Archives for posts with tag: American Thinker

Statistics don’t care to be saved.

“As a physician, I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.” How am I to know that that unfortunate patient, who has just died, died prematurely? If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause. All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively.” Dr. Charles Battig

Dr. Batting uses examples to explain why EPA rules will help no one. While reading Dr. Battig’s keep in mind that our air and water in the USA have gotten significantly cleaner every year since 1970 when we first started keeping track. Every year cleaner for 45 years. Our air and water are cleaner than they were 100 years ago? How clean do we need to be?

Cleaner than clean hurts.

The bottom line is the EPA rules will hurt the bottom line, especially for those with the lowest bottom line. EPA rules passed the point of diminishing returns long ago. The EPA causes far more harm than it mitigates. The EPA is the most dangerous thing known to mankind.

End the EPA.

The practical way to end the EPA is to repeal the Clean Air Act. I hope that is possible.

Political will will have to be high. Those voting to repeal the laws that empower the EPA must have sufficient backbone to take the name calling and threats.

The politicians will have to replace the laws, because we do actually need to protect our air and water, but the laws must be targeted and specifically limited in scope and control. Very specific. I expect that will cause some problems and confusion for a while as lawyers fight each other and politicians to iron out the details. Still, it has to be better than what we have.

EPA is killing us.

EPA is the most dangerous thing on earth.

I noticed an article in American Thinker today. Lengthy, but more than worth the time. It was republished from July 2014. It seems it was carried in multiple other online publications in November.

Danusha V. Goska explains some of what converted her from leftist/progressivist thinking.

I have a lot running through my head to write down, but she says it all well. Not much point in gilding lilies.

It seems rather obvious to me that leftists simply refuse to consider counter arguments, at least beyond formulating rebuttals.

Arguments from the right typically rely on facts and rational, logical argument. Emphasis on results. Arguments from the left start and end with emotionalism, and throw in outrage between. Emphasis on intentions.

It has occurred to me that maybe the Calvinists are right. Maybe God only grants a few of us actual free will and true ability to reason. Perhaps God blinds many into thinking they are the Elect, the Chosen, the Worthy. (Calvinists will object to that last. So be it.)

I don’t accept the notion in the slightest. No, God grants us all free will. (Prevenient grace, God makes able.) God grants us all the mind of Christ if we will meditate there in. God grants us the spirit of power, love, and mental soundness. His perfect love casts out fear, and Jesus promised that anyone who is determined to do God’s will shall know the difference between God’s teaching and man’s. (John 7:17)

Micah stated it best. Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. (I think I don’t say that enough. I must remind myself continuously.)

Part of it all is we must accept pain, long-suffering, and death as simply part of the good creation. When we accept that life is hard, while remembering every breath is a gift, we tend to lose utopian ideals. Progressivism is seen for the hollow shell of waste that it is. When we understand that the gods of copybook headings with terror and slaughter return, we pay no heed to the dismissiveness of the leftists. We remember that the wages of sin is death, and if you don’t work you die.

So, pull on your grown-up pants, and wrap your mind around the reality that one cannot solve the problem of power with centralized (state) power. Decentralize. Free. Never coerce. Persuade with a life well lived. Free.

Carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient of life. It is not pollution any more than oxygen or water, both of which are far more dangerous. Both oxygen and water contribute directly to billions of dollars in damages, both slow and sudden, and thousands of deaths every year.

Trying to control carbon dioxide means trying to control your breathing. Taxing carbon is half-a-step from taxing your very breath. Those who pretend we need to stop producing carbon prove their hypocrisy with every breath they continue to breath.

Charles Battig wrote this article for American Thinker:

He is correct. We must reestablish the validity of science. It has become a radicalized, fundamentalist religion. They will be burning us at the stake soon, they already joke and write about it.

By the way, the industrial revolution and the inexpensive energy we have is what ended slavery. Fighting coal and forcing energy costs up will very likely bring back slavery, as slave labor is the only option for the hyperwealthy when the machines have no power, or when that power costs more than keeping slaves. The environmentalists want to put us all in chains as slaves, literally.

I find this article at American Thinker by Justin O. Smith worth reading. (I don’t see that I can recommend his other writings at AT.) It has plenty of good information.

However, I also found it a bit overly emotional, and perhaps a little presumptive.

Still, I recommend it:

Here is a quote:

Common Core is designed by Progressives to control unfavorable views of Progressivism, and it will control all disciplines dealing directly with human affairs, such as history, law, and economics, which will most immediately affect political views. The disinterested search for the truth is not of value in CCSS, because the vindication of the Progressive Marxo-fascist view becomes the sole object, whether it advances the false science of man-made global warming or the false premise that socialism outperforms laissez-faire capitalism, even when the facts and experience show otherwise.

