It’s Resolution Time

New Year’s Eve and it’s time to make some new deals with life. The calendar is close to being ready to flip. I better get my act together, because a new age is dawning. The government is changing, and real change is coming. The economic recession is about to hit bottom as witnessed by the prior bottoming of the stock market. Things are going to get better. I had better resolve to get better with it.

Therefore, first, I resolve to loose weight. I could stand to drop 50 pounds. The question is do I have the fortitude to forswear fattening foots. Twenty years ago, I quit a 35 year smoking habit by going cold turkey. That experience tells me I have the ability to suffer, but not whether I have the will power to succeed in reducing my intake of an essential of life. I might as well try, because if I don’t, I’ll be embarrassed at my next physical when I have to get on the scales.

Secondly, I resolve to exercise daily. I just hope my knees can take it. Enough said.

Third, I am going to get going earlier in the day, while the day is young. I resolve not to work any puzzles until after supper. Two crosswords, a suduko, and a Cryptoquip can eat up a good 60 minutes a day, time that can be better spent in an activity that has tangible results like home repairs, watercolors, putting practice, house cleaning, yard work, vehicle maintenance, etc. Heck, I thought I was retired. Not so, it seems like I have more to do know than when I was working.

Fourth, I resolve to continue blogging. But, instead of tripe like this, I pledge to actually do some research so what I write will be original, more interesting and readable. Stay tuned.

Well, that’s let see, what will my next topic be? I know, New Years predictions. My first one will be that none of the above will be kept. I hope I’m wrong and predictions usually are. So, perhaps there is hope for me after all.

Christmas Is Over

The decorations are put away for another year. The last Christmas cards arrive with an acknowledgement that they're late, but still in time for New Years greetings. The radio has stopped playing Christmas songs and the Christmas CDs are returned to storage, replaced by classical CDs. The alleged War on Christmas, allegedly being conducted by atheists, secularists, and those persons who want their speech to be politically correct, halts for a truce, awaiting another season to renew its imagined onslaught of neutral greetings and misplaced emphasis. All Hail! The weather even turns mild, if just for an occasional day or two, mocking Winter and the fury of wind, snow, ice, and cold. Retail sales are tallied and found to be lacking, compared to previous years. Students are awaiting new school terms after the old year's calendar is replaced by the new year's. The media has switched to full year-end mode with a recap of the news stories and milestones of the past 12 months. This year, in this sense, at this time, is no different than last. I still look forward to the new year with hope, but what I'd like most would be just to leave some stuff behind.

The Taliban's Achilles Heel

Most news reports about the war-like exploits of the Taliban relate how groups of them travel about Afghanistan in pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs with guns and mounted weapons like machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. Such vehicles are also the common means of delivery of bombs by suicide operators. The Taliban is also said to be ubiquitous in the population and difficult to locate, hence difficult to engage militarily and to destroy them.

The presence of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs in a rural community would indicate the possible presence of Taliban members. A strategy to impair the ability of the Taliban to conduct operations in the countryside would be to simply ban the use of pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs and destroy by aerial attack any pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs operating along roads or trails. The control of these vehicles would make Taliban members march like soldiers of olden days, severely limiting their range and speed of operation. Besides reducing their ability to operate militarily, banning pickup trucks, sedans and SUVs would probably reduce their ability to recruit. Concealment of a vehicle by garaging or camouflaging it would not matter, as the vehicle would only be a target when used. It would be back to the donkey cart for the Afghan farmer for local transport.

It would be difficult for replacement vehicles to be smuggled into Afghanistan, because control points could be established along the sparse road system's few border crossings. Collateral damage in the form of civilian deaths could be diminished by announcing that any vehicle operating on a roadway or trail would be a target of opportunity and treated accordingly. Let the rider beware. Legitimate vehicular transport of people and goods could be accomplished by government operated or leased bus transport and trucking services. Night time operations could be countered by use of infra-red vision equipment and heat-seeking missiles. Essentially, the plan is to cover Afghanistan with a no-drive zone, much as Iraq was restricted by a no-fly zone.

If there is going to be an all-out effort to vanquish the Taliban, I think it should begin by denying them motor transport.

Solving the world's problems, one at a time.

Doctor Shortage

The KC Star, my primary connection to the world, reported on the approach of a nation-wide shortage of medical doctors, and by extrapolation, I presume other health care professions as well. The shortage is attributed to an aging physician population that is not being replaced by newly educated doctors. The problem is not new and no solution to my reckoning other than encouraging the study of science is being promoted. Of course, in addition to the limitations imposed by medical schools on the number of physicians trained and graduated to medical practice annually, is the formidable barrier of financial cost. There are a few scholarship programs, mostly by private charitable foundations that target minorities and ethnic groups or are available only to medical students who pass the first year. Also, traditionally, medical doctors, due to their potential earning power, have not been seen as a priority for financial assistance other than loans.

If the shortage of doctors is to be overcome, the medical schools are going to have to increase their capacity to train doctors and other medical professions and a source of funding found for scholarships that increase access by qualified students for medical school. I suggest that the industry groups whose prosperity depends on the health care system contribute funds for scholarships. Drug manufacturers, pharmacies, health insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, hospital corporations, health equipment manufacturers and suppliers, hospitals and ambulance builders are all industry groups that depend on having an adequate supply of medical professionals serving a larger clientele.

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest between scholarship fund providers and scholarship beneficiaries, the scholarship program should be administered by an independent organization, possibly part of the National Institutes for Health or similar agency that can maximize the societal benefits. To further insulate the funds providers from the fund dispensers, the donors could be encouraged by variable tax credits, according to the demand for doctors. For example, an initial endowment could be established by granting 100 per cent tax credits, with the credit percentage reducing as endowment income increases and/or the demand for physicians decreases. However it happens, something needs to be done, if you want a doctor when you need one.

Solving the world's problems, one at a time.

