministers do, that Islamophobia is the worst terrorism?

"To exaggerate its threat is to draw attention from other, more urgent problems, such as the low living standards in the US..."

Since the United States enjoys the highest standards of living the world has ever known, I can't appreciate how this is a more urgent problem than Islamic terrorism.

"...the increasingly unchecked power of the central government..."

Check it - vote! Didn't Democrats just win back Congress?

Of course, more Americans voted for President Bush than for any president
in history. That's probably why you have a problem.

Your other points about snowballing debt and the poor quality of many schools and lack of trained professionals have been issues I have been critical of for a long time. We are still suffering the run-away spending launched by LBJ's entitlement avalanche of The Great Society. The Teacher's Union strangle-hold on education and their opposition to improvement and reform are reflected in the poor quality of many schools. The lack of quality professionals was the subject of one of my recent blog posts: The State of Education in America – We’re Doomed!

I lived in Turkey for a year, and I know about the tension between Islamists and secularists. You are truly perpetrating a grand distortion if you think there are similarities between the forces demanding a Turkish theocracy and religious trends in America.

Where else are moderate Muslims speaking up loudly?

At this point, Commenter and I had opened up many threads, which we have continued for a total of 15 comments under the broad heading of Islamophobia, and another 21 comments loosely pertaining to Jimmy Carter, the Worst Former President of all Time.

Earlier we did 21 comments on health care, with Commenter sure that the universal health care systems failing in the UK and Canada, and facing a demographic time bomb in the rest of Europe because of rapidly aging and stagnant or shrinking populations, were the wave of the future.

Out of these voluminous exchanges, patterns emerge. Of course, there is the ever present Liberal vs. Conservative. But over and above that, I start the blame game at LBJ, who I believe, and am borne out by historical analyses, launched the entitlements tsunami called the Great Society that has been and still is inundating and sinking federal, state, and local budgets.

When discussing the Great Society, disaster terminology is totally appropriate. Even Commenter is appalled by our national debt, while unable to understand its direct link to entitlements spending launched by the Great Society.

LBJ also expanded JFK’s misadventure in South East Asia into the greatest foreign policy and military debacle in the history of the United States, an unmitigated disaster we are still paying for today.

Commenter, on the other hand, finds President Reagan totally to blame, even though total real discretionary outlays increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and only 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). LBJ massively increased both defense and non-defense spending, while President Reagan increased defense spending, but cut non-defense spending. LBJ launched Medicare, and President Reagan took office with it and Social Security already running deficits (which started early in the Carter administration). President Reagan not only had to restore the United States military after years of Carter neglect, he also had to bring the economy out of recession, double digit inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment, and rescue Social Security and Medicare.

That President Reagan was able to accomplish all of these monumental tasks, and launch a period of prosperity, is testament to his greatness. "(The Reagan) economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.”

So far I have found only a few things that Commenter and I share. Neither of us believe in the Democrats, but Commenter doesn't believe in any of the parties - so he says. Still, I bet he never votes Republican or Libertarian, as I do, and I bet he votes.

We both agree communism is a failure, Soviet style anyway. I would not label Chinese communism a failure yet, because it shows marvelous skills of adaptation and will probably soon morph into full capitalism while still wearing the communist label.

Our exchanges are good exercise, and particularly reinforce the maxim to never assume anything. I didn't think anyone would defend Carter, say it is irrational to worry about Islamic militants, and argue that Western Europe exhibits more economic promise and social mobility than the United States.

I wonder what Commenter thinks about climate change being caused by natural forces?

I invite any and all who have read this far to go my posts on Jimmy Carter, Islamophobia (and more Islamophobia), and National Health care and read the comments. Commenter and I both put in a lot of time on them, and if nothing else they illustrate how every issue is in play.

Jimmy Carter, the Worst Former President of All Time

Jimmy Carter, thirty years of stupidity and counting.
(This prescient cartoon from 1977 shows he didn't know anything then, and has continued to regress)

Former President Jimmy Carter, not content with being the worst president of the past century, has now claimed the title of Worst Former President of All Time.

The man whose only claim to fame was the ability to preside over a steeply and steadily declining domestic economy, featuring high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates, and economic stagnation, while at the same time inflicting the international humiliation of the 444-day Iranian hostage crisis on an already suffering nation, now is an international embarrassment as he presumes to lecture George Bush and Tony Blair on leadership.

Both Bush and Blair can point to stewardship over thriving economies that equaled or bettered the previous best economic performances of both the United States and the UK, and continue to do so. All Carter can do is wish that for even a few months he had done half as well.

Carter’s reasons for attacking President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to me are obvious. “Peanut” Jimmy needs to distract attention from his misguided and fatuous book, “Apartheid,” which blames Israel for the daily Palestinian fiascos caused by the Palestinian’s total lack of leadership and desire for peace with Israel. Carter criticizes President Bush for having “zero peace talks” in Israel, while Hamas maintains total intransigence to peace efforts brokered by Saudi Arabia and other Hamas benefactors.

About now I would hope that someone in the mass media would have enough of a grasp on recent history to question Carter about his legacy of world peace. How many peace talks did he have with the Soviet Union to prevent its invasion of Afghanistan? How well did he perform as a peace broker between the opposing forces of the Shah of Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini? Where are the fruits of the seeds of peace Carter planted in the Camp David accords?

While president, Jimmy Carter certainly planted a lot of seeds. The humiliation of having our embassy in Iran seized and our embassy staff held hostage, with no response from the United States except a stupid and tragic botched rescue attempt, planted the seeds of contempt for the toothless American tiger that acted like a pussycat.

The seeds of our pathetic response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the quixotic boycott of the Moscow Olympics, grew into the mujahadeen that begat the Taliban, and fertilized soil for recruiting and training the noxious weeds that became Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida cadre.

Through it all, then-President Carter’s impotent leadership and incomprehension of domestic and international forces at play resulted in a weak and demoralized nation, a malaise that took President Reagan almost two years to discard.

Perhaps the greatest testament to President Reagan’s leadership was that he not only turned around the mess inherited from Carter, but during his eight years in office presided over the longest period of economic growth in America’s history, and also brought the Soviet Union to collapse shortly after his term as president ended.

Unfortunately, the damage inflicted on the prestige and respect for the United States in the Middle East could not be reversed, and the world continues to pay a heavy price for Carter’s legacy.

It is a fundamental mystery of life, that after all his failures, Jimmy Carter can still find fools to heed his tirades.

What Caused Islamophobia?

Islamophobia didn't start here.


Islamophobia didn't begin when 202 innocent nightclubbers were killed, and 209 injured, on Bali.


According to Muslims, "Islamophobia is the view that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West, is a violent political ideology rather than a religion, that its criticisms of the West have no substance, and that discriminatory practices against Muslims are justified," but Islamophobia did not begin with the slaughter of innocents at Beslan. Of the almost 400 killed (209 Muslims), 186 were children. Many of the survivors lost arms, legs, hands, and/or eyes.



