Webs’ Random Ideas

Republicans have trapped themselves into a corner on this debate. They don’t want government intervention and will give all kinds of anecdotal evidence and little pieces of “facts” about how terrible the government is at doing anything. Yet when you question them they have ZERO solutions. Why? Because they backed themselves into a corner.

Think about it. If the government sucks at doing anything then how can we trust the government to keep the same health care system we have and just add stipulations to what the private companies can and cannot do. It goes against their original premise.

But this isn’t the way I go about such discussions. To me there are plenty of facts and moral obligations that those I do have discussions with could see.

In this case it’s certainly funny because it’s true. But sad at the same time… a comedian is the only one who will ask hard questions? Maybe it’s because he is the only journalist with the freedom to ask the hard questions? I have a hard time believing he is the only one that will ask the tough questions…

It's so true

He never had a chance. But to be fair, he’s defending a terrible news organization that really doesn’t seem to care.

See the rest of em here…

Seems a hospital CEO has a very stange idea:

He looked out into a sea of people and recognized faces: technicians, secretaries, administrators, therapists, nurses, the people who are the heart and soul of any hospital. People who knew that Beth Israel had hired about a quarter of its 8,000 staff over the last six years and that the chances that they could all keep their jobs and benefits in an economy in freefall ranged between slim and none.

“I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I’d like to get your reaction to it,” Levy began. “I’d like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners – the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don’t want to put an additional burden on them.”

How do you think they all reacted? How would you react if your CEO came by and asked the same? Think about this in the context of the level you are at in your job.

Read on to find out what happened…

Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate Change.

I didn’t see too much noise on the Tubes for this documentary so I thought I should take the time to talk about it. Especially after catching this gem on the site:

Through on-location interviews with leading creationist scientists, climatologists, and other commentators the dangers and politics of global warming are revealed. Learn how you can be effective in caring for creation without becoming an unwitting accomplice to the myths of global warming. This balanced approach to a very “hot” topic will equip you with the information necessary to honor the Creator … without worshipping the creation.

God’s promise to Noah was that, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and winter and summer … shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

I really hope the premise of the movie is not to say, “No need to worry about what we do to this planet because god promised us it will always be here.” If that really is the message than I can say this is a dangerous movie and should really be shunned

But what should really scare individuals away is the fact this movie is made by Answers in Genesis. This is the same group that brought us the creation museum in Kentucky that tells everyone how dinosaurs roamed the Earth with humans 6,000 years ago. Anyone that tries to prove such a thing and claim it as science can’t be expected to make a scientific documentary.

Well I haven’t seen the movie and likely never will, so I think a more apt use of the rest of this post would be to discuss the idea of such films.

What boggles my mind is how people accept information from source x with no trouble at all, but make source y do cart wheels and all kinds of tricky maneuvers to be accepted. What I mean here is, if I needed knee replacement surgery I wouldn’t go talking to my Dad (who had knee replacement surgery) to find out if I really did in fact need knee replacement surgery. I would go get the advice of medical professionals and I am assuming the majority of people in the US would do the same.

If my car was having problems and I thought I might need a new engine, I would get the advice from the 2 people I talk to about car advice, but I would consult with an engines expert (specifically someone that has worked on my make/model previously) for the final decision. Just like if I wanted advice on my bicycle I would ask DOF first before talking to anyone else.

We all know who an expert is and with a reasonable degree of certainty we could weed out bad sources if we stopped to think about it. So why when it comes to politically motivated subjects or even subjects of religion are we willing to accept information from a lower quality source?

Why do we listen to TV pundits and talk show hosts about matters of science? Why don’t we spend another minute or two to get the information from a reputable source. There are plenty of scientists that study global warming and can easily point out information and data to show how global warming is real and is happening now.

But instead it seems we would rather not question our beliefs and instead confirm what we think is the case. Or maybe the truth isn’t as exciting as the conspiracy. I don’t know the reason, but I can say I think it’s a poor decision to live your life without making reasoned decisions based on evidence from reputable sources.

Going back to a previous analogy… would you get a recommendation for heart surgery from Michelle Malkin? Then why trust her for issues of science?

Apparently the videos posted here have really started a buzz.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfVzFBTk1eQ[/youtube]

Found from Greg!

Big news for those of you that dislike Blago as much as I do…

WASHINGTON – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of conspiring to get financial benefits through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to fill the vacancy left by Barack Obama’s election as president.

