Have you ever been to the website grants.gov? They give away money, lot’s of it. I wonder where they get it? While I’m at it, there’s another uplifting little website called USAspending.gov you should see. It’s such a joy to explore.

Here’s a lovely opportunity.

Media Program in Moldova

Type: Grants Notice
Funding Opportunity Number: 121-08-001
Opportunity Category: Discretionary
Posted Date: Apr 30, 2008
Category Explanation: The USAID Moldova Media Program seeks to complement and work in partnership with existing media development efforts by concentrating on improving and solidifying an existing informal network of regional television stations.
Expected Number of Awards: 1
Estimated Total Program Funding: $3,150,000
Agency Name: Ukraine USAID-Kiev
Description: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), is seeking applications (proposals for funding) from U.S. or non-U.S. non-profit or for-profit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other qualified non-USG organizations to implement a Media program in Moldova. Please refer to the Program Description (RFA section C) for a complete statement of goals and expected results.

Hey anybody! Want to be a media mogul in Moldova?

Phil

If you read my recent post Inside the work-a-day world of PC science but didn’t want to wade through miles of bureaucratese, you probably didn’t see that the “final respondent sample” used for the survey was about 67,800 people, and everyone who completed the survey was paid $30. You also missed lovely little tidbits like these:

?

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Performance Budget Overview

 

Mission Statement – SAMHSA’s vision as an agency of the Federal Government is “A Life in the Community for Everyone.” SAMHSA’s mission is to build resilience and facilitate recovery for people with or at risk for substance abuse and mental illness.

SAMHSA was established in 1992 and reauthorized in 2000. SAMHSA administers a combination of competitive, formula, and block grant programs and data collection activities. Programs are carried out through the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS); the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP); the Center for Substance abuse Treatment (CSAT); and the Office of Applied Studies (OAS). Reauthorization of SAMHSA programs is expected to be considered in this Congressional session.

SAMHSA provides services indirectly through grants and contracts. SAMHSA’s resources enable service capacity expansion and the implementation of evidence-based practices. The agency seeks to engage all communities in providing effective services by facilitating access to the latest information on evidence-based practices and accountability standards.

Strategic Plan – SAMHSA finalized its new strategic plan in 2006, which adds Suicide Prevention and Workforce Development to the matrix. Agency goals are Accountability, Capacity, and Effectiveness. A chart showing the vision, mission, goals and objectives may be found on the next page. The performance budget submission is aligned with the three goals.

SAMHSA’s matrix of program priorities and cross-cutting principles, which implements the strategic plan, has guided the agency’s daily operations and overall program and management decisions for the past several years. The program categories used in the performance budget submission align with the matrix. SAMHSA updated the matrix categories during 2006 to include Suicide Prevention and Workforce Development. The Disaster Readiness and Response is a cross cutting principle. The current matrix is included at the end of this section. Two-year action plans for each program priority area are displayed on the agency’s web site.

SAMHSA’s planning and budget decisions also emphasize alignment with HHS goals. All of SAMHSA’s activities directly support the Secretary’s 500-Day and 5,000-Day plans, HHS strategic objectives 1.4, 1.5, and 3.5, and all management objectives.

?

Overview of Budget Request — The FY 2008 President’s Budget totals $3,167,589,000, a decrease of $158,753,000 below the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. It includes a net decrease of $76,630,000 for mental health; a net decrease of $36,441,000 for substance abuse prevention; a net decrease of $46,859,000 for substance abuse treatment; and an increase of $1,177,000 for program management. Targeted reductions are made in areas where grant periods are ending, activities can be supported through other funding streams or efficiencies can be realized. The budget eliminates funding for 18 programs within the three Programs of Regional and National Significance. The budget includes funding increases for Drug Treatment Courts and Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment. The FY 2008 President’s Budget represents SAMHSA’s efforts to maintain the important initiatives put forth in recent years under the President’s Drug Treatment Initiative and the Federal Mental Health Action Agenda which addresses the President’s Initiative on Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care
in America.

?

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Appropriation Language

 

For carrying out titles V and XIX of the Public Health Service Act (‘‘PHS Act’’) with respect to substance abuse and mental health services, the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, and section 301 of the PHS Act with respect to program management, [$3,046,426,000]: Provided, That notwithstanding section 520A(f)(2) of the PHS Act, no funds appropriated for carrying out section 520A are available for carrying out section 1971 of the PHS Act: Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided herein, the following amounts shall be available under section 241 of the PHS Act: (1) $[79,200,000] to carry out subpart II of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act to fund section 1935(b) technical assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation activities, and further that the total available under this Act for section 1935(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for subpart II of part B of title XIX; (2) $[21,413,000]to carry out subpart I of part B of title XIX of the PHS Act to fund section 1920(b) technical assistance, national data, data collection and evaluation activities, and further that the total available under this Act for section 1920(b) activities shall not exceed 5 percent of the amounts appropriated for subpart I of part B of title XIX; (3) $[16,250,000] to carry out national surveys on drug abuse; and (4) $[4,300,000] to evaluate substance abuse treatment programs.
Pursuant to section 1942 of the PHS Act, a State that receives an allotment under section 1911 or 1921 of such Act for the current fiscal year shall submit data from the previous year on all developed National Outcome Measures. A State shall not receive more than 95 percent of the State’s allotment as determined under section 1933 for such year if that State does not report on National Outcome Measures under section 1921. Undistributed amounts under section 1921 shall be reallocated to States that report on such measures under section 1921 in accordance with section 1944 of the PHS Act.
(Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2008.)

If you didn’t get all that, all it says is they expect to have about $3.2 billion to throw around.

Phil

Hypothetical Case Study: Jane and Joe T.

Joe and Jane T. live in a decent house with a decent yard. Joe has a decent job, earns a decent income. Jane stays home, raises decent kids, keeps a decent garden. Jane and Joe have a decent life.

One day, Joe’s friend Sam asked him if he’d like to have a dog. Sam explained that Sox needs a home. If Joe doesn’t take him, Sox will be “put down.”

Now Joe and Jane are decent folk who definitely don’t like the idea of the dog being killed. They’d feel sort of responsible for it. They also think about Sam’s assertion that Sox will make a good watch dog. They’d never been burgled before but a little precaution won’t hurt. So they take in the dog. Jane builds a doghouse and they fence in an area for Sox to run.

There’s just one important thing they aren’t told. Sox is a mean dog. He will literally bite the hand that feeds him. Oh well, maybe with time….

Then one day a friend of Sam’s shows up with a similar story. He has two dogs, Elvira and Echo, needing a home. Decent people that they are, Jane and Joe take them in. They hope companions will mellow out Sox. They enlarge the doghouse and expand the fence perimeter.

Of course, Echo and Elvira are no friendlier than Sox, though the three of them get along together only too well.