Kansas Kristmas Karaoke

No good idea should go unreported, as no good deed should go unpunished. In Kansas business districts, large and small, mixed among the stores and offices are what Kansans politely refer to as ‘watering holes’. These watering holes are in fact beer joints, taverns or bars. In these watering holes are electronic devices called karaoke machines, which mix music and vocal tracts for entertainment. In the same business centers, street light poles bear loudspeakers that are connected to an amplifier in the chamber of commerce office, the library or the city hall, whichever unlucky place happened to be where the business district committee who proposed it decided it should be housed. These two technologies, the karaoke machine and the outdoor loudspeaker, could be combined to provide holiday music for the business district. Can’t you imagine Christmas songs like Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer and Hark the Herald Angels Sing performed by barleycorn celebrants wafting across the roof-tops and sidewalks of the shopper’s paradise? I can foresee Kristmas Karaoke festivals throughout the state with thousands in attendance brightening the fortunes of many a Kansas merchant.

Smoking Ban Pudding

After receiving a comment to a previous post (Kansas City, Kansas, Smoking Ban) that questioned the effectiveness of bans on tobacco smoking in public places, I consulted a professional with a major university cancer research program. I was told that a recent 'map' on the decrease in number of cancer deaths per 100 cancer diagnoses across the US showed that the number of deaths from cancer were dramatically decreased in those states which have instituted public smoking bans - with the lowest numbers being in those states which have had the bans the longest (i.e., CA, OR). The researcher asserted that those results are pretty good proof for the argument for a ban on public smoking. I would imagine that smoking ban opponents would say that those numbers are just more false propaganda from the anti-smokers. However, as the adage goes, the proof is in the pudding.

Angels and Elves

Christmas is a time when superstition reigns. Angels and elves, fictitious beings from ancient cultures, figure prominently in the myths of Christmas. Angels, messengers from deities, provided the link between man and the supernatural in early religions of the cradle of civilization from Greece to India. Elves were the pagan's way of interpreting events that had no apparent or comprehended cause. The allure of these mystical, inaginary creatures as a connection to the supernatural is so great even today that they persist in our imaginations. An overwhelming number of people actually believe that angels, the biblical term, are real. Many can cite an incident from their lives where they feel they encountered a angel. They have no other rational explanation why a stranger assisted them in some important and possibly life saving way. Fewer believe in elves or fairies or genies, I suspect because they are from the pagan tradition and clearly referenced as fictitious in literature, that is, they don't have the authority of scripture to bolster their reputation. The belief in messengers from god(s) is a harmless infatuation with the possibility that magic can be part of our lives. It's a relief from the drudgery of typical days, which is what holidays are all about. Enjoy.

Letter to Santa Claus

I was cleaning out some old files and came across a newspaper from Christmas 1948. Flipping through it's yellowed crackly pages, I found printed therein a letter to Santa that I had written as a 10-year old. My letter reads as follows:

Dear Santa Claus:
I would like to have a sled and a football to go along with it for Christmas. I would also like to have a flesh bulb holder and a pair of ice skates for this winter. I do not now to ice skate; that is why I want the ice skates. I want the flesh bulb holder for my Agfa camera. Your good boy.
P.S. Please stick in a 22 long riffle and some bubble gum by mistake. I'will keep it secret.

I can't remember whether I got any of the gifts requested. I may have got the sled to share with my brothers. I know I didn't get a football, a flash for my camera, ice skates, a rifle or bubblegum. Somehow, I think my brothers and I had a football at our disposal.

I bought myself ice skates when I was in my thirties. I learned to ice skate so I could clear snow from the ice so my children could skate. Thankfully, I could lean on the shovel to stay erect until I developed enough skill to manage on my own.

I have never owned a 22-caliber rifle. At 10 years old, I didn't realize that the word 'long' referred to the shell casing size rather than the rifle's barrel length. I can't imagine why I even asked for one. I guess I was just trying to push the envelope with Santa. I ended up owning two pistols, a fine shotgun and a bolt-action 30-06 rifle.

One thing I didn't ask for, but could have used was better spelling skills. Somehow I picked those up along the way.

The moral of this story is: Ask, and if you don't receive, don't loose faith. You may eventually get what you want, even if you have to pay for it yourself.

Top Ten Reasons Bristol Is Not Married

Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol who is pregnant has not taken the marriage vows with the baby’s father, Levi Johnson. With the birth to occur any day now, nuptials might be a pressing issue. But, alas, apparently they are not. So, David Letterman style, here are the top ten reasons why a wedding hasn’t happened:
10. They decided to put the baby up for adoption.
9. The wedding idea was only political spin for propriety’s sake.
8. The church burned, causing a delay in the vows.
7. They want the baby to have the Palin name to start a political legacy.
6. Levi had to stop work on their new cabin for the winter.
5. Bristol can’t fit into her wedding gown.
4. Levi can’t afford it. He had to put up bail money for his mother.
3. Bristol would lose her health insurance coverage to pay for the birth.
2. They believe they are already married in the eyes of God.
1. Grandmother Palin can’t decide on which dress to wear at the ceremony.

Kansas City, Kansas, Smoking Ban

A unique feature of the smoking ban adopted Thursday by the 'Unigov" council is an exemption license. For $250 annually, a business can be exempted from the ban for up to three years until December 31, 2011. Backers of the ban were disappointed by the exemption, because it would leave a business's employees exposed to second-hand smoke (or their own) for 3 more years. I see the exemption license as a positive move. The display of the license will tell non-smokers of the risk before they enter, which will permit them to avoid the polluted atmosphere. Exempt business will undoubtedly be culling non-smokers from their clientele and reducing their market by 75% and paying for the privilege at the same time. Isn't that great, only in America.

