I'd be remiss to not put my two cents in on the changing of the guard in the White House. I'd like to reflect on a quote from the "I Have A Dream" speech:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Seeing a black man become President of the United States is, like everyone has said, monumental and historic. I'm glad our country has demonstrated that we are "color blind" when it comes to the highest office in the land. With that behind us, I am hopeful we can now jump the next hurdle: Focus on electing officials based on the content of their character, just as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned.
I don't think we as a country considered character so well this election. Clearly, the country was overwhelmed with the prospect of electing its first African American President, which tainted the investigative ability of journalism as a whole. They wanted to be a part of history, not be a roadblock. On the other side of the aisle, we had a woman running for Vice President, and I dare say that her resume would show her better qualified for being President of the United States than who we elected. Journalists clearly showed their prejudice against women (or should I say Republican women) for holding political office. Their prejudgment of her ability to take care of a family and govern seemed to be "OK" with the public. That was NOT OK with me; in these times parading the word "change" around, the projected intolerance for a woman to hold high office "with kids at home" apparently went over a lot of heads. If the Governor of Alaska had been treated fairly, based on her record and especially her character, then Dr. King's vision could be seen as completely realized. But we are not there ... yet.
How soon we forget the 1990s. Scandal after scandal ... Distraction from the business of the country. With all of the recent appointments for the new administration, several brought their own "backgrounds" leading me to think, "Here we go again." In 2000, the country did elect a man of character to the White House. Love him or hate him, George W. Bush is a man of principle who did not sell his soul to the polls. How may scandals have we seen in the 2000s that were rooted in immorality and/or corruption? This absence was probably a good thing, as this country had no time--or I dare say tolerance--for that kind of foolishness in light of 9/11.
I believe our new President to be a good hearted man, desiring to help others, as opposed to helping others help themselves. Of what I know about our new President's character I can only observe from his associations. With that, I think of a phrase that really hits home: "Show me your friends, and I'll show you your future". Who is the U.S. Government's new "friend"? We will see.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Gluten, anyone?
Perhaps you have been to a grocery store or health foods store where labels reading "Gluten Free" are evident. For many, perhaps you, this seems entirely irrelevant and wonder why in the world this stuff called gluten is getting attention. Gluten is a special protein found in wheat, rye, barley, and some oats. Gluten is the material in bread that makes it chewy and elastic, and removed from bread is sticky and resembling chewing gum.
Some people cannot digest gluten; gluten will enter the small intestine and the small cilia-like villi lining and flatten it, thus hindering the ability of the body to absorb nutrients. This condition is called celiac disease, and left untreated can cause other illnesses of the body and can certainly lead to an early death.
Symptoms of celiac disease are anywhere to none to extreme pain in the intestines. Recently I visited a restaurant where the manager's wife was a celiac, and she prepared a gluten free guide for the menu. She cited statistics which I have not verified but are fascinating if accurate: 1 in 133 people have some form of celiac disease, but only 1 out of 1,100+ get diagnosed. I have some first hand experience with this.
Not long after my youngest child was born, my wife was persistently sick and would retreat to bed as soon as I got home from work. We went from Doctor to Doctor, diagnosis to diagnosis, and little to no improvement was observed. Finally, through a telephone consultation, she was told about gluten intolerance and went on the gluten diet, then everything changed. She is much better now (thank goodness) ... the diagnosis took 8 years. She went on the diet before she could be officially diagnosed, and I don;t think she will go back to gluten just to get one.
My wife learned more about the symptoms of gluten intolerance and celiac disease, and this led us to put our youngest daughter on a gluten free diet. She was constantly constipated and would have accidents in her pants regularly. Going gluten free removed this problem. She was also fussy most of the time and this went away as well. Next kid ...
My oldest child did not reveal she had stomach pains from ingesting gluten until recently. When we started the gluten free diet with her, we noticed a "Jekyll and Hyde" difference in her behavior. I mean it was drastic. While I love my daughter, with gluten in her system she is foul, offensive, and downright nasty. Off the diet she is actually quite pleasant to be around and the problems come back to the level of the everyday teenager. When she gets gluten in her system, it's pretty obvious. Several days must pass for the gluten and related effects to evacuate the body. And that's such a good time!
Child #3's problems of being tired and irritable all the time have been attributed to his heart condition (hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS), but after a stress test showed his heart rate getting into the 180s (should only be able to reach the 130s--Praise God!) we started to look at his gluten tolerance. A celiac genetics test put him at very high risk--16x greater risk of getting celiac. An EGD (upper scope) showed a burned esophagus but the biopsy did not test positive for celiac. But the GI Doctor put him on the diet anyway. The irritability has disappeared, and his energy has increased so much that this kid with a serious heart condition is playing rec league basketball (again--Praise God!). So that leaves me the sole gluten eater of the house ... or does it?