Islamophobia is defined by some as a prejudice against, or demonization of, Muslims. Of course it didn't begin with the bombing of Madrid commuter trains in 2004 that killed 191 and wounded 2,050.



Although the term "Islamophobia" has been used to silence critics of Islam, including Muslims who want to reform it, its use didn't start after London subway trains and a bus were bombed, killing 52 commuters and injuring 700 in 2005.



Although "Holy Warriors of Egypt" killed 88 and injured 150 at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt in 2005, Islamophobia didn't start here either.

After looking at these pictures, and realizing that hundreds, more to the point thousands, of pictures could be displayed of atrocities committed by Islamic extremists, the question still remains, "When did 'Islamophobia' start?"

According to the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), "Islamophobia is the worst form of terrorism."

The foreign ministers of the OIC apparently have paid attention to the ACLU and learned that the best defense against criticism is to proclaim victim status.

"The Western bloc hates us because we're Muslims. Look at these atrocities against Muslims! Look at these Danish cartoons! Look at this quote Pope Benedict XVI read that criticized the Prophet! Of course after such provocations our peace-loving Muslim brothers had to riot and kill mostly other Muslims. Only a bunch of Islamophobics would condemn us for that!"

(The above is, of course, a made up quote. However, in the tradition of CBS, where forged documents, quotes, and film are used to illustrate a "greater truth," I follow CBS's lead and do the same. The only difference is I openly label my fabrications as such, and don't try to pass them off as genuine.)

I examined a lengthy list of complaints that claimed Muslims are victims of Islamophobia, and have arrived at a few conclusions. The first is that the alleged Islamophobia didn't result in any deaths other than at the hands of angry Muslims. I would find Muslim claims that they are being unfairly labeled as violent more believable if their reactions to criticism were not so violent.

I would find their protests against being labeled intolerant more believable if Muslims did not proclaim fatwas on Muslims who want to change religions, or denounce their religion. I would not call Muslims intolerant if they allowed other religions to be practiced openly in Saudi Arabia and other countries, just as we allow Muslims to worship openly in the Western bloc.

I would believe Muslims claims that they respect human rights if they actually allowed all Muslim women freedom of choice in education, employment, mode of dress, choice of marriage partner, freedom to walk unescorted, and to even drive a car (and a lot more, of course).

(About equal rights, the ayatollahs of Iran consider them "a Judeo-Christian invention" and inadmissible in Islam.)

So what is this Islamophobia, this worst form of terrorism?

First, it is a myth.

Then it is a device to label all criticism of Islam, even by Muslims, as discrimination and racism.

Finally, since a phobia is an "irrational fear," the only irrationality I have noted in this examination of Islamophobia is on the part of Muslims who think the Western bloc has not been given ample cause to fear militant Islamists.

Calling what is in essence a fear of Islamic terrorism by the Western bloc to be the worst form of terrorism is one of the most irrational things I have ever heard.

It's Islamophobia-phobia.

‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’

‘Islamophobia Worst Form of Terrorism’ read the headline in the May 17, 2007 Arab News, “The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily.”

Immediately I thought of the old nursery rhyme, “RPG’s and IED’s may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.”

In a flash I delved deep into the article to find what oral atrocities of the West exceeded the carnage of 9/11, the Madrid and London outrages, the Beslan slaughter of innocents, the killing of pleasure-seeking night clubbers on Bali, the tit-for-tat car bombings of Sunnis of Shiite, and Shiite of Sunnis, in Baghdad, the annihilation of peaceful shoppers in Peshawar, the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, the United States embassies bombed in Africa, “honor” killings of Muslim women by Muslim men worldwide, and my list went on and on and so for brevity I now add “etc.”, and a huge "etc." it is.

What oral atrocities were mentioned by the Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to prove that “Islamophobia (is the) worst form of terrorism”?

The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark.

The Muhammad cartoons published in Denmark? That's disbelievable!

When the cartoons first came out, there was a big Muslim yawn in Europe. It wasn’t until months after publication when imams took the cartoons to show in the Middle East, and added some faked and truly offensive drawings that weren’t part of the original Danish cartoons, that the peace-loving Muslims freaked out and started to do what is now accepted as standard peace-loving Muslim procedure for dealing with provocations invented by their leaders – they started killing each other!

"I'll bet when we killed Akhmed it really taught those Danes a lesson!"

"That's right, Mustapha. They'll think twice before they upset us peace-loving Islamists again."

"Yeah, those crazy Danes."

What other oral provocations led the OIC foreign ministers to label them the worst form of terrorism?

Pope Benedict XVI, during a speech in Germany last year, quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things.

To prove the Pope wrong, followers of the Prophet immediately ran out and did evil and inhuman things.

The OIC foreign ministers noted the United States and Europe unfairly portrayed Islam, as quoted in Arab News:

“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.

I admit that the Western news media does create a very negative picture of Islam when they report the atrocities committed by Muslims on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Apparently the approach favored by the OIC foreign ministers is for the Western news media to report the news in the same way as the Muslim news media.

If we did it the Muslim news media way, we would know that the Jews were responsible for 9/11, with the connivance of the government of the United States. We would know that even after Osama bin Laden released videos taking credit for 9/11. We would know it even after we saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the streets celebrating 9/11.

I’ll bet that was the first time Palestinians ever celebrated a successful Jewish and American conspiracy.

Per Arab News: “The (OIC foreign) ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.”

Let’s see if I get this right. The OIC foreign ministers say that when they want to complain about how Islam is portrayed negatively in the Western bloc, the Western bloc representatives want to tell them the reasons why Islam is portrayed negatively. Things like the Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries, and the violations of human rights in the OIC member states.

There it is again. The OIC foreign ministers object to Western news media reporting the truth about the bad treatment of non-Muslims and the violations of human rights in Muslim states. “If you didn’t tell your people the truth about non-Muslims and human rights in Muslim states, your people wouldn’t think bad things about Islamists.”

Another way to approach the issue, if Muslim news media continues to print lies, and Western news media stops reporting truth, no more Islamophobia.

(Whacks self on forehead with palm of hand) Of course!

More Inconvenient Truths – Temperatures Fall After Carbon Dioxide Peaks

Temperature leads CO2 changes by 800 years

Some strange things happen when you examine the theory that mankind causes global warming by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The first thing you find is almost universal agreement that temperature increases have preceded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, usually by at least 800 years or more. This pattern has held for hundreds of thousands of years, and been accepted by scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.

Of course, this inconvenient truth is the opposite of what Al Gore has presented so dramatically.

“Carbon dioxide goes up, and up, and up, and then temperature goes up, and up, and up!”

Except it doesn’t.

The temperature goes up, and then the carbon dioxide goes up. Not the other way around.

Then while carbon dioxide is up, the temperature goes down.