Conservative Confusion

When a conservative admits that the country has gone downhill over the last eight years under Bush and the NeoCons, but claims that, if the Democrats had been in charge, things would be a lot worse, is s/he saying that all the misdeeds and mistakes that the Bush administration committed would have occurred anyway regardless of which party was in power? Is this claim an admission of malfeasance and misfeasance or merely a dodge to deny that the errant policies of the Far Right have brought us to the brink of economic ruin? I don't want to imagine conditions being a lot worse that they are now. Let's hope the Democrats do better over the next four years at least, if only in digging out of the hole left by the Bushites.

Faraway Alaska

Today, the Huffington Post (HP) reports that Alaska officials are investigating racist jokes about President-elect Barack Obama that have circulated on state e-mail accounts. HP reports that it appears the original e-mails were sent to state employees from outside the state system, but some state employees forwarded them. According to HP, the personnel files of state workers who circulated the jokes will be examined for a pattern of similar behavior and that discipline will be determined by past behaviors and could range from diversity training to letters of reprimand.

I know that Alaska is somewhat remote geographically from the lower 48 states, but is it also so remote from mainstream America that diversity training is considered a form of discipline?

Those Damned Trial Lawyers

The claim is often heard that, with the possible exception of Wall Street financiers, there is no other group that has had a more damaging impact on the economy than trial lawyers. Persons making this claim seem to forget that trial lawyers represent both plaintiffs and defendants. Railing against trial lawyers is akin to killing the messenger. It is plaintiffs who seek compensation from defendants to redress acts that have harmed them. Thus, it could be said that it is greedy or careless people who both invite and initiate law suits who are more damaging to the economy.

Some say that, despite the plaintiffs, there is the evidence that trial lawyers are a greedy bunch, when many cases are taken with a promise of payment only if a monetary settlement or award is achieved. I maintain that, if contingency fees are what drives justice for the oppressed, so be it.

Sure, we are a litigious society, but would you rather we obtain recompense for harm by violent retribution? Is there a better system based on free enterprise than the one we have?

Tis the Season...

I heard on TV that, based on the convergence of stars necessary to produce the large star in the East that the Magi followed to Bethlehem, some astronomers figured out that Jesus had to have been born in June. There those darn scientists go again, messing with religion. I sure hope they get the date of Jesus's birth straightened out. I can’t afford Christmas twice a year.

Opposing Conservative and Liberals Views: Foreign Policy

Conservative (CON): What was especially scary during the campaign was Joe Biden’s statement that we will face a foreign policy crisis during the first six months of an Obama administration because America’s enemies will be eager to test Obama. During the campaign no better argument for the election of John McCain was presented. Unfortunately, it has not been the compelling argument it should have been. The President of the United States is the man in charge of the conduct of our foreign policy. As a nation, we are more secure when we and our enemies know how our President will respond to challenges from our enemies. It will help immensely if a President Obama is able to articulate to the world, to our friends as well as our enemies, a foreign policy that clearly indicates that America will vigorously defend its vital interests in the world. However, when Obama sits down, without preconditions, and talks with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chavez and the Castros, more confusion than certainty will be created. So, when tested, how will Obama respond? The fact that we are asking this question is bad for America.

Liberal (LIB): Biden may be right. We may be challenged by an enemy. That’s was enemies do. Biden also said that Obama is better suited to meet a crisis and that his response will be appropriate and effective. Obama will vigorously defend our vital world interests. Why would you think otherwise? As for setting “pre-conditions”, the Bush approach, that hasn’t worked. If you meet without preconditions, at least you’re talking and not bombing.

Playing Catch-up- Missouri vs. Kansas

The director of the Life Sciences and Society Program at the University of Missouri-Columbia laments the problems that scientists confront in getting scientific messages across to the public. To illustrate his point, he told about his talk at a recent orientation session for visiting freshmen legislators where he mentioned, as an example of attempts to do scientific outreach and public education, that the program would be co-sponsoring events to commemorate Darwin's birthday and the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species. Later, he learned that a couple of the legislators were offended that Darwin would be honored and expressed irritation. The director opined that scientists have a long way to go in furthering public awareness of science.

Staff and faculty of state universities must be careful not to alienate legislators from the Religious Right whose fundamentalist beliefs place them in opposition to science, because the universities depend on the legislature for appropriations. Perhaps, the scientists at the University of Missouri-Columbia and other state institutions of higher education could use the assistance of an independent citizen’s group to further public awareness of science. Such organizations exist in at least sixteen other states, including neighboring Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. Creating an organization to promote science education both in out-state Missouri and metropolitan St. Louis and Kansas City would help provide public support for science-based economic initiatives.

The importance of public understanding and support for scientific endeavors is emphasized by a report in this morning’s KC Star that, “The University of Missouri wants to establish laboratories and expand ties with bioscience and alternative energy companies at a new 500-acre research park proposed in Blue Springs”. The Blue Springs Economic Development Corp. proposes $50 million to $70 million for land and infrastructure along I-70 and has reached out to university and area civic leaders to generate support. Bio-science is a top regional priority for generating high-growth, high-paying jobs. The Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute sees the Blue Springs project as a major way for Missouri to keep pace with the recent bio-science momentum in Kansas.

GPS Navigation Unit Buyer's Guide

I was thinking about getting a GPS car navigation unit, so I did some research on what I found were moving targets. In the end, I decided that Google maps and advance planning could get me where I wanted to go without laying out the cash or having the hassle of keeping a GPS navigation unit operational. However, even though I am not buying one, I'm willing to share my research. Here is what I learned.

There are about ten different manufacturers of GPS navigation units. Garmin is 2:1 over TOMTOM with the number of models being offered by more stores. The basic feature, screen size, is either 4.3 or 3.5 inches with a few larger screens offered. There are many other variations in features among the brands and models offered: extensiveness of map coverage, turn-by-turn voice directions or not, multiple routing options or not, time/distance to destination calculations or not, touch screen operation with or without stylus or not, power supply (12-volt cigarette lighter plug connecting cord, rechargeable batteries and AC/DC home and car charger or not), mounting systems or not, pre-loaded points of interest or not, type of satellite acquisition technology, expandable destinations or maps via computer download with or without USB cable or not, carrying cases or not, warranties, day/night screen viewing or not, 2D/3D with zoom or not, earphone jack or not, and flash memory(?) or not. There's plenty of features and options to pick from, depending on the model and the sophistication desired.