While I've never had stomachaches from eating gluten, I've had off and on (more recently on) acid reflux and bad breath since I was a teenager. My younger daughter would have the most awful breath imaginable in the mornings, until we took her off gluten. I did the genetics test and found I was 14x greater risk of getting celiac. I had an EGD done and the Doctor conducting the scope would not do a biopsy to test for gluten, but did find an irritated esophagus and gastritis. Now following the link in the last sentence, you will find that autoimmune disorders can cause gastritis ... Visit autoimmune disorders and among the list will be celiac disease. Hmm.
Doctors, like the one who did an EGD on me in early December, see celiac as rare and do not give it the attention it probably deserves. The Doctor told me, while lying on the operating table, that if I don't have diarrhea all the time then I don't have celiac. I was not interested in arguing as a snake was about to be lowered down my throat. But it's clear to me celiac disease is far too misunderstood, is not black and white, there must be more to it than the related genes which are typically examined.
I've been on the gluten diet for two weeks and I have seen improvements in the acid reflux. I'm taking only one prevacid a day now as opposed to two. I did experience some gluten withdrawal (compare to going off sugar), but that passed. I look forward to seeing if any other aspects of my health improve as a result of better absorption of nutrients over the next several months.
If you have any questions about gluten intolerance / celiac disease, I'll direct you to my wife. Hope you found this informative and helpful to know!
Some people cannot digest gluten; gluten will enter the small intestine and the small cilia-like villi lining and flatten it, thus hindering the ability of the body to absorb nutrients. This condition is called celiac disease, and left untreated can cause other illnesses of the body and can certainly lead to an early death.
Symptoms of celiac disease are anywhere to none to extreme pain in the intestines. Recently I visited a restaurant where the manager's wife was a celiac, and she prepared a gluten free guide for the menu. She cited statistics which I have not verified but are fascinating if accurate: 1 in 133 people have some form of celiac disease, but only 1 out of 1,100+ get diagnosed. I have some first hand experience with this.
Not long after my youngest child was born, my wife was persistently sick and would retreat to bed as soon as I got home from work. We went from Doctor to Doctor, diagnosis to diagnosis, and little to no improvement was observed. Finally, through a telephone consultation, she was told about gluten intolerance and went on the gluten diet, then everything changed. She is much better now (thank goodness) ... the diagnosis took 8 years. She went on the diet before she could be officially diagnosed, and I don;t think she will go back to gluten just to get one.
My wife learned more about the symptoms of gluten intolerance and celiac disease, and this led us to put our youngest daughter on a gluten free diet. She was constantly constipated and would have accidents in her pants regularly. Going gluten free removed this problem. She was also fussy most of the time and this went away as well. Next kid ...
My oldest child did not reveal she had stomach pains from ingesting gluten until recently. When we started the gluten free diet with her, we noticed a "Jekyll and Hyde" difference in her behavior. I mean it was drastic. While I love my daughter, with gluten in her system she is foul, offensive, and downright nasty. Off the diet she is actually quite pleasant to be around and the problems come back to the level of the everyday teenager. When she gets gluten in her system, it's pretty obvious. Several days must pass for the gluten and related effects to evacuate the body. And that's such a good time!
Child #3's problems of being tired and irritable all the time have been attributed to his heart condition (hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or HLHS), but after a stress test showed his heart rate getting into the 180s (should only be able to reach the 130s--Praise God!) we started to look at his gluten tolerance. A celiac genetics test put him at very high risk--16x greater risk of getting celiac. An EGD (upper scope) showed a burned esophagus but the biopsy did not test positive for celiac. But the GI Doctor put him on the diet anyway. The irritability has disappeared, and his energy has increased so much that this kid with a serious heart condition is playing rec league basketball (again--Praise God!). So that leaves me the sole gluten eater of the house ... or does it?
While I've never had stomachaches from eating gluten, I've had off and on (more recently on) acid reflux and bad breath since I was a teenager. My younger daughter would have the most awful breath imaginable in the mornings, until we took her off gluten. I did the genetics test and found I was 14x greater risk of getting celiac. I had an EGD done and the Doctor conducting the scope would not do a biopsy to test for gluten, but did find an irritated esophagus and gastritis. Now following the link in the last sentence, you will find that autoimmune disorders can cause gastritis ... Visit autoimmune disorders and among the list will be celiac disease. Hmm.
Doctors, like the one who did an EGD on me in early December, see celiac as rare and do not give it the attention it probably deserves. The Doctor told me, while lying on the operating table, that if I don't have diarrhea all the time then I don't have celiac. I was not interested in arguing as a snake was about to be lowered down my throat. But it's clear to me celiac disease is far too misunderstood, is not black and white, there must be more to it than the related genes which are typically examined.
