Friedman's Column, Kyoto Protocol, and the Slayers of the African Dream

Friedman's Column, Kyoto Protocol, and the Slayers of the African Dream
It is a long title, but one that is very telling over what I am going to talk about. In a recent column, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times mentioned the recent growths in Dalian, China and Doha, Qatar. In the column, he commented that he was feeling torn about the fact that the people of Doha where rising themselves out of poverty via "Earth Expensive" energy technology. And that is where I launch from.

Because the thing is, that the infamous Kyoto would have prevented that growth and modernization in Doha by disallowing the cost-effective methods currently being used in the cultivation of civilization and modernization.

And yet, the Champions of Kyoto, almost all them safely within the Prior Category, have ignored the pleadings of the African Economists who have done the studies and know, first hand the damage that will be done to them if these limits are placed on them.

But first, the City of Dalian, China was mentioned, well, lets look at the current Chinese Output of CO2. While the United States is currently leading in CO2 production, China, land of the brown sky, is going to surpass us by the end of the decade.

That is highly signifigant, when you consider that neither China nor India has signed onto Kyoto.

Now, Africa. I have levelled accusations against the authors of Kyoto before, and it is time to pull out the canister rounds. I will be airing as many complaints as I can via my
blog's main cannon, hence the title, canister.

Now, one of the main accusations is that of the Death of the African Dream. For those of you not in the know, the African Dream is the current path being embarked upon by the
African Union to modernize the continent and provide stable homes for the people there. However, the Kyoto Protocol would negate that, and provide huge costs that could be considered dissuasive to development.

Interesting. On top of that, Lake Chad is not evaporating, it is sinking. For those of you have not heard, currently, Lake Chad is shrinking, but at the same time, grasses are expanding out ward in what is called, undesertification, or Reverse Desertification. That is right, for the first time since it was the Tapith Sea, the Sahara Desert is shrinking.

At the same time, The largest environmental damage is being caused by the Forestry methods in use by the people of Central Africa. As opposed to the current methods of either Circular or Selective Harvesting being done in the Western World, the Forestry methods being used in Central Africa can best be described as clear cutting.

In fact, this clear cutting is resulting in the drying of the atmosphere across the climate, causing the Snows of Kilamanjaro to disappear, and the Congo River to diminish.

Solar Energy!

Nanotechnology fully and truly rules. I have long looked forward to the advent of Nanotechnology. And now, there is a new study being done at CalTech that shows that we might be a few years away from using Nanotech for the use of Solar Power.

With the technology that we have, it is entirely possible that we could have Solar Power that is as cheap as the gasoline that we are currently burning for our cars. Errrr, well, maybe not gasoline, but definitely coal.

Imagine, all the energy you could need for a small maintenance fee, and all of it provided on the roof of your house.

I, personally, can't wait.

No Conscenus

Well guys, I love it when this happens, I get to once again take a hammer to th Idol of the Consensus on Global Warming. And the best part, all that the Priors ever do is sit there asking each other "What hammer? We don't see a hammer."

This latest update in the Idol bashing comes to us from Earthtimes.org of all places. It was originally published by the Hudson Institute, located in New York City.

In the report, titled "Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears"

Wow, do I really love that title.

And, the opening two paragraphs just absolutely blew me away.

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Wow, that is very damning to the Goracle and his position, and hey, the Priors might actually come out and debate us now that this point has been made.

Now, I have had some people ask me "What is a Prior?" So, at the risk of sounding like a geek (as if writing a science based attack blog on Global Warming doesn't already prove that), the Prior is a religious head from the television series Stargate SG-1. They are well known for their twisting of the religious scriptures to fit what they want them to say, and have been known to catch their opponents on fire for heresy. Sounds almost like the Spanish Inquisition, eh?

The Blogs, THE BLOGS!!!

Okay guys, the blogs are up and running. Have fun reading them!

New Blogs

Well guys, I can not seem to focus on just climate change here, as the recent four part series on Socialised Healtchare will show you. There fore I am going to start new blogs for these different topics. The updates will still be at least one a day, just more places to find your essential Information.

Patriot Joe - Foreign Policy Blog (The Case for Democracy, Online)
Arming Liberty - Military/Defense Blog (Lots in here about China)
Jesusland - Domestic Affairs

I will post here to let you know when they are up.

Technorati Profile

In Remembrance

The Crime of Nationalised Healthcare (part IIII)

Solving the System. Note, this is almost all copied from BalancedPolitics.org. I am posting it here to show you what I think we should do.

---

The 15-Point Solution to the Health Care Crisis

By: Joe Messerli

Why This Problem Is Now a Crisis

• Increase costs to the individual. We've all felt the hit from increased monthly premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays, and so on. The increase in costs over the past few years have in effect wiped out any employment raises. Health costs will soon surpass housing as our biggest monthly expense. Between premiums, deductibles, and co-pays, an individuals can end up paying several thousands of dollars before insurance kicks in dollar one. Things will only get worse as the population ages.
  
  
• Increase costs to businesses. Most employees don't realize that the insurance premiums deducted from their checks are only part of the monthly insurance cost. The businesses providing the plan often shoulder a much bigger burden. When health costs go up, less money is available for raises, new hires, and profits. In other words, stock values of our 401(k)'s are affected by shrinking profits and businesses are less able to hire new employees. Many of the smaller businesses, especially the service-oriented ones, are forced into bankruptcy.
  
  
• Tens of millions of uninsured Americans. The number of uninsured Americans is already over 35 million, and it's growing at an exponential rate. More and more people, if they can afford insurance at all, are finding it's easier to go without insurance than pay the exploding costs. When a person doesn't have insurance, he's less likely to seek medical help when problems arise. Thus, prevention costs as well as the modest cost of catching certain problems in the early stages lead to the much greater costs of full-blown illnesses & diseases. The costs of these full-blown problems must be absorbed by all the insured individuals.
  
  
• Longer wait times and less access to health care. Have you ever gone to a doctor's office and been seen by your physician within 5 minutes? Times vary, but it's not unusual or unexpected to wait 30-60 minutes after your appointment time before being serviced. Depending on specialty, it may take weeks or months to even get an appointment. It's rarely the fault of the medical professionals. They are simply too overworked and understaffed. Beyond the inconvenience, this contributes to lost productivity of the entire nation.
  
  
• Businesses pass on costs as higher consumer prices. Health insurance is simply another component of labor costs. Just like costs of energy, equipment, and rent are factored into the cost of a product, so are labor costs. To ensure a profit at a level that makes it worthwhile to stay in business, companies must raise prices. Thus, rising health costs lead to inflation throughout the economy.
  
  
• Economy is hit by redirection of consumer spending. Since consumers must spend a larger percentage of every dollar on health care, less money is available to buy cars, computers, clothes, and other items that fuel a thriving economy. Rising health care costs could easily throw us back into a recession.
  
