Income Disparities and Free Enterprise

It appears that despite 5 years of Obamanomics, income disparities in the U. S. are greater than ever.  Leftist wesites prescribe more government control to cure this problem.  This is a little like the old practice of bloodletting as a cure for disease.  That, distinctly harmful, practice was based on a theory about the human body that was as correct as the flat earth theory.  Despite any real science supporting it , it was practiced to the detriment of the ill for centuries.  

Excesive government intervention in an economy is the cause, not the cure of inequality in income.  Because friends, here is how it works in "nature" so to speak.  When people organize themselves into social groups they tend to specialize.  That is, one person begins to take on a particular task for the whole group because he or seh is better at than others.  Each person tends to pick a specialty and then trade with others for goods and services.  Watch your own social groups and you will see that this tends to happen.  You do the washing and I'll dry.  That kind of thing.  It's based on personal preferences, skills and talents .  Writ large in society, some people make cars and some people grow food.  When someone is very successful at his specialty, he or she hires helpers-- people who are not as knowledgeable but who are willing to learn and to assist for pay.  The guy with the skill, the history and the reputation for having the skill (AKA the "owner") allocates the money and, somewhat naturally, keeps most of it for himself.   That's how employment works.  Unrestricted by excessive government intervention that process goes on until one of his or her longtime employees gets tired of the boss getting the largest share of the profits and decides to strike out on his own.  He sets up a competing company.  He may be able to charge less than his old boss and still make more money for himself because the boss was keeping most of the money for himself or hersself.  

The ability of the employee to make this move is critical to reducing income disparities.  That is why I am going to emphasize that fact here.  Employers and the powerful have historically used all kinds of devises to prevent that kind of competition and the employees have always fought back in one way or another.  As a positive inducement not to leave many employers offer partnerships -- i. e. stay with me and I will share the profits with you, higher wages and security-- the origin of company pensions.  

There have also, hoevr , been negative interventions-- slavery-- I own you you can't leave, indentured workers, I own you you can't leave for 7 years, and non competition agreements-- if you come to work for me you cannot leave and compete with me.  

Now the big rich people have discovered a new, and very effective way, to keep you from competing with them-- well, its not so new.  You have to have a license or a permit to engage in an occupation and I will make sure you don't get it unless I approve.  That actually has been around in different guises for a while.  

But the new wrinkle is that what the rich and powerful do to prevent you from leaving and starting your own enterprise to compete with them is they make it very costly through the use of government regulation. For example, how much trouble and cost do you encounter in starting up as an auto mechanic on your own.  I haven't verified it on my own, but have been informed by at least one client that the cost of strating up a repair facility where you change the oil and perform other tmaintenance and repari tasks on a car is at least $100,000.  Ye one hundred thousand dollars -- and that is just the cost of obtaining a permit.  Here in California the Department of Toxic Substances Control began requiring permits to operate repair and maintenance stations for outo repair in around 1994.  There are a myriad of regulations that have to be satisfied and a a mountain of paperwork.  The delay can be months or years and the cost, just to obtain the permit according to my client, is around a hundred thousand dollars..  The existing businesses were pretty much grandfathered in but new businesses face a formidable obstacle just to obtain a permit.  Of course chain auto repair shops owned by big companies have people on staff who specialize in getting permits and know all the people you need to know at the state regulatory office.  And they have the hundred thousand dollars.  But the average auto mechanic who has perhaps worked for them for 10 or 15 years, doesn't have that kind of resource.  Because the cost of trying to strike out on his own is so high, his employer has much less motive to pay him well.  And as for partnership-- forget it.  

As I said, some big businesses seem to have learned this lesson.  So, rather than saying I don't want Joe to compete with me, they say, it's dangerous to allow Joe to have his own auto repair shop because he is going to destroy the environment.  I am using auto repair shops as an example.  It's true in almost every field of endeavor.  So the cure proposed by the left-- more government regulation--is, in fact, the cause of increasing inequality.  And this effect is what we should come to expect.  Governments tend to  be controlled by the rich and powerful.  The rich and powerful tend to be in favor of those laws and regulations that maintain them in power.  The genius of the left has been to become kind of parasites on the rich and powerful.  They get government grants and subsidies.  They get private foundation grants and subsidies for promoting policies that have the consequence of benefitting the rich and powerful.  So we see the specatcle of a Middle Eastern Oil producer state controlled media, Al Jazeera, sponsoring an anti fossil fuel "documentary".  Why?  They know the main place this documentary will have an impact is in the United States and that it will be used to stop private individuals in the United States from develping U. S. fossil fuel resources, thus forcing the U. S. to import more oil from the Middle East.  

You may get the idea that I am opposed to all government regulation.  No. I  am not.  There is a place for goernment regulation in preventing harm.  It doesn't have to be done by the government.  As an example, Underwriter Laboraties is a private organizaiton, but their seal of approval indicating that an electrical appliance meets therre standards is still seen as a proof of safety which influences consumers. And most state bar associations are private and started out as a way to assure people they are hiring someone who has a certain minimal competence in practicing law.  Government has taken over some of those functions-- as an example the California State Contractor's Licensing Board.   It's seal of approval assures us that the person we hire to build a house or make major repairs has a minimal level of knowledge and competence.  I am in favor of state regulation that helps assure that buildings won't fall down in the next earthquake and airplanes won't fall out of the sky because those are matters that are extremely difficult and expensive to investigate on our own.  But we must always be vigilant that the paperwork is not excessive and not unrelated to the function of protection.  Environmental regulations have become the latest method for preventing individuals from starting their own businesses.  

But they are not the only device.  I will be looking into more of these in other posts, but my point here is that the best cure for income inequality is to reduce the barriers to entry into business to the minimu consistent with safety.