I've been on the gluten diet for two weeks and I have seen improvements in the acid reflux. I'm taking only one prevacid a day now as opposed to two. I did experience some gluten withdrawal (compare to going off sugar), but that passed. I look forward to seeing if any other aspects of my health improve as a result of better absorption of nutrients over the next several months.
If you have any questions about gluten intolerance / celiac disease, I'll direct you to my wife. Hope you found this informative and helpful to know!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Should GM Fail?
All this talk about bailing out the American auto makers really rubs me the wrong way. Did they happen to show up on Congress' door because handouts (with conditions or not?) are being made? Has anyone bothered to look at why American auto makers are in the condition they are? Doing so just might prevent them from getting even one cent of taxpayer money.
Let me share with you a story from when I was a kid that has biased me to Japanese cars to this day. When I was around 12 years old, my parents bought a Datsun 810 Maxima (now the Nissan Maxima). The car was essentially a four door sedan with the Datsun 280Z engine. Quiet, powerful, and would tell you with a voice your door was open. I recall the price was around $11-$12K. One night the car was parked outside and we had guests who pulled up in their red 2-door "K-Car" and parked beside the Maxima. I began to compare them (seeds of an analyst) and looked at style and how the doors closed--which is what really got me. The Maxima doors closed with ease and even seemed to seal the passenger compartment. The K-Car was like a tin can--literally. Then I found out the cars were about the same price--I couldn't believe it!
From that point forward I could not help but notice the stark differences in quality between American cars and Japanese cars. Very soon after that the Honda Accord became the top selling car in America. Toyota, Datsun/Nissan, and Mazda weren't that far behind. The Ford Taurus was in the mix at some point, and may still be at times. Why in the world could America not produce higher quality cars? Why would they not make changes? I've got one word for you: unions.
For a time in America, unions served an important purpose for ensuring America's work force was not abused and taken care of. With such leverage with companies, these organizations realized the power they gained by being the collective advocate of the workers to the employers. Over time, two things occurred: union power got corrupted and employers learned to take care of their own. American automakers have been at the mercy of the unions--to a point to where their coffers are almost dry from making up the difference of losing money on every car sold. Non-unionized auto production plants, like the one in Smyrna, Tennessee is not unionized and votes away the United Auto Workers every year. Why? Because Nissan apparently takes care of its people, and still manages to turn a profit.
Nissan was not always turning a profit. In the 1990s, Nissan was running in the red and close to shutting down. I doubt going to any government to ask for a bailout ever crossed their minds. What did they do? They got some consulting help, retooled their strategy and their image. Sales increased, and now Nissan sits as one of the more innovative automakers in the United States. Since 1995, I've had at least one Nissan in my garage (at times two) because they are well made, highly reliable, and fun to drive (I love that Maxima V6!). I don't know how I will ever lose that American car stigma, even though I know quality is much better than when I was a kid.
So, should America's automakers get bailed out? Not my call. But I would tell the automakers to retool their strategy, implement innovation more aggressively, and tell the unions the United States would make the best cars in the world without question if they weren't around.
Let me share with you a story from when I was a kid that has biased me to Japanese cars to this day. When I was around 12 years old, my parents bought a Datsun 810 Maxima (now the Nissan Maxima). The car was essentially a four door sedan with the Datsun 280Z engine. Quiet, powerful, and would tell you with a voice your door was open. I recall the price was around $11-$12K. One night the car was parked outside and we had guests who pulled up in their red 2-door "K-Car" and parked beside the Maxima. I began to compare them (seeds of an analyst) and looked at style and how the doors closed--which is what really got me. The Maxima doors closed with ease and even seemed to seal the passenger compartment. The K-Car was like a tin can--literally. Then I found out the cars were about the same price--I couldn't believe it!
From that point forward I could not help but notice the stark differences in quality between American cars and Japanese cars. Very soon after that the Honda Accord became the top selling car in America. Toyota, Datsun/Nissan, and Mazda weren't that far behind. The Ford Taurus was in the mix at some point, and may still be at times. Why in the world could America not produce higher quality cars? Why would they not make changes? I've got one word for you: unions.
For a time in America, unions served an important purpose for ensuring America's work force was not abused and taken care of. With such leverage with companies, these organizations realized the power they gained by being the collective advocate of the workers to the employers. Over time, two things occurred: union power got corrupted and employers learned to take care of their own. American automakers have been at the mercy of the unions--to a point to where their coffers are almost dry from making up the difference of losing money on every car sold. Non-unionized auto production plants, like the one in Smyrna, Tennessee is not unionized and votes away the United Auto Workers every year. Why? Because Nissan apparently takes care of its people, and still manages to turn a profit.