  
• Unhealthy individuals may have trouble finding employment. A sad fact of the current system is that monthly premiums are determined by the cost of your insurance pool. In the same way that you're charged higher auto insurance premiums when you have multiple accidents, a poor health record can increase the costs for everyone in the pool. For example, if you have one employee in a pool of 50 people that gets cancer or some other expensive illness, everyone in the 50 must absorb higher premiums. Although it's technically illegal to make hiring decisions based on health conditions, some businesses may find other reasons not to hire a potentially expensive individual. In fact, for small businesses on the edge of financial ruin, there may be no choice.
  
  
• National & worldwide shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals. Hospitals simply cannot keep up with the rising demand for health care. There's obviously a shortage of medical professionals or you wouldn't be forced to wait for appointments, and salaries wouldn't be so high. This is more than an American problem since the high salaries are pulling professionals to the U.S. from India, Britain, Canada, and other areas around the world. We have a shortage in America despite the most advanced medical training system in the world; you can imagine the shortage in 3rd world countries such as those in Africa or South America.
  
  

A 15-Point Solution

1. De-regulate the medical profession. It's time the government ease restrictions on who can do what in medicine. Does it make sense that someone who wants to perform heart surgery has to go through the same amount of education as someone who wants to set broken bones and prescribe infection remedies? Does it make sense that 3rd-year med students are allowed to perform medical tasks that a nurse with 30 years of experience can't? Does it make sense that a Ph.D. psychologist can't prescribe Zoloft or Prozac but a psychiatrist who can prescribe the drugs must go through 8 years of education almost completed unrelated to psychology? Medicine is probably the most complex subject in existence; still, the vast majority of medical tasks don't require someone with 12 years of tortuous training. Health care costs are so high because tasks that could often be performed by nurses, physicians assistants, paramedics, and CNA's are restricted to fully-licensed doctors. De-regulation would reduce costs in three ways: 1) Routine tasks can be billed out at the much cheaper rate of the non-doctor; 2) Doctor salaries would fall since they wouldn't have to handle the same case load and pressures; and 3) Competition would increase, which always leads to lower prices and better quality. Doctors would also have more time to devote to the tougher cases, and you'd draw more students to medicine since they'd be able to do more meaningful work without having to devote the time and money of becoming a full physician.
   
   Why, in a nation of 280 million people do we have only 600,000 doctors? There are millions of potential students out there who have the intelligence to do the work but can't go all the way through med school because of financial, work, or family obligations. Or maybe they're part of the 95 percent of applicants that are denied entrance to medical school because of rigorous requirements and few open admission spots. Yes, we want and need an elite class of physicians, but given the dire situation, maybe we need to open certain tasks to lesser-trained individuals.
   
   Some may worry that this opens the door to more medical mistakes. Yes, lesser-trained individuals will make more mistakes, but remember, people have a choice. If they want to save some money and take a little more risk, they'll choose a nurse. If it's a more complex problem, they'll go to a fully-licensed physician. Think about how many doctors refer their patients to specialists anyway. What difference does it make if the first cog in the machinery is a nurse? Also remember that a medical professional always has the threat of a lawsuit if he or she screws up.
   
   
2. Create a range of new medical training levels and specialties. Despite the vast number of medical problems, there are very few specialties. Sure, there are specialties, but they're all at the doctor level. It takes almost a superhuman to get through the rigorous training requirements we have for our physicians. Each student must spend an average of $150,000 and devote 8 years to a grueling education program. Then, he or she must complete a slave-labor 4-year residency with 80+ hour workweeks. This is just to start their medical career. Almost anyone in medicine will agree that while a solid base of knowledge is important, you don't really know what you're doing until you've accumulated years working on real cases. Think about it. If you had a certain medical problem, would you rather see someone with 12 years of general education and no expertise in your problem area, or would you rather see someone with 12 years of experience working specifically in the area you need help?
   
   I'm suggesting that in addition to de-regulation, we develop several new specialties and education levels. Obviously, to work in medicine, you'd want to require a base set of classes in anatomy, chemistry, biology, etc. But after that, training can be ultra focused to areas of specialty. Students could be given hands-on and written certification tests at multiple levels to demonstrate their ability in their area. We could have several levels of doctors or nurses. Think about how achievement in martial arts is structured. You start out at white belt and proceed through various colors all the way to black belt. To advance to each new level, you must devote a certain amount of time and demonstrate a certain set of skills. By looking at the color of belt, we instantly can guess a person's ability and level of training. Think about the financial planning profession. A 2 or 4-year degree may get a professional his or her first job, but customers may not want to go to that person unless he or she has CPA, stock broker license, Certified Financial Planner qualification, etc. Now consider how doctors are currently ranked: there's really only one level: DOCTOR!
   
   Again, it's all about choice. We still need the heavily-trained individuals for the complex cases. We can save money by going to a lesser-trained, lesser-experienced individual if we want. Insurance companies could offer incentives to use the cheaper alternatives. For example, go to a nurse for your physical and it doesn't count towards your deductible.
   
   One last idea when it comes to specialties: allow the creation of businesses that specialize in performing certain types of tests; for example, CT scans, X-rays, etc. Businesses could be set up to do nothing but the type of test that's required. A specialist could streamline operations and squeeze out levels of efficiency like never before. Once again, regulation constrains true reform.
   
   
3. Develop a new no-patent government drug research & development facility (or contract with a private firm). Prescription drugs are undoubtedly one of the most expensive components of rising health care costs. However, the actual production of drugs is usually pretty cheap. The expense comes from the research and development. Remember, creating new drugs can take years or even decades of meticulous, expensive research & testing. And for every successful new drug, there are hundreds that turn out to be a waste of time. Drug companies must charge exorbitant prices to recoup their costs and ensure an adequate profit. Unfortunately, because patent laws create a virtual monopoly on their product for 17 years, they can charge whatever they want (subject to market price demand). I'm proposing the government start a not-for-profit drug research facility where patents laws aren't applied and all experimental learning is shared with the public. There are several advantages of such a facility.
   
   First of all, once a drug is created and approved, anyone would immediately be allowed to make and sell it. Competition would drive the price to rock bottom levels. Second of all, time could be devoted to curing illnesses and diseases that aren't always the most profitable. For example, certain types of fevers such as malaria are almost non-existent in the U.S., but are major problems overseas. We could develop remedies that were never dreamed of, possibly prompting other countries to do the same. Lastly, we will be able to build the knowledge base for everyone, leading to the faster develop of new life and pain-saving drugs. In the current system, drug companies almost have an incentive not to share their knowledge since doing so might lead to other companies gaining a patent first. In a government-controlled facility, we could, for example, require the results of certain experiments be posted online.
   
