Sunday, July 26, 2009

My favorite place in the entire world

This is how I stay sane...

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Friday, July 24, 2009

The truth about the "45 Million Uninsured"

We keep hearing this number over and over: 45 Million Americans uninsured. Again and again we hear this as part of the scare tactic of those that would have the government take over 1/6 of the United States' economy.

So, what are the facts about these unfortunate 45 million uninsured?

First of all, let's do some quick math. That means that over 250 million Americans have health insurance. That's 85% of the population. Who are the remaining 15%?

Illegal aliens: 10 million of these 45 million are not in the country legally. Clearly the taxpayer has no responsibility to pay for their healthcare.

Young people: 18 million of the uninsured are between 18 and 35. These are typically healthy people, living without health insurance by CHOICE.

That is well over half of the 45 million, leaving only 17 million uninsured. I heard today that over 1 million of these are eligible for Medicare, but have not registered, for whatever reason. That means that about 95% of Americans citizens that want healthcare insurance already have it, and the 5% who don't, are not the same people in any given 12 month period. That means that many of these are people who are uninsured for a short period of time, and then have insurance again, replaced by someone else who temporarily falls off the insurance rolls. This is probably employment related.

This does not mean that we don't need to improve the system, and I have like some of the concepts I've heard (which I'll detail at a later time), but we do not have a crisis of the sort described by liberals in power, outside of funding the disaster of programs we already have under government control, and liberals' ambitions to derive more power by nationalizing healthcare.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The Deafening Silence of Kay Bailey Hutchison

In my reflection on last night's Obamacare press conference, I cannot help but wonder if Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-Texas) apparent recent laryngectomy would have been covered. Where is the Senior Senator from Texas? I have heard a lot from Senator Cornyn, but while Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their accomplices engage in their daily windup to destruction of this country, Senator Hutchison is silent. I have written her to ask, but have only received form-letter responses, seemingly based on "keywords" in my written query.

Her absence from the debate on Sotomayor, Cap and Trade, and Obamacare takes her out of qualification in her quest to be elected Governor of this great state. My first thought when hearing Senator Hutchison's gubernatorial aspirations, was that she would be a great governor, but her leadership would be needed in the senate minority. Now that she has vanished, I don't want her in either seat. Please make your retirement from public life official Senator, and resign while Governor Perry can appoint a worthy replacement.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Red pill/Blue pill

President Obama tonight gave his sales pitch for Obamacare/healthcare reform tonight during a primetime press conference. I had to go for a walk on the beach just to keep my head from exploding. The entire thing was a giant smokescreen for government healthcare.

As absurd as his assertions were, including his repeated references to "market-based solutions", which is the exact opposite of the actual proposal, there is just one analogy he proposed that keeps coming back to me. He tried to say something about a patient having a choice between a "red pill" and a "blue pill", which would provide similar outcomes, and that patients should have access to the red pill if it's less expensive. I could not agree more. Where his analogy falls apart is that he wants a government bureaucrat deciding which pill the patient gets (and IF they get it), instead of the consumer/patient making that decision for themselves. A bureaucrat making healthcare decisions for individuals is NOT a market-based solution. It just drives me insane that he gets away with wrapping his proposals in this conservative language, when the reality is such the opposite.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

False choices

Healthcare battle 'isn't about me': Obama

This headline made me laugh. Obama seems to think EVERYTHING is about him. When it comes to a healthcare bill he's trying to ram through by next month, one that will change the very foundation of this country, to hear him say it's not about him is just laughable.

What really drives me nuts about this article is a common strategy used by liberals. In pitching his healthcare plan, Obama says, "There are some in this town who are content to perpetuate the status quo, are in fact fighting reform on behalf of powerful special interests". This is just a ludicrous statement, to imply that anyone opposing his massive government takeover of healthcare is supporting the "status quo", and that they are evilly doing so on behalf of some mysterious "special interest". The implication is that "if you don't support my plan, then you support doing nothing, and are aligning yourself with these evil special interests who are profitting off of keeping things the way they are". It's insulting to believe that we will accept that "false choice", but Obama is so arrogant that he believes we will accept everything he tells us as plain fact, especially after it's blown back at us by the media as the gospel straight from the mouth of the messiah.

The fact is, that the only special interest being supported here is the ever-expanding federal government, with the full cooperation of the slobbering Democrats in Washington, drunk on their massive majority power.

Good news is, that I think this is the turning point in the liberal accumulation of power. They have absolutely hung themselves with such a rapid power grab, that even the most politically myopic voter can clearly see. SC Senator Jim DeMint called this healthcare bill Obama's "Waterloo". I think I have to concur.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Barbara Boxer called out

Liberals do this all the time. Barbara Boxer gets called out for playing identity politics with an African American man who wants to be judged by the content of his character.

Update: Interview with Harry Alford on the O'Reilly Factor

Obamacare legislation in the Senate effectively outlaws private health insurance

Well, he promised change:

FYI: This piece of crap legislation has already passed committee in the Senate

Monday, July 13, 2009

Convenient Truth: Global warming is totally BUNK

There just seems to be an amazing abundance of news out there these days debunking man-made global warming. Every day this crusade by Algore and his followers is more and more exposed for the scam that it is.