According to the greenhouse gas theorists, the increased carbon dioxide should have a climate “forcing” effect, and temperature increases would continue and, in fact, accelerate.

However, the evidence is clear that the onset of cooling occurs while CO2 is still at its peak.

The logical conclusion is simple. Climate changes are not driven by changes in CO2. Other factors overpower the negligible but proven greenhouse effect of CO2. If climate change could be modeled in a sealed laboratory, with all variables controlled, CO2 changes might correlate directly with subsequent minor temperature changes.

But in the laboratory of the real world, they don’t.

Climate Change is Natural - Billions of Years of Proof

"Al Gore was right! It is hotter!"
(Hanging is too good for Global Warming Deniers)

(Our local paper, the weekly Independent Coast Observer, has a Global Warming columnist, Annie Beckett. Her column is a "how to save the Earth by doing little things," basically a recycling of energy conservation tidbits:

"If each of us replaces one incandescent light bulb with a low energy one, we can pretend that we're saving the planet from global warming while we don't notice that China is bringing on a coal-fired generator big enough to power San Diego every ten days."

Don't get me wrong, I think conservation is great. In fact, the success of Alice's business, Vulcan Incorporated, is almost totally based on recycling. Arguable we are the "greenest" family in the Greater Metropolitan Gualala area in terms of profiteering from environmentalism.

"Liberals talk about it, and write about it, but we just do it."

Ain't that a kick for our ultra-Liberal neighbors to ponder!)

Here beginneth my letter:

Annie Beckett wished she could make sense of my “climate change is natural” argument. Maybe I can aid her comprehension. I’ll type really slowly.

First, the vast weight of evidence is that climate change is natural. It is irrefutable that the Earth has been much hotter and colder many hundreds of times over millions of years.

Less than a thousand years ago warmer weather was thoroughly documented by written, geological, and archeological evidence.

Examples of written evidence include the logs of Viking voyages to Greenland and Iceland, which first noted the absence of sea ice during the Medieval Warm Period (AD 800-1300), then the buildup of sea ice as the Little Ice Age set in (AD 1350-1900).

Physical evidence includes farms on Greenland that are still almost completely covered with ice sheets, and the remains of mature forests in the Alps similarly emerging from ice blankets.

A Harvard study of over 240 worldwide climate studies concluded the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and that it was a worldwide phenomenon.

Before that, the Holocene Climate Optimum during the period BC 9000-BC 5000 was even warmer and lasted much longer.

While CO2 increased steadily, there was a cooling period 1940-1975 following the scorching 1920’s and 1930’s. It’s strange that temperatures went up during the Depression, when industrial activity was low, and fell during World War II and the following period of rapid industrialization. Wouldn’t you think that indicates something other than man-made CO2 increases was driving climate change?

Like Nature?

Annie, your 2,500 IPCC scientists and my 15,000 scientists protesting Kyoto prove nothing because science is facts, not consensus. Not long ago scientific consensus was that the world was flat, and skeptics could be burned at the stake.

I shouldn't give Liberals ideas.

Annie, you have wishes, I have facts.

Bigger and Smaller

The San Francisco Chronicle was the biggest loser in 2005, and has done worse since.
Deservedly.

As San Francisco Chronicle pictures get bigger, at times covering almost half of the front page, Chronicle news stories shrink both in size and significance.

Not long ago the Chronicle regaled us with breathless reporting of Mark Foley’s (Resigned Rep, R-Florida) suggestive emailing to former Congressional pages. For a brief moment it looked like the Chronicle was becoming judgmental, quite a change from formerly ignoring the page-penetrating proclivities of the late Gerry Studds (Retired Rep, D-Mass).

I wondered, did the Chronicle become moralistic, or was it just a difference in the way it treats R’s compared to D’s?

The envelope please!

The answer, of course, it that the Chronicle has a double standard of reporting, depending whether the subject is a Republican or Democrat. To the Chronicle, a Republican sending suggestive emails to a former page is much worse than a Democrat physically having sex with one while perfoming official duties.

The most recent evidence of the Chronicle’s double standard is their in-depth and total non-reporting of Diane Feinstein’s (Sen, D-Calif) conflict of interest on military contracts. As she abused her position as the chairperson of the United States Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON), and through her husband’s investments added millions to their family fortune, the Chronicle has been steadfast in preventing any allegations of her conflict of interest from appearing in print.


The fortunes of war? Not bad!
I thought only Republicans did defense contracting, according to my Democrat friends.

Since the Chronicle of all the world’s newspapers has the greatest vested interest in reporting all things Feinstein, the Chronicle’s reticence at covering significant allegations in its own “backyard” is indecent.

Of course, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is only alleged. No charges have been brought (yet), but that has never stopped the Chronicle from reporting allegations about the misdeeds of Republicans, and others whose primary identity is not Democrat.


Caught red handed!
(The newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues)

In fact, allegations about steroid use involving Major League ballplayers first surfaced by the Chronicle triggered investigations, charges, and some convictions.

Rather than infringement of Feinstein’s rights, the Chronicle is now infringing on its readers’ rights to a full disclosure of her possible conflict of interest.

Just as we must assume a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, so the Chronicle must not assume that allegations are not newsworthy if they are about a Democrat instead of a Republican.

Let all the people, not just the Democrats, decide!


"Feinstein, War Profiteer" - even this nut beat the Chronicle to the story.
As all good Democrats know, it's a waste of political power if you don't abuse it.

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Escape From National Health Care Hell

This cartoon reminds of my friend in the United Kingdom, who was scheduled for a hip replacement, then had the operation repeatedly postponed over a several-year period to the point that when he finally got it, he was already permanently crippled and the operation was wasted.

A friend here in Gualala is a staunch supporter of government programs, particularly universal government health care, and he called me to task for saying that the government pays “pennies on the dollar” when billed for medical care provided. Ignoring his comments, I further stated that health insurance companies follow the government example, and also reimburse doctors and hospitals at very low rates. I said the reimbursement rate was roughly 25%, my friend said it was more like 75%.

Since Alice and I have government provided medical insurance, Tricare Prime, because of my status as retired military, when I got home from the meeting where we argued over reimbursement rates, I grabbed a recent pile of payment advisory notices from Tricare and added up what had been billed, and what Tricare paid.

The thirteen monthly statements were for the most part small amounts which have a relatively high reimbursement rate. Of the total billed of $5,770, the government paid $1,730, or 30%.

I was surprised the reimbursement rate was as high as 30%, because when I worked for Kaiser Permanente auditing large payments for member claims for services provided Kaiser members outside the Kaiser system, the overall reimbursement rate was closer to 20%.

In fact, the Kaiser rate was similar to the experience another friend told me of today. She had been billed $84,000 for a recent four-day hospitalization. She turned the claim over to her insurer, and Blue Cross paid $14,000 or 17%.

My debating buddy is a staunch Democrat, so I knew he favored government-funded universal health care as all good Democrats do.

