Airport TSA Terrorist Screening

The media looks at the TSA’s tactics, but not the strategy. Think!

First, the TSA tactics stink. No one except the really, really lonely likes the TSA’s aggressive tactics.

Back scatter “x-ray” machine - The backscatter machine radiates you everywhere, every time you fly. Unhealthy radiation effects build up over time. Some of the most productive Americans fly often. Also, the TSA examples of their images that you see on TV are completely bogus. Actually, the images are high resolution porn. They can see hair, beads of sweat, and wrinkles - in great detail. And, they concentrate on your private areas because so much contraband is smuggled there. But, the backscatter can’t see inside body cavities, where drugs and weapons have been smuggled. So, a few terrorists with cavity bags get together after their trips to the airplane restroom, and it’s as if the TSA did no screening at all. Bombs and weapons on your airplane.

“Pat Down” frisking - Only a tyrannical socialist government would subject its own law-abiding citizens to the invasive fondling of all body parts, and then tell them it’s their patriotic duty to stand there and take it, while an entry-level bureaucrat feels and squeezes everything. These actions, done to our wife in the coffee room at work, or to our kids in school, would land the fondler in jail. But, we have to stand there while that same performance happens to our wife and our kids at the airport.

Second, the TSA strategy stinks even worse, because it ignores the best tactic. Back up and review the choices:

1. Intrusive searches - (radiation or fondling) of all our wives and kids, using objectionable tactics that even the TSA admit does not work. The TSA admitted it after rigorous questioning by a knowledgeable reporter. Or,

2. Give up - and just let the terrorist kill us in our own planes, whenever they please, until our economy (and our faith in our own country) grinds to a halt.

Strategy choices #1 and #2 give the terrorists (subhuman, evil, murderous animals) victory. Let’s try something better. Something proven to work.

3. Behavioral profiling - One airline is the #1, top, most coveted target for the terrorists. Israel’s El Al. After the first hijacking to Entebbe 30 years ago, El Al decided to do anti-terrorism the best way, with no problems since then. They do behavioral profiling, which means that consider everything they see. This lets them quickly narrow their attention and aim their limited resources at the most likely clues. They look at gender, ethnic appearance, and age, but only a little. Passport history, background search, and photo matches also matter, but only a little. Their main behavioral profiling tool is the physical behavior of the passengers. They watch, interview, watch some more, and interview some more. But, it takes special people to do this so well. These are highly educated, very experienced law enforcement using proven techniques. They sort through the herd of passengers, and quickly, expertly, find and cut out the wolf. They are so good, they stay ahead of the terrorist, instead of always trying to catch up. They are pro-active instead of reactive. They succeed.

In other words, El Al is exactly the opposite of the American TSA strategy. TSA strategy is to use tactics that hurt us, while staying behind the terrorists, El Al strategy is to quickly leave the law-abiding public alone, while staying ahead of the terrorists. It works.

Meanwhile, the American media largely ignores this vital strategic choice in our war on terror. Instead, it concentrates on the negative feelings generated by our intrusive tactic. Then, the media sighs and considers giving up as the only alternative tactic.

Continental Divide of American Politics

Continental Divide of American Politics
Our geographic continental divide is easy to see; it’s obvious and permanent (on our human time scale, anyway). It’s the Rocky Mountains; it’s a division of watershed; rain that falls east of the divide drains to the Atlantic, and rain falling west of the divide flows to the Pacific. The continental divide is the single, easiest way to divide our geography into two divergent, incompatible, mutually exclusive halves.

Our political American divide may seem not so easily defined. On the surface, our political divide is a contentious debate, changing with the times. Our American political divide has been manifest destiny, or isolationism. Our political divide has been whether or not to enter a world war (WWI or WWII, take your choice). Our divide has been rugged individual responsibility, or the welfare state. Our divide has been either win a cold war against tyrannical communism, or appeasement. Our divide has been wage a war on terror in the terrorists’ lands, or wage a legal battle when terror strikes our homeland. Our political divide has been judges that read and apply law as written by the legislature, or judges who legislate and make policy from the un-elected bench. Our divide has been women’s right to abortion on demand, or the right of the unborn human to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Viewed as a parade of changing hot-button issues, our American political divide seems fickle and constantly evolving. Not so. These issues are the numerators, not the common divisor, in the American equation.

Instead, our American political divide is unique to America, is unchanging through 230 years, and will remain our constant divider for the foreseeable future. It is simply “What is government? What is government’s purpose? It’s danger? It’s saving grace? It’s power and limits?”