The most offered Garmin units are the 4.3-inch model 205 and 255. Since typically all the features are not listed in the limited space of an ad, one must assume that the 255 model has more features than the 205 model. The 255 sale price range of $190 to $250 compared to the 205 model price range of $150 to $200 also suggests that this is the case. The 3.5-inch models range from $150 to $180 for the 255 and from $120 to $130 for the 205. TOMTOM 4.3-inch units are higher priced than Garmin's, from $200 to $350, while 3.5-inchers at $100 to $200 overlap the Garmin unit at both extremes. These prices don't include a carrying case, but one may be offered as a sweetener.

GPS units are typically sold by sporting goods, office supply, electronics and big-box discount stores. The after-Thanksgiving ads that I reviewed had the best deal for the Garmin 255 model at BESTBUY ($190) and for the Garmin 205 model at Cabela's or an office supply store: Office Depot, OfficeMax or Staples, all at $150. The best price for a TOMTOM XL330 4.3-inch nav unit was at OfficeMax for $200. The most available TOMTOM Go One 125 was uniformly offered for $100 in all types of stores.

If you decide you just have to have a GPS navigation unit, do your research before you buy. When you have settled on the brand and model you think fit you, watch the ads for special offers and be ready to rush to get the best deal, because it will probably be a loss leader to get you in the store and switch you to a higher priced unit.

The Truth about Sarah Palin

Sarah came on strong, declaring herself a soccer mom, which was like a pit bull with lipstick. The line, "pit bull with lipstick" was obviously designed to portray Sarah as one tough, no nonsense lady, who could turn Washington, D.C. topsy-turvy. Last August, I was in Alaska just before Sarah burst onto the national scene in the unlikely role as the GOP's vice-presidential candidate. While on that trip, I learned that the revered Alaskan woman was not a soccer mom with lipstick. Rather, she was a musher with Chapstick who ran the Iditarod or Yukon Quest with a dog team that she personally trained from pups to pull a sled that she had built herself for a race through the wilderness. So much for Sarah's claim of toughness, when the real Alaskan woman is trail tough and determined to succeed by her own merits, not by political attacks. The lady musher is a woman I admire.

The facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

President Bush, after having a shoe hurled at him by an Iraqi TV reporter, quipped that all he knew was that the shoe was a size 10. On the morning news on the KC affiliate of ABC, the morning anchor said that a size 10 shoe was thrown at President Bush. Really? The producer, writer and anchor should have questioned the assertion that the shoe was in fact a size 10. No one, not even the beady-eyed Bush, can tell the size of a shoe as it whizzes by one's head, especially when ducking to avoid being hit. When I watch and listen to the TV news all I want is the facts, not quips reported as facts. Who writes the crap these news anchors read? Idiots, that's who. It's time that TV stations started making an IQ test part of their hiring process.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Military Readiness

Conservative (CON): During the presidential campaign, it became clear that Obama shares in the congenital disdain for the military that many democrats exhibit. Otherwise, why did he make so many frequent references to the cost of prosecuting the war in Iraq? It is obvious he would rather have that money to spend on domestic social programs. It is as if the military is an unwanted stepchild whose support comes with a cost that is always lamented. Our national defense depends on a strong military and, if our commander-in-chief is not committed to a strong military, the likelihood that we will have a strong military is remote. It is still a very dangerous world we live in. Any move by Obama to weaken the military will be bad for America. But, do you trust him to maintain a strong military.

Liberal (LIB): It is a mistake to equate opposition to the war in Iraq with a lack of support for the military. The point with regard to defense spending is that we wisely develop and direct our military resources. Questioning Obama’s commitment to a strong military is equivalent to accusing him of undermining national security.

CON: Obama's military policy will weaken national security. He's a liberal democrat. It's in his DNA.

LIB: You haven't got a clue as to what Obama's military policy will be, so how can you say it will ‘weaken national security'. Since when is DNA part of one's political make-up. It's a cute catch phrase, but utterly meaningless.

CON: Having Obama in charge of our national security is like going into the Super Bowl with a rookie QB. Let's hope he doesn't get sacked.

LIB: There you go again. Cute catch phrases, but no substance.

CON: What I meant by linking Obama’s DNA to the DNA of liberal democrats is to say that, historically, liberal democrats have not favored a strong military. With the Democrats in charge, they and Obama are likely to reduce or weaken our military forces. The Honorable Barney Frank has already indicated his desire to reduce military spending. Obama’s appointment of a retired Marine general to be his National Security Adviser may be a sign that I worry too much. Then again, having a Marine in his camp may just be for show. We’ll see.

LIB: Barney Frank is not President. This is standard Republican crap, quilt by association. There’s really no point in continuing this discussion. Republicans claiming to be strong for national defense is pure flag-waving. A strong national defense requires that financial resources be devoted to its achievement. A party that wants tax cuts and more tax cuts can never amass the funds necessary to keep our military strong.

Changing History

Last week, on CBS's Sunday Morning program, the announcer said that Harvey Milk's tenure on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was a year that changed history. It's common to say that something changed history. I'll say it was surely a year that made history, but you really can't change history. Saying that something changed history is technically impossible. History is the past and you can't change the past. To quote, Omar Khayyam, as adapted by Edward Fitzgerald's in the Rubaiyat:

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on:
nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

Thrown Shoes

The Huffington Post reports that "An Iraqi television journalist hurled two shoes at President Bush on Sunday during a joint news conference Bush was holding with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to mark the signing of a U.S.-Iraq security agreement." Now I suppose the Secret Service will start a new security protocol that requires journalists to remove their shoes during press conferences. Homeland Security will add a requirement that journalists check their pads and pens with their luggage and not be allowed to carry on any electronic devices, like recorders, cell phones, cameras, etc. that could be hurled at the Prez. You know, we can't be too safe. Or, can we?