Nissan was not always turning a profit. In the 1990s, Nissan was running in the red and close to shutting down. I doubt going to any government to ask for a bailout ever crossed their minds. What did they do? They got some consulting help, retooled their strategy and their image. Sales increased, and now Nissan sits as one of the more innovative automakers in the United States. Since 1995, I've had at least one Nissan in my garage (at times two) because they are well made, highly reliable, and fun to drive (I love that Maxima V6!). I don't know how I will ever lose that American car stigma, even though I know quality is much better than when I was a kid.
So, should America's automakers get bailed out? Not my call. But I would tell the automakers to retool their strategy, implement innovation more aggressively, and tell the unions the United States would make the best cars in the world without question if they weren't around.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
We'll be OK
I've hesitated blogging today because of gloating readers who would tell me I'm just bitter about the election results. While I am disappointed, I'm realistic and do want to engage on what to expect in the near term, and possibly far term.
The election is over and we know who our next President will be. While everyone is recognizing this as historical because we have elected our first African American President, I'm seeing it as historical because we have elected an incredibly liberal man that we still don't know a lot about. That's not an original thought; I was hearing this on more than one network.
While we are hearing, "Real change has come", what does that really mean? And what does this "Yes we can" phrase mean? Based on past performance, I can only assume the yes we can was about "yes we can control the Presidency and both houses of Congress", and that being the case now is inevitably going to create some real change ... and all change is not necessarily good. We'll change to what we've seen before in our history for a time (more left leaning), not change to something we've never seen before. While I could be surprised, let's consider the past performance of the Democrats ...
Look at how the Democrats have behaved when out of power and in power. Specifically looking at 2006 when the Democrats gained power back in the House, Speaker Pelosi was talking like she was divinely sent to bring bipartisanship to the House. That didn't happen, just look at the House's approval ratings over the past two years (just when they couldn't get any lower ...). After observing Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, I'm convinced there's a disease called DMLD--Democratic Majority Leader Disease--where the Senate leader of the Democrats loses a significant amount of rationality as shown in making points against their opposition (just really had my morale upped with, "This war is lost"--good one!). Then with the financial crisis, all this blame on the Republicans--but I deduce it was either both parties or total blame on the Democrats. If the Republicans were at fault, we'd have a line of them at the door of the Senate for the Democrats to "investigate." But no investigations have taken place ... hmm.
The Democrats control it all right now, and to them congratulations are in order. I don't expect them to reach across the aisle at all. They don't have to--they are the ones in power. Will they try to shove some far left legislation down our throats? Probably--but not many ... A third of the electorate is moderate, and they will only tolerate so much.
We can expect more than one Supreme Court Justice to take advantage of retirement while we have a Democratic President--that way their ideologies don't leave the bench. I have a lot of concern for that--especially for the Boy Scouts of America. They escaped mandatory accepting of homosexual leaders by a single vote; if the issue is revisited with a more liberal bench, I would expect the Boy Scouts to close shop--because it's about moral principles, not tolerance. Can you imagine that? Lord Baden Powell, the founder of the BSA, told that his organization was being disbanded because the government was making them violate their own moral principles by allowing homosexuals to lead boys and set the example? That's sure not fair to boys who want to develop into men, and frankly selfish of people with those immoral tendencies. We could expect the government to then create their own version of the Boy Scouts, but when has government done anything really well, except for Defense?
In the end, I think we'll be OK. We endured four years of Jimmy Carter to get to Ronald Reagan. I can wait.
The election is over and we know who our next President will be. While everyone is recognizing this as historical because we have elected our first African American President, I'm seeing it as historical because we have elected an incredibly liberal man that we still don't know a lot about. That's not an original thought; I was hearing this on more than one network.
While we are hearing, "Real change has come", what does that really mean? And what does this "Yes we can" phrase mean? Based on past performance, I can only assume the yes we can was about "yes we can control the Presidency and both houses of Congress", and that being the case now is inevitably going to create some real change ... and all change is not necessarily good. We'll change to what we've seen before in our history for a time (more left leaning), not change to something we've never seen before. While I could be surprised, let's consider the past performance of the Democrats ...
Look at how the Democrats have behaved when out of power and in power. Specifically looking at 2006 when the Democrats gained power back in the House, Speaker Pelosi was talking like she was divinely sent to bring bipartisanship to the House. That didn't happen, just look at the House's approval ratings over the past two years (just when they couldn't get any lower ...). After observing Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, I'm convinced there's a disease called DMLD--Democratic Majority Leader Disease--where the Senate leader of the Democrats loses a significant amount of rationality as shown in making points against their opposition (just really had my morale upped with, "This war is lost"--good one!). Then with the financial crisis, all this blame on the Republicans--but I deduce it was either both parties or total blame on the Democrats. If the Republicans were at fault, we'd have a line of them at the door of the Senate for the Democrats to "investigate." But no investigations have taken place ... hmm.