Is the best government that which governs least, or that which governs most? (President Thomas Jefferson versus Alexander Hamilton)

Who best raises a child; a family or a village? (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton versus Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich)

Is government the solution to our problems, or is government the problem? (President Ronald Reagan versus Senator Walter Mondale)

Is the best government, like all politics, local, or is it federal? (Speaker of the House of Representatives “Tip” O’Neill)

Who owns the rights? Individual people, who loan some power to the government, or is it government, which loans the people some limited powers? (President Thomas Jefferson versus President Barack Obama)

Federal government is definitely necessary. But, it should not replace society.
When Lincoln said “[Sovereignty, as given by the Constitution, is] a political community without a political superior” (President Abraham Lincoln), it was the only time he used “political” twice in one sentence. He’s clearly drawing a sharp distinction between his federal political government and society, armed force, God-given rights, etc. He was committed to preserving the federal government. But he did believe God-given rights and society were superior to the political government.

Likewise with the Founders in the Federalist Papers: “A nation, without a national government, is in my view, an awful spectacle.” (Alexander Hamilton)

This question is the great American political divide. Not Republican vs Democrat. Not environmentalists vs. big business. Not states’ rights vs. federal power. Not abortion vs. life. Not peace at all costs, nor freedom at all costs. The one constant American divide is “What, exactly, should our government be? Does government control us, or do we control government?”

If this is truly the central American dilemma, then it’s worth a journey back in time to our Founding Fathers as an intellectual starting point. What did they invent, with American independence and the U.S. Constitution?

We start with Thomas Paine. He didn’t create the ideas he wrote about in his booklet Common Sense; those ideas were the distillation of Reformation, Enlightenment, and Natural Philosophy thinking for the previous 200 years, particularly in Scotland, England, Germany, and France. In turn, that 17th and 18th century thinking finds its foundation in earlier Greek, Roman, and biblical writing. Paine wasn’t the inventor, he was the technician. He understood known theories and applied them to a current problem. Thomas Paine’s genius was seeing how to apply timeless concepts to the murk of current political upheaval, in a convincing manner. Paine’s Common Sense is the thinking that turned the tide for American birth; before Paine the king’s loyalists were the majority. After Paine’s Common Sense, the American independents held sway. The ideas Paine elucidated were a vital force for the Declaration of Independence, our war for freedom, and for our Constitution – our government.

Paine’s first half of his first chapter (“… Origin and Design Of Government …”) uses common sense and simple analogy to describe the need, purpose, and limitations of government. He correctly foretold the great American political divide. Since his 18th century verbiage is arcane, let’s summarize, paraphrase, and emphasize for him:
“Society is not government. Government is not society. They’re not two sides of the same coin. Society and government have totally different origins, and totally different purposes. This great and permanent division between society and government will be our great American success. That great division between society and government is our American political divide – our Rocky Mountain watershed line. You either get it, or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re not “American” in the original sense of the word; in the Founders’ sense of the word.

“Society springs from our reasonable needs; government from our innate corruptions. Society promotes happiness positively by uniting our affections for each other; government negatively by restraining our vices. Society is a blessing; government a necessary evil at best and an intolerable one at worst. Society encourages interdependence; government creates distinctions. Society is our beneficial patron; government our punisher."

“Having government is an honest admission of failure. If our better nature were always clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, we would need no other lawgiver. However, reality shows we need to give up just enough of our freedom and money, to protect what remains. Just enough; no more."

“As an example, imagine a small isolated colony of people. Their mutual society is their first concern. They know and rely on each other for survival. They have differing needs and abilities, and they willingly cooperate to thrive. They know each other, need each other, trust each other, and help each other. Men’s (and God’s) best nature works to the colony’s advantage. Necessity soon forms the colony into a society, and its mutual interdependence and benefits makes laws and government unnecessary."

“But, when their numbers grow, they no longer know each other closely, and they no longer need each one among them. Then, they no longer trust each other."

“This is when men’s worst nature is exposed. Problems ensue which must be solved. Compromises are needed. Some of the colony are selected to solve these problems for the group. These representatives act for the group’s best concerns and needs. When the colonies numbers grow even larger in number, they are also more distant from each other. Then the selected representatives speak not for the entire group, but only for their part of the group."

“As long as the representatives truly work for the entire community, and answer to the entire community, each portion of the population continues to mutually support each other, and this government serves its greater society with security and general happiness. But, the representatives find it increasingly difficult to reach agreeable compromises. Then, undesired edicts must be enforced by the government on an unwilling populace."