To make a long story short, the kindhearted T. family now has a large and growing pack of snarling, vicious beasts. The only time they’re quiet is when eating, and they seem to be hungry all the time. The only way you can possibly approach any of them is with soft, friendly words of praise and appreciation, while offering a big juicy steak in your heavily armored gauntlet.

The entire once-decent yard is now pack habitat. The garage has been converted into dog housing. Jane’s garden is gone but she no longer has time for that sort of thing anyway. The cost of feeding and housing these animals has forced Jane to take an outside job.

When this all started, Jane and Joe T. didn’t want, had never even considered getting a dog. Now, almost everything they do is in support of this savage pack of insatiable, ravenous hellhounds.

Question 1.  What should Joe and Jane do now?

Question 2.  What should Jane and Joe have done when Sam first offered to give them Sox?

Question 3.  The author wrote this story as a parable. What is he trying to say?

Question 4.  Do you think it’s a valid parable?

Question 5.  Explain your answer to Question 4.

Tax Freedom Day is once again upon us, and every year I cringe. I cringe because this well-known, long-standing and much publicized “holiday” may be reasonably accurate for what it is, but it paints a simplistic picture that doesn’t reflect the true costs of government. Instead of infoming the public, it serves to keep them “dumbed-down” by reinforcing the myth that taxes alone represent their total personal cost of government. They tend to accept that the folks at the Tax Foundation have thought of everything when calculating Tax Freedom Day

So Tax Freedom Day for the nation this year was April 23. Your state may be different. What does it mean? It means that nationally, 30.8% of income goes to pay taxes.

You know what a lot of people say to that? So what!?

Many consider it a small price to pay for everything we expect government to do. These are often the same people that think prices always go up because prices always go up. Besides, going by previous Tax Freedom Days, we’ve been paying close to that percentage for 50 years. What’s the big deal.

When you add other things into the equation it’s not so pretty. There are a lot of costs unaccounted for in the Tax Freedom Day calculations. One example is the cost of tax-compliance, or how much we spend just in the process of paying our taxes.

The IRS estimates Americans spend 6.6 billion hours per year filling out tax forms—including 1.6 billion hours on the 1040 form alone. In 2002 Americans spent roughly $194 billion dollars on tax compliance. That amounts to 20 cents of compliance cost for every dollar collected by the tax system. — Tax Foundation

That cost alone would add 6.16% onto your burden, bringing it up to about 37% and making May 15 Tax Freedom Day. I could go on, but I won’t.

All I want to know is, how much is too much.

Phil

I woke up this morning to hear a radio commentary on the latest driving while intoxicated report issued by Big Nanny. In short, this report breaks down state by state the percentage of the population that admits to DUI. The commentator obligingly spewed a few “facts” from this study and then concludes that we obviously need tougher enforcement.

All right, I said to the only person that ever listens to me, I guess it’s time to do the DUI rant I’ve been bottling-up for so long. So, while rummaging through the web this morning looking for DUI related stuff, I eventually came across the report that prompted the aforementioned wakeup commentary. Two minutes later I decided the rant can wait. Instead, I want to show you a textbook example of social engineering masquerading as scientific inquiry. This is the work-a-day world of politically correct science.

First you do your federally authorized/mandated/funded study. Then you package it nicely. Condense it down to nice little soundbites. Put it all on a friendly little website. When that’s all ready, issue your press release. Don’t worry about peer-review. All your peers will love it. From there it quickly spreads across the globe. The press loves it. It’s cheap “news” with a lot of playability and ripe with attention-getting facts. Safety-freaks of all sorts love it. It gives them ammunition for their endless war on danger. Blogs across the world will be lamenting this terrible state of affairs, calling for more, better, tougher legislation. More, better programs, policies and propagandas. Politicians and policy-wonks in Washington, and in every state across the land, have already added this data to their files, ready to use when the time is right. Most of all, the health and safety bureaucracy loves it — job security.

Some will say this isn’t science. I agree, but it certainly fits within the criteria required of PC science. Either way, the data from this poll (that’s all it is) will certainly be given the status of “fact;” and it will unquestionably be used to strengthen the Nanny State’s grip on timid America.

Just for fun, pretend you’re a reporter doing a story about this survey. You’ve seen the press release from the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. Now you want to see more. So you go to the SAMHSA website shown on the press release. There you find a list of “Highlights” and a link to The NSDUH Report: State Estimates of Persons Aged 18 or Older Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Illicit Drugs. It’s an easy read, a few paragraphs and a couple maps.

Is that all? Can’t be. Look some more. Then you find National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) conducted by SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies (OAS).

I’m not going to drag you all over this site but I challenge you to take an hour or two and look through this place. Look hard enough and you’ll find the actual Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Here you’ll find a plethora of drug and alcohol facts gleaned from this poll. You can also find the questionnaire itself. Look through that and tell me you wouldn’t need a drink or two just to get through it.

When you’ve had enough, ignore all the questions you probably have about accuracy of results or honesty of subjects. Instead, suspend disbelief and ask yourself: Even if all this is true, is all this really necessary just to tell me there are people who do drugs and alcohol, and some of them might even get in their cars and drive while under the influence?

It is if the goal is something other than Liberty and Justice for All.

Phil

Global warming enthusiasts have reached a consensus of agreement. They know best how everyone else should behave.

But seriously… Did you hear the one about the consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide? It turns out, they all read the same book.

They may be right. I’ve got a little thermometer stuck to the outside of my kitchen window. For the last nine months now, it’s been 120 degrees out there. I’m afraid to leave the house. Luckily it didn’t heat up that much before the tree blew down and hit the side of the house last July. I wouldn’t have wanted to clean-up the mess in that heat. Then again, maybe it’s the tree’s fault. Maybe it’s the butterfly effect and that tree was the “tree that broke the climate’s back.”

I’ve heard a number of commentators, particularly Rush Limbaugh, deride the whole notion of consensus. “There’s no such thing as consensus in science,” they say.

With all due respect to my fellow realists, there has always been consensus in science. Science is also contentious. Most of the time there’s even contentiousness between consensuses. So I guess we realists have a contentious consensus. Or would that be a consensus of contentiousness?

There is consensus in science. Actually, there are two types of consensus in science.

First, there is the valid, verifiable consensus of truth-seeking science. Take gravity, for example. Everybody learns about it in school. Every scientist uses the same formula for defining it. There is essentially universal consensus about gravity, except for one thing. What causes it? The answer to that is still under contention. The facts concerning gravity, as we know them, are as true as true can be. It’s still only theory because true science accepts no absolute, definitive, final truth. We accept our current gravity theory as true because it works, all the time. It is verifiably, consistently predictable.

