Friday, October 3, 2014
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Government Incompetence
Just in the recent past we have learned that the Secret Service has had multiple lapses in securing the life of the President. This is their highest priority mission.
On multiple occasions there have been individuals jump the White House fence and enter the compound without clearance. The second man actually entered the East Room of the mansion, where Presidents often hold ceremonies and deliver speeches.
In Atlanta, at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and armed security guard from the CDC contracted security agency rode in the same elevator with the president. This was a violation of SS protection protocol.
The IRS routinely pays tax refunds to people who are not entitled to one. Recent estimates say this amounts to billions of dollars per year.
Medicare and Medicaid fraud annually is very high, and is routinely the subject of campaign promises of candidates for congress and the Oval Office.
TSA agents are often discovered as not stopping bombs that are actually tests to see how proficient they are at stopping bombs. At the same time they frequently are criticized for stopping small children, elderly, handicapped, and even military personnel for extra scrutiny at airports.
We all know about the lack of security provide State Department personnel in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Department of Justice spying on members of the press, and the VA hospital scandal.
We also know that many "green" projects funded by the federal government have collapsed into bankruptcy.
High tax rates, excessive regulation, and arbitrary enforcement of laws all lead to a poor economy, while education declines.
Somebody tell me please, what does this government do to deserve our trust and support?
On multiple occasions there have been individuals jump the White House fence and enter the compound without clearance. The second man actually entered the East Room of the mansion, where Presidents often hold ceremonies and deliver speeches.
In Atlanta, at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and armed security guard from the CDC contracted security agency rode in the same elevator with the president. This was a violation of SS protection protocol.
The IRS routinely pays tax refunds to people who are not entitled to one. Recent estimates say this amounts to billions of dollars per year.
Medicare and Medicaid fraud annually is very high, and is routinely the subject of campaign promises of candidates for congress and the Oval Office.
TSA agents are often discovered as not stopping bombs that are actually tests to see how proficient they are at stopping bombs. At the same time they frequently are criticized for stopping small children, elderly, handicapped, and even military personnel for extra scrutiny at airports.
We all know about the lack of security provide State Department personnel in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservatives, the Department of Justice spying on members of the press, and the VA hospital scandal.
We also know that many "green" projects funded by the federal government have collapsed into bankruptcy.
High tax rates, excessive regulation, and arbitrary enforcement of laws all lead to a poor economy, while education declines.
Somebody tell me please, what does this government do to deserve our trust and support?
Monday, September 22, 2014
Climate Science is Not Settled
Dr. Steven E. Koonin wrote this column in the Wall Street Journal, and explains how the science is not settled, and we need to remain focused on the scientific methods, not exploiting data to push any agenda.
Climate Science Is Not Settled
According to Koonin the degree to which climate data is collected and analyzed leaves us lacking in our ability to make climate projections. This means that we need to continue to do more research, and we also need to improve our modeling with more granularity in the data.
I believe that many politicians and others are attempting to stifle research and debate by scientists and the population, convincing you that we need to act as they prescribe. This amounts to a power grab, with the goal being income redistribution. They stifle debate by cherry picking data, omitting that which does not support the theory, and including that which does. Here is one example cited by Koonin.
"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century."
Remember President Obama's speech in which he said about his election, that this would be the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed? Koonin also cites the fact that Arctic ice may be lacking, but Antarctic ice is as extremely high levels. Al Gore and other climate alarmists won't concede that fact.
Koonin's main point is that we must continue the research simply because the climate does change continuously, and we should better understand the how and why of it. I agree. But if we abandon scientific methods we may regret what our plans may result in.
From the article is this statement which quite simply states what we're up against if when we debate this issue:
"While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem."
Climate Science Is Not Settled
According to Koonin the degree to which climate data is collected and analyzed leaves us lacking in our ability to make climate projections. This means that we need to continue to do more research, and we also need to improve our modeling with more granularity in the data.
I believe that many politicians and others are attempting to stifle research and debate by scientists and the population, convincing you that we need to act as they prescribe. This amounts to a power grab, with the goal being income redistribution. They stifle debate by cherry picking data, omitting that which does not support the theory, and including that which does. Here is one example cited by Koonin.
"Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century."
Remember President Obama's speech in which he said about his election, that this would be the moment when the rise of the oceans slowed? Koonin also cites the fact that Arctic ice may be lacking, but Antarctic ice is as extremely high levels. Al Gore and other climate alarmists won't concede that fact.