“Further, as the population increases and grows more distant, with disparate needs and desires, the people’s representatives grow ever more contentious, and unable to answer to the best needs of society."

“If the representatives’ numbers and their government grow too large, governmental problems ensue. Then, government no longer is a servant of society. Government eventually grows to be a rival of society, and an opponent of the freedom and happiness of the people."

“So, this is the origin of government. When our numbers increase, government is a necessary evil, with special inherent vices of its own. Government’s tendency is to grow, to rival its benevolent society, and to try to replace society."

“It’s the people’s job to constantly restrain the necessary evil of government, and to keep their society free enough to answer as many needs as possible, without the need of government.”

What should we do with this understanding; that society is our best nature and our best effort, and that government is our necessary evil which must be constantly restrained? The answer is important, for, if one rejects Thomas Paine’s Common Sense argument, one rejects the persuasion for the American Revolution, the impetus of the Declaration of independence, and the inherent design written by our Founding Fathers into the Constitution of the United States of America. The answer is, indeed, important.

What should we do with this understanding? On each issue, use the solution which relies most upon free society, and least upon government. The desire to rely upon society and to limit government – or to grow government until it rules society – this is the great American political divide. You either believe in a good society with a limited necessary evil government – or, you believe society is evil and man’s government should control more and more. See each issue through this lens, and follow your beliefs, no matter where they lead on the individual issues. The issues themselves are subordinate to our first, great American question: “What is government?”

This understanding and commitment is the central challenge that faced our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, fought the war for freedom, and wrote the Constitution of the United States. Their vexation, illuminated in those documents, their letters, their speeches, their prayers, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and the Federalist Papers was “How do we ensure our descendants continue our hard-won victory of society and freedom over the necessary evil of government?”

They vexation was well founded – our society is slipping away. Government is strong-arming society and freedom aside. Both Republicans and Democrats have forgotten America’s foundation; her great political divide.

Don’t just talk about it – act. Vote for representatives committed to more societal freedom and less government control. Write your representatives, encouraging them to support the “society and freedom” side of each issue, rather than the “government control” side. Keep the main thing the main thing. Voting is no longer enough – if your answer to “What is government?” is important to you, get involved in society. Get involved in politics. Make sure the good side wins. If the “good side” means that our personal freedoms ensure that our society overrules our government, then you’re in good company. You’re with the Founding Fathers.

Examples:

** Presidential elections – current electoral college, or direct election at large? Our founders knew that when two wolves and one sheep vote to decide what’s for dinner, the sheep always is eaten. They knew that majority groups in government will always trample the minority, because men’s best societal instincts get overrun in large governments. They also knew that many minority interests would divide along regional (state) lines. So, they increased the power of small states in two ways. First, each state, no matter how small, gets two senators. Second, each state’s entire electoral college vote goes to the winner of the Presidential election. In this way, small states (and by extension, many minority group’s interests) are less likely to be eaten by the majority. This is why Presidential candidates campaign in small states and listen to their special needs. Without the electoral college, candidates would only campaign and make promises to the large states and large cities, where they can get the most bang for their buck. Without the electoral college, we are sheep; we are their dinner. So, who wants to trash the electoral college? Always the supporters of big government, never the supporters of individual and societal freedom, never the supporters of minority interests. Even when your candidate might benefit from direct general election rather than the electoral college, do you continue to support the founders’ democratic representative republic design and its electoral system? If so, you’re the founders’ and Thomas Paine’s pride. You kept the main thing the main thing. If not, you are the founders’ greatest fear – truly; their greatest fear.

** Abortion, or life, from the womb? The original Greek Hippocratic Oath forbade doctors from performing abortions, as a moral sin against the baby and against society. Abortion has always been an issue, for all societies. Each society handles it as its people see fit; some allow abortion, some do not – society chooses, and individual choose which society (or segment of society) to join. The Founders saw no need to cover this issue in the Constitution. They left it to society – to the best of humankind’s interests. In the context of American government, the Founders expect us to do the same – leave the federal government out of the abortion issue altogether. Let each segment of our society reach its own conclusion. That means we may direct our churches, our communities, or our states to handle the abortion question differently. We may then migrate to those groups, and be secure in our ability to choose our freedoms and our communities. Instead, to allow the federal government to overcome society’s solutions on either side of the abortion issue is to produce disagreement where there need be none, to destroy society’s best efforts, and to embolden the necessary evil of government – it is to let the wolves eat the sheep.