Cheap Weddings Part 2

More thoughts on what and how weddings should be.  A wedding, in the olden days, was a community event.  You didn't really need an invite to a wedding because the church announced you were getting married and the whole village responded.  You know that part where the minister asks if anyone knows any reason why you should not be allowed to be married?  That was in there because everyone was allowed to attend and anyone who knew you were secretly married to someone else could stand up and say so.  

But I digress.    I feel the need to express some more thoughts about weddings.  Specifically, who should be in the wedding party and who should be invited.  And who should plan it and such.

To have a semi traditional wedding you need a best man and a maid of honor.  Everyone else is optional.  The best man takes charge of the rings and is generally there to make sure the groom is supposed to be where he is supposed to be.  When your cute nephew walks up to the front of the church he should be directed to handle the pillow thing to the best man who will be in charge of it.  The groom will soon need to be holding hands with his soon to be wife so the best man hands out the rings at the appropriate time in the ceremony and is generally, along with the maid of honor, in charge of making sure people like small children are where they are supposed to be. The maid of honor holds the bridal bouquet.  When the bride reaches the altar, her Dad or other giver awayer if she has one, withdraws and hands her over to the maid of honor who takes the bouquet and makes sure her dress is okay and what have you.  

Whom to select.  This is a BIG ISSUE.  I have heard reports that some people select bridesmaids et cetera based on how attractive they are.  SHAME ON YOU.  This is a family and community affair in which your family and his family and all of your friends are getting together to help you form a marriage.  Whoever is your best friend should be your attendant,   Period.  Put a nice dress or good suit on him or her and they will look fine.  Yes they will.  If you are worried that other people are going to think your best friend is too fat, SHAME ON YOU.  You should not be putting looks before relationships.  The person who is your attendant at the wedding should be the person you confided in when you fell in love, whom you turned to for help when the caterer fell through at the last moment et cetra.  That person.  

Having said that your bridesmaids, aka attendants should also be your friends with one exception.  It used to be  customary to ask any sisters of the groom to be bridesmaids.  This is a good practice and one which helps to form a new family unit.  And we can at least all pretend to be friends.  Some people do not want to be bridesmaids or be in weddings, but at least extend the invitation.

A wedding is a family formation event, not just for the bride and groom, but for their families and friends as well.  So, again, my preference, weddings should be held where people can get to them without much expense I have been invited to weddings at distant places and I hardly ever go because it costs a lot of money and I can't afford it or don't have the time to travel.  If you both live in some big urban area where all your friends are but have family elsewhere, that is a problem.  You have to choose a place where most of the people you love can come.  In the hard choices area, I say pick family over friends and hope for the best with regard to travelling.  Your family will always be your family.

I think flower girls and ring bearers add a lot to any wedding and most of them (especially the girls) really love being in weddings.   Wow.  You are the princess that day and the flower girl  gets to be princess junior.  Mostly, because little girls like to dress up, being a flower girl is a very special memory for a girl.  Flower girl dresses can cost a hundred dollars or so even at David's Bridal, so I say encourage the mom of the flower girl to shop at Penny's or elsewhere for a pretty white dress (or whatever color.)  Weddings shouldn't break anyone's bank.

If you choose wisely and kindly who will be part of your wedding party, your wedding will be a happy memory for your whole extended family and long time friends.  So remember, that is what the choice is all about.

With regard to wedding vows, what can I say.  I'm an Episcopalian.  As one of our priests not so delicately put it to one couple who were agonizing over writing their vows, Not to worry dear, we already wrote them for you. You will find them in the Book of Common Prayer.  The priest continued that "if you want to be married in an Episcopal Church, you will have an Episcopal wedding."  Even if you are not an Episcopalian, it is a very lovely and traditional ceremony.  I especially like this part

The Celebrant then addresses the congregation, saying
Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your
power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?
People      We will.

It is a strong reminder that this isn't just a piece of paper or a big party, it is about two people comitting to spend their lives together, loving and caring for each other. 

Because it is that, turning it into an exercise in statuts seeking or excessive spending or an occasion to be bridezilla are all inappropriate.  A very wise priest commented at one rehearsal I was at that all the fithts and all the distress and conflict were really not about the things people were saying they were about.  They were about two whole big families coming togther and becoming connected.  That is what a marriage is really about.  So have a beautiful wedding, but use the occasion to build up your family and your community.  And have fun.

How to Have a Beautiful, Relatively Cheap Wedding

An article in National Review  has moved me to write this.  First of all, unless you are very wealthy it is STUPID to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a wedding.  You need to spend that money on buying a house and furniture and setting up your life together not on flowers and expensive venues.  Second, all you really need for a wedding are the following:  a husband, a wife (now modified if its a gay marriage) a marriage license and a priest or justice of the peace, a witness (in some states).  All the rest is bling and party.   Really.  As a member of the altar guild who attends other peoples weddings as a representative of the church, I've had to repeat these words many times to anxious mothers of the bride and anxious brides.   Your marriage Should NOT be founded on what kind of party you have.

Having said that, and as a total party lover, I move on.  Of course you want to have a party and dress up for it and have a good time.  The last part is the important part.  Have a good time.  While the bride and groom  are the honored guests at t he party, they should plan for it to be fun for those they invite.  This means good food, and a comfortable place to eat it.

Rule number three, figure out how many people are important to you and whom you want to be there so share in your founding the most important relationship in your life.  Figure out how much you can afford to spend for the food.  Divide the latter figure by the former figure.  That is the price you should be working with in ordering the food and finding the venue and everything else. You are starting our very badly in life if you cut people out of this experience because you can't afford to buy them the fancy feast you think you need to serve.