The political ideas of a people and their attitude toward authority are as much the effect of the political institutions under which they live as anything else. So even a strong tradition of liberty is no safeguard if the immediate danger is precisely that the institutions and new policies, such as Common Core, guided by amoral men like Arne Duncan, will gradually destroy that spirit through indoctrination.

It still disturbs me that relatively conservative politicians, specifically some of the Governors, like our own Mary Fallon and Florida’s Jeb Bush can espouse such obviously progressivist bunkum as Common Core State Standards. The statism and ultraleft orientation of it are just too obvious. One cannot pretend the “standards” aspect of it is worthwhile compared to the obvious problems the nationalization of our education system will institute.

Sadly, the nationalization of our public education system is already systemic and probably irreversible. The damage is becoming visible already. Our efforts to roll back the CCSS may be too little, and they may already be too late.

This is a good place to remind ourselves, the more things change, the more they stay the same. No one said it more clearly than Kipling:

The Gods of the Copybook Headings
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.” 

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

I have committed to reading through Augustine’s City of God this year with the Facebook group doing so. Not much reading per day, but weighty. It is fascinating to read and think how little changed his writing might be if he were writing specifically for us today.

I try to keep up with WattsUpWithThat, and with FirstThings blogs. Lots of material all of it worth reading much of it worth thorough contemplation. I read AmericanThinker a lot as well.

Of course, I spend too much time reading Facebook, but that is more of a fun thing to do.

Plenty of other information to read as well, news, politics, science, various distractions. I seem to read a lot. I have a hard time keeping up with some of it. Oh well. Perhaps I will gain efficiency soon.

Documenting this for reference. Dr. Singer is exceptionally well qualified to write about this subject.

Climate Consensus Con Game.

It behooves anyone who cares about our children and our schools to read this article:

No improvement in education is possible while compulsory laws stand. We must start by repealing truancy laws. Then we can start in the direction Ms. Chadwell indicates.

It seems to me, culturally, we most suffer from moral idiocy.

We each understand intelligence innately, the same for knowledge, as well as emotion, and especially for morals. IQ, EQ, and MQ? Works for me. 100 is the nominal IQ mean, median, and mode. Anyone far off from that gets called names. Of course, everyone would like to be called the one name, but nobody likes the other.

EQ, well, I haven’t seen standardization on that. I think it is mostly a learned intelligence anyway. We learn emotional skills by growing in loving families, with good, upright friends, and by going through hardship in life with the honest, caring support of these friends and family.

I’d say the same goes for moral intelligence, but that is much less subjective. We know what is right. Read the rest of this entry »

People talk about “giving back” when they mean charity. It isn’t giving back. No one took it from the recipients in the first place. If they did, we shouldn’t be letting anyone give part of it back; we should be locking them up and getting it all and giving it all back. Madoff is a good example, though I think he and his cronies made off with most of it before we caught him and took it back. Regardless, no one lauds Madoff for his charity work. Giving back or not, he was just a crook.

A Mr. William Yavelak wrote on the subject over at He describes his writing as a rant. I suppose. Still, it is cogent. I recommend the article. Go ahead; click the link and read.

As Mr. Yavelak points out, the problem is that antihuman, progressivist thinking of modern liberals has permeated and corrupted most of our society and language. We must actively resist the collective. Each must stand on his own; ladies, you too. No chauvinism here. We are all in this together. The Borg of big government statism will devour us all without discrimination. No point in pretending there are discriminators in our older language usage when such was so obviously rare.  Read the rest of this entry »

Over at AmericanThinker, Thomas Lifson comments on some absurd propaganda.

It would be somewhat humorous if there were any possibility it was supposed to be, satire, hyperbole, and such, but no, they (at least Oleg) really seem to think people will accept such drivel. Sadly, some will.

I found an article at American Thinker worth pointing out.

Quoting (Don Sucher):

“Young children often have an aversion to reality. Their ways of running from it are often amusing: the pretend friend, the one that takes their side when things are difficult, and the pretend enemy, the one who takes the blame for their errors and misdeeds.

“Parents traditionally have strived to help their children cope with reality through instruction, emotional support, and abundant love. But today it is increasingly common for parents instead to protect their children from reality as to teach them to effectively deal with it. And such parents typically have come to expect, and receive, support in these efforts from society’s institutions — especially the public schools.”

He goes on to talk about chemical means of avoiding reality, and of misuse of religion. He indicates that it all leads people to abdicate their own responsibility for their own lives. I makes many of us completely dependent upon the government, looking to politicians or other public figures as our “gods.” He says we need people to live up to their personal responsibilities in order to have a free society, and progressivism encourages the opposite of what we need for our free society. I’ll add that progressivism is simply against the human soul. Progressiveness is against all that is good, right, and noble in the individual, in the human soul. (I liken it to Borg. The collective is everything; the individual is nothing.)