** Health Care – Private insurance, or government insurance? Most non-socialist countries neither offer nor mandate government insurance of any type: life insurance, auto insurance, or health insurance, and with good reason. Insurance is personal commerce. Insurance is not a right or a government edict. Non-socialist governments do not create industries, begin businesses, provide jobs, save for individual’s retirement, declare national religions, or control the doctors. These are best operated by society; society being made up of family, community, religion, commerce, private property, creativity, and other personal endeavors. There are very few exceptions, wherein the federal government necessarily operates a segment of our commerce. We have one federal monetary system, one Post Office, one joint military force. On the state level, we have one department of motor vehicles, and few state universities. On most major purchases we avoid government control as if it’s the plague, including insurance. Auto insurance is private, with little state or federal involvement, and works well. Life insurance is a private, personal matter. You may take it or leave it. If you buy life insurance, you may choose from many private providers and many types of plans, to suit your family’s individual needs.

Most Americans have private health insurance and are happy with it. Would any trade their private health insurance for federal health insurance, run by the Post Office or the department of motor vehicles? Of course not. Some health insurance problems in America are the result of too much government interference, not the result of too little government control. Why are there so few health insurance providers from which to choose (unlike the many providers of auto insurance)? Federal and state interference, which directly decreases competition.

Why is health care so expensive? 1) The primary reason is federal and state interference, which decreases competition. 2) Another reason health care is expensive is that here in America with private health care and private health insurance, we enjoy the most expensive, life-saving tests and procedures at two and a half times the rate of people with socialist health care systems. We think it’s a bargain. 3) Finally, we need governmental tort reform, so doctors stop passing on their huge liability insurance premium to you – but our current political leadership refuses tort reform, because they’re addicted to the money the lawyers contribute to their campaigns.

Yes, we need some state government regulations for health insurance risk pools. Here’s how it works in auto insurance: the state requires you to buy auto insurance, and regulates (but does not run) the auto insurers. If your driving record indicates high risk, the auto insurers refuse you. After three refusals, you go into the state’s “risk pool”, where the state mandates that insurance companies who want to do business in their state must take their fair share of the high risk drivers, at a state-set high risk insurance premium. You pay more for your auto insurance, but you are insured.

Apply all this to our current health insurance situation: Less government interference allows more competition, less cost, and the ability to take your insurance from state-to-state and job-to-job. Tort reform further drives down your cost. Allow states to assign high risk “previous medical condition” people to insurance companies, spreading the risk, and avoiding exorbitant insurance costs. Allow states to financially encourage (but not mandate) health insurance, bringing young, healthy, low risk adults into the insurance coverage, and further reducing costs. This plan reduces federal government interference in most health insurance areas, allows states to regulate health insurance as they do other insurance, reduces cost, increases coverage, increases competition and personal choice of insurance providers, and addresses nearly every current problem in American health insurance. Or, you may still want the federal Post Office to control your health services. You choose the best tool: society or federal government.

War, or not?

Speaker of the House and Democratic San Francisco Representative Nancy Pelosi angrily demands a large and fast US Air Force aircraft be at her beck and call at all times, and often cancels at the last minute.

She says she deserves it because her predecessor Speaker and Republican Representative Denny Hastirt also used a jet to get back to his home district.

Hastirt used a small, slow jet. Pelosi insists on a large, fast, and three times as expensive jet, and much more frequently. But, that difference is not the quarrel I have with Pelosi.

Hastirt had a military jet only in the aftermath of 9-11, when the President (and the entire country) emphatically stated the obvious: "We are in a state of war against Islamic terrorism." Since the Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency (after the Vice President), the state of war made a military aircraft, however small and slow, a reasonable temporary way to transport Speaker Hastirt.

However, Obama, Biden, and Pelosi herself ridicule the idea that we are in a war on terror. None of them will use the terms "war on terror", "Islamic terrorist", or "victory". They see the war on Islamic terrorism as an annoying crime scene.

If there's no more war on terrorism threatening our country's leadership, then the reason for the Speaker to have military transport is removed, by acclamation of the Democratic leadership in the legislative and executive branches. No war - no military jet.

Unless, of course, it's just an excuse to get the citizens to pay for special royal treatment of an elitist professional government "servant" ... which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson told us to be on eternal vigilance against. Jefferson wins this argument against what he said would be our most dangerous American foe: unbridled desire for power over the citizen.

Job #1

"The way I see it, the first job of my administration is to put people back to work and get our economy moving again," President-elect Barack Obama said, days before he takes the oath of office.