Getting these preliminaries out of the way.  Here is my advice:

Decide if you want a religious ceremony or someone special to marry you. This is an actual necessity.  Having someone to perform the ceremony.  The three calendars that are the most important are the two people getting married and the person who is marrying them.  If so, consult with that person on the next priority-- time and place. consult with your parents and friends as well.  Once you pick a date, stick to it. My preference is a religious ceremony by someone who actually knows the bride and groom. Many religious organizations require a counseling period before the marriage so do this first!!!.

Set a date and Find a place:  You need to do this second.  You need an address and a time for the wedding invitations and just about everything else.  You do not have to be married in a church just because you are having a religious ceremony but it is often convenient and cheap.  You need a place for the ceremony and a place for the reception which can both be the same place if you have friends who will help you move the furniture around. Church parish halls are often a good value because they are next to the church, they have chairs and tables and kitchens and people don't have to drive.  IF you choose someone's back yard then you need to find a rental agency unless you are planning a very small wedding.  Chairs and tables and wedding arches can all be rented.  We had my daughter's wedding in a back yard and by the time we had set up the chairs and decorated the wedding arch and made a moveable altar out of someone's butcher block table, we had a very beautiful place.  It may sound silly, but one, not very expensive thing we rented really dressed everything up--  white chair covers with gauze ties that matched the wedding colors, made the rows of folding  chairs look very elegant for about 2.00 per chair.  An arch gives a focal point to the ceremony if it is outdoors and makes the place look very festive.  In my experience you can easily decorate it yourself with  floral ties, fresh flowers and a lot of tulle all of which you can buy for not too much at floral supply shops. This is a perfect job  for the mother, or mother in law or aunts who want to help.  Fresh flowers and tulle bows tied to an arch look like wedding and you don't have to have a lot of skill to do it.

DRess:  I have helped to plan three weddings recently and have come to the conclusion that David;s Bridal is it.  The prices are way more reasonable than most other stores.  They have a lot of variety, You can pre-shop for your wedding dress online and have an idea of what's available before you go.  For the attendants, they are terrific too.  Many, many dresses for under a 100.  The best strategy that will make your bridesmaids happy is pick a color (they have quite a variety)  and tell your bridesmaids they can pick whichever dress they like in that color.  They will really appreciate you for that.  It may not be a color they like, but at least they can pick a style they think is flattering.  And on your wedding day, the unity of the color will look terrific and the different styles will all seem to blend.  And as a bonus, David's Bridal coordinates with Men's WEarhouse so the men  can get matching ties or vests.  Everyone will coordinate and you will all look terrific and you will not totally bust the budget.

Obviously, it is better if you plan ahead for a long time but a couple of months is plenty of time if you are not dealing with jerks.

Food.  Food depends on the place and your pocket book.  My best advice is figure out what you would serve to your friends if you were throwing a party and then serve that.  For my tastes, buffet is best, whatever the content.  It allows people to mingle and talk and move around.  It also allows them to select what they like and as much as they like and to sit where they please.  All of this seems quite better to me than more formal receptions, but that's me.  Yes you want to have a table for the bride and groom so that everyone can come up and shake their hand.  for the rest, I say let people make their own seating assignments.

On the food issue-- if you are looking for catered I suggest you go for an ethnic cuisine-- it can be made ahead and delivered hot and tasty for not too much money.  Approach a restuarant you like or look at some ofthe chains that do food you like or ask your friends to cook ahead and bring it for the party.  All of these approaches can lead to tasty food and fun.  But if this is an informal wedding burgers and hot dogs are a great idea too.  It's a party to celebrate an important event, not a dress rehearsal for Downton Abbey.  Having your party at a church parish hall (depending on the church) or in a backyard can also solve the booze problem.  Paying by the drink at a hotel is VERY EXPENSIVE. You can provide a very nice experience in someone's back yard with sodas wine and beer you can buy at Costco for very cheap.

Wedding cake-- probably best to buy it from a bakery and have it delivered the day of.  Doesn't have to be fancy.  Remember you need a table and stuff for it.

Utensils and such:  you can buy nice looking plastic at party supply stores, COSTCO, Walmart, Target and Smart and Final.  Or you can rent from a rental place.  If you rent, you should hire someone to wash them and put them back in the delivery cartons.

Invitations:  You can order them from a printer and wait several weeks and pay a lot or you can buy the fancy blanks at Staples, Target, Office Max, Office Depot and so on and print them on your ink jet printer.  They will look very nice, really and will cost you less than a dollar per invite depending on which blanks you choose.  Invitations should, ideally, be sent about from 4 to 6 weeks before the wedding.  If you are planning far ahead you should send a save the date post card that gives the time and place so people can plan around your date.  But you should send a more formal invitation a few weeks before the wedding so they have something in hand to find the place.

Programs for the wedding, same deal -- buy the paper from an office supply store and print them yourselves.  Nice looking programs make all the keepsake you  need for people to remember your wedding.  I mean, seriously, did you save the little doohickeys people handed out at their weddings to remember their weddings?  I don't think so.

Photogaraphs.  In the age of digital photography you don't have to have a professional take your pictures.  I used to be favor of handing out those throw away cameras to people to take pictures but these days, everyone has a camera on their phone.  Just ask a couple of your friends to take lots of pictures and give you the disk.  But on the day of you need to have a designated picture take for the group pictures.  You need someone who not only snaps the photo but rounds bpeople up to pose for the pictures that you will be still looking at 50 years from now.  Yeah.  Group photos with the whole family will gain value over time and will end up being some of your favorites.  So designate a cat herder and ask everyone to cooperate.  Must do photos-- bride.  Bride and Groom.  Bride and Groom and parents.  Bride and Groom and wedding party.  Bride and Groom and priest or officiant at the wedding.   Bride and dad walking down the aisle.  Wedding dance.  There are a lot of variations.  These are the basics.  If you have a friend who is a semi pro pay him or her $500 and ask for a disk of the photos.  A lot of people will do it for free, but it seems like taking advantage.