   
4. Create a new statute to punish those who bring frivolous malpractice suits and extort money from doctors. Frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, especially ones with outrageous verdicts, have led to skyrocketing medical liability insurance. Many lawyers will extort money by threatening lawsuits, even though they have no chance of winning. Doctors may opt for a quick settlement anyway since the cost of a malpractice lawsuit is enormous compared to paying the lawyer to just go away. A solution to this is to get back at the lawyers responsible for attacking the doctors or hospitals that haven't done anything wrong. What I suggest is a new law that requires that not only should the plaintiff have to pay court & attorney fees to innocent defendants, but lawyers who encourage the case be forced to pay a matching amount as a fine. The lawyer would also lose "points" on his legal license, so those with a track record of bringing frivolous lawsuits would lose their license to practice law.
   
   
5. Develop a new court system to deal with medical malpractice lawsuits. Medical malpractice lawsuits are by far the most expensive to bring to trial. This makes sense when you consider the subject matter of the trials involves doctors who go to school for 8 grueling years, endure 4 years of 80-hr week residency, and then work several years on their specialty. Can we really expect a jury of 12 people who have little or no medical training to understand what's going on? Not only is it expensive, but too often juries who don't understand the facts must pick between a rich doctor and a feeble, dying, or disfigured patient. So even if the doctor has done nothing wrong, he or she may get the shaft. And that cost is of course passed down to us in increased health insurance premiums. I propose setting up a specialty court system similar to what we have for tax and bankruptcy disputes. Decisions would be made by trained medical professionals who can better understand the issues and render fairer verdicts.
   
   
6. Create liability caps on damages for pain & suffering and punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits. Doctors across America are walking off the job or giving up their practice because of the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance is passed on to all of us in higher insurance premiums. There should be no limit to damages for lost income or medical bills caused by malpractice since they can be objectively measured. However, pain/suffering and punitive damages are intangible amounts that need to be reined in. Juries often come back with unjust awards because they feel sympathy for the patient and figure a rich doctor or insurance company can afford the loss. Everyone makes mistakes, and doctors should be held accountable, but excessive lawsuits are changing the medical system as we know it. Doctors are practicing expensive defensive medicine to avoid getting sued as well as curbing or eliminating risky areas of practice. Remember, there are plenty of punishment options for doctors that screw up that don't involve money; for example, suspension or revocation of their license to practice. This solves both problems: getting the poor-performing doctor out of the profession while keeping our health insurance premiums from going up. A $250,000 or $500,000 cap on damages would be a reasonable start in addressing all these problems.
   
   
7. Build a series of lawsuit-prohibited medical facilities. If you could save thousands of dollars by going to a doctor with the same expertise as other clinics but for which there was no chance to sue if a mistake was made, would you go? Some people would say yes; some would say no. There's always the chance you'd get lesser quality because the threat of lawsuit isn't there to keep up the pressure; however, you may get better care since doctors can concentrate on curing the patient rather than covering their butts. I suggest clinics be set up where patients must sign a release preventing any legal action if they want to be treated. Doctors would be able to charge a small fraction of what they currently do since they wouldn't need to pay hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance. You'd also be able to save money arising from unnecessary tests that are often carried out to minimize legal liability.
   
   Remember, people are required to sign do-not-sue releases to go bungee jumping, sky dive, take a karate class, and do a number of other activities. Does this stop people from going? People will come to such a medical facility often because they have nowhere else to go or because they're not worried about malpractice when getting an antibiotic prescription. Is such a facility an unrealistic idea? Not by a long shot. Patch Adams, the doctor on whom a movie was based, founded a free clinic called the Gesundheit Institute and ran the clinic without malpractice insurance. He has since expanded and introduced all kinds of revolutionary medical ideas. Thousands of doctors have volunteered their time to his program. It's not realistic to operate all free clinics, but the costs of a clinic that doesn't need malpractice insurance is dramatically cheaper.
   
   
8. Streamline or eliminate the FDA, and de-regulate the process of approving drugs. While the FDA's purpose of protecting the public is noble, the organization has become increasing less useful and is causing more problems than it solves. It was originally set up to protect the public from charlatans selling snake oil and other potions, but in today's complex pharmaceutical market, the organization isn't as necessary.
   
   Consider the problems caused by the FDA: 1) The FDA costs the taxpayers an enormous amount of money to function; we should always be looking for ways to cut government waste so the funds can be redirected to other areas. 2) The FDA delays the release of drugs, causing pain and death in patients. Like all government offices, bureaucracy slows operations to a crawl. It can take months or years to get a new drug through the screening process, even though the seller has already screened the drug thoroughly. For patients who are suffering and those who will die without a new drug, this delay is unacceptable. The FDA will bring criminal procedures against the seller even when the patient is willing to assume all risks. 3) The FDA drives up the cost of prescription drugs. The impractical requirements placed on drug makers along with the added layer of screening forces companies to charge more for their products.
   
   Some may ask "What about the consumer? Won't this increase the chances of unsafe drugs being put on the market?" The answer is a possible yes, but only marginally so. Remember, drug companies are worried about their reputation and don't want to be sued. One class-action lawsuit or the bad press of one unsafe drug could put them out of business. Thus, they take great pains to make sure their drugs are safe. And drug companies are run by human beings who obviously don't want their products to cause harm. The FDA just adds a repetitive layer that isn't necessary. Patients and the doctors from whom they get a prescription are going to factor safety into their decision to use a drug. Thus, even without the FDA, it's likely a private screening company will develop to certify the drugs. Private policing of the industry is faster, cheaper, and more flexible. It's time to cut some of the FDA fat from the budget.
   
   
9. Streamline the process of purchasing drugs for consumers. I went to the drug store last week to pick up some asthma meds. Despite the fact that I called a day ahead, I had to wait 45 minutes for my prescription. Why? Because I had to have a pharmacist explain to me how to use an inhaler I've been using daily for over 15 years. Have you ever gone to pick up a prescription and not been subjected to a wait in line? The cost of pharmacy employees is part of the drug distribution cost. Wait times are ridiculous because overprotective, condescending politicians have passed laws forcing pharmacists to read you a label that says "Take this twice per day with meals." After all, it's possible you can't read or didn't hear when your doctor told you the same thing the day before. The average hourly cost of a pharmacist is over $60. Multiply the hours you'd save by the number of pharmacists in the country.
   
   
10. Pass a law requiring publication of price lists of all medical services. Did you ever stop to think that medicine is the only business that doesn't publicize it's prices? Can you imagine dropping your car off for repairs and having the mechanic pick any price he deems appropriate? Publication of prices leads to more-informed consumers. Consumers would be able to shop around for better prices and question unreasonable fees.
    
    
11. Set up a new scholarship/grant program for those that want to enter the health profession. The average medical student graduates with over $100,000 in debt. Then he or she must work a 4-year residency at close to minimum wage. Is it any wonder that few doctors want to volunteer time or work in low-cost clinics? Is it any wonder they try to squeeze in as many revenue-generating patients per day? They have to just to pay school loans, malpractice insurance, and other overhead! The nursing shortage gets worse every year, which leads to longer hours for the current staff and more potential for costly mistakes. We should be doing everything we can to get more students into the medical profession. The economic laws of supply show prices will drop proportionately, so the scholarships should pay for themselves.
    
