Quote of the Day

Regarding a British 11 year-old girl who posted nude pictures of herself online, a reader commented:

Scary! When I was 11 I was still playing with dolls.
That young lady needs to grow up a lot before acting without considering the consequences.

Amen. Children, consider the consequences, acting without considering the consequences is strictly for adults.

Finally, a Harmless Jihad . . . or . . . Why Bilingual Education is Important

Thank you FailBlog.org

Amen

A great article in the UK Daily Mail today on the true motivations of a segment of the environmental movement.

Jonathon Porritt, the [UK] Government's 'green' adviser, has said that couples who have more than two children are being 'irresponsible' by creating an unbearable burden on the environment.

Curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must therefore be at the heart of policies to fight man-made global warming.

Apparently this is all because people have to accept responsibility 'for their total environmental footprint'.

That's what having children amounts to, apparently, in his mind.

The blessings of a large family and the contribution this makes to prosperity and progress don't figure at all. Instead, children are to be measured solely by their burdensome impact on the planet.

What kind of sinister and dehumanised mindset is this? It is no coincidence that the country which comes nearest to Jonathon's ideal society is Communist China, which imposed a murderously cruel policy of restricting families to one child apiece. For the desire to reduce the number of children that parents produce is innately totalitarian.

I can't say it any better.

Read the rest of it here.

Common Sense . . . Almost

I was reading about the California Woman who just gave birth to octuplets. The poor lady had 6 kids already.

It seems like the media has no shortage of advice and criticism for her. Some stories imply that any sane person would have aborted several of the babies, others wonder about a possible breach of medical ethics by the doctor who implanted 8 embryos in the first place.

I'm glad she didn't abort them, I do wonder about the doctor though. Fox news tries to at least be helpful

"Eating, sleeping and bathing are the key areas to get scheduled," he said. "The same goes for mom and dad. Parents need to make sure they're whole or else they won't be valuable to their children."

Good, so far so good, just good common sense, but then common sense seems to go right out the window:

Sophy said the expense of raising 14 children will likely be prohibitive, citing studies that estimate it costs roughly $2.5 million to raise a child to adulthood. Using that math, raising 14 children would cost roughly $35 million.

"And that's basic stuff," he said. "That doesn't include swimming lessons and things like that. It's very costly and hopefully the planning that needs to be done was done upfront."

What the heck? 2.5 million dollars? For one child? Who won't even know how to swim? I don't even have to think to know that that is patently absurd.

If your family makes $100,000 a year and spends every penny on only one child for 20 years that's still only 2 million dollars. Throw in a $100,000 college education, and another $100,000 for law school, and you're still not there.

Common sense should tell you that many people who don't earn 2.5 million dollars in their lifetime successfully raise children to adulthood. For example, the median income in the U.S. is about $50,000. that median earner will need 50 years to make 2.5 million. Obviously it doesn't cost them 2.5 million to raise one child.

The reporter makes matters worse by simply regurgitating the number and then calculating that it will take 35 million dollars to raise the 14 children in the family.

Absolutely ridiculous.

One More Thing to Worry About . . .

And just when I thought I had enough to worry about:

Forward-facing strollers may harm babies emotionally

Oh dear, I'll be sure to put that on my list of important things to worry about . . . let's see . . . that'll be about number 154,567. I'll get right on that.

I can't wait for the activists to ban non-conforming strollers.

The "Work Spouse"

I remember hearing, and telling jokes about someone having a "work spouse." All in good fun, right?

Apparently CNN believes that the phenomenon is real enough and serious enough to warrant an advice column on managing the "work spouse" relationship. Because, after all, no human interaction is so straightforward and uncomplicated that it can't be micromanaged to death if enough psychologists put their minds to it.

Don't know if you have a "work spouse?" You're not alone. Many people have one (or more) work spouses, and don't know it. Luckily, CNN has a quick and easy seven point test you can take to see if you have a "work spouse."