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Health Care Issue

Conservative (CON): Obama’s health care proposals are likewise frightening, His plan to funnel those who cannot enroll in employer sponsored plans and many of the uninsured into a government plan similar to the congressional health plan will force commercial insurers to compete against a government plan which will use political considerations ( i.e. subsidized premiums} rather than actuarial considerations to determine premiums. Needless to say, this will create an unfavorable business climate for insurers and their only rational response will be to withdraw from writing health insurance business. Guess what happens then. Government becomes the sole source of health insurance, an event that will predictably be followed by an explosion of unintended consequences. We have the best and most innovative health care system in the world largely because health care providers compete as entrepreneurs in a free market. Once government becomes the single payer, its next step will be to establish control over expenditures within the system. Obviously to do that, government will move to control the health care system. Everything the health care system wants to do will require government approval. New technologies will require approval. Building a new health care facility or expanding an existing facility will require government approval. The government will become the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. Also highly suspect is Obama’s notion that the cost of his health plan will run somewhere between $50 billion to $65 billion a year. So, do the math. There are 45,000,000 uninsured individuals. Using $65 billion to insure 45,000,000 comes to about $1444 per person per year. Considering that some individuals who have commercial health insurance are currently paying monthly premiums in excess of $1,444, its clear that Obama is resorting to an old political ruse i.e. grossly underestimating the costs of his proposal. Before anyone messes with a health care system as massive as the health care system Americans depend on, they need to think through the consequences and the costs to be sure these totally predictable. To do anything else will cause irreparable harm and be bad for America.

Liberal (LIB): The uninsured are not potential customers for whom the commercial insurers compete. It would be irrational for insurers to withdraw from writing health insurance for profitable employer sponsored plans. Many would disagree with your assertions about the quality of the health care system, but let’s not confuse its performance with its accessibility or affordability. What good is it, if it creates economic havoc or ruin to access its splendid services? To continue the present health care situation is worse for America.

CON: McCain wanted to improve access to health care by reforming the private sector. Obama will go for a big government solution. From experience, I know health insurers will withdraw from the market if market conditions are unfavorable. I've seen it happen.

LIB: Unfavorable for what... profits? By offering a tax break for insurance costs, but taxing the value of the insurance benefit, McCain's plan would eventually result in taxing Medicare benefits, like Reagan taxing social security benefits. How do tax breaks and adding health benefits to taxable income reform the private sector and which part of the private sector are you referring to: insurance companies or employee benefit plans? Can you foresee governments (federal, state and local) and employers of persons who work in private schools, railroads, hospitals, trucking companies, manufacturers with union contracts, and other major employers giving up company paid health insurance for their work force? Just where is the insurance market going.

CON: Of course, ABM’s health insurance plans will create conditions where profits will be difficult if not impossible. Since insurers are in business to make a profit, they will bow out of that line of business. That was my point. My concern is that we maintain a health insurance system that relies on private enterprise. My belief is that we will be better served by a private system. You ask where the insurance market is going. What is truly ominous is that the Democrat’s agenda over the last decade or so has been to remove certain populations from the private market. The goal is to eventually collapse the private market. For example, state children’s health insurance plans remove children. Proposals to broaden eligibility for Medicare, for example to include those ages 50 to 64, would have the same effect. Creating government run pools for small businesses remove another population. What you would have left would be a small remnant of the current market. Most likely, this remnant would not be sustainable. That’s when government steps in to rescue us. As for large employers, they might be happy to dump their employees into a government plan. GM, Ford and Chrysler might be ready to do that now.

LIB: Your point is that insurers will bow out of selling employer provided insurance coverage? Everything I’ve heard about Obama’s plan is that the government won’t provide a program where one presently exists. The Democrats ‘agenda’ is to provide coverage where none exists. How is providing insurance coverage removing ‘certain populations’ from the private market when those persons are not being served by the market? I talked to a man today who was elated, because his new job’s health insurance benefit permitted him to cover his wife for $260 per month, replacing coverage for her alone cost them $970 per month. The latter premium is equal to $5.60 per hour of pre-tax income, compared to a cost equivalent of $1.50 per hour in pre-tax wages for her insurance from his new job. I have no idea what it costs his company to provide his coverage, but his employer considers it part of his compensation. It is a cost they willingly bear due to their need to hire and retain skilled employees. The real problem is the high cost of health care as exhibited by palatial hospital edifices, overpaid medical practitioners, excessive drug costs, burdensome administrative requirements, expensive diagnostic equipment, and a host of other reasons. Between greed and government regulations, it’s hard to tell which cause is the greater culprit that renders health care inaccessible.

New Time Slot for Leno

Aaron Barnhart, KC Star TV reporter, asks, "What will Jay Leno's getting a prime time show mean to Conan O'Brien?" Who cares? I'm glad that NBC came up with a new earlier time slot for Leno. I'll be able to get to bed an hour sooner than usual. If I want to stay up past 10:30, I'll be able to watch a Seinfeld re-run, tune in to David Letterman, or read. Whatever happens, I won't be watching Conan. Really, he is not funny. His humor is juvenile. His silly show opening jumping and preening is asinine. What I can't understand is why NBC ever promised him the Tonight Show. Oh, and will there be a competition between Leno and good prime time shows on other networks? Gee, have you ever heard of a 'record' button?

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Foreign Trade Policy

Conservative (CON): Turning to foreign trade matters, Obama’s and the Democrat’s push for so-called “fair trade” in place of our current free trade policies will be disruptive of our relationships with our trading partners and thus counter-productive. Hanging in the balance are the pending free trade agreements with Columbia and with Central America, agreements that are essential if we are to strengthen the economies of those countries and help them to withstand the aggressive policies of Venezuela’s Chavez. But, the push for so called “fair trade” has implications that reach beyond our hemisphere. As a policy concept, “fair trade” is essentially a reactionary attempt to undo the effects of globalization and , for that reason, it is fatally flawed. Globalization will proceed with unabated ferocity and our challenge as a nation is to make it work for us. Swimming against the current is not a viable option.