    
12. Increase awareness of WebMD, Ask-a-Nurse, and other free medical advice. There is an endless wealth of free information on the Web and on phone hotlines that people simply don't know about. Most minor problems could be solved by the patient if he or she took the time to look up the ailment. Part of the problem is that people don't know you can get diagnoses, symptoms, causes, related illnesses, etc. without paying a dime. Most of these medical data banks will have a section "When you should visit a professional", so the basic problems can be solved with minimal risk.
    
    
13. Develop a national health information system that centralizes all medical information.Did you realize that 60-70 percent of your medical dollar goes towards administration and insurance costs? How many times in your life have you filled out a full medical history? How many times have you had to re-explain your medical background to a new doctor? Every medical office has its own set of medical records that must be organized, filed, data-entered, and maintained. Every medical office must duplicate insurance information, organize claim procedures, and manage their own computer system. This redundancy causes two major problems: 1) It creates a greater chance for error, by both the patient and the hospital staff; 2) It doubles the administration costs which are passed on to all of us as higher premiums. Think about how much money we could save in the future if we integrated all this health information into one national database. Consider how much better doctors could do their job if they could pull up a full medical history of the patient's treatment, including treatment at other hospitals.
    
    
14. Ease right-to-die rules. By far the biggest advantages to physician-assisted suicide are the preservation of dignity, minimization of suffering, and the easing of anguish on family members. These cannot be underestimated. It's almost callous to think it, but there's another advantage that most people don't consider, which is the savings of health care costs and freeing up of hospital staff resources. Money and hospital staff time mean nothing compared to human life, but for a person who wants to die and faces a certain painful death, wouldn't it make more sense to re-direct money and hospital resources to patients that can be saved and want to live? For example, does it make sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars keeping a suffering bone cancer patient alive to the last excruciating breath while occupying the time of a doctor, nurse, and CNA--all when the patient wants to die gracefully? Savable patients suffer and die every day because of hospital understaffing. We need to be smart and practical if we are to achieve maximum benefit for society.
    
    
15. Design new insurance plans that shift more costs from premiums to out-of-pocket costs. Perhaps the biggest reason why health care costs are out of control is that the economic laws of supply and demand have been removed from the industry. I've already talked about how stifling government regulation has limited the supply of medical resources; now, let's consider demand. The U.S. has the most diverse and advanced access to medical care of any country in the world. Consequently, we've become a bit spoiled. We've developed an entitlement mentality in this country. We feel we are entitled to the best medical care regardless of expense, and we think we should have to pay little or nothing for it. Unfortunately, the best technology, the best trained professionals, and the best prescription drugs cost money. If we were forced to pay out-of-pocket for all our medical care, we would be a little more frugal. We would discipline ourselves and modify our habits--Do I really need this CT scan? Should I run to the doctor every time my child sniffles? Do I need a doctor with 20 years experience to perform some routine surgery or would a new graduate be able to do it just as well? Do I need the latest and greatest surgical equipment or would the cheaper conventional equipment do the job? Should I go to the doctor for some antibiotics to cure this problem immediately or should I let my body fight it off?
    
    Imagine if we had the same entitlement mentality with housing. After all, housing is a basic need that all Americans must have for survival. Imagine you had a $5000 annual deductible, but after that all your housing costs were paid for by insurance. Would you choose a small basic apartment that costs $5200 per year or would you go for a $15,000 penthouse with swimming pool, hot tub, and fire place? Would you like a small townhouse by the airport or a 100,000 square foot beach house?
    
    The whole purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and costs of unusual and unexpected events. It was never designed to pay expenses from your daily lives. Health insurance premiums should be reduced to the same rate range as life insurance premiums and cover only the major medical problems costing, say $10,000 or more. Currently between business and individual contributions, $3500 is paid out on average per person every year before insurance starts to help out. Then you have to deal with co-pays and other costs. An out-of-pocket focused plan would mean that $3500 normally spent on premiums would be available to the consumer. For years where patients have no medical problems, the money could be pocketed. Obviously, people will be much more frugal shoppers. They will go only when they really need to and will demand better value for their money. Thus, economic laws of supply and demand would go back into health care, lowering prices to the point that $3500 per year will easily take care of almost all individuals. Remember that 60-70 percent of each health care dollar is spent on administration costs. An out-of-pocket focused plan would mean hospitals could eliminate the tedious insurance claim process for most of their charges.
    
    There are secondary benefits to such a shift in cost. If people are forced to pay more out-of-pocket for all health care, they're more likely to exercise, eat right, and practice preventive medicine, all of which are vastly cheaper in the long run. It's all about personal responsibility. We'd shift the focus of our society away from the pill-popping solution to every medical problem, which is counter-productive and causes a host of new problems. For example, overuse of antibiotics has led to the breeding of new superbugs. In other words, infections that used to be easily cured with antibiotics have grown resistant and now cannot be fought at all. The human body was built for one thing--survival. It can fight off most health problems if we simply let it.
    
    

Conclusion

Admittedly, some of these suggestions may be near-impossible to implement. And there are plenty of disadvantages to following this plan. But the fact is, any controversial issue is going to have advantages and disadvantages. There is no easy solution. Otherwise, the issue wouldn't be controversial. However, the downsides of any action can paralyze us to the point where we do nothing. We have to analyze all the choices and come up with the solution that has the greatest weight of pros over cons. You might have noticed, but the old system also has a few flaws.

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."--Albert Einstein

"Other people see things and say 'why'. But I dream things that never were and say 'why not'.--George Bernard Shaw

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."--Albert Einstein

Now, while I disagree with the point about Right-to-die being added to the system, disagree very strongly in fact, the rest of them are the most common sense ways to solve the problem.

Socialized Healthcare treats the symptoms of a failing system, but the system being advised by Free Market Proponents is designed to treat the cause.

The Crime of Nationalised Healthcare (part III)

This the third post on this subject. Dang am I on a roll tonight.

Sorry about the deviation, this was going to be about Europe, but the links have timed out, and I am in search of new ones. Instead, I will be covering Canada!

(Note: The Canadian Idiot is by Wierd Al)

First of all, take a look at the graph to the Left. It comes from The Fraser Institute via the Mackinac Center For Public Policy in the great state of Michigan. The numbers here are signifigant, as the numbers are almost double for all systems in the United States as compared to Canada.

Second, PET (Positron emission tomography) scans are no longer covered by the Canadian Healthcare System. Instead, they use the less accurate CT scan. This according to the STATE RUN CBC News, or the Canadian Broadcasting Company. In fact, the lack of PET scans has led to numerous unnecessary surgeries for the purpose of removing a tumor.

Third, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Canadians are leaving the system and going to private clinics, despite the fact that even setting one up is illegal, let alone visiting one.

For more on these articles, go to here, and scroll up to Canada's section.