(I can imagine the rationalizations for a positive test result: "it can happen to anyone." "It's no one's fault, really." "When working together in close quarters, work spouses happen." "Don't feel stigmatized, work spouses cut across all racial and economic lines." "We just need to raise awareness . . ." blah, blah, blah)

If you discover that you have, inadvertently, acquired a work spouse - don't panic, you can manage your condition. CNN knows what to do:

Keep the lines of communication open. Make sure that other co-workers are not feeling shut out by the perception that you and your work spouse are an exclusive clique of two. If you are working on a project together that also involves the team, be sure to reach out to everyone for feedback and suggestions.

In other words, be promiscuous in your work relationships, exclusivity leads to jealousy, "Make 'work love' not 'work war'" in that giant corporate commune that is the office.

Avoid crossing boundaries. It's great to have a support system and a close confidante, but be sure to set boundaries for how much to share with your office mate. More importantly, honor those boundaries. If the relationship becomes antagonistic or is too close for comfort, let your work spouse know you need a little space.

Avoid crossing boundaries!?!? You mean like thinking of co-workers as your "spouse?" That kind of boundary? And if the relationship is destructive, by all means take "a little space" don't end it. You can make it work, 'work divorce' is not the answer!

Lighten the mood. If your life at home and at work is filled with complications, bringing a co-worker into the middle of those issues may not be beneficial for you. You should aim to keep the mood light and happy with your work spouse. You'll look forward to enjoying gossip, taking breaks and being able to relax with a friend without any concerns or complications.

Relaxing with a friend without any concerns or complications is the purview of a REAL spouse. if you are more relaxed at work than at home, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your life.

I kept hoping to see some evidence of humor in the article, but I didn't. That fact both scares and saddens me.

A Silent Killer - Golf

I hope Becky doesn't read this item. She'll never let me golf again. Here's just one of the seven golfing deaths you can read about by following the link:

1995 - Jean Potevan of Orleans, France was so irate after missing 3 straight puts that he threw his bag into a lake out of sheer frustration. Only problem: his car keys were also in the bag. He dove in and proceeded to drown after getting entangled in the weeds. According to his golf partner, his last words were “I’m going back for the keys, but I’m leaving the clubs down there.”

I'd never do anything potentially dangerous on the golf course, right sweetie?

The Milk of Human Stupidity

PETA is usually good for a laugh, but lately they've been good for little more than a nauseous shudder. Their latest crusade? to convince Ben and Jerry's to use human beast milk in their ice cream.

The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk.

uh.... Why?

Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. . . it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.

So... linked by whom? and, human milk isn't dairy? and shouldn't someone warn the calves not to drink such dangerous stuff?

Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.

So... humans are mammals, and we should milk them instead? Wouldn't taking mothers' milk deprive human babies of something important? After all "the breast is best," right?

I must be missing something. PETA can't be that stupid, can they? Not to be indelicate, but I'm a father. I know about how much milk a human mother produces in a day, and it isn't 30 liters (the average for a dairy cow). I wonder how much a liter of milk would cost if PETA got its way?

Change You Can Believe In - Part I: Economics.

(Sorry, this is a little long).

I was glancing through Senator Obama's "Blueprint For Change" which outlines his policies and priorities, when I began to wonder how much spending has been promised. I decided to search to whole document and find out. All quotes are directly from Obama's Blueprint. Keep in mind that these are only the items that Obama has promised that include a specific dollar amount. I've done my best to weed out duplicate spending and to be generally fair. Let's start with a piece of Obama's plan I agree with:

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue (ie tax increases) elsewhere.

Well, it's about time! Keep this in mind. I'll come back to it later. Let's take a look at how much spending Senator Obama will need to offset.

---

First direct spending promises:

reduce a typical family’s premiums by as much as $2,500 per year (through government-funded health care)

Cost: 100 billion dollars/year (400 billion for his first term)

(Guessing conservatively, at an average of $1000 times 100 million families; this jives with Obama's own estimated cost for his health insurance plan).

$10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems.

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs (of FMLA reform)

Total cost: 1.5 billion total

Create Automatic Workplace Pensions -employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems...His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000.

This one is hard to price. Considering the number of families earning less than 75,000 (a large majority) the cost could be enormous. Besides, I thought social security was the answer:

“We … have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it’s a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever.
–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

So, we won't count that one.

Obama will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies

Cost: 15 billion/year (150 billion total)

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs

Cost: .2 billion/year (1 billion total)

He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees

cost: 2 billion total

he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal (cutting world poverty)

Total cost: 25 billion/year

Total Spending: 679.5 billion dollars.

Total ongoing yearly spending: 160.2 billion dollars.

---

Now let's look at new tax cuts:

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay

Cost: 20 billion/year (if 20% of families are "working").

Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Cost: 20 billion/year (see above assumptions)

Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners

Cost: 5 billion dollars

an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors

Cost: 9.8 billion dollars

Obama will create a new  American Opportunity Tax Credit...This $4,000 tax credit will be fully refundable...

Also very hard to value. Potentially huge. We'll ignore this one too.

Total tax cuts per year: 54.8 billion dollars.

---

So, by Obama's own reckoning, every year (for at least 5 years)the federal government will need to come up with a minimum of 215 billion dollars additional tax revenue (54.8 billion + 160.2) if Obama is really going to offset these expenses. Of course this also assumes zero spending growth for every other government agency and program: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military spending, interest on the debt, Education, etc . . . . or Obama could cut spending . . . (yeah, that's going to happen).

Total federal tax revenue for 2007 was 2568 billion dollars. The needed tax increase will, therefore, be 8.4% on average for every taxpaying entity in America. The reality will be much greater for some taxpayers and corporations than others given the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers pay no income taxes, and Obama's stated preference for raising taxes only on corporations and "the rich."

This minimum increase excludes onetime spending and several ongoing programs I listed above. It also excludes many other programs, funds, grants, commissions and panels which are promised but not given a dollar value.

It also does not include the "cap and trade" carbon reduction program which amounts to an enormous tax on energy production. It also excludes the "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. It does not include the cost to business of increasing the minimum wage or of compliance with any of the additional regulations Obama proposes.

Finally, this assumes that nothing goes over-budget - this is the government we're talking about here.

This is the minimum cost of "change you can believe in."

Current Oil and Gas Prices are Self-inflicted Wounds

For several reasons, I always enjoy finding articles that summarize everything I've been thinking on a current issue. First, it confirms what I've always thought - "I'm a smart guy." Second, it saves me the trouble of composing long blog posts - I can just cut, paste and link. Much easier.

so I'm glad I found this post on the real political and historical reasons for the current "energy crisis."

Short version: Congressional dismay about high gas prices is like me blindfolding myself and then complaining when I bump into things a lot.

Long Version:

Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office.

Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year.

Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India.

At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. . .

Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.

Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?

Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.

It's not as if we don't have the oil available. According to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress:

Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.

That doesn't include ANWR, and it doesn't include offshore drilling.

The real problem, I believe, is that liberals, and environmentalists in particular, want oil to be expensive. Read the words of Sen. Obama when ask his opinion of high oil prices:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.

I think most people fail to see the need for an adjustment at all. the article points out that Democrats don't have this attitude about other scarce "resources."

Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs?

Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. 'Adjust to having less' is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance.

Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves.

Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy?

An Incredible Lack of Perspective

Bob Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television (apparent motto: "because white folks just ain't funny") either misspoke, or is deliberately saying stupid things on national television. It has to be one of those two, because I cannot accept that he really believes the following:

I believe that if Senator Obama leads this country the way he ran the primary, it will become a historic event for African-Americans, probably greater than the Emancipation Proclamation, which was signed in 1863.

The election of single man (and a wealthy, liberal, Harvard-educated, socialist man at that) is more important that the freeing of tens of millions of human beings from slavery? Maybe we should ask Mr. Johnson's great-grandparents what they think. If he's correct, my recent graduation from law school must be just as historic to white people as the Magna Charta, or at least the advent of gun racks in pickup trucks.

That kind of thing just boggles my mind. I fear this is only the beginning of Obama's cult of personality, so let me be the first to say "I, for one, welcome our socialist overlords, LONG LIVE THE DEAR LEADER!"

Now, where can I buy a picture of Comrade Stalin, err, Senator Obama for the shrine?