the Healthcare Summit

I find it both amusing and disconcerting to hear the President "moderating" the "discussion" since he has a vested interest in the outcome - passage of the 'compromise' bill.

The Democrats are obviously starting from the position that their bill is a starting position when, in fact, the only reason they are sitting at that particular table is because the 'compromise' bill is unacceptable to the American public. Period. End of story.

The Republicans are, yes, sitting there with props (such as the 2400 page 'compromise' bill) but they are, at least, addressing the individual issues. They are trying to keep the Overton window from being dragged left to encompass the Democrat's 'compromise' bill.

All that aside, I am not hearing a discussion that addresses the issues. Some of the most salient points are being ignored.

First, we need to know what insurance is, so let me see if I can define it:

• Insurance is an economic device utilized by individuals and organizations to protect themselves against the risk of realizing unforeseen and extraordinary financial losses.


• By purchasing an insurance policy from an insurance company, an individual or organization can transfer the financial risk of a potentially devastating loss to another party, the insurer.


• Essentially, insurance allows individuals and organizations to pay a scheduled and affordable fee - a premium - to an insurance company today, and, in turn, the insurance company makes a promise to protect that individual or organization financially if they suffer from a specified unforeseen and devastating economic loss in the future.

It is important to understand insurance is an economic device and not a right or a social entitlement. It is a business and can only function as a business. Medicare is not insurance. Medicare and Medicaid are social entitlements. They are bankrupt and are in the process of bankrupting the country at various levels. If Medicare and Medicaid were private businesses they would have long since failed and gone away.

Once you accept the difference(s), you have to accept the reality that health insurance is completely separate from Medicare and Medicaid. By lumping them together in a single bill (whether it is all three of them or just health insurance and Medicare) you are socializing health insurance - making it into an entitlement and removing it as an economic device. Health insurance will no longer be a business, it becomes a government controlled social program.

As it stands, the 'compromise' bill is cover for the Democrats and their desire to:

• remove health insurance from the business environment and converting it to a social program;
• use the premise of healthcare reform as cover to alter (I did not say reform) Medicare and Medicaid.

Toyota in the hot seat

I've been watching the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings and I'm afraid Toyota is in more than the hot seat.

Before I excoriate Toyota, let me say that I have owned a Toyota vehicle for personal use since 1983. I don't lease, I buy .. in fact, I buy and hold. I have had my current vehicle for almost 12 years and have absolutely no regrets. That said, Toyota blew it - BIG TIME!

My background is computers and programming control systems. Suffice it to say I've been working with computers since the late '70s and I programmed control systems for 13 years. Based on the testimonies I heard this morning, Toyota has had a problem with their Electronic Control System (ECS) for years.

We used to call them AFEs (another f'ing engineer); kids who just graduated from college and knew everything there is to know about their (brand new) profession. They were tasked with the unenviable job of writing code for or designing systems that they truly didn't understand. This isn't really a problem in and of itself in, say, an accounting system, but when you are interfacing with the real world... oh boy.

Think of airplanes. For years, when 'fly by wire' first arrived on the scene, experienced pilots bemoaned not having "control" of the new planes. There were no "real" control systems; everything went through a computer. If you wanted to bank right, you turned the yoke to the right, the computer control system received the signal and then the computer sent the proper commands to the related physical systems to accomplish the turn. The yoke wasn't physically attached to anything but the computer. If the computer failed the whole thing would be nothing but a flying stone. That is why there are backup systems (3 in the Shuttles as I recall).

There are (probably) no backup systems in (Toyota) cars. I don't know this for sure since I am not into cars, but it makes sense since cars are a consumer item and the idea is to cut production costs so as to maximize profit. No, I am not saying that is a bad thing, that is just the way it works.

Anyway, my bet is that some AFE somewhere back up the line (if I understood the testimony I heard this morning, somewhere back as far as 2000) wrote at least part of the code that is currently used in the ECS. Because of it's age this code was and has been considered 'mature' and 'functional.' Oops. It probably has an intermittent bug. Happens all the time.

Since reverse engineering is costly and problematic, nobody ever bothered to test and verify the old code. Worse, since it was considered 'functional,' nobody ever rewrote it. (At least not until recently- ergo the 'flashing' of the ECS.)

Now, I know none of this for sure; I am speculating. It is, however, an 'educated' guess based on years of experience crafting, writing and troubleshooting control systems. If it was me, and I was working for Toyota and hearing about these problems for the first time it would come down to this:
1. Can I reliably reproduce the problem mechanically?

2. What is the common denominator between the various vehicles?

In the final analysis Toyota made a series of assumptions and you know what that means.

CPAC Keynote speech

If you haven't watched this then you should. If you have watched this then you need to watch it again. It speaks for itself.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4881432

L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés

"Hell is full of good intentions"

By now you know I can't pass up the chance to take a deeper look at our English and its evolution. (Why 'our' English? Because a British friend of mine would publicly crucify me on my own blog if I tried to get away with assuming that British English and American English were the same thing. I would find myself on the "defence" for the indefensible.) You shouldn't be surprised then to learn the familiar proverb 'the road to hell is full of good intentions' has a simpler beginning; or that it is French in origin. History is replete with these adaptations.

So why the proverb? Because I believe that many Americans today are operating on the basis of good intentions gone bad. I know that isn't the case when it comes to the leadership, but my 'good intention' is to give the many the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I will avoid that trip.

The anecdote goes that Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving Independence Hall at the close of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, was asked what form of government he had given us. His reply was "A Republic, if you can keep it." Those words ring truer today than at any time in our history.

