Greenspan Sleeps Well

So I came across an article about former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's thought's on the Fed's complicity in the current economic slowdown/recession (you pick).

Lots of blah, blah, blah on an issue that no one can ever really know the answer, but I did have to take a moment to appreciate these quotes.

I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve policies that we initiated back then because I think they were very professionally done

And...

Clearly, certain of our anticipations of what would happen as a consequence of those policies were off but there's no way of avoiding that.

Ok, lets play with the first one.

See, he doesn't have regrets that his policies were wrong, and may have destroyed trillions of dollars in value, and killed off whole companies, wrecked the economy and destroyed households, because these policies were "professionally" done. It's kind of like a mob hitman saying he has no regrets for killing innocent people because he did so in a "professional" manner. This is going to be my new mantra when I make a mistake. "Yeah, sure I made a terrible error, but I was a pro about it." I absolutely love that one.

And lest you think that living in the Beltway distances you from the people, go back and read the second quote. Why the empathy just oozes out of it. "Hey, we made made some bad assumptions, what can you do, right? It happens. Why is everyone so bent out of shape? You can't avoid making mistakes, that's why pencils have erasers."

Every decade has its legacy. The oughts' legacy will be the catastrophic implementation being shrugged off with a "hey, it happens, what can you do" attitude and a total disregard for consequence by both the perpetrator and the stakeholders.

Football Gods v. God in Super Bowl MMVII

First things first. This is why I love the internet, check out this site. It's an actual Roman Numeral converter. Awesome.

Anyway, on with the show.

Every year I read articles like this about the NFL cracking down on churches showing the Super Bowl on large screen TVs.

A couple of interesting tidbits about this particular article. First, somehow sports bars are exempt from this rule but not churches? How'd that happen? Seriously? How has this passed by all the "cross bearers" in Congress? What an opportunity for face time. And where's Huck? Come on man, take up the cause. Get back in the game with this Hail Mary (yes, I wrote that). This whole thing practically writes itself, NFL v. Churches, NFL allows bars to show the game on the big screen but not churches, the angels (oops, I mean "angles") are endless. I mean this controversy could run on FOX in a continuous loop, Hannity and O'Reilly would fight a death match over who got more upset. How's this not a bigger deal?

The second part is why is the flock taking this lying down? Is the NFL so powerful that the church and church goers aren't challenging this? Why no boycotts, no letters, no outrage, no...anything? Normally, if you mess with church you get the horns*. Yet here, there's just a sort of...acceptance. I feel like I read an article everyday about how churches and/or religion is attacked/shortchanged and Dobson or some else is on the air face a fury on the attack. I mean, Bill O'Reilly had his whole "War on Christmas" gig based on the words "Happy Holidays" but the NFL giving the finger to churches is met with less than a shrug. This could be a whole new book for the "Culture Warrior" (man I never, ever get tired of that book cover). I'm just confused. This should be a marketing dis-ASTER for the NFL. No one, and I mean no one else shuts down church functions. Yet the NFL gets away with it year after year.

I honestly don't have an answer, not even a theory. I just bewildered.

By the way, I'm taking the Giants and the points (But I'm taking a huge risk that Manning doesn't fall apart. If he has one pick or less I'm good, two to five, I'm toast. But at least I'm not betting on the over-rated Brady, right Stalin?).

*Did you get the Jericho reference?

Twas SWAT, it twas

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

Where to start?

Some quick hits to get us out of the gate.

Pope Says Gays are bad for peace. I don't know about that, haven't really seen the studies. But I do feel the need to point out that a German Pope is saying,

that a traditional family led by a husband and wife instilled values that promote peace.

Now, I don't want to point out the obvious, but I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany had a high "family rate" and they were definitely hostile to the gays, but oddly, not a lot of peace. In fact, as I review my history, lots of wars started by lots of nations with lots of families. I'm just not sure that gays are the big threat facing the world today, maybe we should focus our attention elsewhere. On a roll, he says,

Those who are hostile, even unknowingly, to the institution of the family ... make peace fragile for the entire national and international community.

He's looking at you New Hampshire and you're gay love...love. Not only are you on the forefront of determining the next "Most Powerful Person in the World*" but you're also at the forefront for the next World War! Lots of pressure on the Granite State. My protest sign? Civil Unions=Civil Wars!