The Democrats control it all right now, and to them congratulations are in order. I don't expect them to reach across the aisle at all. They don't have to--they are the ones in power. Will they try to shove some far left legislation down our throats? Probably--but not many ... A third of the electorate is moderate, and they will only tolerate so much.
We can expect more than one Supreme Court Justice to take advantage of retirement while we have a Democratic President--that way their ideologies don't leave the bench. I have a lot of concern for that--especially for the Boy Scouts of America. They escaped mandatory accepting of homosexual leaders by a single vote; if the issue is revisited with a more liberal bench, I would expect the Boy Scouts to close shop--because it's about moral principles, not tolerance. Can you imagine that? Lord Baden Powell, the founder of the BSA, told that his organization was being disbanded because the government was making them violate their own moral principles by allowing homosexuals to lead boys and set the example? That's sure not fair to boys who want to develop into men, and frankly selfish of people with those immoral tendencies. We could expect the government to then create their own version of the Boy Scouts, but when has government done anything really well, except for Defense?
In the end, I think we'll be OK. We endured four years of Jimmy Carter to get to Ronald Reagan. I can wait.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"W" Stands For "Why hate him?"
President George W. Bush will be treated far kinder in the history books than he is today; I think even liberals would have to agree with that. He has done his job extremely well, and again even liberals can't argue against the fact he has restored a strong sense of respect and morality to the Oval Office, which his predecessor surrendered. But the polls strongly say they disapprove of his job performance, and clearly Democratic congressional leaders say and do anything to minimize him--even at the detriment of our country (in my opinion, anyway). So why is he hated so? Because of his policies? Because his speech isn't so eloquent? Because "the buck stops here" with the President? I think the answer is simple: His faith.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:22, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Our President understands the importance of having the Almighty a part of every decision he makes, because the impacts can affect so many. By some he is known as the "praying President", and for that we should be thankful. Is George W. Bush fallible? Certainly. With God as an integral part of his life, though, we can trust that the impact of his mistakes will be minimized.
So you say, "What about Iraq?" Well, what about it? Before we took out Saddam Hussein, even the Democrats supported removing him from power, and "regime change" was a policy set forth by the Clinton administration. The United Nations proved itself spineless and was going to do nothing to enforce resolutions, so the US under President Bush's guidance did the enforcement they should have. After 9/11, we went to war with Al Qaeda almost a decade after they declared "jihad" on us. President Bush's doctrine called for "preemption", which in this war to me is simply going on the offensive: go after terrorists and any country that harbors them. Evidence shows that Iraq hosted Al Qaeda training camps; further, over 500 metric tons of yellow cake, used to produce weapons-grade uranium, was recovered. All of this going on during the 1990s while the US expended the life of its tactical fighter force drilling holes in the sky over the Iraq "no fly zones." Yet with these slivers of evidence, and certainly more to come, he's hated and accused of taking on an "illegal war". It's not about the war, it's about his faith. Show me one Christian that spews this kind of hate, and I'll show you a living oxymoron.
I even heard for a while a few evangelists giving the President a hard time for his decisions, but then they quited down. One spoke openly about how he realized he shouldn't question what God was doing with the President. Maybe that was contagious. We all see through "peep holes", God has the big picture. If our President is seeking the Lord for guidance, and is surrounding himself with people who do the same, we should know our place behind that peep hole and have faith God will guide the hand and decisions of our President.
Little, if anything, has been said about the legacy of George W. Bush. I got so sick of hearing about what Clinton's legacy would be eight years ago. I believe the war on terror is Clinton's legacy, because he literally had his entire two terms (after the WTC attack of 1993) to take care of business. I would say, beyond the wisdom he left with us, Reagan's legacy was the prosperity of the 1990s. Reagan never took his coat off in the Oval Office, he revered the Presidency so much. I do not believe God will let our current President have an empty legacy, but a fruitful one. While the situation is not inclined to it now, I believe America's best days will be seen in the next ten years. The United States will (finally) experience energy independence, and tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuela where they can stick their oil. Federal spending will be reeled in and the debt reduced. Why do I say these things? Because while George W. Bush was hated, he stood firm. And I have faith that God's Word does not return void.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:22, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Our President understands the importance of having the Almighty a part of every decision he makes, because the impacts can affect so many. By some he is known as the "praying President", and for that we should be thankful. Is George W. Bush fallible? Certainly. With God as an integral part of his life, though, we can trust that the impact of his mistakes will be minimized.