Liberal (LIB): To stop American jobs from going overseas, we should help other countries create indigenous economies that raise the standard of living in underdeveloped regions of the world. That’s the kind of globalization that I can believe in, one that builds up others without degrading us. Cheap goods from low-wage countries do not make globalization work for us. Creating markets for our superior technology does. Obama will see that America is protected from harmful foreign trade policies.

CON: Obama is supporting a harmful foreign trade policy.

LIB: Tell me more. Proof by assertion is not proof of anything.

CON: In the previous go around, we were discussing free trade vs. fair trade. I asserted that fair trade was harmful. Abeam appears to be moving with his party towards support for fair trade and that is what is harmful. I may not have proved that to you, but it is my opinion. I suggest you keep tabs on this issue. Whichever way Abeam goes will have ramifications for the economy.

LIB: What is “Abeam”? Are you having some kind of keyboard malfunction or this that some new cute conservative sobriquet for Obama? Whatever your answer, be assured that “fair” trade is not an epithet for “free” trade. In my opinion, there is no such thing as free trade. No sets of trading partners are equals. The object of foreign trade is now and always has been to sell higher value objects to a trading partner than is bought from them, thus insuring a positive balance of payments or, as it is referred to in capitalist terms, making a profit. Trade costs one trading partner or the other something. Our present trade policy has many costs for the U.S. Our balance of payments is negative. The value of the dollar is declining relative to other currencies, most notably the Euro. American wages are stagnant, while corporate profits are enlarged. America’s manufacturing base is diminished by low wage manufacturing rivals. We have to learn how to profit from globalization rather than use it as a source of cheap goods that our diminished earning capacity population can afford. I’m ready for a change.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Energy Policy

Conservative (CON): Obama’s energy policy is fraught with weaknesses that will lead to its ineffectiveness. First, it is clear he is not supportive of nuclear energy. Why is he so dismissive of the success achieved by France? During the campaign; he did jump on the drilling for domestic oil bandwagon, but his support for drilling is conditional. It is unlikely that he will ease the environmental hurdles to drilling, and, without relief from the challenges of environmental lawyers, drilling for oil will not happen. Obama’s proposed windfall profits tax for big oil companies is sheer economic madness and futility. Businesses simply pass the taxes they pay on to their customers. Another weakness in Obama’s energy policy is his support for ethanol. To sum up, all these weaknesses do not generate any confidence that Obama will provide effective leadership in this area where leadership is desperately needed.

Liberal (LIB): Desperately needed leadership, to use your characterization of the solution to the energy problem, was not provided by Bush nor exhibited in McCain’s proposals. We can’t drill our way out of an oil shortage, we can merely postpone the day of reckoning. Obama will provide energy policy leadership for an across-the-board solution that tackles all the objections to alternative energy source development.

CON: The sad thing is that our national leadership has failed to provide leadership on energy for more than a generation. Ever since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, no one has stepped up to the plate. The reasons to drill for oil and gas now are to provide an energy bridge to the day when alternative power sources can take over and to reduce the amount of dollars we ship overseas to Saudi Arabia and others. Common sense tells you it’s a good thing to do. No one has ever said drilling was the final solution to our energy problems.

LIB: Hey, we've got a point of agreement here. 1973 was 35 years ago, which is almost two generations. The special interest group, big oil, has been complacent to import foreign oil, because it is more profitable. They also control the drilling. Do you suppose they will develop an energy policy that will create replacements for themselves? What I see coming from them is mostly lip-service and PR spin about how they are working for our future.

I see an analogy between big oil and the automakers, who didn't want to give up the gas guzzlers for gas savers, because the former are more profitable per unit than the latter. The foreign auto makers have almost replaced them, and unless the Big Three change their ways, they will be replaced. How long will it be until Big Oil is asking for a bail-out?

CON: For the most part, I blame the automakers for the failure to produce a car that is powered by something other than gasoline. They are the ones who should have been thinking long term and doing something to come up with the car of the future. Unfortunately, our corporate culture can’t think beyond the next quarter. Secondly, I blame our government for failing to push the automakers into doing the right thing, starting with Ford and continuing with Bush II. That is letting the oil companies off the hook. After all, they are suppliers of the type of energy currently in demand. When they see a bunch of cars fueled by electricity or hydrogen, the ball will be in their court and they will need to step up and meet that new demand.

LIB: You said that Obama was not supportive of nuclear energy for electric generation and asked why he was so dismissive of it. I believe he was hedging during a campaign, but will support it as part of an overall energy program. The experience with Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant here in Kansas has been good for an economical operation and for safety. It will be a challenge to resurrect nuclear energy after a long drought in construction of new facilities. The story will need to be told to reassure the public of its value. Disposal of spent fuel rods in an environmental sound way also must be addressed positively. As for ethanol, there are many sources. The research is still being conducted to develop a biofuel source that does not interfere with the food supply. I feel that with Obama as President we will develop an energy policy that will serve us well into the future.

Grandmother's Salve Recipe

My mother wrote on the back of the recipe: "This is the recipe for a salve that my mother used for infections." I am not sure of the medicinal value. I'm not sure you could find all of the ingredients. My grandmother more than likely got it from her mother who brought it over to Kansas from England.

1 oz spirits of turpentine
2 oz beeswax
1 oz oil of spike
2 oz rosin
1/2 oz gum of camphor
1 oz lard
1 oz tallow

Mix all together and melt slow on back of stove.

Comment: I don't know what germ could live through this pungent goo. I can understand why you would want to prepare it on the back of the stove where it would be less likely to spill. If it tipped over, you have a mess to clean off the floor.
Let me know if you try it. The beeswax, resin, lard and oil of spike are ingredients for an Indian salve recipe. The indians probably got it from settlers and would have included the other ingredients if they were available. At least it can be said that it is an authentic home remedy of which there were probably numerous variations depending on the availability of ingredients.