Speaking of War, McCain pulled an Unknown Blogger and returned strong for 2008! How'd that happen? Latest poll has them at a tie. Clearly the fine people of NH don't read the H-Blog. If they did, they would know that we declared McCain yesterday's news way back in July 2007. Come on people pay attention, I'm prognosticating here.

In other election news, Mike Huckabee has decided that wrapping himself in the flag is soooo tacky. The Cross is much, much better. Between ads with not so subtle "God's Behind Me!" themes, and "Take a knee for me" slogans, Ol' Mike is not so much asking for the Religious Conservative Vote as begging for it. Maybe that's why he's on his knees so much. No push back from me, I'm a big fan of free speech, and talking about religion is clearly speech so I say, Keep on Truckin'. But, as a voter, I'm a bit weary of Christ as the new Flag.

Did you say Fag? Looks like gay couples get "divorced" too. And when they do, not so fun. Welcome to the club boys (and girls). My advice? RUN! You can cheat nature, but you can't cheat the statistics.

Just ask Olympic Champion Justin Gatlin who tried to run and cheat nature, but he too got caught (who knew sprinting was so gay?). Busted for doping, the Gold Medalist is out for Beijing. Again, I renew the call for The Unknown Blogger's Simple Solution For Cheating (and cure for Ricketts). It's right there folks, yours for the taking. Maybe if I could get some media attention.

Me and Ron Paul. FOX News, "Fair and Balanced" unless you annoy us is not allowing Mr. Paul to play with the other kids at the big debate. Something about polling numbers, but wait, Mr. Paul is polling better than former Belle of the Ball Fred Thompson who made the cut (sort of like the number one draft pick who's clearly a bust but teams keep bringing him in because "Hey, he was the first pick in the draft! Maybe he'll turn it around for us.") There's also a rant about the power and danger of media control and the new FCC arguments for rules allowing for more consolidation. Oh well, given how we all love and trust the media, its all good right? For the record, I think FOX caves and Mr Paul makes the list.

In other news, the Unknown Blogger promises vows to create policy that will insure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Mike Huckabee vowed a defense build-up that would produce

"a military of sorts that no one on earth would want to take us on."

Really, does he feel like that's not the case now? Who's looking to take us on? I love it when a politician creates a controversy around something I already have, then promises to give it back to me the way it was before he created the controversy. Especially when it will cost billions. If you're keeping track at home, we already have an untouchable military. Unless he's saying that it's no longer untouchable, which then seems like a direct attack on the Bush Administration.

Really quick...Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Guiliani in a free fall. Romney, up down, all around, getting dogged, and spending loads, but still the front runner.

Whew, that's the US update. I think some things are going on elsewhere, but that doesn't really matter anyway...right?

*Can't even say "Most Powerful Man in the World" anymore thanks to that woman Hillary Clinton.

The end of a dream?

The California Department of Health Services is moving to revoke the license of Martin Luther King Jr-Harbor Hospital (aka King-Drew, aka Killer King), effectively shutting the place down.

If you're new to the story a woman died in a pool of her own blood as a janitor mopped around her and as her boyfriend desperately called 911 for assistance while they were in the hospital. The kicker is that most of this is backed up by video and 911 tapes. This article goes into the unfortunate story.

My point with this article is the Killer King is a public hospital set up with the best of intentions. Originally, it was built as a response to the Watt's riots after one study finding was that lack of access to medical attention was one of the reason's for the riots. Another public hospital set up with the best intentions, Walter Reed recently made some news of its own. While there are many public hospitals that don't mock you as you die on the waiting room floor, nor do they put you in moldy rooms. However, I guarantee you that overwhelmingly, in any city, the public hospital is the least preferred option. This is a very important nugget to remember as we head into an election season where Universal Government Run Health Care promises to be a big topic.

Government's are not set up to run your health care. At best what governments do is big picture, broad strokes tasks. The finer points of addressing your particular medical needs is simply something it cannot do. For all the well meanings and best intentions there is no escaping the idea that the government is the sledge hammer trying to work on your health care microchip.

Its morally compelling to want to use the resources of the government to provide health care for all, no way does any caring person really feel that all US citizens deserve the best medical attention possible. The government has a lot of money and power, and surely should be able to make this happen. Right? Wrong. It's just not the right tool, and all the money and power won't change that. History is rife with military examples of this point, and many believe it is happening right now in Iraq. Good intentions, money and power do not guarantee success, not even close. The right idea, the willingness to do it get you there much faster. I know that we, as Americans, have the willingness, so the goal now is to find the right idea. Turning everything over to the feds is not it.