Therefore, it was interesting to note as I Googled for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates that there were several news articles featuring Democrat politicians complaining about low reimbursement rates.

Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., not only complained that Washington was being penalized when compared to Florida reimbursement rates, she also noted that the government rates were so low that some doctors would not accept Medicare patients, and that others left the state.

Another complaint by Democrat politicians representing rural areas, such as one by Senator Feingold, D-Wis, was that the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates there are much lower than for the same procedures in urban areas.

Senator Schumer, D-NY, complained that low Medicare reimbursement rates threatened to cause cancellation of ambulance services.

In Connecticut they complain that low Medicaid reimbursement rates force hospitals to shift costs to private individuals and insurance.

Psychiatrists complain that low Medicaid reimbursement rates for psychiatric services reduce Medicaid patients' access to psychiatrists and cause the low rate of acceptance of Medicaid patients by psychiatrists.

So far, it seems the only ones happy with the government reimbursement rates for medical services are people who think they are, or will be, much higher than they really are.

Maybe they think doctors are paid too much, and that doctors should be forced by the government to accept whatever the government thinks is fair.

There are nations that handle their national health plans along those lines, giving their doctors low pay and heavy workloads, with the result that many of their best and brightest, well educated, very experienced, and highly motivated, come to the United States to practice medicine. When they find that Kaiser Permanente will give them a good salary, great benefits including generous vacations, and a comfortable workweek and case load, they realize they have truly escaped National Health Care Hell.

It wasn’t long ago that we were tantalized by the prospect of “Hillarycare,” where doctors would have to take any and all patients, and it would be illegal to have a private practice.

Even a lot of Democrats saw how undemocratic such a health system would be, forcing doctors to be de facto government employees with no option of having a private medical practice.

For those Democrats who felt or still feel that such an arrangement was fair for doctors, who are already in short supply, why don’t you try it on lawyers first, of which we have an overabundance?

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Sheryl Crow Way to Wipe Out Male Poverty

Toilet Paper Use Offset Marketing


Borrowed from Are We Lumberjacks

The Liberals who want us out of their bedrooms (but then post videos of what goes on there all over the Internet) now want to get into our bathrooms.

Sheryl Crow, who uses her celebrity to showcase her intellect, wants to limit the toilet paper we use to one square per bathroom visit.

Since guys often don’t use any on many of their bathroom visits, isn’t this placing an unfair burden on women? I’ll be glad to sell “toilet paper use offsets.”

According to another Liberal intellectual, Rosie, her description of her needs based on her physiognomy would indicate there will be a vast demand for “toilet paper use offsets.”

It reminds me of the story my buddy Arthur told me of going through British Army training during World War II. At that time, just about everything, including toilet paper, was in short supply and rationed. The British had to stand in line to buy anything worth purchasing. It was said the British had their own national letter, the “queue.”

At any rate, Arthur’s training sergeant called his group to attention in formation, to inform them that they were violating the restriction on use of toilet paper of three squares: “One to wipe with, and two to polish off!”

I’ll be thinking of Sheryl Crow and her unpolished bottom whenever I hear that she and her entourage are on tour, with their four buses, three tractor trailers, and six cars, or as I hear her chartered Gulfstream jetting overhead.

I'll gladly deposit the checks she and Al Gore send me for the carbon offsets I sell them from my hundred redwood trees, and add to that the checks for the toilet paper use offsets.

Global warming is a swindle, but with Liberal intellectuals like Sheryl Crow leading the way, the profit potential is half vast, or in the case of Rosie, vast indeed.

UPDATE: "We're just so happy that people are talking about global warming, even if it's brought on by a joke," Crow told ABC News.

Aside from the fact that the news and commentary is "all global warming, all the time," and only skepticism about global warming doesn't get heard, we all got a laugh at, or with, Sheryl Crow. Now we are still wondering about the carbon credits or offsets - farce or swindle?

ABC, rather than noticing all the equipment used to transport Crow and show, chose to mention their "environmentally friendly biodiesel bus." Since I just read articles about how environmentally unfriendly biodiesel is, with the high particulate and nitrogen oxide emissions characteristic of diesels (toxic soot and smog forming emissions exceed gasoline engines), and the small decrease in CO2 they achieve, I can only conclude that when doing interviews, it is best to limit yourself to ignorant or supporting "news" networks.

Even the radical Concerned Scientists are wary of biodiesel, and other environmentalists are concerned about increased production of biodiesel causing loss of habitat, and increased pollution from fertilizer and pesticide use.

I might add that with the scarcity of water and food in many parts of the world, the increased competition for resources to grow non-food along with food crops, and meet increasing urban needs for safe and reliable water supplies, will create more problems by producing biodiesel than would be solved.

Don't tell ABC that it is dumb to have their entertainment reporters handle their science reporting, just as it is dumb for the global warming crowd to grab most of their headlines with celebrity airheads.

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

How I Became a Man

I remember vividly the day I became a man.

No, it wasn’t when Marilynn and I took the walk to the top of the hill with the huge rocks north of her home on Gypsy Flat.

It was nine years before that, when I was a Fifth grader at Point Arena Elementary School and the school got a large number of tickets to the Shrine Circus in the COW Palace, San Francisco. Unfortunately, there weren’t enough tickets for all the students to go, so they drew names.

I was drawn for a ticket, but my younger brother Ron wasn’t. I wanted to go to the circus so badly, that it made me very sad to think of Ron not going too.

So then and there, with tears hidden or choked back, I gave my ticket to Bruno.

Bruno had recently arrived with his mother from Italy. He was a year older, but was in Ron’s class while working his way up through the lower classes as he learned English. Bruno learned so well, that two years later when he graduated from elementary school, and four years after that when he graduated from Point Arena High, he was his class Valedictorian each time.

Giving my ticket to Bruno was one of the happiest sad events in my life. Years later, after I’ve seen my share of circuses and other enthralling entertainments, and forgotten a lot of what I’ve seen, I still remember my unselfish act when I was ten years old with pride.

It helped me realize that I was a thoughtful person, and even though Ron and I didn’t go to the circus, we shared the good feeling of helping Bruno adjust to his new life in America by showing him that he would have friends here.

The circus packs up and moves on, but it leaves its memories.

And sometimes it leaves a man where a boy had stood.

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Blame the Collective

Who is Responsible for the Virginia Tech Murders?

All the votes are finally in and tallied about the Virginia Tech murders, and as expected, it’s our entire fault. Society murdered those poor students just as certainly as if each of us pointed the guns and pulled the triggers.

We allow easy access to guns.

We allow divisions in society by wealth, social class, talent, athletic ability, race, scholastic achievement, and all sorts of other factors too numerous to mention.

We don’t effectively identify and treat mental illness.

We allow a culture of violence on TV, radio, music, and video games.

As is always the case, when all are at fault, none can do anything about it.

