Do public schools have the right to deny serving chocolate milk to students?
Absolutely!
You, the parents, previously decided to accept the school's proposal to serve your children lunch. You presumably agreed, because you then no longer had the responsibility to pack your child's lunch in the morning and apparently the school lunch would be free.
Unfortunately, you did not look into the consequences. When you gave up the responsibility, you also gave up the right of control.
This is a simple example of the workings of socialism. Do you see any other analogies that affect your life and freedom of control? Are you satisfied with being an automaton following instructions and decisions of government? If you do not, you may be able to do something about it in the 2012 election.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Another Futile Bureaucratic Way of Developing the Economy
There is another bit of information from the April 4th issue of C&E News. It reports on another bureaucratic boondoggle.
The Department of Commerce is in its second year of a grant program, with the usual tricky government name of "i6 Challenge". The intent is to foster development of a new technology or product into a commercial success. The DOC has apparently never heard of research and development departments of large corporations or Investment bankers for small entrepreneurs. Or perhaps, it has invented a new way to waste taxpayer funds.
The sub-department handling this boondoggle project is the Economic Development Administration (EDA) It manages a multi-agency group to promote Pres. Obama's "Startup American innovation to promote job creation through US [pie in the sky] innovation".
Funding for this year's Challenge is $12.3 million, of which $6 million will come from the taxpayers through the DOC budget. The remaining funding of $6.3 million will come from the taxpayers through the cooperating agencies, which include the USDA, the EPA, DOE and the NSF. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Patent and Trademark Office P&TO) are also participating but are said to be using non-monetary ways. I suppose that means they are not giving out grant money, but that does not mean there is no cost to the tax payer. What about salaries & benefits, travel expenses, office cost, etc.? These are likely in addition to the usual expenses of running those organizations. NIST also has a similar Manufacturing Extension Program. Since the NIST is part of the Department of Commerce, there is double action and cost.
In this operation, taxpayer funds are awarded as grants to various entrepreneurs for certain projects to be pursued. These projects must presumably pass the muster of the various government departments, all of which have pie-in-the-sky attitudes and no real understanding of what is necessary in order to promote industry development and job formation in the United States.
One may ask why I am concerned about a piddling $6.3 million government expense. However, consider that there is likely a thousand similar operations in our bloated government. We are then talking about $6+ billion dollars, which "ain't hay"
I again suggest that government should get out of such things and get on with their major responsibilities, such as "providing for the common defense (both militarily and economically)".
The Department of Commerce is in its second year of a grant program, with the usual tricky government name of "i6 Challenge". The intent is to foster development of a new technology or product into a commercial success. The DOC has apparently never heard of research and development departments of large corporations or Investment bankers for small entrepreneurs. Or perhaps, it has invented a new way to waste taxpayer funds.
The sub-department handling this boondoggle project is the Economic Development Administration (EDA) It manages a multi-agency group to promote Pres. Obama's "Startup American innovation to promote job creation through US [pie in the sky] innovation".
Funding for this year's Challenge is $12.3 million, of which $6 million will come from the taxpayers through the DOC budget. The remaining funding of $6.3 million will come from the taxpayers through the cooperating agencies, which include the USDA, the EPA, DOE and the NSF. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Patent and Trademark Office P&TO) are also participating but are said to be using non-monetary ways. I suppose that means they are not giving out grant money, but that does not mean there is no cost to the tax payer. What about salaries & benefits, travel expenses, office cost, etc.? These are likely in addition to the usual expenses of running those organizations. NIST also has a similar Manufacturing Extension Program. Since the NIST is part of the Department of Commerce, there is double action and cost.
In this operation, taxpayer funds are awarded as grants to various entrepreneurs for certain projects to be pursued. These projects must presumably pass the muster of the various government departments, all of which have pie-in-the-sky attitudes and no real understanding of what is necessary in order to promote industry development and job formation in the United States.
One may ask why I am concerned about a piddling $6.3 million government expense. However, consider that there is likely a thousand similar operations in our bloated government. We are then talking about $6+ billion dollars, which "ain't hay"
I again suggest that government should get out of such things and get on with their major responsibilities, such as "providing for the common defense (both militarily and economically)".
Saturday, April 23, 2011
The Monkey/Socialist Analogy
Contributed by a friend.
If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage,
hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs
under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.
As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys
with cold water. After a while another monkey makes an attempt with
same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the
other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put the cold water away.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.
The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs.
To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him.