Second, there is the consensus of politically correct science. PC science is the science of facts. Facts are what the dominant authority says they are, true or not. Gravity is a true fact. Abortion kills a human being? True but not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be murder. If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. This is a fact. Is it true? We can’t know. It’s unverifiable. The truth is, it’s no more than a prediction. In practice, it’s a fact.

PC science is not new. If the ruling authority says the sun revolves around the earth, that’s what it does. It’s a fact. Ask Galileo. Or consider what Thomas Jefferson reportedly said after hearing about a meteorite: “I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.” And I’ll bet more than one “witch doctor” has taken a spear in the back because he didn’t say enough nice things about the chief. PC science often suppresses true science. Much of what we readily accept today was, at one time, definitely not politically correct. This is not to say that PC facts aren’t true. They can be. Often times are. They just don’t have to be.

I thought about adding a third, popular consensus, but decided, among the public at large, there is no consensus when it comes to science. People out there believe a lot of stuff that is currently not accepted, in terms of consensus, as either fact or truth. This, however, doesn’t stop the PC consensus crowd from claiming it also has a popular consensus, as if that should matter to science.

Now, in our modern, high-tech world, PC scientific consensus generally includes what is accepted by true scientific consensus. It also includes a lot more. The burden of proof is less stringent. It’s like the difference between criminal court (truth) and family court (fact). In one, you’re innocent until proven guilty (false ’til proven consistently true). In the other, you’re assumed to be guilty but they might be persuaded otherwise. (believe the claim, better to err on the side of caution).

The whole environmental movement has prospered because it operates, almost exclusively, in the realm of PC scientific consensus. If you can convince enough of the right people that your hypothesis is correct, it becomes accepted fact. Laws can then be passed, grants bestowed, regulations established, agencies created, mitigation begun, based on this fact. If you can get enough scientists financially dependent on your eco-socialist dogma, PC consensus is almost automatic. Environmentalism has been so successful that it has corrupted what were once the most prestigious journals of true science.

In environmental science, you can start with a predetermined result, then design your experiments to achieve that result. Inconvenient, contradictory data can be ignored with impunity. You can take minimal information and speculate wildly, as long as you use a lot of “mays”, “mights,” and “coulds” when making your outrageous predictions. If someone notices a discrepancy in your presentation, or presents contradictory data; inventing an answer on the fly, though not recommended, is acceptable. It’s better to be prepared for these ahead of time.

The world of environmental science is filled with studies that are nothing but studies of other studies. These studies are then studied. This is followed by more studies of studies that studied studies. Each successive study cites all the previous studies as source material. You end up with a thousand studies, all saying the same thing because they’re all based on the one original study. That original study might read something like:

We found less fish at mile 48 than at mile 51. We speculated that this could be caused by a greater sediment load so tested both locations. The sediment count was 15% greater at mile 48 than at mile 51. We therefore think it likely that excess sediment loading is causing the lower than expected fish population at mile 48. Since mile 48 is adjacent to a cornfield, we believe the excess sediment at mile 48 may be attributable to erosion from this plowed field. We estimate that up to 45% of this excess sediment loading could be stopped by widening the grass buffer strip another 12 feet. A crop residue management plan would likely reduce runoff by a further 20-25%. Another 25% could likely be retained with a no-till program. Further study is recommended.

You think that’s funny? You think I just made that up?

Yeah, I did. But I’ve read enough of them to know, that’s what they tend to look like. Go read a few yourself. That’s your environmental science. In the end, nobody’s really tested the original hypothesis, but they all accept the findings as fact.

This is a deep-seated problem. For at least 30 years now, children have been going to school, elementary – college, and learning all sorts of dubious environmental facts. They carry these forward into real life, and, like gravity, they don’t have to be proven. They just are. They assume they work in the real world, without really knowing. Like most students, they accept what they’re taught without question. They’re conditioned to feel good about believing, and to distrust and shun non-believers.

Politically correct scientists and their minions are constantly telling us exactly what future results will be for specific actions. It doesn’t matter that they can’t possibly know. Like the light bulbs above, they run subjective calculations using subjective numbers to extrapolate a precise, projected result. Later, when results are different, it doesn’t matter because no one is measuring anyway. The projection is as good as the deed done. Global warming advocates can’t give you precise figures for how much hotter it will get, even if you give them precise figures to work from. Instead, they give you a spread with a lot of vague if/then statements. So how is it these same people can tell you precisely how much good you’ll do if you only follow there recommendations?

Environmentalists are masters of the art of deceptive analysis and presumed results. They simplify the complicated and complicate the simple. All in pursuit of, not truth, but what is really a social agenda. Global warming, a dubious claim in itself, can be reduced to something as simple as carbon dioxide in the air by these artists. You want to build a shed?

Well…, we’ll have to check your hardcover restrictions to avoid excess stormwater runoff. Since you’re near a floodplain you won’t be able to store any volatiles or chemicals unless you put it on a solid foundation and provide secure storage. You’re lucky. If you were in the floodplain you’d need to get a variance. Oh wait. I see you’re bordering an environmentally sensitive area, so if you want to put it within a hundred feet of this border you’ll have to get a variance anyway. To do that you’ll first have to go through the planning commission. If they approve it then the council has to pass judgment. Hold on, I see you have here a restrictive covenant requiring approval from your homeowner’s association. You’re going to have to get that taken care of first, then come on back. We’ll talk some more.

Still want to build a shed?

Yes, there is such a thing as consensus in science. It doesn’t mean they’re right. So how do you know what to believe? That’s hard to answer, but the more nonspecific and speculative sounding the language, the more reason to be suspect. If they’re claiming a problem needs fixing, that’s suspect in and of itself. If their solutions seem inordinately expensive or primarily require legal restrictions on you or others, it’s almost certainly a load of hogwash. If your first response to some assertion is: How can you possibly know that? You’re probably right. They can’t.

If I throw a rock in the air, I know it’s going to come back down. I can do this a thousand times and the result will always be the same. If I get sick tomorrow and decide it must be something I ate, that’s pure speculation. If I ate some week-old leftover tuna, it’s still speculation but with circumstantial evidence. If I go to the doctor, have a battery of tests done, and am told it was definitely the tuna, that’s a hypothesis with credible scientific evidence. If I go to three more doctors and they all say the same, that’s verifiable, repeatable scientific confirmation. Even then, they still could be wrong.

If you want to see a wonderful example of politically correct scientific consensus in action, watch the History Channel production A Global Warning? Just make sure your BS detector is turned-up to full power. I really liked the “controversial” hypothesis they throw out as a possible explanation for the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 years ago. No conventional theory for the cause of this event includes an extraordinary increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This doesn’t do much to bolster the cause of man-made global warming. Enter the comet, bringing with it just scads of carbon dioxide to overload the atmosphere. Sure, they acknowledge clearly that this possible explanation is “controversial,” but that doesn’t stop them from tossing it into the public discourse. It’s good for the cause.