No, sir. The way you see it is wrong. You need to be Commander in Chief, not campaigner-in-chief, nor poll-follower-in-chief.

Your job #1 is the safety of Americans from the war the terrorists began during the Clinton administration.

Bush knew that. We watched him gather all his power - all his political IOUs - together and spend them all on the war on terror. He did exactly what we all needed him to do. He pushed every resource to its limit (including legal limits). He asked every agency to re-invent new and better ways to keep us safe. When necessary to get job #1 advanced, he got Congressional votes for our war effort by looking the other way on Congress's fiscal boondoggles. He allowed Congresses controlled by both parties to party well into the night with pork barrel projects designed to get them re-elected. That's what allowed him to work well into the night on our safety in time of war.

Shame on Congress. Shame on the "watchdog" media. Thank you, Mr. President. You gladly sacrificed your popularity for the better goal of our safety. If you had acted as though popularity, power, and legacy were most important, we would have had eight more years of Clintonesque politics, and eight more years of terrorist murders of Americans.

It's an axiom - a basic truth - of war that the best defense is a great offense. Likewise, it's a basic truth that, in the absence of war, the best-prepared defense is a well-prepared offense.

So, after Obama takes a powder on the whole Commander in Chief thing, and jumps in front of the ignorant me-first parade to say paychecks is job #1, and leaves Iraq while it's still vulnerable to takeover by another tyrant who will want to wage war on us, and cuts the defense budget so we're as unprepared for the next effort as Clinton left us for the current effort -- after all that, where will the ignorant me-first parade lead our poll-follower-in-chief after the next terrorist act of war?

When the parade makes him say it, he'll say that winning the war on terror is job #1. But, by then, he will have lost the great advantage handed to him by his predecessor.

This is the difference between a true leader and a media starlet. Country first, if you please.

Obamanomics

I listened. Now, I’m reading the text of Obama’s economic speech. He read it eloquently from teleprompters, with no audience eye contact and no open questions, just like all his great performances. So, what is Obamanomics? What is this American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan?

It’s … a Plan. It’s Reinvestment, in that it takes money from one place and puts it somewhere else. But, it doesn’t foster Recovery – just the opposite. And, it’s not American, if you believe in capitalism’s incredible growth and wealth potential, or if you believe in American rugged individualism and personal responsibility, or if you believe in continuing the fight against the socialist welfare state.

If Obamanomics doesn’t foster recovery and flies in the face of 200 years of Americanism, how can it be meeting only meek and mild resistance from Congress? Simple – most Congressmen aren’t leaders, don’t have foresight, and their #1 priority is re-election. Not recovery, and not our future. Congress has devolved into the Clintonesque Club – “follow the polls”. Hence, the Democratic Congress’s poll numbers are far lower than even George Bush’s. Lower than a snake’s belly in a wagon rut, as we say out West. What’s the Clintonesque Club mantra? “Find the parade, get in front, and pretend to lead, no matter where it’s going. It's the polls, stupid.”

If the great unwashed masses with no critical thinking, no sense of history, and no understanding of how the American economy became the world’s most amazing success story … If the me-first mentality says “Bail me out, Big Brother!”, “Please, Big Gov’mint, take over everything!”, and “Change, any change, just change!” … If the polls say “Spend our kids’ inheritance right now, on me!” … Well, the weasels on Capital Hill learned how to find that ignorant parade and get in front. That’s why Congress is going along with Obamanomics. Thanks, Obama.

We deserve the government we elect, Senator Franken.

1929’s Wall Street crash and bad recession did not have to be a decade-long depression. FDR and his Big Government Overspending New Deal did that to us. The American economy was not hurt in the beginning as badly as the European countries, but our depression lasted much longer than theirs did, because our government got in the way and used up all the investment capital for short-term stimulus. Thanks, FDR. In fact, FDR's policies never did lift us out of depression; the Europeans did that for him by starting the second world war in 35 years, eventually requiring our resources, our factories, our farms, and our military. That’s the economic shot in the arm that finally threw off the choke hold of FDR big government over-spending.

The ensuing boom of the 1950’s needed another shot in the arm when it began to wane a little in the 1960’s. Kennedy knew, in the absence of a world war, we needed a non-war economic stimulus that would work for everyone. He was right; he yelled it out loud, over and over, until the support of the American voters (those polls, again) got Congress to agree – cut taxes on the employers to stimulate job growth to stimulate the entire economic engine to increase the total GDP to increase the total tax income – everybody wins! Thanks, JFK, it worked.