Here is one hint I learned from my church and I applaud it greatly.  Have everyone come early to the church and take a lot of the shots BEFORE THE WEDDING.  Then you will not have to keep your guests waiting for an hour for the party to start.

Flowers:  Flowers can cost you a ton of money.  Most large urban areas have wholesale flower markets which not only sale fresh flowers but also floral supplies for less than half what you would pay at ordinary retail shops.  Bouquest are easy to make if they are kept simple. No one knows six months from now what will be in bloom and reasonably priced on any given day, so you need to stay flexible and select what is available .  If you are doing it yourself, or someone is a friend doing it for you.  You can buy the flowers the day before and keep the arrangements in vases or such.


I suggest hiring a hair dresser or cosmetologist to come to the church to do everyone's hair but some people discourage that.  If you are doing fancy dress, get dressed at the church.  That reduces the opportunity for accidents to happen between getting dressed  and getting to the wedding.  Another hint, from a minister.  That little pillow thing that the ring bearer is supposed to carry down the aisle?  Tie the rings to it and give it to the wedding coordinator or other responsible adult.  Do not give it to the ring bearer until he or she is standing in the aisle of the church ready to walk down it.  6 years olds are not responsible people.  Just remember that.  Same goes for whatever  flowers you give the flower girl.

with help from friends and family and the right attitude you can have a beautiful and memorable wedding and a great party after that will cement your relationship and be a fond memory for less than $5,000.  And for most people, that is what they should do.  The wedding industrial complex should be for people with lots of money who don't care how they spend it.  Not for common folk.

On IQ, Race, and Jason Richwine.

A young man,  Jason Richwine, just starting out his career, has been forced to resign because of a doctoral dissertation he wrote at Harvard. One presumes, based on experience, that the dissertation was read by an entire committee of tenured academics and approved by them, but now, we discover, from opinionated know nothings on the left, that the the dissertation, which I suspect none of them has actually looked at or read, is evidence of serious Nazi like racism.

And while these sanctimonious airheads strut their stuff in the comments section of various tabloid websites preening themselves with their imagined virtue,  they care nothing about ruining someone's career without so much as allowing him to respond.  Just more canon fodder in the war between right and left over who gets to spend the tax revenues in this country.  This scene, like so many before them, is nauseating.  It is not anything new, this phenomenon.  We saw it in the French Revolution, now celebrated in the movie musical, Les Miserable, where supposedly high ideals lead to mass slaughter based on nothing more than rumours, innuendo and a desire to grab other people's property.

I don't know Jason Richwine and I have not read his dissertation, nor do I intend to.  What I know is that the thing that he is being crucified for, besides having the temerity to challenge the unproven assumptions of corporate capitalists looking for cheap labor and leftwing ideologues looking for votes, is analyzing indisputable statistics.  Yes indeed, people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds do test differently on tests of mental performance.  That is an established fact and has been for at least 50 years.  The only intelligent discourse I have ever encountered about this fact is that written by Thomas Sowell in several different books, most recently, Ïntellectuals and Race

You can actually read a good part of his discussion online by clicking on the image of the book.  I will sum it up for you in a few words-- Sowell surveys the results of a huge variety of mental performance tests sdministered around the world in the last 100 years and concludes that intelligence, whatever that may be and he doesn't know for sure, is  the result of culture and environment as much as of heredity.  He concludes that such tests do predict future academic success with a fairly high degree of accuracy.  Since that is the way in which they are usually used, they are valuable but the studies do not tell us what to do in a policy sense.  There are a number of statistics which pose a serious challenge to any idea that intelligence is linked to race.  Like the hypothesis that all cats have brown eyes is disproven by findig one cat with blue eyes, the hypothesis that race and IQ are linked can be disproven by very few studies showing no such link.  Two that he cites are of black children adopted by white families (average IQ 109) and comparing the IQ's of German children who were the offspring of American soldiers during the occupation and raised by German single mothers-- no discernible difference in IQ.

The problem with this sort of discussion is that, of course, neither side in this mud slinging debate is usually interested in truth.  The leftwing is interested in tarring conservatives with the racist epithet although they can point to no evidence from the dissertation itself showing that.  One commenter who likened Richwine to the eugencists of the early 20th century (who, by the way included Margaret Sanger the founder of planned parenthood and a whole raft of left-wingers) because Richwine advocated an immigration policy skewed toward admitting people who are smart.  My non racist interpretation of that is that he would like to see more immigrants like my daughter in law from India  who has two master's degrees in scientific fields and less of dime store clerks.  My unscientific sample of graduate foreign students in the sciences is that a very large proportion of them are Asian.  So it sounds to me like he wants more of those people admitted and fewer people with less education admitted.  I am not saying he is a right but I fail to see the anti- dark skin color connection.

But what leaves a really sick feeling in the pit of my stomach is the way in which too many of my fellow citizens like to get on a bandwagon and banish people without a hearing, without a trial in order to make themselves feel better.  Too often the result is like what happened to the McMartin pre-school defendants.  The lives of innocent people are devastated because unscrupulous headline seekers rise in self righteous indignation and demand "justice" based on little or no evidence.  And when, after all the wreckage is cleared, it turns out that the condemned were not guilty, they seldom even receive an apology.

A Thought Experiment on Preventing Violence

In their arguments to support measures limiting the capacity of magazines used in guns, gun grabbers have engaged in "thought experiments" where they imagine what might have happened if the capacity of Adam Lanza's guns had been 8 bullets instead of 30.  It might, they argued, have saved lives as he had to stop and reload.  So here is another thought experiment.   Let us suppose that (horror of horrors) the principal of the Sandy Hook elementary school had been trained in the use of firearms and had a gun in a gunsafe on the wall of her office.  (But no, that could never happen because she is a woman who is incapable of firing a gun!) But, just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that, though a woman, the principal, ever zealous for the protection of the students in her care, had spent the time and money to learn how to fire a gun and how to store it properly.