Koonin's main point is that we must continue the research simply because the climate does change continuously, and we should better understand the how and why of it. I agree. But if we abandon scientific methods we may regret what our plans may result in.
From the article is this statement which quite simply states what we're up against if when we debate this issue:
"While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem."
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Who Needs Evidence?
Heroic Story, Contradictory Calls
Yet another example of people running with a story, apparently based on emotion instead of facts. It seems the reports of this heroic football player jumping to the rescue of his young nephew from drowning were perhaps premature. There are now questions about the truthfulness of Josh Shaw's statements.
I wonder if the truth will eventually get out, or if the first reports will be the lasting images and memories. In America's quest for a story many are forgetting to gather facts and evidence yet again.
Yet another example of people running with a story, apparently based on emotion instead of facts. It seems the reports of this heroic football player jumping to the rescue of his young nephew from drowning were perhaps premature. There are now questions about the truthfulness of Josh Shaw's statements.
I wonder if the truth will eventually get out, or if the first reports will be the lasting images and memories. In America's quest for a story many are forgetting to gather facts and evidence yet again.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
More Evidence Not Needed
Former Marine Brutally Beaten
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
So here we have vigilante justice. A group of men took it upon themselves to beat two men up, apparently because someone had to pay for Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, MO. As I made clear in my previous post, people are jumping into the fray without knowing any or all of the evidence in this case. And here justice means beating two white men in Mississippi, hundreds of miles away from Ferguson. No connection to the events in Ferguson at all, just vigilante justice. I hope all 20 of these men are found and brought to justice. I hope Attorney General Eric Holder puts all the resources of the FBI and DOJ on this case also.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Wait for the Evidence
I am truly disheartened by what has transpired in Ferguson, MO this month. I find that people who hare proclaiming guilt or innocence without fact or evidence are trampling on the rights of all of us to a fair trial. Claiming fairness to justify unfair treatment is true hypocrisy. Blaming the cop for shooting an unarmed black teen without evidence or fact is no difference that if that were truly the case. Those assuming facts not in evidence is exactly what you accuse this officer of doing.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
In several cases in recent and not so recent history, Americans have jumped into the fray by taking sides of one party or another to claim guilt or innocence. When a high profile athlete is accused of rape, others rush in to claim he would never do it. When a white police officer shoots and kills a black teenager, many blacks and whites like jump in to claim murder by the cop.
If you were not in the hotel room with that man and that woman, you cannot possibly know if he did or did not. If she said yes or no. Without witnessing or without evidence, you cannot know if that shooter was defending himself legitimately or if he was being attacked.
What do any of us really know? With all the cases that have been made public, when someone is found either guilty or innocent in a court of law, why do so many people continue to take sides in the absence of evidence or fact?
Just this week we had a police officer in Texas shot and killed during a traffic stop. In recent years there have been many police shot with their own weapons, presumably by someone without his own weapon, or he would not have taken the officer's. It happens. It could have happened again.
Would you recommend someone you do not know for a job or cosign for a bank loan? Of course not, since you do not know who you would be endorsing. That person could be a high integrity individual who does not have the experience for the job, or the income for the loan payments. That person could be a criminal with violent history, or other reasons why you would not offer a job or loan. So why would you endorse the cop or the victim that was shot?
Without knowing exactly the events that lead to the shooting, or the knowledge that either party had as the encounter began, or the conditions of the parties involved, jumping to conclusions about guilt or innocence is a bad thing. Our justice system, flawed as it may be, is designed to bring facts to bear so that an impartial party can decide the case. We must let that play out before the lynch mobs prevails.
When we have other high profile individuals, such as governors, cabinet members, and people who just show up on the scene, to decide without evidence of fact, we have gone wrong. Very wrong.
If we allow the presumption of guilt to be the force to decide all cases, we lose. Let's all think about the possibilities, wait for evidence to be discovered, then decide.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Turn the Economy Loose
John Heyward of Human Events has a fine column today about corporate taxes and it shows the best way to really allow the US economy to fire on all cylinders.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Economic Patriotism and the End of Corporate Taxes
I"n the column Heyward makes reference to the Fair Tax. The learn more about that proposed change to our tax code, visit their site at FairTax Organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)