Johnson, Nixon, and Carter forgot that lesson, and again the economy was mired in what even Carter, during his ill-fated re-election campaign, called the “misery index” of high interest rates and high inflation. Well, Reagan also knew the solution. His immense popularity with the American people (those polls, again) gave us his plan of cutting taxes for everyone, including the employers and the investors – those blokes who stoke the coals and get our jobs growing.

Along came Clinton. And, the Clinton recession that began in 1999. Then came George Bush, and he inherited the Clinton recession, which the liberal media renamed the Bush recession. Well, “W” is no genius, but he knows how to read history and repeat what worked for JFK and Reagan. “W” cut income taxes.

“But, the wealthy had bigger tax cuts than the poor!” Well, yeah, since the poor don’t pay any income taxes. Duh.

“But, the wealthy had bigger tax cuts than the middle class – the workers!” Well, yeah, since the upper 5% pays 95% of the bill, I guess an across-the-board tax cut would do that, of course. So, just how unfairly did the “W” tax cut treat the middle class? Well, a few years later, the economy had doubled, the government had a surplus, and here’s what happened to the middle class and the wealthy: The wealthy made a lot more money. So, even with “W’s” reduced tax rates, they wound up paying more total taxes on their total income than under Clinton. And, the wealthy paid a much higher percentage of the total taxes than they had under Clinton.

Meanwhile, the middle class enjoyed their tax cuts, and loved earning more money, and then appreciated paying a smaller percentage of the taxes than under Clinton. “W” tax policies were the best ever for the middle class majority. Thanks, “W”.

If you like history and facts, “W” tax policy made him a hero. If you prefer liberal re-writing of history, “W” is the goat. Keep in mind the "W" tax cuts worked their magic in spite of 9-11, in spite of a war fought on two fronts, and in spite of Congresses (both Republican and Democrat) who spent shamelessly on pork barrel projects, over McCain’s constant objections. Especially Obama’s pork.

OK, so history is clear. In economic stress, we’ve proven that higher tax rates and higher government deficits are exactly the wrong medicine. Thanks for making that crystal clear, FDR. Lesson learned.

Instead, we’ve proven that lower tax rates (especially if coupled with reduced federal deficits) grow the economy, grow jobs, grow incomes, and grow total tax receipts to the government. Thanks for proving that, JFK, Reagan, and “W”. Lesson learned, and, boy-oh-boy, do we need to apply that lesson now!

Now, back to Obamanomics. We are faced with an economic slowdown that ranks somewhere between the 1929 crash and the Carter “misery index”. A big challenge. But, it’s a challenge we’ve faced before.

As I said, I listened and I read his plan. He never extolled the power of a free market economy to throw off the shackles of business downturns and government intrusion, despite history. Instead, he either said or inferred “Only government can ….” over and over. Other than being a good speech-giver, Obama could not be more opposite of JFK and Reagan if he tried. He made 13 references to increased government spending (more before his speech was “redacted” and printed. He made no reference to unleashing the power of employers to employ. He did the Carter "oh, woe is me, woe to us all" speech. Exactly the opposite of a Ronald Reagan or Martin Luther King optimistic, we shall overcome, America will win speech.

Obamanomics proposes the biggest increase in federal deficit spending ever, in the history of the republic. He also proposes the biggest takeover of free markets by the government ever, in the history of the republic. Finally, he proposes the biggest tax rate on the employers of this country ever, in the history of the republic. We already know why – he found a loud and ignorant parade, and got in front. Exactly the opposite of what history and logic tell us we need. We already know what will happen – a needless prolonged extension of the current recession into a deep recession laced with the “misery index” of recession, high interest rates, and high inflation.

And, we know one more thing. There will arise a leader who knows history, learns the lessons, ignores the polls of the ignorant “me first” parade, and will lead us out of the future misery of Obamanomics. That leader may be a Democrat (a la Kennedy) or a Republican (a la Reagan), but he will arise, because the times make the man, and the Obama times will demand such a man. Or woman. Thanks in advance, Obama. We can’t wait.

Critical Thinking 101 - Emotion and Hope, or Fact and Experience?

Critical Thinking 101 – Emotion and Hope, or Fact and Experience?

One of these analogies will drive the point home for you. One of them will crystallize a concept in a way that even eloquent rhetoric cannot camouflage. In each case, the lesson is the same: You may choose on the basis of emotion or fact – on the basis of current words and fickle emotions, or on the basis of “the best predictor of future action is past action.”