It is a good article, but I’m most interested in the part about our societal institutions helping parents who want to shelter their children rather than help the children learn to deal responsibly with reality.

He says precious little. This quote is about all the more he says about the children:

“Too, we see the family structure — once the great bulwark of protection for society’s traditions, and the place where children were taught to face reality as free, independent, adults — under attack.”

It is the “free, independent adults” part that I’m considering. Read the rest of this entry »

Mr. Gene M. Van Son has written a couple of articles for American Thinker. Both are good. This second one,, is excellent.

He points out how the corporate world is running counter to the principles of good work ethic and good Christian living that used to be the bedrock of Capitalism. He references the Pope and other recent Papal and Catholic writings and emphasis, and points out how it is consistent with traditional Christian and capitalistic thinking.

He mentions Vocation of the Business Leader. The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace prepared it. They call it a reflection. It seems appropriate for each of us to reflect upon it.

He mentions the book’s Six Practical Principles for Business. A bit stuffy, perhaps, but I think these are good principles and worthy of emulation. Number 6 sums up well: Businesses are just in the allocation of resources to all stakeholders: employees, customers, investors, suppliers, and the community.

Our corporate world has lost sight of the long run and the breadth of stakeholders and focuses only on the short term and the monetary shareholders (stockholders).

Sooner or later, the long-term interests will require their due and our shortsighted endeavors will fail. This lesson seems to me the one we should take from recent Papal statements, not some sort of anti-Capitalistic notion.

Personal responsibility and long-term thinking, inclusive of as much of the relevant stakeholders as we can know. That is how each of us must pursue our industry, no matter what it is, no matter the level.

It has been a good Christmas.

I have all mine with me. Usually we go to Moms, or Mary’s folks, but this year, we (eight total) are all here at our place. I’ve taken the quite times to read and write.

A couple of articles on American Thinker struck me as worth recommending. (In fact, good selection of articles for Christmas.)

Susan D. Harris writes here at, and American Thinker carried this article here: 

This paragraph struck me as significant: “If He could suffer great tribulations and still overcome the world; we are strengthened in our faith that we can too. So many “feel good” churches and televangelists try to convince us that poverty and unhappiness are the result of a spiritually misspent life. They seem to forget it was the man who owned nothing but the clothes on his back; the “man of sorrows… acquainted with grief,” who brought the greatest hope mankind has ever known.

I think we miss something important when we consider hardship and suffering as bad. 

Glenn Fairman writes at, and American Thinker provided a copy here: 

Particularly good reading. Personal. Thought provoking. 

Christmas is truly the most wonderful time of the year.

I’ve thought for a long time that we need to get back to the original method of establishing the number of representatives. I think we need to amend the Constitution to set the number of representatives at equal to the number of [legal] state residents divided by 100,000, round up to the nearest whole number.

For instance, Oklahoma has a little over 3.8M people, so Oklahoma would have 39 representatives. My birth-state of Kansas, with 2.89M would have 29 representatives, and Texas, with just over 26M, would have 261 representatives. Of course, California would end up with 381 representatives (with statistics from 2012), and Wyoming would be apportioned only 6 representatives. (Keep in mind, that is five more than they have at the moment, and they have the highest proportional representation, with less than 600,000 of them being represented by that one Rep. Our Reps here in Oklahoma represent a whopping 762,964 (approximately) of us Okies each.)

I think we can make this work with electronic communications and telepresence. I think we could push the numbers even lower, to, perhaps 50,000 per representative, perhaps even to the Constitutional 30,000. Still, 100,000 seems a good number to me. That would put us near 3,500 total representatives, and we can easily accommodate annual full conferences of the House [in DC] with electronics. Better yet, we can have our representatives run their day-to-day legislative duties from right here in our own back yards, close to us people, their constituents, and close to their families. Those families that we hope they hold in slightly higher regard then they do us. I suspect all our representatives would be better off staying near home, and their families, and especially we the people. We would be better represented not only because they would have only 100,000 of us clamoring for attention, but they’d spend so much more time here at home with us, staying in touch, and not being infested with the culture of big-government and beltway politics.

American Thinker published this article,, by C. Edmund Wright. He points out how Rush explained well the problems even the best of our politicians have when they get close to the power of politics.

Mr. Wright asserts it will be hard to move our representatives out of DC and back home. It will only be hard to make the rules and laws and start. Once we start, it will be easy.

Once our elected representatives are used to staying at home, seeing their families everyday, and having regular contact with us constituents, they will all wonder how they ever did it remotely in DC.

See, that is the key aspect of this vision to see. We are currently trying to be represented remotely. We have it backward. That was the only option possible until recently. Now, we can keep our representatives here, at home, with us, and let them represent us locally. Their interactions with each other may be remote, but their representation will be local.

Let’s get started. Suggestions?

%d bloggers like this: