Lottery Post Journal

One of the chief causes for high health costs

Watch this video and you will understand why health care costs so much in this country.

It is NOT because we need government-run health care.  No, that would be a disaster of much bigger proportions.

At least with the current system the health care industry has some ability to try and keep things under control.  (Watch the interesting solution in which a hospital pays out their own money to solve the root cause.)

If we can fix this problem — by addressing the root cause at a different federal agency — health care costs will be much more reasonable for all of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI

Three Ways to End the Oil Crisis

This is what I was trying to say the other day in my blog, but sometimes it is so much more effective to hear and see it in a video.

This video does not address all of my points, but it does hit on three of them, and explains the rationale in great detail.

Only 3:41 in length.  Certainly a valuable use of the next three minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

Oil: Wow, how brainwashed

The latest fib from the environmental groups is that the oil companies have "millions of acres of undeveloped land just waiting to be drilled, and they're not doing it."

Of course, as soon as this is put forth by the environmental wackos, the brainwashed among us immediately start parroting it back to everyone, as if suddenly they've become oil scientists and geologists.

The last people these salivating people would want to ask about this "fact" of undeveloped land, of course, is the oil companies themselves, because the oil companies are evil.  (How they became evil is a mystery, but since the environmental wackos say they're evil, that's what they instantly believe.)

Do these nuts understand that practically everything they own has used oil in some capacity in order to manufacture it, most of those things directly as one of the ingredients?

Why don't they just give up their computers?  After all, they are largely manufactured from oil products, and just running a computer is accomplished with the burning of fossil fuels.

Actually I wish they would give up their computers, because they are only spreading these tall tales by keeping them on.

Why is it that the oil companies have undeveloped land?  Well, there are many reasons, the chief among them is that there is little or no oil there.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. Sign the Petition!

The petition at AmericanSoutions.com is nearing 1 million signatures!

There is an exciting groundswell of support for using our energy sources here at home, not only to lower our energy costs, but to reduce our dependency on countries that have leaders who have sworn to defeat us.

Let's all make energy dependency the biggest issue of the campaign, and force the two candidates to lay out detailed plans for how they will solve the problem.

A gas tax holiday is not the solution.  A short-term solution that does not address the core issue.  Supported by John McCain.

Windfall profit taxes on oil companies is not the solution.  Penalizes American companies, while foreign companies are not affected, giving unfair and huge competitive edge over American companies.  Drives up prices, rather than reducing them, because oil companies simply pass any additional taxes to consumers.   Problem becomes worse, economy sinks.  Supported by Barack Obama.

Instead, we must do the following, in this order:

  1. First grow and utilitize our resources here in America, which have been untapped for decades.
  2. Reform the futures commodity trading industry to protect oil, which is of strategic importance to every person in this country.  When energy prices go up, every single person suffers, even those who don't use much energy.  Energy drives the entire economy, top to bottom.  High energy prices means layoffs.  Low energy prices means more jobs and disposable income for every person.
  3. Invest in more nuclear power plants, which will provide clean, environmentally-friendly power, and lower energy prices.
  4. Invest in alternative energy production and storage, particularly advanced battery and fuel cell technology and hydrogen and other non-biofuel technologies.
  5. Remove restrictions on the import of sugarcane-based biofuels.  The bans were enacted to protect corn farmers, but the corn farmers do not need the protection.  There is a shortage of corn, not an over-abundance, so corn prices are too high, and are continuing to rise.  This is a typical consequence of protectionist policies; the consumer is harmed.  Corn is not as efficient as sugarcane in its conversion to fuel, so we would have lower prices plus more energy.

How can you support this? 

Start by signing the petition mentioned above.

Here is the link: www.americansolutions.com

Also, find out what the candidates will offer as a solution for energy prices. 

Ask yourself:

  • Does the solution offered give us more energy, and therefore drive down prices?
  • Does the solution have both short-term and long-term benefits?
  • Will it help or hinder the economy?
  • What is your confidence that the candidate is serious about solving the issue and implementing their solutions in full?  (Talk is cheap.)

Firefox 3.0 is here - no need to wait

I think that "world record" thing is pretty dumb.  I guess if they're trying to make themselves look important it will be all smiles, but really, who cares?

If you want the Firefox 3 browser without all the fanfare, here's the direct link:

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0&os=win&%20lang=en-US

Note: this is the official 3.0 release, not a beta or release candidate.

Important: Don't forget, if you only want to use Firefox as a secondary browser — not your primary web browser — you must un-check the checkbox during install that states "Use Firefox as my default web browser".

My original thought of the day

Just about everyone has received forwarded e-mails with catchy little sayings, or has seen them on peoples' blogs.

Did you ever wonder to yourself, "Who makes up those sayings?"

I always wondered that myself, until today, when suddenly this phrase just popped into my head, out of the blue.

I thought I should quickly blog it before I forgot.

So here is my original thought of the day!

If you do things the right way
If you persevere
You will usually get
What you want

If you avoid hard work
If you take short cuts
You will usually get
What you deserve

Good thoughts of the day

Concentrate on each sentence for a bit...

"To get something you never had, you have to do something you never did."

"When God takes something from your grasp, He's not punishing you, but merely opening your hands to receive something better."

"The will of God will never take you where the Grace of God will not protect you.'"

Compact fluorescent bulbs: required to use by 2014?

This is one of those "must-watch" videos to give you a ton of information very quickly.  This is something you probably didn't hear anything about, since the only being mentioned on TV was how "Republicans blocked the energy bill."

I would love to have this guy as my Representative!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

Code Pink takes on the Marines

That is an awesomely funny Daily Show clip.

Any video that exposes those complete dunderheads has an interview of Code Pink is OK by me!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley

Funny!

An Old Newness

by Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ball game with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly, but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States. No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black President, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit.

The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever, and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become President — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex and age — as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate Federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. If you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them, there is no point feeling outraged by things done by Federal judges. Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of "change" endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s. We paid a terrible price for such 1960s' notions in the years that followed — in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Study compares truthfulness of liberals vs. conservatives

This is from today's Newark Examiner.

I think the findings from this study also explain why conservatives have a strong sense of "good vs. evil" (that it clearly exists in the world, and how there is no blurring the lines between the two), and why liberals feel uncomfortable labeling anything as definitively "good" or "evil".

Conservatives more honest than liberals?

by Peter Schweizer, The Examiner
Jun 2, 2008

WASHINGTON — The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn't ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.

Consider these results:

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as "very liberal" said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are "very conservative." When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: "You lose your job. Your friend's company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?"

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn't deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.

A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association's Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a "liberal outlook" who "reject the idea of absolute truth" were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward "conservatism" translated into "higher levels of ethical values." And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between "political liberalism" and "lying in your own self-interest," based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam," according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.

However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.

The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate "doesn't have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist."

During this political season, honesty is often in short supply. But at least we can improve things by accepting the idea that truth and honesty exist. As the late scholar Sidney Hook put it, "the easiest rationalization for the refusal to seek the truth is the denial that truth exists."