I don't like having an only "not so" post, I prefer to offer solutions rather than pure criticism. I'm making an exception here. One, because I don't want any solution offered up to take away from my focus on the idea that the Feds can't do it. And two, sometimes deleting an option by itself is helpful. Ask Sherlock.

Hey Stalin, France is waiting for its apology.

France elected the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy. Apparently they will stop at nothing to antagonize our own Stalin Malone.

Nuclear Boondoggle Upon Us Again

Looks like Nuclear Power is back. My feelings on this are well known (my comment from last year, plus another) , but it still bugs me to no end that we can't get past nuclear power. But I do hope we get past this new "wave."

Look, I'm a clean air guy (a nation of little obese kids who can't exercise because they have asthma is not my happy vision of the future) and my bet is that human related emissions are adding to the warming trend, but even given both of those, I still think that nuclear is a bad, bad investment by the American people (and make no mistake, we will bear most of the cost, while giving away most of the revenue). My past comments,

The "nuclear boondoggle" is the fallacy of the cost of Nuclear energy. It's commonly touted at about $.06/kilowatt. However, that cost does not include the following: First, there’s insurance. Here the free market has made coverage too expensive for any plant to cover. Insurers just wouldn’t touch it without a very, very high premium. Damages from an accident range from hundreds of billions to trillions depending upon location of plant and scope of damage. Thus, the feds decided that the national taxpayers would cover any and all liabilities. Then, waste. Again, too expensive for the plant operators, so the feds again decided the national taxpayers should build, store, transport, and maintain waste facilities, and again cover any liabilities. Finally, there’s financing. Here the feds decided that the national taxpayers should guarantee the loans for building plants. Add those real costs back into the equation and “cheap” nuclear is easily the most expensive power on the planet. It would be cheaper to hire Lance Armstrong to pedal a generator at my house than to buy nuclear. Especially if the feds cover the three biggest expenses.

As much as I want clean air, I just don't think nuclear is worth the cost and risk. Period. No matter how you look at it, its just too expensive to survive without massive help from the taxpayers, and that will never change. This isn't an emerging technology where the taxpayers could be sold on future reduction in real costs, nuclear is actually the opposite. Take solar. The more solar panels are sold, the cheaper they get, basic business principle, right? The more that's produced the cheaper the cost. But with Nuclear, the more that's produced (waste, building, etc), the more expensive it gets (insurance, waste, transportation, building, land, potential for disaster; either accidental or terrorist related, etc). Nothing gets cheaper, everything related to nuclear power just makes it more expensive as time goes by. Why are we hitching our wagon to that star? What genius thinks this is a good "investment?"

Plus, what genius thinks its a good idea to build nuclear targets and scatter them around the nation during our "long war" with terrorism? Seriously? They don't make sense during times of peace, but war? Especially when our opponent's only hope is use our stuff against ourselves? Someone thinks it makes sense to create nuclear "stuff?" Wow.

Nuclear is just a really bad investment, even when the "clean air" component is figured in, but especially while we're at war. Spend the billions (and potentially trillions) on something else. Please.

Sports does imitate life

The Gators trounce The Ohio State University 41-14. Lets recap the H-Blogs projections. Me: Gators 75-3, Muscles Gators 38-23, Stalin OSU 31-17, and by the by, the line was OSU by 7.5. This plays out almost exactly like real life.

I have it right, but get too excited and overshoot the goal (Gators cover and win big), Stalin falls victim to conventional wisdom, overstates even that by claiming that OSU not only wins but covers big and is wrong on all counts (no cover, no win, not even close), Muscles quietly gets it right (Gators cover), beats the pundits (Gators win) and gets closest to reality (far and away the closest to the real score). So for all you H-Blog fans (Hi Ma!), tune in to me if you want to be passionately right (think Braveheart), tune into Muscles if you want to be right - outright (think King Robert the Bruce), and tune into Stalin if you want an exaggerated version of the conventional wisdom that is so often wrong, or more simply, if you want to be passionately wrong (think Prince Charles).

I wonder if Stalin will finally admit to being wrong on something?