The Surgeon

You have a brain tumor. You go to a several experts for a variety of diagnoses, prognoses, and recommendations. You’re still young, you have a wonderful family, and they need you for years to come. You need the best care possible. You must decide whom to trust with your life.

Surgeon #1 has seen your condition many times. He has the hospital’s highest success rate. He teaches at the medical school; his lectures are accurate, though not fascinating. The neurosurgery book he wrote is on many other surgeons’ desks. He gets calls from other surgeons from around the world for recommendations on their most difficult cases. New surgeons study under him for months before trying to become neurosurgeons at their local hospitals. Even Surgeon #1’s fellow doctors (who are also his competitors) say they would choose him to operate if a family member had this tumor. He is older, nearing retirement, and his bedside manner is just OK. He’s humble but confident. Surgeon #1 recommends his technique for your surgery.

Surgeon #2 is right out of medical school. He hasn’t operated yet, but he speed-read all the books and got A’s on the exams. When faced with a difficult situation, he calls his professors and goes with their consensus. He’s handsome, and his speaking style is so eloquent and produces such confidence in his audience that the hospital has already made Surgeon #2 their main persuasive speaker at fund raisers and in court. His bedside manner is inspiring, his voice soothing, and he always fills his prospective patients with a joyful hope. He’s never been in the midst of a medical emergency, and has never performed an operation. His bedside manner is the most inspiring and hopeful, though he seems a little arrogant. Surgeon #2 recommends a different operation for you.

It’s time to pick your surgeon. It’s the most important decision you and your family have faced. Emotionally, you want to choose the inspiring Surgeon #2.Whom do you choose, and why?

The Pilot

Your commercial flight has a big problem. The pilot and copilot are both incapacitated with severe food poisoning. They can’t fly. You are the airline’s CEO, seated in first class with your entire extended family; spouse, children, grandchildren, and even two pregnant moms. You’re not a pilot, but you know you have onboard two passengers who are pilots. They are current and qualified in this type of aircraft. As your crew became ill, they told you the situation: Engine #1 is on fire, and must be dealt with before it burns into the wing. Fuel is running low. Weather at the destination is bad: heavy storms, strong crosswinds, and an icy runway. An airborne nightmare; a successful outcome is difficult with even the best pilot in charge.

Pilot #1 works for your competitor, flying the exact type of aircraft on the same route. He’s older, about to retire, and has the reputation of being a gray-haired, cranky curmudgeon. He also is the chief flight instructor. He literally wrote the book. His leadership is so good that your airline “borrows” his ideas and decisions, and is better for it. He was an Air Force fighter pilot with a chest full of decorations for his valor and flying skill. He gets the impossible job done, every time. Then, he had another lifetime of experiences and superb judgment in his current airline job. He’s applied the experience for which he’s so famous to many inflight emergencies, including your current problems. He’s actually flown this route in this type aircraft into worse weather many times in the past few years.

Pilot #2 works for your company. In fact, he’s your newest, youngest pilot, who was hired as a favor to your CFO (Pilot #2’s uncle). His only previous experience is flying Cessna 150s in good weather, with an experienced instructor pilot sitting alongside with advice. He is brilliant; he whizzed through ground school with high grades on every written test. In his flight training, he was adept at applying already-written rules to mundane problems – that’s easy copilot work. But he could not grasp Captain work – he could not take charge of a surprise situation not covered by written rules, and use shrewd judgment and a lifetime of experience to find a safe solution. He always had to ask his instructors for advice. However, his instructors noticed his speaking ability; they want him to get some flying experience for a few years, and then come back to the schoolhouse as a fellow instructor. His ability to explain and speak in class is easily his strongest asset.

You’re out of time. You must put one of the pilots in the Captain seat and save your family, the other passengers, and innocent people on the ground. Your initial hope is to choose your own company’s pilot, #2, not the competitor’s pilot, #1. Whom do you choose, and why?

The Man in the Truck

You have one child; a wonderful 18 year old daughter. She’s lovely, cautious, intelligent, and full of life. You all cried tears of joy, hope, and concern when she got in her car and ventured out for her first solo road trip out of state; leaving for college. When you return home from a long walk, you hear a telephone message from your daughter: “My car broke down on a country road away from any city or house. It’s getting dark and cold and rainy. I’m afraid to stay here overnight. My cell phone battery is dead; I’m using the cell phone of a man who stopped to offer me a ride. I need advice. Actually, two different men in two pickup trucks have each stopped, and both are offering a ride to town.”