Oh woe is us.

My position is, as expected, to remark that all of this is a huge pile of male bovine excrement.

We may allow easy access to guns, but we have strong laws governing their purchase and use. The problem is, our existing gun laws are not enforced. Law abiding citizens obey the laws, but they’re not the ones who commit the crimes.

In San Francisco two separate murders were committed by felons who previously could have and should have been charged with unlawful possession of firearms. Had they been successfully prosecuted and convicted, two people would be alive today.

If any of Cho’s parents, teachers, counselors, or medical examiners had taken firm and appropriate actions, Cho would have been blocked from purchasing the deadly weapons, and authorities would have been alerted by his attempt.

One of my friends noted that society was at fault because Cho was exposed to students who had nice cars, expensive clothes and toys, and who could spend extravagantly on entertainment. He felt society should do something about that.

Interestingly, that gives society two options. It can either give Cho and those in similar circumstances all the goodies the rich kids enjoy, or they can forbid the rich kids from having their goodies or take them away.

Or, if you are a Democrat, the preferred option is to redistribute wealth until all are at the same economic level.

Obviously, society then has to solve the other problems such as different talents and abilities. The only way to do that effectively is to handicap all factors. College admissions would be based solely on meeting diversity quotas. All students would receive the same grades. Taking a page from the egalitarian Chinese Communists in their pre-capitalist phase, all students will wear the equivalent of the Mao jacket. The clothing step is necessary because, even though wealth has been equalized, if left to their own devices some students would capitalize on their natural good looks, and the Mao jacket would go a long way towards leveling the appearance field.

Of course, making everyone the same won’t guarantee that all will be treated the same. Observer groups must be formed to watch social interactions and correct instances where individuals receive too much or too little attention.

Awards based on achievement must be eliminated. Even with the best handicapping, not every event will end in a draw, and winners will feel superior to losers.

The identification, then treatment of mental illness, presents many issues of privacy rights and personal freedom. Who will be responsible for identifying individuals in need of help? Who will pay for the attorneys fighting out each determination with the ACLU? Can someone who has mistakenly referred someone for mental illness be sued for unfairly stigmatizing the person? Conversely, can that person be sued for not correctly identifying someone who proved to be a danger to society?

More basic yet, how do you know when someone is the one who will snap? What are the signs?

We are exposed to violence as entertainment throughout our society. Our TV shows feature tens of thousands of murders and assaults each year. Movies are constantly improving and employing special effects and applying vivid imaginations to raise the threshold of acceptable gore. Rap music celebrates the most violent and demeaning relations between people. Finally, video games draw upon the violence of TV, movies, and music to distill a product that glorifies fast, intensive, graphic slaughter.

We can’t give ourselves all the credit for living in a violent world.

For the most part, most of us live peaceful lives, which make us all the more shocked when mindless violence enters our lives, even if only on the news.

We could be Hutus, who killed almost a million of their countrymen, their neighbors, because they were Tutsis, a different tribe, even though an outsider couldn’t have told them apart.

We could be Shiites, or Sunnis, both reading the same Koran, both worshipping Allah, and killing each other over events that took place over a thousand years ago.

Or we could be Germans, Japanese, Soviets, Chinese, Cambodians, Iraq under Saddam, Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, each engaging in the slaughter of millions, often their own citizens.

So it’s obvious we don’t have a monopoly on violence, but where have we gone wrong?

Maybe it’s better to ask, when do we get it right?

We get it right when parents know their children, and stay in constant touch with them. Who else will know if they have a serious problem? Who else can give them the love, respect, discipline, attention, whatever it takes to make them socially aware and responsible citizens?

It will only be by accident if someone other than a parent or close relative takes an interest and learns enough about a child to be a positive influence in their life.

Just staying in contact with their children is going to be too much for a lot of parents to handle, and they will have a lot of excuses why they can’t. They will be too tired, and too busy. They’ll want to sit there and watch the violence on TV themselves. They’ll be happy when their kids spend time playing video games, instead of demanding their parents’ attention.

Their own bad attitudes and poor personal habits will be what their children learn. Their children won’t learn morality from immoral examples. Or civil discourse from rude and angry elders.

In the final analysis, we take care of our obligation to society when we support and demonstrate taking responsibility for our own actions.

We can’t make anyone change, but we can each be a good example.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Imus Taken Out by Friendly Fire

I was shocked to see a Lefty taken down, until I realized that all the Lefties I heard comment on Imus’ remarks thought he was a Conservative. The cowboy gear and his love of country and western music threw them off.

Plus his audience is primarily Liberal white males, so disparaging remarks about young Black women didn’t ring any alarm bells.

Yep, Imus f’d up, was found guilty of “talking while looking like a Conservative.”

It didn’t take the Los Angeles Times long to sound the alarm, but by then the damage to Democrats had been done.

THE IMUS SCANDAL: POLITICAL IMPACT
Democratic politicians lose a soapbox with Imus
His show gave many of them a way to reach a national audience of white males -- a crucial voting bloc. By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff WriterApril 13, 2007

“Damn it, we done done a friendly fire f-up!" (Many journalists were educated in our public school system and talk and write like this).

"We only do this to Conservatives,” are the words echoing in the halls of the Liberal national press – please excuse the redundancies: “Liberal press,” “national press”- just simply “press” would suffice. The press doesn’t do this to Liberals, only Conservatives, and right now the press is reviewing their labeling system to make sure they don’t take out another one of their guys.

They don’t have any on radio to spare.

Anyone remember the Left’s answer to Rush Limbaugh, Al What's-His-Face?

Franken got the most publicity in his career as the press agonized over why no one was listening to him and Air America, stillborn on March 31, 2004, still awaiting interment.

Franken has now left Air America, and still no one listens to it.

I think the way the press handles these kinds of issues was clearly demonstrated by their treatment of Senators Trent Lott (Rep-Miss) and Robert Byrd (Dem-WV).

When Lott made a remark at the 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond that he supported Strom’s bid for the presidency over half a century before, Liberal outrage at Lott’s implied, not explicit, racist comment cost Lott his position as Senate Majority Leader. The facts that Lott was making the remarks jokingly to a Republican (Thurmond was a Democrat when he ran against Truman for his party’s nomination in 1948), and in a private setting (birthday party) not intended for a national audience, did not mitigate the Liberal outrage.

Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman, personal filibuster participant against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, leading light of the Democrats for over half a century, and the top Senate Democrat, mentioned “white niggers” twice on March 4, 2001 while being interviewed by Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday. Senator Byrd wasn’t forced to resign any of his Senate positions.

In fact, he received less criticism for his “nigger” remarks than non-politician commentator Ann Coulter did for saying “faggot” when discussing John Edwards.

So here is a white male, former KKK officer, opponent of the Civil Rights Act, who used demeaning racial words on national television, and he is given a free pass because he is a Democrat.

Then you have black males, rap stars, who can say anything demeaning or nasty they want about women of any race, and they continue to reap riches from their misogyny. One of them, Ludacris, not only demeans and insults women in almost every line of his “songs," like “Ho,” he also enjoys a special relationship with Obama, who piously announced he would never go back on Imus’ show.

There are no words adequate to describe the hypocrisy of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, so I’ll just mention a few: “Twana Brawley,” and “Heimietown.” ‘Nuff said?

I want Imus’ show back for one reason: to make a righteously indignant statement against hypocrisy.

Personally, I can’t stand shows like his (or Oprah’s, Howard Stern’s, or …and the list goes on and on) and I never listen to radio or watch TV any more (NFL football games don’t count, do they?). Life’s too short, and I’m a better judge of what are interesting and entertaining ways to occupy my time than the network dealers serving up their opiates to the masses.

Still I wish Imus well, because as a retired military officer I've heard that the greatest hurt comes from being taken out by “friendly fire.”

Please click on the labels below to see all my articles on these topics.

Good News and Bad News about Global Warming

This is a public service announcement. It contains good news and bad news.

The bad news first.

There is no man-caused global warming.

The good news.

There is natural global warming.

For those of you who believed Al Gore when he said mankind could give you warmer weather, healthier and more abundant crops, gentler weather (when temperature variation is reduced, so is storm intensity), and less frost and freezing damage to fruits, I’m sorry to bear the sad tidings that mankind just can’t do it. The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the marginal effect of CO2 on warming steadily decreases.

And CO2 increases can’t overcome other, stronger forces, like solar and orbital variations.

That’s why it was warmer 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period than today, without any regard to increased CO2 from industrialization – because there wasn’t any.

It was even warmer during the Holocene Climate Optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. In fact, without benefit of mankind's production of CO2, temperatures in northern latitudes increased by much more than the most alarmist predictions of Al Gore's global warming apostles and acolytes.

Bad news for polar bear phobics. Polar bears survived both of these extended warm periods.

As a result of solar and orbital variations, the Earth warmed more during the first half of the 1900’s, and actually cooled from 1940 to 1980, even though CO2 increased steadily and dramatically.

For those who want the benefits of warmer weather, we have good short-term news. The Earth is warming naturally, and has been sporadically since the high point of the last glacial period was reached 18,000 years ago.

All the good things warmer weather can bring will be lavished on us – for the next 2,000 years.

Then global cooling will set in.

The current interglacial period will be replaced by the next glacial period.

Just as it has hundreds of times before.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

The Illiterates

You know when you can't read, but how do you know you're a history illiterate?

I wrote about The Irrelevants, now it’s time to address The Illiterates.

Actually, they are the Selective Illiterates. They can read. They just won’t read anything that doesn’t agree with or reinforce their Leftist ideologies.

For example, a couple of years ago I had a brief argument with a local pacifist and serial peace protester at a dinner fundraiser at the Gualala Arts Center.

She began by deploring the atomic bombing of Japan, and then stated that the United States forced Japan to attack us because we were unfairly embargoing iron and oil from being shipped to Japan. In her view, and from many Leftist articles she had read, the United States was practicing economic imperialism against Japan.

As the discussion continued, it became apparent that she had no knowledge of events prior to the United States and Australian iron embargo in 1940. The “Rape of Nanking” rang no bells in her memory of historical events. However, she was sure that if we had just listened to the Japanese and paid attention to their concerns about their economic security, all would have been peaceful and harmonious.

Kumbaya.

A little historical background for the one or two Leftists reading this, necessary in light of their inveterate historical illiteracy. The Empire of Japan invaded China on July 7, 1937. Next to the Soviet Union, China had more civilian deaths in World War II than any other nation – twelve million civilian deaths in the Soviet Union, seven million in China. In addition, two million Chinese military were killed. In contrast, not counting Holocaust victims, the Germans only had two million civilians killed, and the Japanese only six hundred thousand.

Almost all of the Japanese civilian deaths occurred in the last months of the war, and about half were Okinawans who became part of Japan, under duress, only sixty years before the Battle of Okinawa. When defeat was inevitable, the Okinawan’s Japanese “brothers” urged and assisted them in committing suicide in vast numbers.

More “Japanese” civilians were killed in the invasion of Okinawa than by both atomic bombs combined. One of the largest causes of Japanese civilian deaths was the fire bombing of their cities during the first stages of preparations for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Had the atomic bombs not been dropped, and the invasion of Japan by conventional forces had commenced, it is estimated that ten million Japanese would have died from starvation alone.

Getting back to China, after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the invasion of China in1937, and the Nanking Massacre in early 1938, the United States did negotiate fruitlessly with Imperial Japan for two years before following Australia in 1940 with an embargo on iron.

The bottom line: the United States did what my pacifist friend said they should, and as usual, all our peace efforts produced were a lot more dead victims of aggression.

“When will they ever learn?
Oh when will they ever learn?”

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Playing Hard to Get

A lesson lost on the young ladies of today is the power of “playing hard to get.”

Not impossible to get, but hard to get.

Being easy never brought anyone long-term advantages.

As we used to say, back when I was a boy and half the country were farmers, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk free?”

The lesson of playing hard to get may be lost on our young, lissome lovelies, but not on our legislators. They know the goodies, the earmarks, the set asides, go to the legislators whose votes must be seduced, not to the ones who vote their principles.

For example, suppose a bill comes up for vote that is favored by a legislator, who now and then will be referred to as Legislator X. So he/she/it votes for it. The party leadership says “We knew we could count on good old what’s-his/her/its-name.”

Suppose the same bill, the same legislator, but this time he/she/it says for some idealistic reason the bill is bad.

“It goes too far.”

“It doesn’t go far enough.”

“It will cost too much.”

“Not enough resources have been allocated to make it effective.”

In this way, the legislator can, in good conscience, oppose any bill, and not look like a hypocrite.

Now what happens? First, the party’s senior membership, who never gave good old what’s-his-name a second thought, now confer and ask, “What can we offer good old what’s-his-name to get his/her/its support on this?”

Meanwhile, what’s-his-face now finds he/she/it is the center of attention, and all are eager to ask what happened to support for the bill? Particularly, why no support for this bill, when passing it was the main reason our subject legislator said drove him to run for office?

What happened?

Now is the time for Legislator X to shine. The world is watching. The world is listening.

Will X blow it?

Actually, regardless of X’s eloquence, or more likely lack thereof, and regardless of any semblance of logic on the part of X, X is playing a winning hand.

Like the girl who said “no,” but with a twinkle in her eye, Legislator X has now become “one to be wooed.”

The girl who said “no” may eventually have gotten everything she would have if she said “yes,” plus she also got wined, dined, danced, and romanced.

So it is with our Legislator X, who in addition to seeing his pet bill passed, now has lots of porcine products to take back to his constituents. Reelection is assured by no longer being “taken for granted.”