The Crime of Nationalised Healthcare (part II)

Well, Crazy Artist has a point on this one, and therefore I am going to go through and Cite stats and go more indepth into the problems. Note, this is not going to be a fair and balanced look. Nothing on this is fair and balanced. My Blog is a window on my BRAIN!

First, going to a government run facility is a nightmare. Two Months ago, I escorted my sister to a State Run Free Clinic. We sat there for a full hour waiting for a simple vaccination. A month later, I went to my doctor's office, and I got a Hep B shot in five minuets, with most of the wait being because they where short staffed and full up. Why is this? For the same reason that I got a better education at Bishop Miege High School. Because at my doctor's office, they know that they need to earn my continued business, unlike the state run free clinics.

Now, don't get me wrong, Free Health Care for the un-insured is good. But there is too much Red Tape in any thing run by the government, and that ultimately leads to people getting the short end of the stick.

Second, this is going to mean a rise in taxes. This affects everyone, despite the rhetoric of Tax Cuts for The Rich. The lie is given to this by checking Poverty Rates vs Income Tax Rates. The lower the Income Tax, the lower the Poverty Rate. Why? Because Income Tax Hikes hit the impoverished harder than anyone.

Third, the Free Market always fixes itself in some way or form. Always has, always will. This is something that we need to understand, and something we need to work with and support. The best way to do this? Loser Pays Court Cases.

Fourth, according to the Guardian Unlimited, one in eight people have to wait a full YEAR to gain access to Health minister Andy Burnham. The story goes on to say that 30% had to wait 30 WEEKS, or about 7 months, for a surgery, 48% had to wait 18 weeks, and 12.4% had to wait a full year. 48% had to wait 18 weeks. In the US, the wait, with extreme exceptions, is around two or three weeks at most.

Fifth, according to Healthcare News, smokers and the obese are BANNED from hospitals. BANNED! The story comes straight from the health Secretary Patricia Hewitt.

Sixth, according to The Scotsman, cancer patients in the UK are not receiving some life prolonging cancer medicines because it is "Too Expensive" for the government to afford.

"The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) yesterday refused to recommend Sutent for use on the NHS, meaning patients who fail on current treatment will have no other drug options."

Seventh, according to the Telegraph UK, 5,000, FIVE THOUSAND, elderly children die each year because they do not have the beds necessary to treat them. FIVE THOUSAND!

More Headlines about the UK can be found here. Up next, I take a look at the problems in other European countries. Don't worry, this one will be shorter.

Hannity Exposes the Goracle

Exposing Learjet Liberals. That is how Sean Hannity opened up a segment on Hannity's America tonight.

In it, he talked once again about how the Goracle is one of the World's greatest Hypocrites. In the section, Hannity used a video exclusive of a Gulfstream G-2, one of the worst aircraft in terms of fuel efficiency, and then got into a horribly inefficient vehicles on the planet.

The Learjet Liberals, or as I call them, Learjet Priors, prefer to use horribly efficient vehicles and planes. F.Y.I., the Gulfstream G-2 uses the same gasoline in a day, as some small countries in a year. In fact, it puts out over 9,000 pounds of CO2 in a mile. 2 Weeks ago, he put 55,000 pounds of CO2 into a car. To create the equivalent, you would have to drive between Nashville and LA round trip 15 times.

What a load of crap that is coming out of the Goracle's most holy and blessed mouth.

Keeping the Heresy.

Education (Why it should be Privatized)

I hate the American Public School System. Conversely, I love the Private School System and the Japanese Public School System.

Now, this will cause some to roll their eyes, but there is a reason for this. In both of my favored programs, the money follows the child. In Japan, education taxes goes to where the child is sent. The child is not forced to go to a school because it is the closest one, but rather goes to the one that the parents wish to send them to. This is most pronounced in High School, where the students test into different High Schools, much the way they do in Private Schools across the US.

Also, in case people haven't noticed, the Public Schools in Japan currently rank in the top five at all levels regularly.

here in the US, the top schools in a metro area are dominated by Private Schools. Why? Because if a child is having difficulty, the administration is forced to sit up and pay attention. Why? Because the kid's parent's are directly paying their salaries.

This is the direct opposite of the Public School System, where it is the government who pays the teacher's salaries. Also, it keeps power-hungry organizations such as the NEA, out of the schools.

If we can do it this way, then the money will follow the kids to not just the Private Schools, but the Public ones as well. This way, students can leave failing schools, and go to only the ones they want to attend. And for no extra cost to the government, at least in places with Public Transport that is.

The War, and Why we must stay

Recently, a friend and fellow Boy Scout posted a four part story about withdrawing from the Iraq War over at http://hopeforhumanity.blogspot.com/. However, as I disagree with him about the withdrawal, I will explain why we CAN NOT leave, and the ramifications of doing so. Sorry man, but these things need to be said.

I will say that I agree with him on one major point. That it is the right of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. However, at the same time, we have to understand that for them to maintain that right, the United States MUST stay in Iraq.

My colleague has argued that the concept of Democracy is an Alien one to the people of the Middle East outside of Israel. To this I must disagree.

Currently, Saudi Arabia is one of the largest sources of Terrorists and fighters in Iraq. Why is this? Why is it that a Dictatorial Regime that we are propping up is responsible for the most rouge fighters in the central battleground of the War on Terror?

Oh wait, I answered my own question. The reason that most of these people come from Saudi Arabia is because it is one of a very small number of Fear Societies that the US is propping up. The more we do so, the more of an enemy we seem to the people of that nation. The best thing we can do in that situation is to begin to press for freedom and democracy within the nation. Though we are dependent on Saudi Oil, Saudi Arabia is dependent on American Gasoline. And all we have to do is begin to put pressure on them economically, and the terrorists begin to lose.

Now, onto his points.
1: Staying in Iraq is, sadly, the only option: This is because as of right this moment, the Iraqi people are not ready to take over all of their defense priorities themselves. While the British have had some successes in and around their areas, the US is a major player, and a higher priority in this war. Also, currently, the fact that American Soldiers are there is one of the few things that have gotten the Sheiks of Al-Anbar province to turn on Al-Qaeda, who have been acting out of Al-Anbar since they first moved in. If we leave, then Iraq will descend into a level of anarchy not seen since Mogadishu. While we might not be a Stabilizing Presence, we have at least consolidated Iraq into two main camps. Those who support freedom, and those who are seeking political power.

Also, contrary to what Sir Knightly would have you believe, there have always been Terrorists in Iraq. Many Terrorists have used the nation as a staging and training ground. Also, while Saddam might not have had a direct role in the attacks six years ago Tuesday, the 9/11 Commission did find evidence of Saddam funneling money into terrorist groups and hiring terrorists to go and try to assassinate three different presidents. In fact, when Clinton bombed Baghdad, he did so with intel that said that bin Laden was in the city. Sadly, he failed in so very many ways over the years when it comes to Terrorism.