I hear a lot about compromise these days. Every time I hear how the Republicans lost so they should compromise it reminds me of the time I stood alone on a vote. I argued my position as best I could but, in the end, I was the lone vote in opposition. Everyone else was upset with me for not agreeing with them and, truth be told, I was floored by their response. Somehow my business partners (it was a vote on the direction the company was to take) were of the opinion that, because they were in the majority, I should compromise my position so that the vote could be unanimous. It was an enlightening experience.

My point is this: some things you just can't compromise on no matter what. Worse, compromise just for the sake of compromise is just plain ignorant.

This country was founded as a representative Republic (a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic) not a direct democracy. The answer to why is straightforward: to prevent a tyranny of the majority. The powers of the federal government were enumerated. The federal government itself was broken into a triumvirate and specific checks and balances were put in place. The point of all this was to protect individual liberty and the rights of property. The United States of America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.

Glenn Beck / FOX News under attack

It has been brought to my attention that a group called ColorOfChange.org has decided that Glenn Beck is using his platform on the FOX News channel to 'race bait'. Having decided this, they are asking the denizens of their website to petition companies advertising on the Glenn Beck show to withdraw their sponsorship.

Below is the letter ColorOfChange.org is sending to companies advertising on Glenn's show.

To President/CEO & Board:

I want to alert you to the fact that Glenn Beck--whose show you sponsor on FOX--is using his platform to make outlandish accusations about the President and to advance baseless theories that prey on race-based fears.

He is claiming that President Obama is a "racist," that he has a "deep-seated hatred for white people," and that he is attempting to use our government to deliver "Obama-brand reparations." The claims are ludicrous, and the rhetoric is racially divisive and pollutes our public discourse.

I presume your company does not want to enable such rhetoric, nor have your products or services associated with the kind of views and tactics espoused by Beck. I urge you to immediately cease all advertising on the Glenn Beck Program on the FOX News Channel.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

I propose that we counter this campaign with one of our own. Below is the letter that I am sending to the companies advertising on the Glenn Beck show.

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is [your name]. I am a loyal fan of the Glenn Beck show on the FOX News channel and I want to thank you for your company's ongoing sponsorship.

I am sending this letter of support because it has recently come to my attention that an organization called ColorOfChange.org has mounted a personal attack on Glenn Beck. It is my understanding that they have contacted your company in an effort to have you withdraw your company's sponsorship of Glenn Beck, his show and the FOX News channel in general.

As any regular viewer of the Glenn Beck show knows, the host is irreverent, entertaining, informative, and makes every attempt to be factual in his presentation. It is also my understanding that the Glenn Beck show is number one in viewership in its time slot and that that viewership is growing by the day.

Again, I want to thank you for your company's sponsorship of the Glenn Beck show.

Respectfully,

[your name]
[city, state]

Please add your voice to the list. Copy the letter (or write your own!) and email it to the companies that advertise on the FOX News channel during the Glenn Beck show. Oh, and don't forget to add your name, city and state in the proper places!

Letter to the White House

To Whom It May Concern:

I, [your name], am fervently against Health Care Reform as currently proposed by both President Obama and the Leadership in the Congress of these United States.

While many of the Legislators in Congress profess to finding it too difficult or onerous to read legislation before voting on it, I have read the bill known as "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and find it objectionable to say the least.

With that in mind, I want to declare that I have expressed my position both privately and publicly. I shall continue to express my position at every opportunity - public and private - in person, on the telephone, in letters and emails, on my blog and in any other way I damn well please. This is my right as a citizen of the United States of America.

At every opportunity I shall quote from "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and any other unscrupulous Legislation in an effort to show it for what it truly is - garbage. I shall always endeavor to use facts in my prosecution both of this battle and the overall war against the socialization of these United States. This is my duty to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I shall work against any elected representative who supports or votes for this or any other similarly offensive Legislation – Health Care related or not. I shall do this in the interest of my community, my state, and the nation at large. This is my responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America

Finally, I remind you that, as an elected representative, you are there to serve The People, not the other way around. You work for us. Don't ever forget that.

[your name]
[city, state]

open letter to Greta Van Susteren

to OnTheRecord@foxnews.com
date Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 10:41 AM
subject Secretary Clinton Interview

I am, to say the least, disappointed. Greta allowed Secretary Clinton say her piece and never once challenged what she said. In fact, Greta tossed more than one softball. First she said "and then the guns come back across the border" and later allowed how her ATF 'sources' have "told us these weapons, these automatic weapons that go right through these -- you know, right through police officers here, are coming from the United States." I wouldn't have believed Greta would allow herself to be used as a propaganda outlet.


To keep it simple: (1) automatic weapons are not available "over-the-counter" in the United States (National Firearms Act, 1934); (2) so forget the possibility of purchasing more than one for transfer to Mexico. As completely regulated Title II weapons, FBI background checks are necessary if you even dream of a "machine gun". Check the law.

If you think the alphabet soup of government agencies (ATF, FBI, whatever) would fail to arrest any purchaser or seller who was identified in connection with a single verified serial number (let alone any number greater than one) connected to a Title II weapon, you are dreaming. If this administration could connect even one illegal automatic weapon found in Mexico to a licensed gun dealer here in the United States we would be hearing about it loudly and continuously.

Greta, as a lawyer, you know full well that words matter. That means blatant propaganda must be challenged outright, not let slip by (as if, perhaps, the interviewer wasn't prepared for the answer - or worse, was prompting for one?). When I hear someone say that automatic weapons are being purchased over-the-counter and smuggled into Mexico then I know that person is lying ex facie. What galls me most is your is apparent willingness to accept such statements as fact without verifying them.

It is apparent that nothing has changed where certain liberal policies are concerned and what this administration's position on gun control will be in the long run.

Respectfully,

Ne Plus (**********)
El Paso, TX
915-***-****