So you say, "What about Iraq?" Well, what about it? Before we took out Saddam Hussein, even the Democrats supported removing him from power, and "regime change" was a policy set forth by the Clinton administration. The United Nations proved itself spineless and was going to do nothing to enforce resolutions, so the US under President Bush's guidance did the enforcement they should have. After 9/11, we went to war with Al Qaeda almost a decade after they declared "jihad" on us. President Bush's doctrine called for "preemption", which in this war to me is simply going on the offensive: go after terrorists and any country that harbors them. Evidence shows that Iraq hosted Al Qaeda training camps; further, over 500 metric tons of yellow cake, used to produce weapons-grade uranium, was recovered. All of this going on during the 1990s while the US expended the life of its tactical fighter force drilling holes in the sky over the Iraq "no fly zones." Yet with these slivers of evidence, and certainly more to come, he's hated and accused of taking on an "illegal war". It's not about the war, it's about his faith. Show me one Christian that spews this kind of hate, and I'll show you a living oxymoron.
I even heard for a while a few evangelists giving the President a hard time for his decisions, but then they quited down. One spoke openly about how he realized he shouldn't question what God was doing with the President. Maybe that was contagious. We all see through "peep holes", God has the big picture. If our President is seeking the Lord for guidance, and is surrounding himself with people who do the same, we should know our place behind that peep hole and have faith God will guide the hand and decisions of our President.
Little, if anything, has been said about the legacy of George W. Bush. I got so sick of hearing about what Clinton's legacy would be eight years ago. I believe the war on terror is Clinton's legacy, because he literally had his entire two terms (after the WTC attack of 1993) to take care of business. I would say, beyond the wisdom he left with us, Reagan's legacy was the prosperity of the 1990s. Reagan never took his coat off in the Oval Office, he revered the Presidency so much. I do not believe God will let our current President have an empty legacy, but a fruitful one. While the situation is not inclined to it now, I believe America's best days will be seen in the next ten years. The United States will (finally) experience energy independence, and tell Saudi Arabia and Venezuela where they can stick their oil. Federal spending will be reeled in and the debt reduced. Why do I say these things? Because while George W. Bush was hated, he stood firm. And I have faith that God's Word does not return void.
Friday, October 17, 2008
No Business Acumen!
Sorry I've been off the blog for a while ... I've been sitting back and taking things in. This Joe the plumber got me out of my chair.
Of course I don't know Joe, but I bet we would hit it off just fine. I'll take cutting to the chase over "elegant" any day. As soon as Joe, this middle class working American who wants a better life for himself asks a perfectly legitimate question of Sen. Obama--when the Presidential candidate comes to his neighborhood--he's held in high regard for a couple of days, and is now a "target" for what should be obvious by now is a left wing national media. He's making intelligent points people can understand, and those points won't incline them to support "The Chosen One".
What really rubs me the wrong way is how Joe is getting belittled by the very people who boast they look out for the "middle class American." Both Obama and Biden proclaimed that they don't know of any plumber who makes $250,000 a year. Apparently, they have no idea what it takes to run a small business--no business acumen. Perhaps they are thinking of people like me who supplement my primary job with a "home business". I'm talking about the small businesses who actually give people jobs and depend on it for their livelihood. Big difference.
Now I don't run a small business myself; however, I have managed projects within my job that were at least $125K. The skills required for managing a task like that are not all that different between managing $50K or $500K--the differences are in time, staff needs, and of course the funding. Based on my own experience, where I am having to manage down to the last dime, running a small business can easily require $250,000 a year or more.
What Obama and Biden don't want people to know--or are completely ignorant of--is this thing called overhead. Starting out, Joe may want to buy into a franchise, which will be an up front cost of 5 digits, pushing 6 in some cases. Over time, he will have to pay that off. He will have to hire, train (possibly), and equip staff. He will have to provide them benefits, and he will pay half of their Social Security tax. (I'm sure there is more, but you get the idea). All of this gets rolled into the fee charged per hour or per job. And don't forget profit ... Yes, profit will enable Joe's business to grow because if he is a smart business man, he won't hoard his earnings, but use them to better his company through keeping his assets current or give a plumber a job.
I've concluded by observation that liberals think business owners will hoard their profit, conservatives think business owners will grow their business as their profit grows. Following this logic, liberals will then raise the taxes on business owners, thinking they will just collect that "excess" profit ... but what happens? Prices go up, as you the taxpayer pay that extra tax, or someone will lose a job "in the name of taxes". I can see competition creating the willingness to take a profit hit, but not much beyond that.