After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it
with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.
The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment... with enthusiasm.
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by
a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to
the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs.
Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of
the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold
water. Nevertheless, none of the monkeys will try to climb
the stairway for the banana.
Why, you ask? Because in their minds...
that is the way it has always been!
This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and is why,
from time to time, all of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.
If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage,
hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs
under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.
As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys
with cold water. After a while another monkey makes an attempt with
same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the
other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put the cold water away.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.
The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs.
To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him.
After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it
with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.
The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment... with enthusiasm.
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by
a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to
the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs.
Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of
the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold
water. Nevertheless, none of the monkeys will try to climb
the stairway for the banana.
Why, you ask? Because in their minds...
that is the way it has always been!
This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and is why,
from time to time, all of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.
Money Is the Basis of Support by Mainstream News Media to Liberals and Democrats
Why does the mainstream news media support Liberals and Democrats in general? Answer: Money!
The mainstream news media consists of radio stations, television channels, newspapers and magazines. Their business is basically to make a profit. To do this, they develop entertainment programs, which are generally attractive to the listening and reading public. However, the mainstream news media revenue source is from advertising products and services. The larger the attracted audience, the more individual advertisers are changed to advertise their products and services. This is a "tried and true" system, which has been in operation in the US and in most parts of the world for a long time. While the cost of advertising is high, it has been found that subsequently generated sales revenues almost always exceed the advertising costs. Conversely, companies who do not advertise generally go out of business from lack of sales.
Wealthy Liberals are generally from a class of well-educated individuals who have achieved substantial assets either through their own efforts or through inheritance. They generally operate on the basis of a guilt complex, which says, "I am not entitled to all of the things that I have, and I believe we should distribute some of this wealth to the 'less privileged' ". Conversely, the usual Democratic voter has very few financial assets but has the right to vote. He is a person receiving substantial personal benefits from government. Even though those benefits may be unsustainable, if government goes into bankruptcy or otherwise falls. He is only interested in the immediate and very near future. The power base of Liberals and Democrats is then through money of the former and the votes of the latter. The money is the attractive aspect for the mainstream news media.
By following their idealism of redistribution of wealth, wealthy Liberals make large cash donations of many millions of dollars to Democratic political candidates, who promise to push the socialist agenda. An ancillary aspect of the redistribution is that Liberals and Democrats usually want to redistribute everybody else's wealth. while hopefully exempting their own assets.
The political candidates have significant expenses in their reelection. They not only have their own personal expenses, but they also have the expenses of their retinue of assistants,whose job it is to arrange for their candidate's reelection. Much of the expense goes to advertising. This advertising revenue is no different than the normal revenue from product manufacturers and service suppliers. Because of the size of the "account", it is given special treatment by the news media management. In order to keep the system going, the mainstream news media not only floats the socialist advertising, which they are paid, but they also independently express support for the Liberal and Democratic suppliers.
Since advertising has been proven to be traditionally very effective, it behooves the Republican Party to try to buy out the mainstream news media by over-contributing to their welfare and profits, as opposed to the contributions from Liberals and Democrats. This may seem like an immoral way to be spending money, but I see no other way that the Republicans can get a fair shake in saving this country. Except for some talk radio programs and Fox Television News, the mainstream news media holds the "power of the press". If one wants to use that power for his benefit, it is necessary to buy it.
Where do the political candidates stand in this scenario? They are the financial intermediaries, with only one objective in mind. That is, to be reelected. They are the means by which advertising dollars are spent. They cater to wealthy Liberals for contributions and the mainstream news media in turn caters to them for their share of advertising money. Therefore, for the Republicans to buy their way into the system, they must either buy the Socialist/Democrats, who will in turn buy the mainstream news media, or the Republicans must place their own well-heeled candidates, who will be attractive to the mainstream news media for the potential revenues from those candidates.
The mainstream news media consists of radio stations, television channels, newspapers and magazines. Their business is basically to make a profit. To do this, they develop entertainment programs, which are generally attractive to the listening and reading public. However, the mainstream news media revenue source is from advertising products and services. The larger the attracted audience, the more individual advertisers are changed to advertise their products and services. This is a "tried and true" system, which has been in operation in the US and in most parts of the world for a long time. While the cost of advertising is high, it has been found that subsequently generated sales revenues almost always exceed the advertising costs. Conversely, companies who do not advertise generally go out of business from lack of sales.