Phil

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming: How It All Began
The Discovery of Global Warming
Global Warming: The History of an International Scientific Consensus
globalwarming.org
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Our Planet
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Energy Star

Today is Dearthday +38.

(Moment of Silence)

If you were to ask a global warming advocate (hey, don’t yell at me, that’s what they call themselves) how 22nd century historians will record the first Earthday in 1970, he/she will likely respond with something like:

That’s the day people first really acknowledged that humanity was trashing the planet; too bad the stupid a**h***s were too f***ing greedy to do anything about it until it was too late. That’s what they’ll say if anyone’s left to say it.

I have a different view. On Dearthday +150, I think historians will identify Dearthday (April 22, 1970) as the dawn of eco-tyranny. That’s what they’ll say if the eco-tyrants aren’t still in power. If they are still in power, it’ll be because they have successfully taken credit for saving a planet that was never at risk. Then historians will mark April 22, 1970 as the beginning of the glorious People’s Environmental Revolution to overthrow the tyrannical, Earth defiling, resource exploiters.

Whatever happens, the environmental movement in general, and human-induced global warming in particular, are a sham and a scam. It’s not just that I don’t accept the dire predictions of global calamity, and find a lot of this so-called “environmental science” to be seriously flawed and therefore suspect. The truth is, if I’m wrong, and humanities addition of an itty-bitty-bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is enough to do what they say it will, then it was already way too late on April 22, 1970. In that case, every “environmental” thing they’ve done since then has been nothing but a waste. Doing all the silly, expensive things they’re now doing to curb emissions will also accomplish nothing, and meantime will waste precious time and resources that could be utilized preparing for the inevitable. A lot of people now living on low-lying coastlines will drown while our self-appointed saviors line their pockets and play at being miracle-workers. Shouldn’t we be helping these people relocate to higher ground? Shouldn’t we be preparing for a flood of refugees from the unbearable heat to the south? Shouldn’t we be quietly buying up as much of Canada as we can? No, we need to change our lightbulbs. What a sham. And we’re swallowing it hook, line and sinker. My only consolation is, if they’re right, they won’t be able to hold onto their power because the masses of starving, angry refugees will eat them for lunch.

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency.” It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. — Herbert Hoover

In 1970, the U.S. was in a turmoil of youthful, politically volatile unrest. The vocal, sometimes violent minority of the time sought to bring down “The Establishment.” Most of these protesters could be categorized as “useful idiots.” They rightfully opposed things like enforced segregation, imperialist aggression, and dangerous pollution; but had no idea how to even correctly identify, much less fix these things. To this day, I believe most of these “socially-conscious youth” really only wanted, for everyone, the freedom to live as we please without a lot of elitists telling us what we can and can’t do. So they followed the leaders who claimed to want the same thing. They echoed whatever they were told, and became believers. Most didn’t know, at least at first, that they were being led by communists and socialists intent on transforming the very fabric of our free-wheeling culture. Instead, they thought these collectivist ideas, couched in the language of freedom and liberty, reflected either pure altruism or enlightened self-interest.

Into this turmoil came dire warnings of global ecological calamity of all sorts. Overpopulation, mass-extinctions, poisons in the soil, poisons in the air, deforestation, global climate change, these things and more were scrutinized and publicized by a variety of revolutionary, forward-thinking “scientists.” Their conclusions: DOOM!

Now here was something even the most ardent, turned-on, flower-power hippie could agree government should do something about. And what was the cause of this impending ecological doom? Human industrial development. Also known as “The Establishment.”

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — Robert Heinlein

Along came Earthday, legacy of Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis). By this time, politicians not already leaning left recognized the power of this loud leftist minority and chose either to fight the surge or ride the wave. Nixon chose to ride the wave and created the Environmental Protection Agency. All of a sudden, it was up to the enlightened few to lead us to salvation. All of a sudden, saving the planet from ourselves became a government priority. All of a sudden, we had to start spending like crazy on “environmental programs” and adopting scads of “environmental regulations.” Oh there have been detractors, but even they can be persuaded to fund studies or authorize water clean-up; especially if to not do so gets them labelled as “in the pocket of big polluters,” and “an opponent of clean air and water.” Other non-believers opted to join the party and belly-up to the gravy train. They provided just enough of a counterpoint to give the whole thing an aura of credibility. As more and more studies consistently echoed previous cries of doom and gloom, political detraction became increasingly risky. Before almost anyone had realized it had happened, we had allowed the creation of a huge, government backed and endorsed, enviro-socialist machine capable of politically and judicially monkeywrenching anyone or anything it targets. At the same time, similar campaigns were being successfully waged in the broader arena of public safety and general welfare. Once you support any socialist ideal, you pretty much have to do the same for the rest. It didn’t take long before everyone was looking to Uncle Sam for everything. We have now come to expect big government to do everything it can for us while at the same time protect us from every possible harm. The irony of it all is that, although environmentalists and other social do-gooders are still usually able to represent themselves as altruistic and anti-establishment, they have actually become “The Establishment.”

The result has been nothing less than the redefinition of our most basic cultural identity. “Freedom to…” has become “Freedom from….” Rights are no longer passive things that can’t be given – can only be infringed. Rights are aggressive entitlements that require government enforcement. You are no longer free to pee in the river. Instead, you are entitled to a river free of pee. You don’t have a right to smoke. You have a right to be free from smoke. One of these days you’ll no longer be free to hire a doctor. Instead, you’ll be entitled to access the healthcare system. Yesterday you had a right to take your motorboat out for a spin. Today you are allowed to operate it in a legally prescribed manner. Tomorrow? One can only wait and see. Your neighbor may decide they have the right to be free from the noise of your motor.

We now live in a country in which everything you do is subject to environmental regulation. A country in which a large but incalculable piece of every dollar spent feeds the growth of eco-tyranny. This is big big business and almost everybody’s playing along, either because they don’t see any other option, or because they are now part of the “green” machine. Yesterday’s idealistic altruists are today’s environmental authoritarians. Those enlightened self-interested of the past? Now are greedy cynics milking the “green” cash-cow with unrepentent vigor. So what about the evil industrial polluters that caused all this? If they play along, generously feed the machine, they’ll do fine. They might eventually even be loved for their commitment to environmental causes. Resistors will be righteously crushed. Meanwhile, any detractors left standing are either totally ignored or thoroughly vilified, at least for the time being. One of these days it might be considered seditious.

The anointed have spoken. The debate is over (as if there ever was a debate). You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. Join the “green” machine or go the way of the dinosaurs.

You can call me

Philosophisaurus

I was watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning, and heard John McCain say “I know what it’s like in America not to have health care.”

Exsqueeze me?