Her gunsafe (with that many children around she should keep the gun in locked place that  could not be accessed by others-- and a gunsafe is really just an ordinary safe such as you might use to protect valuables except smaller) might have been equipped with both a touchpad and a fingerprint opening device to assure that she wouldn't have to fumble with a key when she needed a gun.  (I have, parenthetically, become quite enamored of such devices.  I use the fingerprint scanner to sign in at my gym and I have a touch pad lock on my front door).  Her gun is in the safe, loaded and ready to use but protected from those who might want to use it improperly by the aforementioned locks.

She sees Adam Lanza breaking the glass in the front door on the video.  (Several accounts say the school had a live video on the front door and that Lanza broke the glass to get in).  She sees what might be a gun.  She takes her gun out of the safe and walks calmly down the hall to meet him.  She points her gun at Adam and says "put down the guns Adam or I will have to shoot you.".  What happens next depends on Adam.  Either he puts down the guns and he waits as she calls the police to take him into custody or he doesn't put down the gun but raises it to shoot her.  She shoots first.  Total one dead, Adam Lanza.

The number of women buying guns is on the rise, according to a number of studies.  People used to refer to guns as "equalizers" for a reason.  A small woman with a gun is more than equal to a big man without one and she is at least equal to a man with a gun. The image of women, especially teachers, with guns is upsetting to a lot of people. Particularly at the elementary school level, we think of teachers as mother figures.  And mother figures with guns can be frightening.  Of course, back in the old frontier days, I suspect most women in the west knew how to shoot a rifle at least.  Danger could come to you and yours from wild animals as well as wild people.  I don't have a gun.  It is a huge responsibility that I don't want to deal with right now. But if I were in a situation where protection was needed, I would acquire one and learn how to shoot it and store it safely.  The idea that educators might want to arm themselves in the event of an Adam Lanza is neither crazy nor outrageous.  It is realistic.  I am confident that properly trained teachers, whether male or female, are quite capable of doing what is necessary to protect their students and if that includes shooting an attacker, so be it.  No normal person wants to kill anyone, but sometimes our choices are pretty limited.

The science is that states that have concealed carry permit laws have lower rates of violent crime than states that have strict gun control that makes getting a concealed carry permit difficult or impossible.  

Here, of course, is the big problem with my thought experiment.  It is pretty much illegal for anyone other than a sworn peace officer to carry a gun on school grounds.  That is a federal law which has been imposed on the states as well.  The law would have to be changed to allow the principal to have the gun on school grounds.  Some states are getting around this problem by swearing in the teachers who are willing to carry a gun as peace officers.

CHEAP GRACE= THE NARCISSISM OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about a concept he called "cheap grace".  It is seeking the grace of God without sacrifice.  Bonhoeffer was no piker in that regard.  He, a German who could see the Nazis for the monsters that they were, had left Germany and was safely in New York when he decided to return because he felt God called him to be in Germany working to bring God's love to Germans.  The Nazis arrested him and hung him shortly before Germany was occupied by the allies.  The cost of discipleship for him was his life.  I am not one to claim I am willing to give my life for Christ.  I am a feckless fearful sinner sort of an old lady who hopes devoutly that she will never be asked to do so. But the concept of cheap grace applies elsewhere as well.

One thing that really gets my dander up, makes me really angry in a Jesus confronting the moneylenders way, is people who CLAIM to be doing something for others when all they are doing is preening their self righteousness in front of others.  There is a lot of that going on right now and most of it, so far as I can see, is on the left.  It is because the display of their self righteous peacock feathers is their real purpose and not actually helping one single living soul that most leftists will not engage in any rational discussion about any of their programs.  Their idea of rational discussion is "you are a racist sexist homophobe who is ridiculously stupid".  Please.  That's just name calling not rational argument.  If they are so smart, why are they incapable of articulating reasons to support their policies that go beyond, "I want it that way, it makes me feel good.".

So, very often we are treated to shows in which large groups of preening peacocks get together and parade around showing their self righteous feathers to the rest of us.  "Look at how virtuous I am" their behavior screams.    The latest show to provoke my ire is a so called pilgrimage to the border fence that separates California from Mexico.  This is an activity sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.  That I am a member of that Diocese may explain why I am especially provoked.  

So what is the purpose of this show, other than to demonstrate what wonderful caring people the pilgrims are?  Supposedly to achieve "just" immigration laws.  There is, I believe purposefully, no specification of what about our immigration laws which are enormously more liberal than Mexico's as an example, that is unjust.

Beef Number One:  If immigration is the subject, then this "pilgrimage" is enormously racist.  Yes racist. About 30 percent of the people in this country illegally are NOT OF MEXICAN origin. Or from any country south of the border.  Many are here from Canada, China, India and other countries.  Those illegal immigrants tend to be people who come here on a tourist visa and overstay their visas. They are just as illegal, and, while not a majority are a substantial minority.  Illegal is illegal whether you are here from Canada or from Mexico.

Beef Number two:  What, exactly, is accomplished by this pilgrimage?  What, of any substance actually helps anyone?  Thousands of churches and other groups from the United States take food and money to poor people in Mexico every year.  Those people may not be accomplishing much, but they are accomplishing more than is achieved by Bishop Jardine and her group.