Mom's Recipe for the Best Punch

1 cup strong tea
Juice from 2 lemons
1 tablespoon powdered sugar
1 oz Du Bouchett curacao
2 oz brandy
1 oz Carioca gold rum
1 quart Roma dry champagne
1 quart carbonated water

Serves 10 people or 5 heavy drinkers

Comment: I suppose you could substitute different brands for the booze, but I can't warrant that your punch would still be the "best". As for the consumption of "heavy drinkers", I think that Mom underestimated their ability to consume liquids. Anyway, I'm delivering this around the Christmas season in case you were having a party and were considering options on what to serve. Enjoy.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Gays in the Military

Conservative (CON): Given that the gay community has supported Obama, they will be in a position to seek payback. To advance their agenda, they will likely lobby Obama to overturn the current “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” policy of the military and instead institute a policy that will allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces. This undesirable change would undermine the culture, morale and combat effectiveness of the military.

Liberal (LIB): I am unaware of evidence that gay persons undermine the culture, morale or combat effectiveness of the military. Do you have any evidence of this? Before 1948, a black person could serve only in a segregated unit or in a menial capacity in naval units. The same prejudices that prevented blacks from serving with equality should not work against gays.

CON: Comparing the status of gays in the military to that of blacks in the pre-1948 segregated military is not an accurate analogy. Just ask yourself, if you were a straight guy, would you like serving in an infantry squad with 2 or 3 gays.

LIB: First, let's deal with gays in an infantry squad. A squad at full strength has 10 to 12 men. The likelihood of serving in a squad with 2 or 3 gays is highly unlikely. The same could be said for a 4-squad platoon, but perhaps not for a company. However, the frequency of gays misses the point, which is that the youth of today are not of the same opinion about gays as you. I'm seventy years old. Don't ask me, ask a recruit. I'll bet they are more accepting of gays than either of us.

CON: The young people of today may well be more accepting of gays than old people like you and I. But, I would think the young people who join the military may be less accepting of gays than others in their age cohort. In any event, whenever it is decided that gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military, I doubt if young GI’s will have any input. Maybe the question should be put to a vote of those currently serving in the military.

LIB: Your idea that volunteers may be less accepting of gays than others of the same age is a speculative assumption on your part. Is it your idea that volunteers are more macho than persons who avoid military service, and hence would dislike gays? Who says macho persons dislike gays? You know, there are macho gay men and some lesbians are known to be macho (man-like or butch) females. What about the gays, aren’t they also volunteers? Would they be self-loathing? Really, you need a better argument. Actually you have no basis for opposing gays in the military. By the way, what do you mean about gays “serving openly in the armed forces”? Are you insinuating that, if recognized, gays would be tiptoeing around, limp wrists flopping, while they swished to and fro holding hands with a lover? Give me a break.

Fox News: Astounding Comments

I was channel surfing, looking for some better content, when I happened upon Fox News and heard a so-called Republican contributor named Andrea astoundingly say "The New Deal didn't work. It was called the Great Depression." Later, in the same "news" segment, concerning how to jump start the economy, she said there was, "a transportation bill that built a bridge to nowhere." She's on the wrong network. She belongs on the Tonight Show's Jaywalk All-stars.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Gay Marriage

Conservative (CON): It is appropriate to consider if a liberal majority on the Supreme Court will have other implications that will be bad for America. To me, it seems predictable that gay rights organizations will consider a liberal Court as an opportunity to challenge state laws or constitutional provisions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Should they prevail, then traditional family values will be severely undermined.

Liberal (LIB): Gays will challenge laws they believe unjust regardless of who sits on the bench. Further, I am unaware of evidence that gay rights undermine the traditional family. Homosexuality has been part of our nation’s traditional morality since it’s founding, except it has not been overt. Our national morality is not being subverted. An alternative lifestyle is merely being recognized as existing in our society and is seeking equal protection under the law.

CON: Gays are more likely to challenge laws they don't like when they sense that they have a good chance of winning. Thus, when they see that the judges are mostly Ginsburg clones, they will challenge. If the majority includes justices like Roberts, Alito and Thomas, they will not make the effort.

LIB: I would as easily imagine that when gays feel the law is on their side they will seek legal redress, without testing the wind for a left-wing or right-wing majority.

CON: As for homosexuality being part of our nation's traditional mortality, that's a crock. The traditional morality I remember defines homosexuality as aberrant, abnormal or deviant behavior that is sinful.

LIB: The term, morality, does not imply right or wrong; it refers to a doctrine or system of morals. In the case of homosexuality, it has been part of our traditional national morality where it is recognized, but ignored and accepted as inevitable when covert, but condemned when flaunted, except for certain societal classes such as persons in the arts. We are in a period of social change, where ideas about homosexuality are changing. You don't have to change your opinion, but you err when you say homosexuality is sinful because it is aberrant, abnormal or deviant behavior. Being characterized by any of the latter three terms is not sinful.

CON: It’s fair to say that the word morality, by itself, dos not imply right or wrong. However, I did attach a prefix to indicate a type of morality system. I thus made reference to “traditional morality” which I would define as the morality system that has been prevalent in our culture in past generations. Traditional morality, therefore, encompasses a system of morality that has come to recognize some things as right and some things as wrong. My own grasp of traditional morality is that it viewed homosexuality as wrong. For myself, I see no reason to depart from that view. If it was wrong 50 or 60 years ago, what makes it right now? As Christians, we hate the sin, but, like Christ, love the sinner. It’s hard to do when they become so damn pushy. Witness their recent invasions of Catholic and evangelical churches during worship services.