Joe the plumber made a good point about this $250K limit. People who make $150K make a lot of money, too, so why not use that value? How about $100K? What's to keep the government from getting on this slippery slope? I'll answer that: Us. On election day.
On a closing note, this artificial ceiling of $250K is a ceiling on the human spirit. What's the incentive to grow a business past $250K? Once you get there, you will have to work really hard to get past the hump of just entering the "upper tier" before you see the same level of profit as before. Whatever "ceiling" is set, people will continue to work and grow their businesses, not because of the government looking out for them, but in spite of them.
Of course I don't know Joe, but I bet we would hit it off just fine. I'll take cutting to the chase over "elegant" any day. As soon as Joe, this middle class working American who wants a better life for himself asks a perfectly legitimate question of Sen. Obama--when the Presidential candidate comes to his neighborhood--he's held in high regard for a couple of days, and is now a "target" for what should be obvious by now is a left wing national media. He's making intelligent points people can understand, and those points won't incline them to support "The Chosen One".
What really rubs me the wrong way is how Joe is getting belittled by the very people who boast they look out for the "middle class American." Both Obama and Biden proclaimed that they don't know of any plumber who makes $250,000 a year. Apparently, they have no idea what it takes to run a small business--no business acumen. Perhaps they are thinking of people like me who supplement my primary job with a "home business". I'm talking about the small businesses who actually give people jobs and depend on it for their livelihood. Big difference.
Now I don't run a small business myself; however, I have managed projects within my job that were at least $125K. The skills required for managing a task like that are not all that different between managing $50K or $500K--the differences are in time, staff needs, and of course the funding. Based on my own experience, where I am having to manage down to the last dime, running a small business can easily require $250,000 a year or more.
What Obama and Biden don't want people to know--or are completely ignorant of--is this thing called overhead. Starting out, Joe may want to buy into a franchise, which will be an up front cost of 5 digits, pushing 6 in some cases. Over time, he will have to pay that off. He will have to hire, train (possibly), and equip staff. He will have to provide them benefits, and he will pay half of their Social Security tax. (I'm sure there is more, but you get the idea). All of this gets rolled into the fee charged per hour or per job. And don't forget profit ... Yes, profit will enable Joe's business to grow because if he is a smart business man, he won't hoard his earnings, but use them to better his company through keeping his assets current or give a plumber a job.
I've concluded by observation that liberals think business owners will hoard their profit, conservatives think business owners will grow their business as their profit grows. Following this logic, liberals will then raise the taxes on business owners, thinking they will just collect that "excess" profit ... but what happens? Prices go up, as you the taxpayer pay that extra tax, or someone will lose a job "in the name of taxes". I can see competition creating the willingness to take a profit hit, but not much beyond that.
Joe the plumber made a good point about this $250K limit. People who make $150K make a lot of money, too, so why not use that value? How about $100K? What's to keep the government from getting on this slippery slope? I'll answer that: Us. On election day.
On a closing note, this artificial ceiling of $250K is a ceiling on the human spirit. What's the incentive to grow a business past $250K? Once you get there, you will have to work really hard to get past the hump of just entering the "upper tier" before you see the same level of profit as before. Whatever "ceiling" is set, people will continue to work and grow their businesses, not because of the government looking out for them, but in spite of them.
Friday, October 3, 2008
The Scientific Method--Revisited
During the Vice Presidential debate, the subject of "climate change" came up once again. I had to hear Senator Biden tell me the polar ice caps are melting, and Governor Palin balance reasons of why this "climate change" exists. To both of them I ask, "How do you know 'climate change' is significant?"
Supposedly, we have ample research, studies, and analyses addressing this issue that concerns the "health of our planet". Let me assure you that this data is inconclusive, because of a thorough failure to apply the scientific method. You remember that from school days, right? Well, let's recount it, in my own words anyway ...
The scientific method takes a situation and comes up with a theory--a hypothesis--to explain it. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it is true, using a "control" and an "experiment". Crafting a hypothesis can be a complex exercise, if you take the time to consider all the variables involved. I have to apply the scientific method all the time in my daily job--I'm an analyst. Granted, I am analyzing Defense issues, but the same principles apply.
My "formula", which applies the principles of the scientific method for the work I do, is: 1) Define the critical issues to address, 2) Develop a process/plan to address the issues, 3) Determine the metrics that will provide insight to the critical issues, 4) Establish expected standards for the metrics, 5) Collect data to use in determining the results of the metrics (through means to include experimentation), and 6) Present the results in a format the decision maker will understand.