Son and grandson of Navy Admirals, 1958 Naval Academy graduate, naval officer until 1981, congressman or senator since 1982; John McCain knows what it’s like to be an American without health insurance in the same way that Ted Kennedy knows what it’s like to be an impoverished alcoholic.

C’mon John, you’ve had free access to the best medical care in the world for 25 years. You may know what it’s like to not need health insurance, but that’s a far cry from doing without. Folks like me do without because we can’t afford it. We can’t afford it because your behemoth bureaucracy has driven medical costs through the roof. We can’t afford it because your behemoth bureaucracy confiscates our money to feed and care for itself. We can’t afford health insurance so that you and 25 – 50 million other freeloaders* can.

Phil

* People whose health care is primarily funded by government expenditures.

Earthday: A day set aside to thank Planet Gaia for her hospitality, apologize for the empty beer cans and overflowing ashtrays cluttering up the place, and promise to clear out as soon as we can get everybody on the bus.

On this Earthday, we should all do our part to show our love for dear old Mother Gaia. That’s why I’ve prepared this list of 20 things you can do to celebrate Earthday.

  1. Wear a “Stop Global Warming” t-shirt to show your awareness of global warming.
  2. Give every tree you see a big hug.
  3. Stick pinwheels in your hat to show your support for renewable energy.
  4. Strip naked and spend the day with the bears and wolves to demonstrate your love of all Gaia’s creatures.
  5. Go to a church and explain to the congregation that humanity does not hold dominion over the Earth.
  6. Take a pee behind a tree to reconnect with nature’s flow.
  7. Drive your dad’s rusty old, smoke belching Delta 88 in the local Earthday Parade to symbolize the destruction wrought by the internal combustion engine.
  8. Leave some food out for the mice and cockroaches to acknowledge their right to be here too.
  9. Use eco-friendly candles on your Earthday cake.
  10. Enter a wet t-shirt contest wearing your “Stop Global Warming” t-shirt to stimulate awareness in others.
  11. Sabotage a pipeline to show your intolerance for wholesale industrial destruction of the environment.
  12. Hold a public hunger strike to make the point that eating makes you an accessory to murder.
  13. Lobby congress to make Earthday a national holiday.
  14. Streak a NASCAR race to protest the wanton exploitation of Earth’s precious resources.
  15. Exhale into a very large balloon all day to dramatize how much carbon dioxide each human contributes to global warming.
  16. Release all the animals from the local zoo to foster a spirit of interspecies understanding.
  17. Organize a global sing-along of Happy Earthday.
  18. Peel-off your wet t-shirt and give it to the first guy who says “your t-shirt has really stimulated my awareness.”
  19. Lie quietly in your cave to minimize your impact on the environment.
  20. Donate all your worldly possessions to Algore so he can save the planet with his slide show.

Happy Earthday Mama G.

Phil

I don’t like public opinion polls. Never have. It’s not that polls don’t have their uses. When my town council starts thinkin’ about erecting a John J. Audubon Memorial Birdbath, it’d be kinda nice if they’d call me up to ask my opinion. Might save me the trouble of runnin’ down to their fancy-dancy chambers (second floor, east wing) in the new Municipal Government Complex (that they didn’t call me about) every other Tuesday night for the next three months.

What annoys me most about these “scientific polls” is that we let them drive the political conversation when they never actually present any valid opinions. The pollsters query a couple thousand people, if that, with vague questions about how you feel about things. These questions are usually presented in a yes/no or multiple choice type format that leaves the results wide open to interpretation. On top of that, no matter how “scientific” the pollsters are trying to be, respondents are still very much self-selecting. I wonder how many calls you have to make before you get 1,500 bored, lonely, or agenda-driven people to answer your hundred questions.

So when the New York Times comes out with its periodic Are You Happy? poll, right away everyone’s jabberin’ about the (fill-in-the-blank) percent of Americans who think the country’s heading in the wrong direction. The all-knowing talking heads across the land then sagely tell us what we’re upset about; usually that government isn’t doing enough for us, and what little they are doing, they’re doing wrong. Never mind that the poll results cannot possibly give any indication what, to the respondents, specifically constitutes going in the wrong direction.

POLLSTER: Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

POLLEE: Yes.

POLLSTER: Yes what? Going in the right direction?

POLLEE: No.

POLLSTER: So you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

POLLEE: Yes.

POLLSTER: Why?

POLLEE: Why what?

POLLSTER: Why do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

POLLEE: You have to ask?

POLLSTER: Well…, yes I do.

POLLEE: Well if you don’t know, I sure as hell can’t tell you.

POLLSTER: Why not?

POLLEE: Why not what?

POLLSTER: Why can’t you tell me?

POLLEE: Why can’t I tell you what?

POLLSTER: Why can’t you tell me why you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track?

POLLEE: I never said that!

POLLSTER: Yes you did.

POLLEE: When?

POLLSTER: Just a minute ago.

POLLEE: Oh…. What was the question?

(click)

According to the March 28 – April 2 New York TimesAre You Happy? poll, 81 percent of the 1,368 respondents feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. Fourteen percent feel things in this country are generally going in the right direction. I guess the other five percent feel we’re on the right track going in the wrong direction.

So what is causing this 81 percent, off on the wrong track, bitterness?

How about this: If you had to choose, would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?

Smaller: 43%
Bigger: 43%
Depends: 4%
DK/NA: 10%

From a broad, general perspective, it looks like a pretty even split as to why people feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. Half wants more government, half wants less. These are totally opposite positions. David Copperfield couldn’t pull a political consensus out of that hat?

This is the reported political breakdown of the respondents.

Democrat: 41%
Republican: 26%
Independent: 27%
DK/NA: 6%

I think we can safely assume most of the Democrats feel Bush has taken us down the wrong track. Can we also assume they want bigger government? That’s not so certain. One would think so but they’re a pretty whacky mix of the illogical and irrational.

Conversely, I think we can assume most of the Republicans would prefer a smaller government. Do they also feel we’re on the wrong track? Given their rhetoric, I’d like to think so. With a Republican in the White House, though, I’m guessing half said we’re going in the right direction.

That leaves the Independents. Once again, it’s hard to say, but if I’m right about the other two, then nearly all feel we’re on the wrong track, and at least half think government should be smaller.

So when Pauline Pundit starts telling you why so many Americans feel we’ve gotten off on the wrong track, you can throw your shoe at the telly and holler back: “You don’t know what in tarnation you’re talkin’ about.”

In conclusion, there are a couple numbers from this poll I personally find terribly depressing. When asked to name the most important problem facing this country today, only one percent said politicians/government. When asked to name the most important ECONOMIC problem facing the country today, a slightly better two percent said too much government. I bet those numbers would be a lot higher if we get a law passed that requires you to answer those hundred questions.

Phil

Socialism here we come
on the road to perdition
life will never be the same
socialism here we come.