“Man #1 is older. I’m using his cell phone. He’s the local sheriff, about to retire as. He showed me his badge, and had me call the local county sheriff office to verify his identity. And, he told me to give them his truck license plate number, driver’s license number, and his description, so I’d feel safe. The office says he’s their local hero for risking his life to rescue people his whole career. He wants to take me back to the town I just passed, to the sheriff office, even though it’s not the direction I want to go. He seems gruff; he reminds me of Grandpa. He’s short on words, and quick to correct things that are wrong. He seems strong and safe. “

“Man #2 is really young. He’s soooo handsome. I really like him; he’s so friendly and he smiles at me all the time. I think he likes me, too. His voice is even smoother than our Pastor’s. He says his cell phone is dead, too, so we can’t check him out with his office. But, his truck is brand new, he’ll buy me dinner, and he’s decided to turn his truck around and go my direction. He says he’ll drive me all the way to college tonight, and you can send someone else for my car. He’s so exciting!”

“Mom, Dad … Who should I trust? ”

Your daughter is excited by Man #2. Whom do you hope she choses, and why?

There are times to decide things based on first impressions, on emotion, on hope. Those are enjoyable times and fun decisions. Life is wonderful because it includes such events.

There are other decisions that must be divorced from emotion, and based on fact and proven ability. Those are serious, vital choices with long term consequences. Life is worthwhile because it includes such decisions.

Words, hope, and emotion do not predict future behavior.

Facts and past performance do predict future behavior.

What should we use to elect a President at a time of war, terrorism, and economic turmoil, with the future of the country hanging in balance? Words and emotion, or facts and past behavior? You’re welcome to feel emotion; it’s a wonderful part of humanity. But, did you let any glimmer of emotion or hope or likability enter into your Presidential voting decision? Did you go online, read books, and actually check the facts and past performance of each Party and each candidate, or just believe a media which admits it’s biased by its own emotions? Did you educate yourself? When you heard a candidate speak, could you have stopped the tape to correct their mistakes and exaggerations, could you remind them of the history of the subject, could you point out when they change their story for their audience, could you notice when they avoided the question? Did you do your homework? Were you worthy of casting a vote? Was your voting process the same process you want to teach your children to use in life’s most important decisions? The question is not whether your Party passed or failed on election day in 2004 or 2008. The question is not whether you were happy or hopeful with your choice. The question is whether you passed or failed Critical Thinking 101.

Speculations on Fuel Prices

Market speculators take a risk on their forecasts of future prices; if they bet wrong, they lose money. If they bet correctly, they make money.

Example: Southwest Airlines is an oil speculator. They bet fuel prices would rise sharply, agreed to buy fuel at a price more than the yesterday's price, and that price turned out to be less than today's price. They bet correctly, and Southwest Airlines customers are delighted with the speculation.

General effect of speculation: Smoothing prices. Instead of wild swings in price, speculation lowers the highs and raises the lows. The entire market (suppliers and customers) profit.

Price does not automatically go up because of speculation. If it did, we would all be speculators and we would all be rich.

Price goes up if the market expects less supply or more demand. "Speculators" is just another name for "the market expects" - in other words, good old capitalism.

More demand - China and India are growing rapidly into industrial giants, and they're thirsty for fuel. USA and Europe continue to grow and demand more fuel. Speculators do not control the increase in demand; they merely note it.

Less supply - USA refuses to access it's own huge supplies of fuel. Congress prevents drilling our own offshore areas; instead, we watch Cuba lease those reserves to China, which drills without the clean safeguards the USA would use. Congress prevents drilling known inland areas; it allows drilling only on leases which are known to NOT have oil! Congress prevents building nuclear power plants; the French are 80% nuclear, but we're only 20%. Congress prevents access to most of our huge coal reserves (enough to supply us with all our power for over a century); not for electricity, and not for clean gasification. So, USA-generated energy (especially oil production) is decreasing. Speculators do not control the lack of supply; they merely note Congress' preventions to increase our own energy supply.

Fuel prices are high because of more demand coupled with less supply. We can't have a significant effect on demand (unless we cause our own economic depression - see comments on the Congress' Federal deficit). We could have a huge effect on the supply, but the Congress refuses.

"Drill here, drill now!" is the USA voters' mantra.
"Just say 'No' to everything, except spending!" is Congress' mantra.
Congress has a 9% approval rating; below the IRS.
Coincidence? No
Consequence? Yes!

I'm not a speculator, and I don't invest in any oil speculators. I'm just a voter and a realist.

We don't need Congress to change regulation of oil speculators.
We just need a change in Congress - at any cost.