Just like the girl showing her new ring to admiring girlfriends, there is a lot to be gained by playing hard to get.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

The Irrelevants

A dedicated peace activist can be both.

A couple of weeks ago I parked at the Gualala Post Office to pick up our mail and buy a few things at the Surf Super Market across the street. On my way to and from the super market, I passed through a small crowd of about fifty peace protesters, many of whom are my friends and neighbors. Several recognized both me and my politics, and thoughtfully invited me to join them.

I gave them a cheery, “Thanks, but no thanks,” and continued on my merry way, thinking of all the peace protests and vigils I have seen and read of over the years, and of how they never accomplished anything.

The idea then formed that the peace protesters and activists should be named, “The Irrelevants.” No matter what they do, nothing changes. Further, their protests have spawned protests, and now any protest worthy of the name will include “Free Mumia,” “Liberate Palestine,” “Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Bisexual-Interspecies Rights,” “Fight Global Warming,” “Save the (Whales) (Sea Otters) (Salmon) (Desert Kangaroo Rat) (pick one),” “Stamp Out Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO),” “Medical marijuana for all (because everyone is sick!),” and of course, how could you have a protest without “Socialists Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything (SWINE).”

In other words, the protests have taken on a life on their own, and the only unifying factor is a mindless hatred of President Bush.

I wrote a letter to my local weekly newspaper, the Independent Coast Observer, and observed that it was a beautiful day for all the Irrelevants to gather and enjoy the sun and fresh air while they accomplished nothing.

One of my neighbors replied in a letter to the Editor that since I was outnumbered fifty to one, might I not be the irrelevant one?

That reply inspired the following response from me:

Relevance is not determined by numbers but by accomplishments. If one hundred thousand peace activists chanted to their crystals at sunrise on Mount Tamalpais, the world would not be moved one millimeter closer to peace.

The twenty-three million inhabitants of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are few in number, and are leading a miserable existence that starves both their bodies and their souls. Surely the world could send a vast contingent of peace activists to North Korea and overcome their belligerence with the power of love. After all, they are Democrats and it is a People’s Republic.

During the Cold War, one security policemen standing guard over a bomber on nuclear alert, on a cold, rainy night on an Air Force flightline somewhere in the middle of Kansas, or Nebraska, or some other place where they don’t think peace comes from chanting and burning incense, did more for world peace than all the peace activists of the world for all time.

Actually, having a lot of peace activists in Muslim countries would be a great idea, except then the world would have a lot of dead and imprisoned Muslim peace activists, and the world would continue as before. Lots of North Korean, Cuban, Sudanese, Congolese, and Chinese peace activists would be a good thing too.

Among the world’s great ironies is that the only place peace activists thrive are in peaceful places, and those places are peaceful because of victories in wars and the accumulation and development of military might.

It is sad but true that the despotic rulers of the world brutally suppress their peace protesters while encouraging ours.

My offer still stands, and in over two weeks now no one has suggested a potential war that peace protesters prevented. Or one they stopped. Or even slowed down.

The above letter will probably appear in Friday the 13th issue of the ICO, which will be in our mailboxes on the 12th.

So once again, the gauntlet is flung down.

When I’m dealing with Leftists, and the odds are fifty to one against me, I feel I have them outnumbered and surrounded.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Pass It On

Assad to Pelosi:"I'm glad Jimmy Carter sent you, but next time don't forget the head scarf. On reflection, a burkha would look even better and more appropriate on you."

At some time in our life we have all played the game, “Pass It On.” Sometimes it wasn’t a game, but a real life event called “gossip.” Norman Rockwell did a marvelous Saturday Evening Post cover that illustrated a message being passed, and finally getting back to its originator in a totally unrecognizable and thoroughly embarrassing form.


"Gossip"

In school someone would write down a simple sentence and whisper it to another student, and the message would pass student to student around the classroom until the last one in the chain recorded the message received, and then compared it to the original. Invariably it was hilariously transformed into something nonsensical.

“Pass It On” has also been used in management classes and seminars to illustrate the importance of clear communications – and why you shouldn’t trust the “grapevine” to do the job effectively.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just provided another example of how “pass it on” communications are fraught with peril, and she was able to muck it up completely even though she was the only communicating link in the chain.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."

Mr. Olmert then went on to repeat exactly the same conditions for peace with Syria that Israeli governments have stipulated over and over for many years: Syria’s willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

However, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria.

But Olmert’s statement said he had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.

The Washington Post, almost as stalwart a mouthpiece for the Democrats as the San Francisco Chronicle (“All Pelosi, all the time”) and the Los Angeles Times, included the following in an April 5, 2007 editorial, “Pratfall in Damascus - Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy.”

"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace, Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

Again, for those with short memories, a gentle reminder that the above statements are from a Washington Post editorial. The Washington Post is, and has always been, a key component of the vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.

Ms. Pelosi, in her erroneous overtures to Syria, is taking the heat off Mr. Assad for the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri.

Ms Pelosi has also unfairly put heat on Mr. Olmert and Israel to make concessions to Mr. Assad and Syria to revive a peace process that Syria has done everything possible to subvert.

Ms Pelosi received the blessing of Jimmy Carter for her efforts, thereby completing the Foreign Policy Foul Up trifecta.

If she could have in some way revived the ghost of Arafat in her “negotiations,” she would have achieved classic Democrat Four Blunder Diplomacy, something that only Jimmy Carter himself accomplished.

Many times.

As it is, she has reinforced the copyrights the Democrats have on “foolish” and “amateurish” to describe their foreign policy initiatives.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

The State of Education in America - We’re Doomed

"I think we’re being educated for failure. We learn math in case the calculator fails. We learn to read in case the TV breaks , and we learn to spell in case the spell-checker doesn’t work."

I just returned from our weekly Rotary luncheon at renowned St. Orres Restaurant. Our speaker was a charming young lady completing her Freshman year at Stanford. She is very bright and energetic, a straight-A student, and a poster girl for my statement that we are doomed. Her majors at Stanford are Creative Writing (English) and Italian. Add her to the long list of bright, energetic, well educated Americans who won’t be going into math, science, or engineering.

As she talked, I listened and smiled politely, and had a friendly chat with her and her father afterwards, while I seethed inwardly. It would do absolutely no good towards any purpose for me to abuse the cordial atmosphere of our luncheon to complain about how our best and brightest are using our citadels of higher learning to pursue their hobbies.

I have heard from so many Americans over the years that the greatest good is done by people who love what they are doing. Who am I to throw cold water on such self-congratulatory conventional wisdom?

However, I contend that that love, that personal fulfillment, is a result of exposure to a particular culture, or set of values, and in a different environment, our best and brightest would chose more challenging paths to personal fulfillment. Unfortunately, at the moment our culture is becoming softer and fuzzier, more feminine, and young men have become a minority in higher education. At the same time, areas that contain our largest concentrations of young people also provide them totally inadequate public educations, educations that qualify them for nothing except remedial education programs when and if they ever attempt higher education.