 

My Fellow Compatriots,

Our opponents in this bitter campaign have savagely attacked our grand plan for a LOOPIER America. They say the Loonie Overall Opportunity Plan for Inclusive Economic Recovery will cost too much money. As if their “golden parachute” plan to bail out the richest of the rich won’t cost a lot of money. As if their “universal health rationing” program won’t put enormous windfall profits into the already Monolithic Insurance Industry. As if their convoluted morass of bureaucratic buffoonery masquerading as education financing isn’t ridiculously expensive, time-consuming, and patently unfair, to boot. Who are they to talk about “scattering money into the wind like it’s so much confetti?” For decades they’ve been burning it like cordwood to stoke the fires of their solid gold, gem encrusted, fiscal fleecing machine of insatiable greed.

Puts me in mind of a story from my youth.

Once upon a time, a long time ago; when a chocolate bar was only a nickel, a fin was a lot of money, and a double sawbuck was a veritable fortune; back when I was just a little Loonie; I had a friend named Myron Corkwhistle.

Myron was a not-quite-poor kid who was always dreaming of strikin’ it rich. Always lookin’ for the big score, it’s all he ever talked about. After he heard the legend of “Mad” Henry and his buried treasure, he wasted most of a summer out at the old abandoned Stoat property, digging holes. He found some old horseshoes and nails and junk, and once he even found a nickel, but he never found any of old Henry Stoat’s gold. I doubt there ever was any.

So anyway, when it came time for Myron’s confirmation, it just so happens that his birthday fell on the same day. And what with aunts and uncles and such, Myron raked in a whopping $23.

“I’m rich,” he told me later. “You know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna get me a twenty dollar bill.”

“Know what else I’m gonna do? Next Saturday I’m gonna take you to the movies.”

So the next Saturday, just as we’re about to enter the theatre, Myron says “Wait a ’sec. I still gotta get my double sawbuck. You go in and get us some good seats, I’ll be back in a minute.

Thirty minutes later, just as the feature was starting, Myron came running in, found me, and before he even sat sat down whispered, “I’m gonna be rich.”

“Whatta you talkin’ about?” I hissed back.

“I’ll tell ya later,” he said.

Oh was he excited. He was so charged up he was shakin’ and ashiverin’ like he was freezin’ to death.

“You alright?” I asked.

“Yeah. Watch the movie,” was all he said.

When the movie was over, I asked him what happened.

“It’s gotta be a secret,” Myron told me. “Let’s get some sodas and go out to the Ramparts. I’ll show you there.”

The Ramparts was what we called the ramshackle little fort we built on the bluff overlooking Caterwaul Creek. When we got there, Myron took something from his pocket and set it on a boulder we used as a table.

“Whutcha make o’ that?” he asked.

Before me was a small wooden box, no more than four inches wide and eight inches long. It had a couple slots in the top, one near each end, and the top was fastened down with four small screws at each corner. Sticking out the side was a small crank.

“What is it?” I asked. “A jack-in-the-box?”

“No, you smart aleck. It’s a money machine.”

“Whattaya mean, a money machine?

“I mean, “he said slowly, “it’s a machine, that makes money. Five dollar bills to be exact.”

Now when it come to brains, Myron wasn’t exactly on top o’ the food chain, if you know what I mean; but he wasn’t completely stupid.

“You’re crazy,” I yelped. “That silly little box can’t make money.”

“Yes it can,” he argued. “I saw it work.”

“Where’d you get it?”

Myron then told me how he’d gone to two places trying to get a twenty when a clerk at the five & dime suggested he try the pool hall. So he went in there and got the crispest, almost newest, twenty dollar bill Manny had in the drawer. As he was leaving the building, a fellow who’d apparently just been hangin’ around came up to him.

“Hey kid,” he says. “How’d you like to make $20 month for the rest of your life?”

“Sure,” said Myron, “but I ain’t gonna rob no banks, and I sure ain’t gonna kill anyone.”

“Nothin’ like that,” the guy says. “You look like a smart kid. I’ve got a little business proposition for ya.”

So they go around back by the coal chute, and this fella shows Myron the box. He tells him that it prints absolutely authentic, hundred percent real, five dollar bills. Then he says he’ll sell it to Myron. Seems he got into a game with some tough cookies and he owes one of them $25. If he don’t have it tonight, he’s in big trouble.

“So you bought it?” I interrupted. “Buddy, I think you’ve been taken in by the flim flam man.”

“No, it really works,” Myron insisted.

“Then why didn’t he just print up $25 and pay the creep?”

“See, that’s the thing,” explained Myron. “That’s why I can only use it to make $20 a month, and why he couldn’t use it to pay his gambling debt. The guy said you have to wait a whole, entire week between uses. That’s how long it takes the frammerstam to recombobulate.”

Myron then told this fella that he’d like to help him out but he didn’t have $25.

“Ya got twenty?”

“Yeah.”

“Then you’re in luck,” he says. “I’ll print a fin, show ya how it’s done, then with that and your double sawbuck I can get this guy off my back.”

And so he did. Myron was so impressed he whipped out his twenty.

“I feel kinda bad about this,” Myron groaned. “What’re you going to do without your money machine?”

“I appreciate the concern, kid,” the man smiled at Myron. “But don’t you worry about me. I’ve got another one at home that prints sawbucks. I just can’t use it yet ’cause I used it during the game the other night. — Lost my stake. Took a break to print a tenspot. Then, holding a full house, got myself $35 into a nice hot pot. Four treys took it home. I think I got cheated.”

“So you gave this guy your crisp, new, first-time-ever, twenty dollar bill for that little wooden box?” I asked.

“Yep,” Myron beamed, “but I’ll make that back in a month. Then I’m on easy street.”

Myron explained to me how you cut a piece of paper to the exact size of a five dollar bill, stick the end into one of the slots, then turn the crank. The blank paper goes in one end and out the other comes a perfect fin.

“Let’s try it,” I said.

“Can’t,” he spat. “Gotta wait a week.”

“I have an idea,” I spat back. “Let’s get a screwdriver and take it apart.”

“Oh no, we can’t do that,” he gasped. “That’s the second rule. I can’t take it apart. He told me the mechanism is so intricately crafted that even just loosening one screw could ruin it forever.”

“Are there any other rules?”

“Just one,” said Myron. “I have to use good bond paper, no cheap notebook or newsprint type stuff.”

So we agreed to meet back at the Ramparts a week later.

Oh Oh.

Friends, my sincerest, heartfelt apologies. Seems this ol’ windbag got to ramblin’ on with his reminiscences and plumb lost all track of time. I’m truly sorry, but I have to cut this story short.