And no, the Terrorists are not on the side of the Iraqi's. Many claims have been made otherwise, but it is not true. If the Terrorists win, we will see a massive death toll as the civilization collapses in a way that would make Post-War Vietnam look like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Once we are gone, the Mahdi Army, Al-Qaeda, the Northern Alliance, every single faction will fight against each other to gain dominance, and we will see either a second Afghanistan or a second Somalia. Neither of which bodes well for the United States, as both have been used by Al-Qaeda forces, and bodes even worse for the people as they are subjected to either the deathly restrictive Shariah Law or Institutionalized Anarchy. This is the lesson of History.

2: Currently, the United States is acting ONLY in conjunction with Iraqi Forces or at the request/permission of its government. Ever since the Iraqi Government has been set up, the United States Army and United States Marine Corps have moved into a support role, and only acting with the express permission of the government. In the rare occasions where independent action is necessary, the Iraqi Government has given them the go ahead and not done anything.

Only Logistics Missions, such as delivering blankets and food, or Engineering Missions, mainly building soccer fields for the kids and adults, are done independently, and that is because they are not Combat Missions. Even Convoy Duty is being done in Conjunction with Iraqi Forces.

3: He mentions the ethnic and cultural divides in the nation, ones created by Great Britain following WWI, when they carved up the Middle East. Thus proving that there is nothing more dangerous than a Bureaucrat or a Politician with a Pencil and a Map.

As for the Police Force, we are, as we speak, building just such a force. However, these are popular targets by the Terrorists as the uniforms allow them to move around without hassle. And the problem is not the ethnic divide, but rather the lack of outreach by the government to the minority Shi'ite and Kurd populations.

4: NO! the people caught in arms in Iraq and sent to Club Gitmo where caught in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and have been housed in the Island because if released, they would attack the United States and seek to replace the Government in Iraq with a Fear Society.

5: Portal Iraq is a little known website that serves as the English-Language Newswire for Iraq. It is mainly the economic side of the situation, but sometimes speaks on security.

Reading the website and its stories, I have come to a different conclusion. One of the main reasons that the ambitious, though accessible plans for reconstruction have not been met is because of Terrorists.

One water plant in Baghdad has been the source of seven bombings because the Terrorists realize that the more of the necessities that the people get, the worse that they will do in Iraq.

Therefore, an Iraqi Army is desperately needed to assist in the defense of major Utilities, especially power.

6: All of the bases being worked on in Iraq are going to be handed over to Iraqi Forces once Democracy and Freedom are firmly established. Why should we condemn some other nation to a base that we wouldn't use?

7: Leave the Green Zone? The Green Zone is the equivalent of the Washington Mall. The main difference being that and the Washington Mall is that all of the major utilities, defense, and law enforcement facilities in Baghdad are located there.

8: Why would we build an embassy outside of the Green Zone? That would be the equivalent of building an embassy in Arlington, VA. The Green Zone is the center of Government for the Republic of Iraq.

As for building a "Normal Embassy," only Canada has an American Embassy that looks like an ordinary office building. Even the Embassy in France is heavily defended. Hell, the Embassy to Israel looks like a Medieval Castle.

9: Stop paying Blackwater, and who knows what will happen. Currently, most Private Security Forces are hired by Contractors to defend utility sites and convoys of trucks going from one place to another. remove them, and the Infrastructure of Iraq is gone.

10: No real problem here, Land Mines totally suck in my opinion. Just don't get the UN involved. Then we will never get them out of the ground. Oh, and buy lots of Mine Sniffing Rats, they are more capable then dogs, and won't set off the mines.

11: Set up NGO's to do this. No argument that we have some things we need to pay for that have not been paid for yet, but a Government Organization will not get the funds to the people. Instead it will be Bookmarked to death. If you want to get them funds and such, rely on the Conservatives to pay for it. After all, Conservatives across the board give more money to charities than liberals do. I will explain more about that on Monday.

12: We are investing in Iraqi right now. Millions of dollars are being sent to Iraq, being invested in the Dinar and Infrastructure, not to mention that Iraqi Goods are starting to be sold in American Stores. Go to Portal Iraq for more details on the economic boom going on in Iraq.

Just like with number 11, this should be done in the Private Sector because it will be free of the Red Tape that will bog it down in the Governmental Sector. Plus, it won't be earmarked to death this way.

13: The "Ugly" Blast Walls have defended Markets, Infrastructure, Governmental Buildings, and so on. All of which are targets of the Butchers of Iraq.

14: Of course we tried to defend the Oil Wells, they are the corner stones of the Iraqi Economy. Crude Oil makes up 84% of the exports from Iraq.

Now, with time on our side, we can see that maybe we should have taken better care of these sites, but at the time, we were more interested in setting up a stable Democracy in Iraq.

And again, this shoudl be done through the private sector.

15: Once again, I have no arguments, except that it should be privately run.

16: Hey, makes since here, after all, we need to help keep Democracy in Iraq

17: No, no, a thousand times NO! International Organization is nothing but a euphemism for Embezzlement Ring. If we are going to do this, we need to do it through small charity organizations, and through scholarships from the organizations to train these vital peoples.

18: These efforts are already being made. The reason that they are not succeeding is because the people who left are afraid of returning to a Fear Society, and do not wish to leave a free one.

Also, tonight I will be blogging on the major expose that Sean Hannity is going to make regarding a major Prior in the Church of Global Warming. Tune in then.

The Crime of Nationalised Healthcare

In the Heretic Nation, John Edwards is on the "Most Wanted" List by the HBI.

This is because of his activities in recent years. Since the beginning of his law career, John Edwards has been what is colloquially known as an "Ambulance Chaser," or a man who specialized in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

Now, let it be known, that lawsuits against doctors cost massive amounts of money to the Medical Insurance Company. And, no matter who wins, the Insurance Company is responsible for paying for the costs of the Client's Legal Fees. Therefore, every time there is a medical lawsuit, the insurance companies have to shell out large amounts of money, forcing them to increase their premiums, which forces doctors to charge more for coverage, and thus to short change more people out of healthcare.

Also, on another prong of the assault, Illegal Immigrants, for fear of being discovered, and wait until they are in absolute desperation, go to the ER, and cost massive amounts of money from the citizens, raising their taxes.

So, that is the situation we find ourselves in when we come to the crockumentary travesty, SiCKO.

In the movie, Michael Moore paints this picture of a paradise in which the nations of Europe and the Americas have this great, free health care system, which has no flaws whatsoever.

Well, I have to call Shame on this, and while I agree that there needs to be some changes in the way that our Health care system is run, there are better ways to do so.

Now, first of all, lets look at the problems of Nationalized Healthcare.

First: People who are under this system have to wait several months to get into a doctor's office, leading to many people dieing from diseases they could have survived if they could have gotten it diagnosed

Second: You MUST go to a Government Approved doctor and gain a recommendation to a specialist, then wait a few more months to go see said specialist

Third: X-Ray Machines/MRI Machines take about five months to be able to get into the machines, whereas people can get into an MRI by the end of the day, and an X-Ray within an hour

Fourth: Those who set up private clinics in Europe or Canada get tossed into jail

Fifth: Nations with Socialized Healthcare are one of the largest sources of "Medical Tourism" to the United States, due to the ease of access into the use of our medical facilities

I have an alternate plan, or rather Neal Boortz has an alternate plan. This is a system of lawsuits known as Loser Pays, in which the loser in any case will have to pay the costs of any and all persons within the case.