This quote by Australian Geologist Ian Plimer, who says modern environmentalism is driven by people who are "too wealthy", is very insightful:
‘When I try explaining “global warming” to people in Iran or Turkey they have no idea what I’m talking about. Their life is about getting through to the next day, finding their next meal. Eco-guilt is a first-world luxury. It’s the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity. The IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets.’

Here are a couple of more articles providing more rational thought around the reality of "climate change".

Meet the Man Who has Exposed the Great Climate Change Con Trick

The Global Warming Debate

Damned Global Warming Skeptics

Plug-in electric cars

HA! I have been saying this for years....what good will it do to move from gasoline powered cars to electric cars? The power to charge the battery has to be generated in some way, so it just shifts the alleged problem somewhere else. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with coal-fired power, and more importantly, building new nuclear power plants to power our electrical grids, but this just shows that these grandiose solutions proposed by our politicians have not been thought through to the obvious conclusions. They are just soundbites, designed to support their "environmentally conscious" campaign persona.

Not So Fast With Those Electric Cars

Alternative Energy: A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.

It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

On top of that, these little cars are deathtraps. I heard a story recently of a 19-year old girl in Houston driving her "Smart-car", who was killed when hit by a pickup. As you can imagine, the little Smart-car did not stand a chance. I'm guessing she would have walked away, had she been driving an SUV, or other vehicle of any substantial weight/size.


Wednesday, July 8, 2009

How to confuse an environmental activist

It's not hard to do. This past Sunday, I attended the Vans Warped Tour in Dallas, with my 14-year old daughter, and her friend and friend's dad. There were booths set up all over the grounds of the music festival, and as you can imagine, there was a presence from environmental activist groups, including Greenpeace.

I stopped by the Greenpeace booth a couple of times. Since I was not dressed in any way that would give away my status as a "Conservative Activist", I decided to pretend I was a militant environmental wacko (with a twist, of course). My first visit to the Greenpeace booth was simple. I just asked the guy if he was really in Greenpeace, and told him I had once seen the Rainbow Warrior (Greenpeace ship) in the harbor in Baltimore. He was impressed by this, and it seemed to greatly enhance my credibility, as he had never himself seen the ship.

I asked him what they were doing to save the environment, and expressed my disappointment with President Obama and his inaction on taking real steps to improve the environment. Both dudes in the booth quickly agreed, and dogpiled Obama, calling him an "actor" who just said what it takes to get elected. I was surprised with how quickly they turned on Obama, but I kept pressing on, and punctuating my sentences with the word "man", and trying to sound disgruntled. I bashed Obama several times, questioning his motivation on the recent climate change bill that had passed the House, and this seemed to fire them up even more. They really bit when I speculated the "outsourcing" of jobs and manufacturing to countries with less regulation, and that that would actually cause MORE pollution and CO2 emissions worldwide, exacerbating the problem.

Later, I came back by the booth, and noticed the solar panel next to the tent. By this time, there was a chick working the booth, and the other two dudes were gone. I asked her if it was a functioning solar panel, and she replied that it was. I asked her if the entire tour was run on solar energy. She said it was not, and looked a little sheepish and seemed ashamed. Being a concerned citizen of the world, I pressed on.....

At this point she was obviously feeling pressured. My next step was to inquire about the total carbon footprint of the tour. She quickly admitted that she did not know, and was eager to refer me to the "tour information booth" down the aisle. She did tell me though, that she was pretty sure that the tour was being powered by biofuels. This was the opening I had been looking for. At the mention of biofuels, I got visibly angry, and went on a rant about biofuels causing starvation in the third world. It was something like this: "How can freaking Americans be so arrogant to think they have a right to starve these poverty stricken populations just so we can feel better about our carbon emissions? Besides that, the demand for biofuels is resulting in the razing of the rainforests, as farmers in other countries rush to grow these crops." I went on a verbal rampage for as long as I could, and then stormed off in a "rage" as fast as possible to get in the clear before I broke out into uncontrollable laughter.

This mission was so much fun, that I tried (unsuccessfully) to find the PETA booth to see what kind of trouble I could cause there.

I love outdoor concerts, even in the heat of the Texas Summer (we were blessed with a cool day of about 90 degrees this time), and I enjoyed seeing all the bands, and the people watching, of course. I was there for the music, and for the time with my daughter. Harassing enviro-nuts was just a bonus.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

"The Science is settled"

Isn't that what they keep telling us? The science is settled right? "Scientific consensus."

If that's the case, why do the global warming alarmists have to keep muzzling dissent? This time it's a polar bear expert, banned from speaking at the "Polar Bear Specialist Group" meeting (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission). Why would they ban Dr. Mitchell Taylor, who has been researching polar bears in the Arctic for over 30 years? Simply because of his views on human-induced climate change. He agrees that the Arctic is warming, but believes it to be due to ocean currents and wind, NOT by rising CO2. He also notes that during the past 30 years, polar bear populations have GROWN, not declined. For these positions, the polar bear expert is barred from speaking at the polar bear meeting.

I guess if they can silence the dissenters (does that sound kind of "Soviet"?), then they can maintain "scientific consensus", whatever that is.

(Note: The image of the polar bear above has been widely used to demonstrate the plight of the poor polar bears, being stranded and destroyed due to human (American) pillaging of the planet with noxious CO2. This image was actually taken by a photographer who says the bears were not in danger, but were "playing" on an ice flow.)