Now of course, as you all certainly know, Myron Corkwhistle’s little wooden box didn’t print any five dollar bills. After more than a month of trying, we finally took it apart. The mechanism was just a set of rollers attached to the crank. It pulled one piece of paper in one slot and shoved another piece of paper out the other slot. The only way to crank out a fiver is to first crank one in. My buddy Myron had indeed been taken in by the flim flam man.

And so have we been taken in by the flim flam man. Those Dysfunctional and Reprehensible power-brokers have been conning us for years. Myron was taken in by a money machine that doesn’t work. We’ve been taken in by one that does. My opponents say our plans to ring in a new age of wealth and prosperity will cost too much money. They’re full of enough balderdash to make even P.T. Barnum blush. What they don’t reckon on is the fact that I know what they know, and we’ll be fooled no longer.

Myron’s money machine didn’t work. But I know who has one that does. The United States Treasury, that’s who.

Those hucksters have had control of the money machine long enough. They gleefully print, with gay abandon, bushels and bushels of money, just to fill the coffers of the high muckety-mucks deemed worthy of their blessings.

NO MORE! Our time has come!

When I’m elected president, the money we print will go where it rightfully belongs. To you, the hard-working, long-suffering backbone of this great nation.

So vote for me, Senator Raymond V. Loonie, to be your next president.

?

A Loonie vote is the money vote

 

Unless you’ve been on a weeks-long journey through the wilds of Borneo, you’ve no doubt heard about Barack Obama’s recent comment concerning bitter Americans. This is what Barry is reported to have said at a fund-raiser in ‘Frisco:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Hillary Clinton rejoindered with:

I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

John McCain’s campaign responded with:

It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans. — McCain advisor, Steve Schmidt

I don’t think any of ‘em are really out of touch (except maybe Hillary), they’re just touched (especially Hillary). Actually, I think Obama has a far-better grasp of realpolitik than the other two.

First: He’s right that a lot of people are bitter with the way things are going. After all, the latest New York TimesAre You Happy?” poll says 81 percent feel things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track. (I’ll discuss this further in an upcoming post.)

Second: When identifying the issues to which these bitter people cling, he’s basically targeting Republican issues. He knows he isn’t going to get the hard-core conservative Republican vote, so it doesn’t matter if he yanks their chains. To the contrary, in so doing he effectively reinforces his popularity with the hard-core liberal Democrats, to whom he was speaking at the time. After all, right now his fight is with Hillary.

Third: He’s sending a subtle message to the squishy middle. He’s telling them that he knows they’re not mindless single-issue voters. He’s offering himself as the candidate that will honestly address important issues without falling back on boilerplate positions.

Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. — Obama spokesman, Tommy Vietor

Given that nearly half the population now believes all good things flow from government, and almost all the rest accept it as a fact-of-life whether they like it or not, Obama knows how to tap into the growing “when do I get mine?” block of voters.

Phil

Have you heard about the upcoming adoption of the new Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (not to be confused with the The Great Lakes Basin Compact)? This new layer of government authority will dictate what is acceptable use and abuse of the Great Lakes.

All the Great Lake states are joyously surrendering sovereignty to this new authority in the name of “protecting the Great Lakes.”

It doesn’t matter that Great Lakes oversight is already a rat’s nest of government and non-government bureaucratic balderdash. Who cares that this will be just one more expensive nightmare of awful officious offal. So what if this monstrosity basically duplicates what is already being done. What’s great is it creates a higher level of authority over all aspects of the Great Lakes. It does this primarily to once-and-for-all establish big government ownership and control of all that wonderful water.

The hallmark, this-is-why-we-need-it provision of this binding authority springs from the idealistic, public-spirited, humanist philosophy best expressed as: It’s all mine and you can’t have any.

The compact is an agreement among the eight Great Lakes states intended to protect the world’s largest freshwater system from being drained by parched regions around the country, or even the world. (Dan Egan-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel)

In other words, those building the new global village wouldn’t sell, much less give, a glass of water to their thirsty neighbor.

Now I’m not proposing anything, but it really wouldn’t be all that difficult to divert some water to the headwaters of the Colorado River, thus providing water to Arizona and California. It would be even easier to send some to Nebraska to replenish the Ogallala aquifer. This is the kind of horrible thing they fear. I guess they believe those heat-crazed Phoenicians are going to come and steal it away. Drain those lakes dry.

In order to avoid this, they have for years effectively prohibited any water from leaving the basin. Very Little of this new luvgovfest is really new. The new compact just gives them another bureaucratic layer to make absolutely sure they can continue to disallow any new diversion of Great Lakes water. Even if they do condescend from Olympus and deign to authorize a diversion, they’ve insured they won’t lose anything. Any diversion must be replaced by an equal amount of treated water. That’ll show those greedy, selfish barbarians.

Now we’re not talking about whether Springfield should sell some of its precious reservoir water to Shelbyville. We’re talking about 90 percent of the fresh surface water in the entire United States being held captive by less than 15 percent of the population. And even they must kiss the emperor’s ring if they want any.

Lake Superior alone holds more than 3 quadrillion gallons of water. If you sucked an inch off the top, you’d have 550 billion gallons. The United States uses around 525,000 gallons per person per year. That’s about 150 trillion gallons. This would be about 23 feet off the top of Lake Superior. With an average depth of more than 480 feet, it would take 21 years to drain it dry if no more water were added.

Correcting for evaporation, Lake Superior receives about three feet of water per year in precipition and stream inflow. If you removed just that three feet of new water, you’d have about 20 trillion gallons, 13 percent, or nearly 1/7, of the nation’s water needs. That’s only Lake Superior, just one of five Great Lakes.

With all that free water just hangin’ around with nothing to do, these hoarders wouldn’t let a Canadian shipping company haul away a piddlin’ 160 million gallons a year. That was ten years ago. More than 15 years ago they denied Lowell, Indiana, one of their own, use of a mere 700 million gallons a year.

This is how we foster a spirit of cooperation? Show love for our fellow Gaians? Bring about a world of peace and harmony?

Supporters of this sort of high-powered resource control justify it in the name of “protection,” environmental or otherwise. They say things like: “You shouldn’t be living in the desert, anyway. Why should we divert our water to help you?”

I would generally agree with at least part of this sentiment; just as I would take the same view of people living on floodplains, bluffsides, or in hurricane country. You want to live there, fine by me, just be prepared to deal with the inevitable problems and don’t come crying to me for help. Then again, I don’t think government, big or small, should be messin’ with much of anything (but I’ll take small over big anytime).

On the other hand, these thoughtful, caring people love big government (as long as it does what they want) and expect it to be nanny to us all. They’re more inclined to have big nanny move you out of the “sensitive area” (at government expense), then pat themselves on their humanitarian backs for a job well done. They’ll trumpet to the world their selfless good deeds, crowing noisily about how they rescued you from an awful fate and protected the environment from your irresponsible presence.

What you want doesn’t matter.