I was caught up in the joy and enthusiasm of our young Stanford Freshman, and I almost felt ashamed as curmudgeonly thoughts passed through my mind as she described her African culture themed dormitory and its activities. Apparently half the students in her dorm are African Americans or Africans, and the rest are from other cultures.

As she spoke, I imagined life in the dorm as an unending chorus of “Kumbaya.” She described the many hours spent in rehearsal of "native" songs and dances, including "hip hop," and many more hours devoted to original compositions reflecting the multicultural ethos, and I was happy for her and sad for our nation, and the developing nations of the world.

Why the double dose of sadness?

Sadness number one, we are not recruiting our best and brightest to fill our greatest needs by taking the “hard” majors. We are rapidly developing our nation into a fool’s paradise of happy hobbyists.

Sadness number two, we’re taking developing nations’ best and brightest to fill our needs. The developing nations suffer “brain drain,” and our culture devolves into dependency, where our technical and skilled work is done by educated foreigners, and our menial tasks by unskilled and uneducated foreigners.

Our colleges and universities will continue as first-rate educational institutions, more and more serving the higher education needs of foreign students who receive excellent basic educations in their own countries. They will continue to come to America to fill the spaces in math, science, and engineering that our own inadequate public education system cannot.

Our inadequate public education system will continue to build on its ineptitude, meaning in translation that it will go from bad to worse as the poor quality of its product provides the infertile soil for the next crop of teachers and administrators.

Kumbaya.

(The following letter appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle today - well, on 31 March 2007, anyway. It is from a member of a Chinese immigrant family, and eloquently illustrates the cultural differences that inspire America's best and brightest to pursue "soft" educations, and immigrant families to choose math and science. )

Living the dream
(Please scroll down to the Harry W. Tong letter, and while you're at it, you can read my letter on "Porky Pelosi's Prowess)

Editor -- I disagree with Ashley Jones (Letters, "Poverty and schools," March 24) that "hopelessness springs from abject poverty."

Our family grew up in "abject poverty" in Chicago's Chinatown ghetto without any government social programs or financial assistance, surrounded by high-crime public housing. My father was hospitalized and my mom had 25 cents in the house to feed five children.

We broke every child labor law that existed, as all five of us took any job we could find and we worked seven days a week , sometimes at two to three jobs, each into the wee hours of the night to survive.

We knew the only way out of the ghetto was to use our brains and study hard as million-dollar contracts in sports were not yet an option and, at 5-foot-5, I knew no basketball scout would beat a path to my door.

Today, our parents, in heaven, would be proud of our accomplishments for we have capitalized on the American dream as immigrants from China. Among our extended family are four Ph.D.s, five M.D.s (with two more soon to be in residency training), five Master's degree holders and one lawyer.

Only in America can immigrants escape their "abject poverty" and poor schools by applying their God-given brains in spite of all the barriers imposed by the miserable school systems.

HARRY W. TONG
Foster City

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Wake Up the ACLU and Congress!

Iran took an act of war against our NATO ally, Britain, and the sovereign state of Iraq. That’s what an armed invasion of a nation’s territory is, and that is what the capture of British military personnel performing their lawful duties in Iraqi waters is.

That’s what the meaning of “is” is.

This is an act of war.

Where are all the anti-war protesters?

The same place they were when the Palestinians invaded Israel from Gaza and captured an Israeli soldier, and the same place they were when Hamas invaded Israel from Lebanon and killed and captured Israeli soldiers.

The anti-war protesters are sitting on their hypocritical asses ignoring that Iran has taken unprovoked, belligerent, and unjustifiable actions against the persons and territory of sovereign states. Apparently, the United States is the only nation whose actions the anti-war crowds protest.

Even when those actions are taken under United Nations resolutions, and even when in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

The ACLU and anti-war protesters are total hypocrites about violations of the Geneva Conventions. Their concern about the treatment of unlawful combatants not covered by the Geneva Convention is balanced by their lack of concern about the treatment of British sailors actually entitled to all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, since a state of war does not exist – yet – between Iran and Britain, the Geneva Conventions may not apply. What Iran did was totally illegal, even in the kangaroo court of international law, and was more an act of piracy than warfare. Since the act was sanctioned and conducted by the Iranian government, that government is now an outlaw by the standards of international law.

Although no one should hold their breath waiting for international justice, the following is just a brief description of obvious violations so far.

The first violation is invasion of the territory of a sovereign nation. Satellite and GPS data, and the statements of the Indian and other uninvolved nationals on the scene, prove that the incident occurred 1.7 miles inside Iraqi territorial waters.

The next is kidnapping of British nationals and theft of British property seized in Iraqi territorial waters.

The third is extortion of “confessions” and false statements from the lone female captured, the most vulnerable member of the kidnapped group. Apparently statements from other British personnel have also been coerced, and will be produced as the Iranian bandits feel the need.

The fourth is making a public display of the captured British.

The fifth, and a particularly egregious violation of the Geneva Conventions, is threatening to try the British as spies. In the murky world of international law, nothing could be clearer than the standard that no military member captured while wearing his or her uniform may be tried as a spy. Instead, all military captured in uniform in the service of their country must be afforded all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Even Russia, so cautious of offending the mullahs that they sell so much military hardware, must admit, regardless of the laughable “plausible deniability” of the Iranians that the British were captured in Iranian waters, that the Iranians have not given their captives the treatment and protections absolutely required of the Geneva Conventions.

Even allowing the charade that the British were captured in Iranian territorial waters, the treatment of the British military members required under the Geneva Conventions is not altered an iota.

Again, the protections required under the Geneva Conventions in these circumstances are not vague and subject to interpretation – or misinterpretation. The captured British are members of their country’s armed services, and when captured were in uniform under orders to discharge British responsibilities in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

Where are the demonstrators? Where is the ACLU?

Why can they get it all wrong on unlawful combatants, and then ignore real violations of UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions?

How do these hypocrites sleep at night?

And why does anyone listen to them?

On Captain's Quarters, Cap'n Ed lays out the situation masterfully, but all his commenters are deep into tactics to prevent something from occurring that already has, or to take actions to try to make the mullahs of Iran give up the British personnel. Conspicuously missing is any call for or reliance on the United Nations, the world organization formed and chartered to take effective actions when these sorts of things happen.

I think the only country in the world that wants the UN to step in is Iran, because then they know they can continue their outrages without fear of military reprisal.

Where are the Democrats, where are the peace protesters, demanding that the one governmental agency in the world they most support and admire do the job for which it was established? If the United Nations cannot be expected to control the outlaw actions of a member nation, why is there a United Nations? So far, all the UN seems to do is give cover for Muslim violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

That's right, the United Nations primarily aids and abets international criminal acts rather than preventing or punishing them.

And then asks us for more money and support.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.