Beef # 3:  By focusing on immigration policies these preening peacocks who constantly campaign against the idea that the United States is possibly full of people who actually have good intentions and do good things, they avoid asking the rather obvious question as to why there are so many really truly poor people in Mexico.  These preening peacocks are often people who want to impose here in the United States, the very same policies and governmental practices which contribute to the ongoing poverty in other countries.  Socialist theories always sound just and fair to people who have not experienced the economy in practice.  But they create poverty and squalor.  They rob people of hope.  This kind of peacock parade action takes the focus away from the discussion that needs to be had-- how societies can be changed so that there is less poverty and want around the world, not just in the United States and other first world countries.  The preening peacocks don't like that discussion because it focusses on the reality that Capitalism and business create wealth.

Hernando de Soto, in his book, the Mystery of Capital, lays bare what needs to change.  But these paraders don't want that kind of change.  They advocate a kind of return to the feudal system where supposedly benevolent betters are in charge and distribute the community wealth to whom they see fit.  Those who have studied history know how that turns out.  There is a wealthy elite and most people are poor, enslaved and impoverished.  It was the rise of middle class bourgeoisie business people that brought most people to a comfortable level of living.

THE REAL PAUL KRUGMAN AND THE NOOK MONOPOLY

Okay all you double entendre fans, the word Nook in the title refers to the e-reader device of that name.  Most of my friends can guess that I am not a big fan of Paul Krugman the Nobel prize winning leftwing idealogue who masquerades as an economist.  I use the word "masquerade" because one of the first economists I worked with in a discrimination case told me "liberal economist" is an oxymoron.  No REAL economist, he told me, is a liberal.  His argument was that everything we know about economics tells us that a free market with fee competition produces the optimum world for the consumer who is you and I.  We are the consumers and we benefit the most from a free market system. The real arguments against socialism, he told me, were all to be found in the history of socialist economies vs. Free enterprise economies.

Having said all of that.  And it is a lot.  Paul Krugman, who also masquerades as a liberal, has found the academic sweet spot where his text books sell for outrageous prices (if you think $156.81 for a paperback is outrageous)   to students who are forced to buy them.  You can rent it for less.  That means they mail it to you and charge you for the shipping and you mail it back to them and pay for the shipping.  All in all, if you take care of the book and don't write in it or let it get dirty you can save about a hundred bucks.  But, having downloaded books from iBooks and Kindle you think, hey, I will download that book to my mini iPad and save the shipping and be able to add annotations and underlines.  Foolish you.  If you could do that easily, no one would buy the paper book.  Or at least, a lot fewer people would do that.  I'm one of the ones who wouldn't.  I love e-books.  I have about 30 of them on my iPad.  And that is one of the reasons I love them.  I can easily carry a hundred books in my purse.  Yay!!!! (As a senior citizen with presbyopia, I love them for the adjustable viewing features as well)  But I digress.

I am not planning to read Paul Krugman any time soon, but alas, a student in my life is one of the unfortunates who is required to read this piece of trash for a course.  So it has to be read.  We set about trying to download it et cetera when we discovered that Barnes and Noble is engaging in a very old and long term unsuccessful marketing strategy.  They have a monopoly on the book.  That is to say, they are the only on line seller from whom you can buy it.  They have a whole text book department full of books on which they have a monopoly of that sort.  They know you have to have it as do the publishers so they can charge 10 times what other willing buyers pay for this author's books.

Now for the e-book aspect.  Having downloaded literally dozens of books from Amazon and iBooks, I figured I knew how to do this.  I had not run in to the Nook e text book yet.  So I will let you know the scam.  Barnes and Noble tells you, on their Nook textbooks page, that you can read your textbook anywhere (this is not a new feature of books, of course.  Except for the biggest and the heaviest, you could always read them everywhere.).  Despite that claim, it turns out that you can only download text books to your computer, not an ipad, kindle or nook.  So actually, you can only read them somewhere that you can take a computer.  If you have a laptop, that's cool.  If you have opted for an iPad, Kindle or Nook, you are out of luck.  The reason given for this is that textbooks, in B & N's opinion, don't really look good on small screens.  Hmmmm.   Apple seems to have gotten past this so-called problem as has Amazon.  If, like a lot of people, you have a desktop computer and a tablet device the only place you can read your textbook is on your desk top  computer screen.  And we all know how comfortable that is.

So if you want to read your textbook "anywhere" you have to invest in a new laptop.  Or you can just invest in the old portable approach, which is to buy the paperback for $153.00.  It may be heavy and you will never want to read it again after the class is over, but at least  you won't have to worry about spilling your coffee on it and you won't have two trips to the post office.

If you could buy the e-book version from Kindle or iBooks, you would.  Better still, you would rent it from them if  could.  Another student I know rented a textbook for the semester in an e-book version at a considerable savings.  When the rental period runs out, the text book deletes itself from her tablet.  The essence of a cool marketing arrangement.  Made possible by Amazon, not Barnes and Noble.

This whole marketing arrangement and the monopolistic power of Barnes and Noble are brought to you by the upper level elites of the Academic Econosphere who have somehow persuaded all of us to give them the power over our lives that they have.  How can I say that?  Professors, or at least the academic establishment, has the power to designate the books that will be textbooks.  In my Education for Ministry class ( I am a co-mentor) The University of the South has just decided to move to textbooks (from a self published course).  The books they plan to use which are very scholarly and written by widely acclaimed academics, are sold as regular books (not textbooks) through Amazon.  While we thought the prices a bit steep at first, they are positively cheap next to the books sold through Barnes and Noble's text book service.

Does Paul Krugman have a choice as to where to sell his textbook?  Yes.  HE does.  He sells other books that are sold through Amazon for $14.95 or less. But those are books that people can choose not to buy.  (I, for example choose not to buy).  But when he has a captive market of students who want the stamp of approval from some institution of higher learning, he gouges them.  Or he signs up with a publisher who gouges them.  This is reprehensible behavior from anyone but even more so from Paul Krugman because he writes such supposedly caring drivel in the New York Times everyday about the harsh and uncaring Republican party.  But when the opportunity to gouge poor students comes along, why, he takes it.  Of course, he is not the only person making millions off of students.  But so what?  Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Krugman.  Make your textbooks available on Amazon for a reasonable price if you really mean what you say about social justice.  I am not holding my breath.  More proof that liberal and hypocrite tend to go together.  Especially when you are talking about wealthy liberals.