Wealthy Liberals are generally from a class of well-educated individuals who have achieved substantial assets either through their own efforts or through inheritance. They generally operate on the basis of a guilt complex, which says, "I am not entitled to all of the things that I have, and I believe we should distribute some of this wealth to the 'less privileged' ". Conversely, the usual Democratic voter has very few financial assets but has the right to vote. He is a person receiving substantial personal benefits from government. Even though those benefits may be unsustainable, if government goes into bankruptcy or otherwise falls. He is only interested in the immediate and very near future. The power base of Liberals and Democrats is then through money of the former and the votes of the latter. The money is the attractive aspect for the mainstream news media.
By following their idealism of redistribution of wealth, wealthy Liberals make large cash donations of many millions of dollars to Democratic political candidates, who promise to push the socialist agenda. An ancillary aspect of the redistribution is that Liberals and Democrats usually want to redistribute everybody else's wealth. while hopefully exempting their own assets.
The political candidates have significant expenses in their reelection. They not only have their own personal expenses, but they also have the expenses of their retinue of assistants,whose job it is to arrange for their candidate's reelection. Much of the expense goes to advertising. This advertising revenue is no different than the normal revenue from product manufacturers and service suppliers. Because of the size of the "account", it is given special treatment by the news media management. In order to keep the system going, the mainstream news media not only floats the socialist advertising, which they are paid, but they also independently express support for the Liberal and Democratic suppliers.
Since advertising has been proven to be traditionally very effective, it behooves the Republican Party to try to buy out the mainstream news media by over-contributing to their welfare and profits, as opposed to the contributions from Liberals and Democrats. This may seem like an immoral way to be spending money, but I see no other way that the Republicans can get a fair shake in saving this country. Except for some talk radio programs and Fox Television News, the mainstream news media holds the "power of the press". If one wants to use that power for his benefit, it is necessary to buy it.
Where do the political candidates stand in this scenario? They are the financial intermediaries, with only one objective in mind. That is, to be reelected. They are the means by which advertising dollars are spent. They cater to wealthy Liberals for contributions and the mainstream news media in turn caters to them for their share of advertising money. Therefore, for the Republicans to buy their way into the system, they must either buy the Socialist/Democrats, who will in turn buy the mainstream news media, or the Republicans must place their own well-heeled candidates, who will be attractive to the mainstream news media for the potential revenues from those candidates.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Libyan Rebellion Is about Oil
EIN New says "Libya Rebels May Sell First Oil Cargo This Week Libyan rebels may this week sell the first tankerful of crude since an uprising against leader Muammar Gaddafi fully halted exports from the North African country and sent oil prices higher. (reuters.com)".
So the Libyan uprising is all about oil, which goes to France. However, the US does get something. A bill for the non-war.
What happened to the old-time wars, where if you won, you obtain some kind of benefit (spoils)? I suppose that all changed when we established the Marshall plan after World War II, wherein we bore not only the cost of the US involvement in the war but also the rebuilding costs for Japan and Germany.
It's nice for Americans to be compassionate, but let's not carry it to the ridiculous.
So the Libyan uprising is all about oil, which goes to France. However, the US does get something. A bill for the non-war.
What happened to the old-time wars, where if you won, you obtain some kind of benefit (spoils)? I suppose that all changed when we established the Marshall plan after World War II, wherein we bore not only the cost of the US involvement in the war but also the rebuilding costs for Japan and Germany.
It's nice for Americans to be compassionate, but let's not carry it to the ridiculous.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Get $100 Billion in Budget Cuts or Shut down the Government
Open letter to representative Randy Neugebaue(R Texas):
Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter.
I believe you and Rep. Boehner are not looking at the required budget cuts in government shutdown correctly. If the Democrats do not agree to $100 billion budget reduction, Republicans should attempt to shut down the government. Granted, a government shutdown is not desirable but caving in to a low budget reduction is even more undesirable.
The positive aspect of a government shutdown is that it automatically reduces expenses. Private contractors will no longer supply Hawk missiles, which will reduce expenses on a stupid non-war. With the Military lacking funds, they will also be more reluctant to continue wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be a moratorium on Social Security and other dependent benefit payments, which will upset a segment of the general public. However, the Republican response on that would be, "We don't have the money to do everything. If Democrats reduce waste expenditures, we will have enough money to pay you".
Randy,
I just read your latest newsletter.
I believe you and Rep. Boehner are not looking at the required budget cuts in government shutdown correctly. If the Democrats do not agree to $100 billion budget reduction, Republicans should attempt to shut down the government. Granted, a government shutdown is not desirable but caving in to a low budget reduction is even more undesirable.