LIB: The columnist, Jonah Goldberg, in a December 4, 2008, opinion piece in the Kansas City Star weighed in on this subject:

“It’s often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the “forces of change” and the “agents of progress.” They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they’re challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable and won’t be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and “liberals” should be ashamed for countenancing it.”

Even the conservative Goldberg sees the inevitability of gay marriage. What was wrong 50 or 60 years ago is not necessarily wrong today. Attitudes change over time. In the more distant past, gay lifestyles were accepted as an alternate choice, not an aberration. The thought of two persons of the same sex engaging in sex is repugnant to me. But that’s an expected reaction on my part. I’m not gay. No one is asking me to engage in same sex, so why should I care what two other people do for sex? For me, the test is whether gay marriage affects me or not. I’ve been happily married for almost 50 years. I can’t imagine how gay marriage would make a difference in my marriage or life, so why should I oppose it? However, I agree with Goldberg that the aggressive tactics of gay rights groups are counter-productive to their efforts for social equality. Non-violent protests are more effective in appeals for equal rights.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Abortion

Conservative View (CON): With a working conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade could be challenged and overturned, putting to an end the murder of unborn children. On the other hand, two more liberal or “progressive” justices on the Court makes for a liberal majority, which makes it unlikely that Roe vs. Wade might be overturned. To America’s shame, the murder of unborn children will continue.

Liberal View (LIB): Regarding overturning Roe vs. Wade, I don’t believe you really want to go there.

CON: What is wrong with ending the legalized murder of thousands of unborn children by overturning Roe vs. Wade?

LIB: Reversing Roe vs. Wade will not end abortion. Your opposition to abortion is based on your religious belief, but you have no right to impose your belief on others. A female has the right to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to term or not. Civilization has evolved beyond draconian laws that would force a woman to see a pregnancy to term. If the fetus is unborn, it is not a child. Aborting a fetus is not murder.

CON: I believe that life begins at conception. To say that a fetus is not a life until it is ejected from the womb totally ignores the development that takes place during the gestation period. I am wrong when I said that reversing Roe vs. Wade would end abortion. If that were to happen, each state would have to enact legislation to settle the question in each of the states. There is a good chance that some states would legalize abortion. In that case, we could at least take some comfort, since representatives elected by the voters rather than judges will address the issue.

While we need to settle these issues as a people, what is beginning to bother me is the increasing militancy of secularists who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Christians.

Granted, females have the ability (I hesitate to call it a right) to terminate a pregnancy, but let’s not say it is right just because it is legal. There are some who still consider it a sin. So, if the pendulum swings our way and the law required pregnant females to go to term, that would be far from draconian. Instead, it shows compassion for the unborn.

LIB: You say that you believe life begins at conception. Before conception, the sperm and ovum are both living matter. Therefore, implicit in your belief that life begins at conception is your belief that a deity adds a soul to the cellular matter at the instant of conception, creating a developing human equal in all respects to every person ever born. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but you are not entitled to have your religious beliefs made into laws that would be imposed on persons who do not share those beliefs.

Birth, not conception, is the prelude to being human. Some conceptions never result in a birth, because the fertilized egg does not attach to the womb and some attached fertilized eggs detach from the womb without any human intervention. Development of a fetus may fail causing a miscarriage. Some fetuses are still-born. Is compassion felt for these examples of the unborn or are these natural occurrences that don’t warrant compassion? Of course, grief can be felt for the promise of the unborn, for its birth and growth, but the grief is not for the individual who was never known as a person.

I consider birth as the distinguishing characteristic of being a living person. I’ll grant that a developing human is alive, but I don’t consider that condition to have any value, except for its potential for birth. If a fetus is a “life”, i.e. a person as you use the term, what kind of “life” does it enjoy: awareness, sensation, memory, emotion? To my knowledge, none of these traits are exhibited in an unborn human.

My compassion for another human being depends on the degree to which that person is known to me. I do not consider a developing human to be an identifiable person. If I become aware of an abortion, a miscarriage, or a still-born birth, I feel no sadness or grief for the unborn creature. I do feel compassion for the mother and family who have experienced a loss in a terminated pregnancy. A law that requires a pregnant female to “go to term” is extremely harsh or cruel, i.e., draconian. The law is not a vehicle for compassion for the unborn.

Consider that in humankind individual members of the species are born and die, but the species lives on, evolving for eternity or until extinction. In the continuation of a species, a death is placed in perspective as an unavoidable, even an essential event, not as an object for grief. Our compassion for the death of an individual varies, depending on our emotional attachment to them. A death in the family evokes the greatest grief and less grief is felt for deaths of other persons. For some deaths, no emotion is felt. I choose to reserve my compassion for those who have lived among us regardless of the duration of their life, but not for the unborn.

Some reasons for an abortion are repugnant. It is improper for abortion to be used for birth control. There are more responsible ways to avoid pregnancy. A late term abortion should never happen, except for the mother’s health or to end a pregnancy with a defective fetus. A pregnant woman’s decision to abort is responsible only when made early in the pregnancy. Delaying a decision to abort until the fetus is viable should be resolved in by a birth, after which adoption is an option. The decision to abort or not is the province of the pregnant female, influenced as she may be by spouse, family or community. Sanctions are the province of spouse, family or community, not the government. There are remedies to deal with short of passing laws requiring a woman to continue a pregnancy to term.

Within the context of abortion, the alleged increasing militancy of secularists who are attempting to impose their beliefs on Christians, the so-called persecution complex, is mentioned. It will be discussed when secularism is the topic.

Got Guns?

Rethinking U.S.–Latin American Relations, A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World, Report of the Partnership for the Americas Commission, The Brookings Institution, November 2008, claims, "Some 2,000 guns cross the United States–Mexico border from north to south every day...". That's a lot of guns, 730,000 per year to be exact. That's a lot of gun sales, too. By reviewing the report's sources, I couldn't determine where the report got that figure of 2,000 per day. What causes me pause is, if they can get that many weapons out of the country across one border, how many are coming in across two borders or by boat and air. Do you feel safer now?