Getting Ready for Wildflower Season

While God lets us know of His love in many different ways, I think that wildflowers are among the most spectacular ways.  They are sheer, ebullient, joy praising God in their beautiful faces bouncing on the breezes. If you just sit in a field of flowers you can absorb the happiness they proclaim.  It is good to be alive.  Most springs, but not all, the dry deserts around Southern California burst into joyous bloom.

Golden poppies cover the hillsides in March and April in a totally unrestrained fluorescent orange the color of traffic tape. Desert Gold cover the hills around Death Valley.  You can see them from miles away.  I hope we will see them again this year.  I urge you, take some time out to see the world that God made.  It is extraordinary.  It is beautiful.  It won't wait around for you.  You must drop what you are doing and enjoy the beauty when it appears if you are to enjoy it at all.  It comes on its own schedule and not on yours.  But it is worth it.  Truly it is.  Here is a website that will tell your where the flowers are in bloom: www.desertusa.com

Time to Go Visit the Snow

If you live in Southern California, you visit snow.  Snow does not visit you.  If you are not a native of Southern California, as I am, you can be forgiven for not being aware that it snows in Southern California, indeed, in Los Angeles County, inter alia, every single year.  Indeed, if you are a recent immigrant to Los Angeles, you can be forgiven for having only recently discovered that Los Angeles is ringed by mountains.

Because of the mountains  -- the San Gabriels and the Tehachapis to the North, the San Bernardino's to the east and the coastal ranges, and the constant breezes blowing inland off the ocean,  there is something called an inversion layer that is like a lid on a pot that keeps all the grey-brown gunky stuff in the air from dissipating upward.  And that smoggy gunky stuff keeps you from seeing the mountains until you are right on them.  If you live in Pasadena or Burbank or one of those towns along the 210 "foothill" freeway, you can see the mountains, but most of the time you can't see them because of the grey brown air.

And then December and January weather arrives with, we hope, rain and wind, and wash all that yucky stuff out of the air and, voila! not just mountains, mountains with white stuff on them.  The white stuff is snow.

When I was a youth, it was obligatory to have at least one trip to the snow.  This involved finding all of your warm stuff, including mittens or at least gloves, rubber boots or your warmest footwear and your warmest coat, and then everyone in the car, drive an hour or so up into the mountains, find an appropriate place to park, get out of the car and play in the snow.  Sometimes we had sleds and tobaggons or we would make our own out of something else.  Depending on where your parents chose to park, it could be a little intimidating because the San Gabriel mountains can be very steep.  The combination of snow and steep and a sled can lead to some very fast rides.  Then we would pile some snow on the top of the car to show everybody we had been up to the snow, and drive home, grateful to be inside and warm again.

And it is still a tradition today for millions of families in Southern California.  So we are blessed here in the Los Angeles area with plenty of places to play in the snow.  Here is a list of suggestions for those who are new to the L. A. snow scene.

For skiing: (No I am not making this up)

Mount Baldy  Their motto is real snow, real close.  Mount Baldy is in the San Bernardino mountains and has chairlifts and skiing.  It has a small lodge where you can drink hot cocoa.  You can rent ski equipment and take lessons there as well.  Unlike most places that you ski, you have to take a lift to get up the place where you rent your skis at Mount Baldy.  That is because between the parking lot and the ski hut, the mountain is very steep. You can buy a lift ticket just to go up top and look around.  Or you can buy a lift ticket to ski.  Below the area where the chair lift is there are plenty of places to park and play in the snow.

Mount Waterman  I am pleased to discover that Mount Waterman is open again depending on the snow.  Check the website.  Again a very small local place to ski and freeze your buns off.  I have skied there a few times.  Since I'm not a very good skier, I take the lift up top where the easier skiing is .  The mountain down to the road is VERY black diamond steep.  You can also go up top and go to the lodge have some cocoa and enjoy the forest.

And of course:  Mountain High  which is actually a full blown resort. They have night skiing for those who want to drive up after work and break a leg.  I've skied there and my 2¢ worth is, too many hot doggers.  If you are a hot dogger, have at it.

Of course, we can't leave out Big Bear because it is in Southern California and it is very Big.  It is also a long twisty icy drive up Running Springs Road which will take you a couple of hours to get there.  And it will be crowded.


Snow play

Now if you just want to play, the best place to go is up Highway 2 into the Angeles Forest.  If it has recently snowed you will probably be required to put chains on your drive tires-- the ones that actually propel the car forward or backward. This is to make sure your tires have traction on icy roads.  It's a safety thing.   There will usually be a CHP  enforcement team which will turn you back if you don't have them.  So drop by Pep boys or your other favorite auto store and buy them before you go.  You wait until you get up where there is a lot of snow and it is very cold and then you pull over to the side of the road and lay on the ground in the freezing wet cold and wrap those things around your tires with your frozen fingers turning numb.  Oh.  Well, that's what I do.  Or, if you have 4 wheel drive, you flip a switch and you probably won't be required to have chains.

If you go far enough on Highway 2 you will come to Newcomb's Ranch, which is a biker hangout.  Don't let that intimidate you.  They are all very nice people.  Remember, Jay Leno is a biker.  Anyway,  after you play in the snow until you are all wet and really, really cold, you can go to Newcomb's Ranch restaurant and  get lunch and play pool  and drink cocoa and get warm.  If you are not the one driving you can also indulge in adult beverages.  They have a well stocked bar.  Well, I'm really not a judge of such things, but they seem to have a reasonable array of booze.