This will do many things.

First: It will reduce the amount of cases that the courts have to here

Second: It will bring down the costs of health care, as even cases that never make it to court still increase the amount that a doctor has to pay for his Malpractice Insurance

This is a much better system, and one we should follow.

Why I have turned in my "I Like Fred" Bumper Sticker

Mr. Thompson

You are, in my opinion, one of the two best qualified candidates in the field. I respect your stances on issues, and would love to vote for you. However, these past few months, you have appeared indecisive as you continually flabble over whether or not you were going to run.

On top of that, a new candidate has appeared. This one has all the same qualities that you do, but seems to have a better sense of humor and a better executive experience. While I do not agree with him on all the issues, I do not agree with you on those exact same issues.

For me, Mike Huckabee has taken over the position. He has been gaining in the polls, and has even doubled his poll numbers in the past few months (from 2-4%). While he may not have much of a chance right now, I am trying to drum up support for the both of you. A primary between the two of you is one that could be considered a Win-Win for the Republican Party and the United States of America as a Whole.

People, vote Huckabee in the primary, get it down to Huckabee and Thompson, then we will all win.

Newsweek's Intellectual Bias (Part II)

You Know, this was a good argument, too bad it gets trounced with a small amount of knowledge

"To reinforce the appearance of uncertainty and disagreement, the denial machine churned out white papers and "studies" (not empirical research, but critiques of others' work). The Marshall Institute, for instance, issued reports by a Harvard University astrophysicist it supported pointing to satellite data showing "no significant warming" of the atmosphere, contrary to the surface warming. The predicted warming, she wrote, "simply isn't happening according to the satellite[s]." At the time, there was a legitimate case that satellites were more accurate than ground stations, which might be skewed by the unusual warmth of cities where many are sited."

The thing is, that the whole concept of the Heat Island Effect can be easily proven

In his book, State of Fear, Michael Crichton used information from the NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Database to gain the following information.

First: NASA recently re-distributed data proving that 1934 was the hottest year on record. This places the top five years on record in the 1930's.

Second: Lets compare New York City, West Point, New York, and Albany, New York

NY,NY: Increased by five degrees since 1836
Albany,NY: Decreased by a half degree since 1836
West Point, NY: No change since 1836

Meanwhile, in Pasadena, the temp has increased 4.5 degrees, while the temperature in Death Valley has changed by +.1 degree, both changes are since 1930.

Meanwhile, McGill, NV has cooled a full degree, Guthrie, OK has cooled two-thirds of a degree, Boulder, CO has cooled by a half degree, and Truman, MO has cooled by two degrees, with all the above taking place in non-built up areas where the Heat Island Effect cannot be registered.

More of the above are Greenville, SC, which has cooled a full degree, and Ann Arbor, MI, which has also cooled a full degree.

Internationally, Alice Springs, Aus, has had no change since 1879, Clyde, NWT, Can, has cooled a full degree since 1943, Christchurch, NZ, has barely warmed since 1864, and Kameenskoe, Siberia, has not changed temperature since 1949, Rome, Italy, hasn't warmed even .1 degree since 1811, Paris, France, hasn't changed since 1757, Stuttgart, Germany has cooled half a degree since 1792, Navacerrada, Spain has cooled a full degree since 1941, and Goteborg, Sweden has not changed since 1951.

In Asia meanwhile, the metropolises of Choshi, Japan, Lahore City, Pakistan, Takayama, Japan, and Tokyo Japan have all warmed. Tokyo showed the most pronounced, heating three degrees since 1876, when the Tokugawa Shogunate moved their capital to the city.

Now, I am going to nip this next one in the bud.

Katrina brought an onslaught of how these storms where caused by GW, and that the storms where going to increase in frequency and severity.

Well, the problem is, the opposite is happening.
1900-1909: 16 Hurricanes
1910-1919: 19 Hurricanes (Up 3)
1920-1929: 15 Hurricanes (Down 4)
1930-1939: 17 Hurricanes (Up 2)
1940-1949: 23 Hurricanes (Up 4)
1950-1959: 18 Hurricanes (Down 3)
1960-1969: 15 Hurricanes (Down 3)
1970-1979: 12 Hurricanes (Down 3)
1980-1989: 16 Hurricanes (Up 4)
1990-1999: 14 Hurricanes (Down 2)
2000-2009: 7 Hurricanes (Down 7)

Also, in 1998, we had El Nino, which resulted in a world-wide $15 BILLION dollar economic growth, this AFTER adding in the $1.5 billion that was lost because of ruined crops.

More to come tomorrow.

Newsweek's Intellectual Bias

Intellectual Bigotry is something that sticks in my craw. I have always hated bigotry of any kind, and get upset when my good name is impugned by someone using bigotry to do so.

In the recent Newsweek Article "Global Warming is a Hoax: Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change," the staff author Sharon Begley displayed a horrible intellectual bigotry in the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek.

In his blog, Okie, of Okie on the Lam, described the article as "an Orwellian tipping point in the Man-Caused Climate Change debate" in which he described, "lies becoming truth while the search for truth gets abandoned in the ensuing maelstrom."

Well said Okie.

The Newsweek article in my opinion resembled less an Orwellian Nightmare than an exercise in repression similar to that used in the Spanish Inquisition.

The most telling was the comparison to the tobacco industry. It is almost as bad as the comparison that was made about me to the racist jim crows during that one religion class.

“They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”

The Tobacco Industry, really? Is there any more tired comparisons they would like to trot out?

How about some link to the Nazi's? After all, some of the Warming Forum/Blog Trolls can't go more than a few words about those who disagree with them without making numerous references to Nazi's and the Waffen SS.

Well, the link was made, in a round-about way, but it was still made.

In what may be a key tactic of the denial machine - think tanks linking up the like-minded, contrarion researchers - the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're the minority, opts to be with you. "I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for concensus and much reason for scepticism," he told Scientific American magazine. "I did feel a moral obligation."

The emphasis was added by myself in the writing of this blog. Otherwise, it is word for word the story that was published in the magazine.

Then, there is this little gem of an argument that made me throw the magazine across the room in exasperation.

Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They "Settled on the 'Science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince th public to do nothing if climate change were real," says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who keeps a small farm where he raises prize-winning pumpkins and whose favorite weather, he once told a reporter, is "anything severe." Michaels had written several popular articles on Climate Change, including an op-ed in the Washington Post in 1989 warning of "apocalyptic environmentalism," which he called "the most popular new religion to come along since Marxism." The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science. (At a 1995 hearing in Minnesotta on coal-fired power plants, Michaels admitted that he received more than &165,000 from industry; he now declines to comment on his industry funding, asking, "What is this, a hatchet job?")