The positive aspect of a government shutdown is that it automatically reduces expenses. Private contractors will no longer supply Hawk missiles, which will reduce expenses on a stupid non-war. With the Military lacking funds, they will also be more reluctant to continue wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be a moratorium on Social Security and other dependent benefit payments, which will upset a segment of the general public. However, the Republican response on that would be, "We don't have the money to do everything. If Democrats reduce waste expenditures, we will have enough money to pay you".
Friday, April 1, 2011
Do We Really Believe That a GOP Budget Would Lead to an Annual Increase of 30,000 Children Deaths from Malaria?
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said the GOP budget would cause the deaths of at least 70,000 children around the world, who rely on American funding. Of the 70,000 deaths, 30,000 would come from slashing malaria control programs, 24,000 from lack of immunizations and 16,000 from unsafe birthing practices.
Sounds ominous, doesn't it?
To put things in perspective, let's start with malaria.
It is said that malaria kills more than 1 million people every year, including 3000 children each day. For children alone, that's 1.1 million per year. If Rajiv Shah's report refers to an annual increase of 30,000 children deaths from malaria, that's only 2.7% of the total. If the USAID program is so effective, why can't we make a bigger dent into the other 97.3% that are dying from malaria.
Let's go further into the malaria perspective.
The EPA was first formed in 1970. In two years, It banned the use of DDT in the United States, with associated influence on the rest of the world, so that DDT was no longer usable for malaria control and DDT production units went out of business. This was presumably based upon data that showed a reduced thickness in the shells of eagles' eggs
After nearly 30 years, the World Health Organization decided in 2006 to reverse its policy on DDT usage for malaria control. USAID made a similar a similar reversal about the same time.
That was about five years ago, but damage over 30 years cannot be easily corrected over a short time. The public has been brainwashed into thinking that pesticides are bad. All factories previously producing DDT have long-since been dismantled. The facilities would require considerable time for rebuilding. Justification for investment in DDT would be low, because of increased difficulty in obtaining permits for any pesticide production, etc.
When somebody comes up and says your new budget will kill 30,000 children per year through malaria, the response is how certain are you of that, when your previous actions have resulted in the deaths of many millions of children to the same disease?
As Americans, we are compassionate. We don't like to see even one child die of malaria. We have various charity organizations supported by the public and individuals. They do good work, and it is not accepted that only government can handle an operation such as this. The fact is government should get out of the business. Cut foreign aid to a minimum. Reduce restrictions on private enterprise so that they can get on with the program of supplying DDT, vaccinations, and education to the world's population in order to improve their lifestyle.
Sounds ominous, doesn't it?
To put things in perspective, let's start with malaria.
It is said that malaria kills more than 1 million people every year, including 3000 children each day. For children alone, that's 1.1 million per year. If Rajiv Shah's report refers to an annual increase of 30,000 children deaths from malaria, that's only 2.7% of the total. If the USAID program is so effective, why can't we make a bigger dent into the other 97.3% that are dying from malaria.
Let's go further into the malaria perspective.
The EPA was first formed in 1970. In two years, It banned the use of DDT in the United States, with associated influence on the rest of the world, so that DDT was no longer usable for malaria control and DDT production units went out of business. This was presumably based upon data that showed a reduced thickness in the shells of eagles' eggs
After nearly 30 years, the World Health Organization decided in 2006 to reverse its policy on DDT usage for malaria control. USAID made a similar a similar reversal about the same time.
That was about five years ago, but damage over 30 years cannot be easily corrected over a short time. The public has been brainwashed into thinking that pesticides are bad. All factories previously producing DDT have long-since been dismantled. The facilities would require considerable time for rebuilding. Justification for investment in DDT would be low, because of increased difficulty in obtaining permits for any pesticide production, etc.
When somebody comes up and says your new budget will kill 30,000 children per year through malaria, the response is how certain are you of that, when your previous actions have resulted in the deaths of many millions of children to the same disease?
As Americans, we are compassionate. We don't like to see even one child die of malaria. We have various charity organizations supported by the public and individuals. They do good work, and it is not accepted that only government can handle an operation such as this. The fact is government should get out of the business. Cut foreign aid to a minimum. Reduce restrictions on private enterprise so that they can get on with the program of supplying DDT, vaccinations, and education to the world's population in order to improve their lifestyle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