For Climate Change, here's a question to address: "What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?" We all know the Earth's history has seen rises and falls in temperature, so what is "ideal?" (This relates to Step 4). Another question: "If changes in temperature are resulting from some outside factors, what are they? And to what extent do they impact the climate?" (Consider Step 3). Many say man's actions are at fault, but certainly in Earth's history significant climate changes occurred without man and his "emissions". So what else is there? Let me offer up a big one that is a variable left out of kids' science experiments: the SUN. The star of our solar system does not burn with a constant heat output; it fluctuates. The sun's impact has been underestimated and should be reconsidered when climate change is addressed.
Laying out all the variables to be considered is incredibly important to the process--even if you can do nothing with some of them. Better to be up front and state assumptions than try to adjust results to meet the needs of the hypothesis. The United Nations did this with the data they had. After a review of all the data and the "conclusion" global warming was a "fact", two major points were omitted (here paraphrased): 1) None of the studies cited showed clear evidence that observed climate changes are attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, and 2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes. So, given this, what am I supposed think? That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
Presentation of results with flawed data supporting it can be overcome with strong passion and enthusiasm of the presenter. We will simply be less inclined to double check the data/results if the person comes across as confident and sure. And if enough presenters do this, people will be lulled into believing it. As was said by a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, "If we keep saying 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution, people will start to believe it." (Go check--it's not there). From what I have seen with the evidence provided, this is going on with "climate change" as well. And if changes are found, what constitutes a significant difference? And can future trends be accurately projected based on that significance?
I simply have too many questions. This blog should be obvious in showing I am a skeptic when it comes to "climate change". And so what if there is? The Earth has had temperature ups and downs before man was around, which leads me to think the Earth may be a system constantly adjusting to find an equilibrium. Let's be intellectually honest and seek scientific truth in the best data we can collect, and not be beholden to a foregone conclusion many seek to justfiy--for whatever reason.
Supposedly, we have ample research, studies, and analyses addressing this issue that concerns the "health of our planet". Let me assure you that this data is inconclusive, because of a thorough failure to apply the scientific method. You remember that from school days, right? Well, let's recount it, in my own words anyway ...
The scientific method takes a situation and comes up with a theory--a hypothesis--to explain it. Then, the hypothesis is tested to see if it is true, using a "control" and an "experiment". Crafting a hypothesis can be a complex exercise, if you take the time to consider all the variables involved. I have to apply the scientific method all the time in my daily job--I'm an analyst. Granted, I am analyzing Defense issues, but the same principles apply.
My "formula", which applies the principles of the scientific method for the work I do, is: 1) Define the critical issues to address, 2) Develop a process/plan to address the issues, 3) Determine the metrics that will provide insight to the critical issues, 4) Establish expected standards for the metrics, 5) Collect data to use in determining the results of the metrics (through means to include experimentation), and 6) Present the results in a format the decision maker will understand.
For Climate Change, here's a question to address: "What is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be?" We all know the Earth's history has seen rises and falls in temperature, so what is "ideal?" (This relates to Step 4). Another question: "If changes in temperature are resulting from some outside factors, what are they? And to what extent do they impact the climate?" (Consider Step 3). Many say man's actions are at fault, but certainly in Earth's history significant climate changes occurred without man and his "emissions". So what else is there? Let me offer up a big one that is a variable left out of kids' science experiments: the SUN. The star of our solar system does not burn with a constant heat output; it fluctuates. The sun's impact has been underestimated and should be reconsidered when climate change is addressed.
Laying out all the variables to be considered is incredibly important to the process--even if you can do nothing with some of them. Better to be up front and state assumptions than try to adjust results to meet the needs of the hypothesis. The United Nations did this with the data they had. After a review of all the data and the "conclusion" global warming was a "fact", two major points were omitted (here paraphrased): 1) None of the studies cited showed clear evidence that observed climate changes are attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, and 2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes. So, given this, what am I supposed think? That's easy: garbage in, garbage out.
Presentation of results with flawed data supporting it can be overcome with strong passion and enthusiasm of the presenter. We will simply be less inclined to double check the data/results if the person comes across as confident and sure. And if enough presenters do this, people will be lulled into believing it. As was said by a Supreme Court Justice in the 1960s, "If we keep saying 'Separation of Church and State' is in the Constitution, people will start to believe it." (Go check--it's not there). From what I have seen with the evidence provided, this is going on with "climate change" as well. And if changes are found, what constitutes a significant difference? And can future trends be accurately projected based on that significance?
I simply have too many questions. This blog should be obvious in showing I am a skeptic when it comes to "climate change". And so what if there is? The Earth has had temperature ups and downs before man was around, which leads me to think the Earth may be a system constantly adjusting to find an equilibrium. Let's be intellectually honest and seek scientific truth in the best data we can collect, and not be beholden to a foregone conclusion many seek to justfiy--for whatever reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)