Now the truth is, our big ‘ol US government spends an awful lot of money “protecting” the Great Lakes. Furthermore, the people of the Great Lakes benefit greatly from all the farmin’ and ranchin’ goin’ on outside their basin fortress (try growing food in January). And it’s not like those wanting the water wouldn’t pay handsomely for it. Why not sell a few billion gallons here or there? You’ll never miss it.

Oh no, that would be an ecological disaster. Our ecosystem needs all the water it can get. Your’s, however, is not supposed to have any. If we divert water to you, not only will our environment suffer serious, irreparable harm, so will yours. We couldn’t live with that.

This is what you get from an all-caring nanny state created by global village people who gleefully throw billions of dollars around like it’s candy at a parade. They claim to have your health, safety, and general welfare in mind, but only as they define it. Your dissenting opinion is irrelevent.

Phil

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sage advice from one of my favorite wise guys, Ben Franklin. However, if you could ask him, I bet he’d agree that this notion doesn’t scale up very well. I think ol’ Poor Richard would be seriously distressed to see how the intolerant, freedom-hating Americans of today have so ardently embraced the prevention concept. (Did I say intolerant, freedom-hating?) Yes I did. Just because you say you love freedom doesn’t mean you do. Your actions prove otherwise.

An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure but that doesn’t mean a ton of prevention is worth 16 tons of cure. That would be like saying, since an inch of rain is good, 16 inches would be great. I don’t think your basement would agree. Take chlorine. We use a lot of chlorine to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. It works pretty darn good. Chlorine is also a deadly poison. Use too much, use it improperly, it can kill you.

In the real world, you really can’t prevent very much of anything. It’s probably worth doing what little you can, but beyond that it soon becomes destructive in its own right. Don’t assume that, since one scoop of chlorine will do a good job keeping the pool clean, two or three will work that much better.

Using chlorine as a disinfectant is an example of prevention. Meanwhile, it will rain. Do you have shelter? Finding shelter is not prevention. It is preparation and/or mitigation. Effective living does little to prevent, much, much more to prepare and mitigate. We accept that it will rain and we build a house so we can come in out of it. The big difference between the two is, while prevention tries to keep something from ever happening, preparation and mitigation accepts something will happen and asks “what can I do to lessen the impact on me and mine.”

Here in America, we have decided we can prevent almost anything we don’t like. This is how we become intolerant, freedom-haters. We’re not satisfied with climbing up on our soapbox and loudly denouncing those behaviors we dislike. We have to eliminate these things, completely, with all the force of law we can muster, no matter how long it takes, and to blazes with anyone or anything that gets in our way. We proudly proclaim our intolerance, and lament that until (fill-in-the-blank) is completely wiped out we will never be truly free. Then we try to sanitize the uncomfortable fact that we trample all over people’s freedoms in our quixotic quest to be “truly free.” We identify the evil ones, then psychoanalyze them, villainize them, dehumanize them, criminalize them, penalize them, institutionalize them, and hope to never-again set eyes on them.

Some day it may be your turn.

Phil

If you haven’t already heard, the latest lead-based recall crisis has nothing to do with cute little Made-in-China toddler toys. This one’s about once cute, though somewhat larger, Made-in-America Bambi Burgers. Yep. Starting with North Dakota, and quickly spreading from state to state, “donated” venison filling food-shelf freezers is being recalled due to concerns it may be contaminated with lead. The alleged source of the alleged lead is alleged to be the alleged projectile(s) that allegedly killed the alleged deer.

I didn’t bring this up to discuss whether it is right to remove badly needed food from the mouths of the masses of America’s starving poor in order to protect them from the unlikely chance of acute lead poisoning. I also don’t intend to discuss any possible anti-gun, anti-hunting political motives that might be behind this. I also will not seek to use this as another opportunity to show government ineptitude, nor ask what the recall and testing will cost, nor question how projectile lead can permeate meat not in close proximity to the wound, nor whether government-approved processors are properly removing damaged tissue.

When I first heard about this situation, I thought about all those things above, as well as others. Then I thought, I wonder how much this “free” venison actually costs, not counting the recall.

Now I realize it would be virtually impossible to get precise costs since they are spread so broadly across government, non-profit organizations, venison processors, and the participation of individuals. Along with that, each state operates a little differently. I’ll try to make some guesses anyway.

First we guesstimate the average venison yield per deer. In Columbiana County, Ohio, just under 2,000 lbs. of venison came from 40 deer (48 lbs./deer). In Minnesota, 78,000 lbs. from just under 2000 deer (41 lbs./deer). Wisconsin claims 9,200 deer and 414,000 lbs (45 lbs/deer). It seems likely that the average yield/deer in these programs will not exceed 50 lbs, and will actually be something closer to 40 lbs. We’ll use 45.

The normal routine is for a hunter to take a deer he wants to donate to a processor registered and approved to participate in the program. The prepared and properly labelled meat is then distributed to registered and approved “feed the hungry” organizations. From there the hungry get fed. As long as everybody fills out the proper forms and keeps the proper records, the processor gets reimbursed for each deer butchered. The most common amount I see for this is $70. Whether this is more or less than the processor normally gets, I don’t know. Wisconsin only pays $50 per deer for processing and assumes the hunter or processor will make up the difference.

Calculating overall administrative costs is probably impossible. How much is spent for shipping and handling? I don’t know. Wisconsin says it costs its food donation program $1.40 per pound for processing and administration. If Wisconsin pays about $1.10/lb. for processing, then $.30/lb. is their calculated cost for administration. I assume these costs don’t reflect those of the non-government charities involved with promotion and/or distribution. Minnesota has budgeted $160,000 for its program. This comes to $2.05/lb. including processing. With Minnesota paying about 1.70/lb. for processing, its administrative costs are about $.35. I think we can also make the case that Wisconsin processing costs are no cheaper than elsewhere, and somebody is paying the $20/deer difference. This makes actual Wisconsin processing costs $1.55/lb. Since we’re only guessing, anyway, we”ll use 45 lbs. as the yield/deer, and therefore $1.55/lb. as the processing cost. Then we’ll say that government costs are at least $.30/lb. and blindly guess that the administrative type costs for all NGO involvement is half that, or $.15/lb. Overall, this is probably a very conservative guess.

One other cost not reflected by any of this is that of the hunter. We’ll ignore the value of the hunter’s time. Direct costs, however, include licenses and tags, ammunition and other gear, and transportation expenses. This can vary tremendously, and an average can only be guessed at. I’m gonna go with $45/deer or $1.00/lb. Also probably very low.

So we take $1.55 + .30 + .15 + $1 and we get $3.00.

So best guess is, all that “free” venison destined for the legions of poor, starving children wasting away in our countless overflowing ghettos, is at the very least costing somebody $3.00 per pound.

Phil