Wow, the amount of emphasis in that is eyecatching. The most telling is this Inquisitor's use of the funding argument. I would like to quote from Michael Chrichton's State of Fear here for a moment.

In this exchange, Peter Evans, a lawyer for Hasle & Black, is arguing with a group of Scientists over the data found in the Antarctic Post that I placed on here earlier today.

Evans picked up the sheet of paper again, and folded it carefully. He slipped it into his pocket. "These studies are probably financed by the coal industry."
Probably," Kenner said. "I'm sure that explains it. But them everybody's paid by somebody. Who pays your salary?"
"My Law firm."
"And who pays them?"
"The clients. We have several hundred clients."
"You do work for all of them?"
"Me, personally? No."
"In fact, you do most of your work for environment clients," Kenner said. "Isn't that true?"
"Mostly. Yes."
"Would it be fair to say that the environmental clients pay your salary?" Kenner said.
"You could make that argument."
"I'm just asking, Peter. Would it be fair to say environmentalists pay your salary?"
"Yes."
"Okay. Then would it be fair to say the opinions you hold are because you work for environmentalists?"
"Of course not-"
"You mean you're not a paid flunky for the environmental movement?"
"No. The fact is -"
"Your not an environmental stooge? A mouthpiece for a great fund raising and media machine - a multi-billion-dollar industry in its own right - with its own private agenda that's not necessarily in the Public Interest"
"God damn it -"
"Is this pissing you off?" Kenner said
"Your damn right it is!"
"Good," now you know how legitimate scientists feel when their integrity is impugned by slimy characterizations such as the one you just made. Sanjong and I gave you a careful, peer-reviewed interpretation of the data. Made by several groups of scientists from several different countries, and your first response was to ignore it, and then to make an ad hominem attack. You didn't answer the data. You didn't provide counter evidence. You just smeared with innuendo."

Though it is long, it is a very effective look at the mindset of the Goraclist Inquisitor who wrote the Newsweek article.

It continues:

Just before Kyoto, S. Fred Singer released the "Leipzig Declartion on Global Climate Change." Singer, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria as a boy, had run the U.S. weather-satellite program in the early 1960s. In the Leipzig petition, just over 100 scientists and others, including TV weathermen, said they “cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes.” Unfortunately, few of the Leipzig signers actually did climate research; they just kibitzed about other people’s.

Wow, so because some of the people where "TV Weathermen," a diminutive term for a Meteorologist, they do not count. So Weather Scientists do not count huh? Wow, that is the most elitist comment I have ever heard.

There will be more on this little piece of filth later. For now, I need to take a break. All this bigotry hurts my brain.

Antarctica

The Antarctic Peninsula has been the subject in Al Gore's Travesty of a movie, though the conclusions made by the film are wrong.

First: In the movie, Al Gore talks about how the breakup happened in March. All the while, he was fooling the people by "failing" to mention the fact that March is the end of the Southern Hemisphere Summer, and that the Peninsula breaks up every year.

Second: The Peninsula is only 2 percent of the entire continent.

Third: The continent is getting colder, starting in 86, at .7 degrees Celsius per decade. This leads to a total of 1.4 degrees Celsius. That is twice the warming of the earth that the Goraclists are claiming. (Documented in "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response" in Nature Magazine by Doran, P. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., et al. in 2002.)

Fourth: Side-Looking radar has shown that after 6,000 years of melting, the Ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. in the West Antarctic. (Documented in "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica" in Science Magazine, Joughin, I., and Tulaczyk, S., in 2002)

Fifth: Ninety Percent of the water in the world is locked in Antarctica. Therefore, when a person talks about how the Arctic is melting, point out that with four percent of the Ice locked up in Grennland, only six percent of the ice is divided around the glaciers and the North Pole. That is not a lot of Ice.

So, based on this, there is no threat from the Arctic Circle melting. After all, the Antarctic is growing at four times the rate that the Arctic is melting. Something to remember.

Time to start listening

Since 2005, I have warned my friends, family, and anyone that would listen that China is going to be an enemy. While some listened, most people wrote me off as a McCarthy wannabe.

This would be much easier to overcom, if people would just google the stuff I have been talking about. From China's Industrial Espionage, to the Battle Plans, to their determination to take over Taiwan. Now, they have done what could be considered an Act of War.

The PLA regularly probes US military networks – and the Pentagon is widely assumed to scan Chinese networks – but US officials said the penetration in June raised concerns to a new level because of fears that China had shown it could disrupt systems at critical times.

Hackers from numerous locations in China spent several months probing the Pentagon system before overcoming its defences, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Pentagon took down the network for more than a week while the attacks continued, and is to conduct a comprehensive diagnosis. “These are multiple wake-up calls stirring us to levels of more aggressive vigilance,” said Richard Lawless, the Pentagon’s top Asia official at the time of the attacks.

The Pentagon is still investigating how much data was downloaded, but one person with knowledge of the attack said most of the information was probably “unclassified”. He said the event had forced officials to reconsider the kind of information they send over unsecured e-mail systems.

According to The Financial Times, the Chinese Military has once again found their way into the Pentagon's Military Mainframe. And it is not just the United States either, since Prime Minister Merkel took over Germany, the probes into their databases by Chinese Military have been on the rise.


The ability that the PLA is showing with these attacks is scary, as it gives them an unprecedented level of Intel capabilites that the United States is having trouble counteracting.

when the war comes, Communications are not going to be hit very hard, but at least we are preparing in ways the press has no knowledge of, and no ability to reveal to the public.

The US Air Force will soon create a cyber war-fighting command aimed at improving defensive and offensive capabilities to counter such asymmetric threats. “We want to ensure that we can operate freely in the domain,” says Major General Charles Ickes, another senior Air Force official involved with cyberspace issues. “On the other hand . . . it is seen by everybody in the defence department as a war-fighting domain and you must have offensive capability.”

Gen Ickes says the military must ensure that its actions do not inadvertently impact on US civilian computer systems. Michael Green, former senior Asia adviser to President George W. Bush, points to an example where the Pentagon had to consider the legal ramifications of blasting a virus back at a hacker.

In an increasingly networked world, governments must consider an even wider range of cyber threats, including terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure, commercial espionage, and old-fashioned spying.

But it gets worse. Did you notice that part in there about the Terrorists using this against us?

Sami Saydjari, chief executive of Cyber Defense Agency and a former Pentagon cyber expert, warns of the potential for terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, to attack the financial, telecoms, and power sectors.

To underscore the threat, he notes that no cyber red team – hackers enlisted to attack systems to help identify weaknesses – has ever failed to meet its objective.

Gregory Garcia, the assistant secretary for cyber security at the department of Homeland Security, says the number of cyber incidents reported to the department’s computer readiness team so far this year is 35,000. That compares to 4,100 for the whole of 2005.

Thank you Financial Times, I think you cured my lack of Insomnia.