According to a federal criminal complaint, Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper’s editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

Pretty serious stuff. The kicker here, for those of you remembering back to 2002 Blago ran for office on a campaign of cleaning up IL. Unfortunately for our state a majority bought it hook, line, sinker. Myself, I voted for JIM RYAN which many people confused or thought a relationship existed between him and George Ryan. Jim was clean, Blago was not. Now IL is in a bed of our own making.

So what makes this case of a dirty politician so special, the FBI has been investigating for over 3 years, and has got a judge to allow wiretaps and phonetaps. And this article… Blago is screwed…

Updated at 9:08 a.m.: Blagojevich and Harris were arrested simultaneously at their homes at about 6:15 a.m., according to the FBI. They were transported to FBI headquarters in Chicago, where they remained at 9 a.m.

Wow! So not just charged, but arrested.

Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of Blagojevich in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

Blagojevich and Harris, along with others, obtained and sought to gain financial benefits for the governor, members of his family and his campaign fund in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state jobs and state contracts.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg with what he has done. I will write more about this later.

Oops, I almost forget to include this gem!

On Monday, Blagojevich said he has done nothing wrong in his stewardship of the state and challenged critics to record him because his discussions were “always lawful.”

according to Rachel’s fans at least…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2uljnDw0z0[/youtube]

Found via Greg.

I was watching “Conversations with Michael Eisner” on MSNBC. Not by choice, it just happened to be on as I was waiting for wifey to come back into the room. Eisner (upper millionaire) asked Steve Forbes (upper millionaire) what he thought about Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans:

Eisner: [...] Do you think it’s a good thing? Will it have some drawbacks or will it help the economy?

Ever heard of a leading question Eisner?

Forbes: [...] I think it’s a bad thing and this is another thing Obama needs to learn coming in. When you raise taxes you change incentives and now there is less of an incentive to take risks, start new businesses… yadda yadda, I don’t want anyone coming close to the Bush tax cuts giving me free money…

Okay, so the last sentence there I added. But basically this shows me where Steve Forbes comes from. For the 5 minutes I watched I was really impressed with him, but couldn’t stomach to listen when he came to the point above.

Give me a friggin break! The majority of new business are small business in the US and they will get a tax break from Obama, thus giving an incentive to start a small business. Forbes just doesn’t want to lose his Bush tax cuts and is using Eisner’s leading question as an opportunity to cry.

Yea, I’m sure those losing their jobs in the economic downturn find Forbes appeal to even more Millions of dollars as honest.

Op-Ed by Mitt Romney on the Auto Bailout.

Before we start I would like note that I still think Mitt Romney is a suit.

After I read the earlier post with both Canjun’s and Greg’s opinions about the auto bailout, I started looking for some ideas on how to manage this dilemma. Mainly ones that would involve not giving a blank check to the auto industry. I strongly believe that the fundamentals of our economy are so weak that I seriously fear the results of their bankruptcy. But simply writing a check would only delay the inevitable, our money could be better spent on other things that can feed families.

In this article I think Mitt brings up some really good ideas. As we read about his father’s experience with the auto industry we can see that he has some real insight here. I really appreciate his idea of spending much more on research that would be done at universities and in companies. I believe this would do more for the longevity of the auto industry than any amount of money.

Mitt also notes the added costs that unions have burdened the car companies with. He says that bankruptcy could relieve them of those unmanageable burdens. I would consider this a very morally hazardous position. As far as retirement is concerned Social Security simply does not provide enough to retire on and people are counting on those benefits. I do agree with this position as it relates to current workers. They are going to need to take a serious pay cut in order to keep their jobs and that is just how it is. I have seen Mitsubishi in Bloomington do it so the UAW certainly can. However morally hazardous this decision would be I fear it may be the necessary one.

At the end of the article Mitt talks about what the companies would do after they file bankruptcy and start the long road of rebuilding. I digg the idea of increasing the government funded research. The companies that keep their doors open after bankruptcy will need some help getting back on their feet. Ideally post-bankruptcy they will shed unproductive expenses and restructure themselves in order to make better use of the help that they will most certainly receive. The government handing out tax payer cash to companies doesn’t really fit my Libertarian ideology, but our economy can’t take the big three all calling it quits. The gift of free research is the best thing we could ever offer these companies.

Ok so we have a republican, a democrat, a Libertarian, and a whatever the heck Jon is all who agree another auto bailout is a bad idea. The only thing we need is a statist (any communist, fascist, or other totalitarian will do) and we have a representative from every end of the political spectrum who know a bad deal when they see one.

[EDITOR's NOTE]

There is another discussion of this topic on ***Dave’s blog. I recommend it as Dave is a very intelligent person and a wonderful writer.