And let me say just one thing about the aforementioned icy roads.  In addition to being twisty and windy the roads are narrow and in most places if your car leaves the road at a high speed, it is a very long way down-- like 500 or 1000 feet.  So all things considered, better to take it slow and not lose control.

If it has snowed recently, you may want to check to make sure the roads are open.  Caltrans, in its wisdom, closes the roads in Angeles Forest when they think they are too dangerous.  Check here for the status:  http://www.dot.ca.gov/cgi-bin/roads.cgi.  Don't worry about Highway 2 being closed from Islip saddle to Wrightwood.  They close that every winter.  Newcomb's Ranch and Mount Waterman are both before the closing point.

HSA's--One Important Way to Address Healthcare Cost Inflation

Health Savings Accounts are a recently developed tax incentive for saving to pay for your own healthcare.  They are different from Health Reimbursement Accounts that require you to spend all the money each year.  You can rollover the money in the account if you don't spend it.  The website I have linked above is a company that offers health savings accounts.  If your employer offers high deductible medical insurance, you may be qualified to enroll.  The website describes the whole process.  They are simple and easy to use.

The more important question is why this is a good approach.  As you can see, an individual can contribute up to $3200 and a family more than double that each year.  The idea is that you start this plan when you are young and have few medical costs and you keep it until you are old and have lots of medical costs.  In the meantime, you have invested it and your investment income has made it grow to a tidy amount.    You don't pay taxes on the money when you invest it and you don't pay taxes when you use it for medical expenses.

The plan offers a debit card and checks to pay for medical expenses directly.  No claims to file.  No third party decision makers deciding if you "need" the medical care recommended by your physician.

But how, you may ask, does this type of plan address the issue of medical costs?  I will let John Mackey make the first argument.  Mackey makes the legitimate argument that, for the most part, people don't even ask what a medical procedure costs.  They don't shop for the lowest price or the best value.  And the reason, he suggests, is that, when you have conventional medical insuranee, you are not paying for it.  If you are paying for it, even with tax advantaged funds, you will ask.  And you will make choices based, not on some insurance company guidelines, but on the basis of what is important to you.  Only you know if that very high priced latest drug for pain control is worth it to you.

In my case, my physician prescribed a drug that cost more than $200 for pain relief. At the time I didn't have drug coverage in my Medicare plan.  To say the least, I asked a few questions and did a little research and concluded that a) my pain wasn't that bad and b) there were much lower cost alternatives that would provide as much pain relief as this very expensive drug.   No other person really knows how much pain you are in.  No one else should be making that decision, really.  But under regular insurance plans, some faceless nameless insurance company employee looks at a guideline and decides if you need that expensive drug.  With an HSA, you make that decision.  In my case I decided I would rather forego the expensive drug.

HSA's also, simply put, reduce costs.  They are better for individuals, who have much more freedom of choice than with a regular insurance plan where a third party makes the decisions, and they are better for medical care providers, who get paid right away.

Many medical offices employ a full time employee just to process medical claims.  Insurance companies and third party administrators enter into contracts with Medicare to process the claims.  It costs billions of dollars each year just to process all the claims.  Health Savings Accounts would reduce that cost substantially since only very large medical costs would be part of the claims process. If you have an HSA, you pay the equivalent of cash for your office visits and your medications.  It is only when you have very large expenses that you file a claim.  Experience, on a broad scale, shows that HSA's save both employees and employers a lot of money.  The State of Indiana offered HSA's as an option for employees in 2004.  By 2009, 90 percent of Indiana State employees had opted for them.  AS the report shows, those enrolled in HSA's  were more likely to use generics rather than name brand pharmaceuticals, used urgent care centers rather than emergency rooms for non ER problems and used preventative services more often.  The moral of that story is that if you, the consumer, are the person who benefits from using a more cost effective alternative in medical care, you will use it.  If the insurance company is paying for it, no matter what choice you make, why should you save the insurance company money.

So, if HSA's are so great why are there so few advocates for them?  Please note what I said above.  Insurance Companies and Third Party Administrators make billions of dollars from processing claims.  Many of them will go out of business or see a substantial reduction in revenue if HSA's are widely adopted.  They have lobbies.  There are only a few HSA administrators and only a few employers who care enough about their employees to advocate on their behalf.

You might think that Unions would be advocating for something that benefits employees.  You would be wrong.  The reason?  Many unions sponsor health care plans and receive a percentage of the premiums.  Like the AARP, which sponsors Medicare plans and makes billions in the process, they are far from an impartial advocate for the insurance that they sell.

The first step is for people to at least know what HSA's are and to ask their employers to establish an HSA.

The second step is to improve the legislation on HSA's.  The Obamacare legislation took it a step backward by eliminating coverage for non-prescription drugs.  For those of us who are cost conscious this is an abomination. It leads to people choosing expensive prescription drugs when an over the counter drug would do just fine.  It's a stupid policy.  Example:  if you ever have a twisted ankle, a wrenched knee or other musculo skelatal injury that is not major but very painful, the chances are that your physician will prescribe 600 or 800 milligram ibuprofen.  The last time I was offered a prescription like that I asked this question:  Is there any  difference between taking 3 or 4 200 milligram tablets of the type that I can buy at Costco, $14 for 1000 tablets and the 600 milligram tablet that requires a prescription?  Answer: No.  Except that 3 over the counter tablets are cheaper than one 600 milligram tablet.  Many of the drugs that are now sold over the counter were once prescription drugs and are very effective for the purposes for which they are sold.  Why should consumers pay the difference for a prescription?

How Changing One Government Dietary Recommendation Could Greatly Reduce Healthcare Costs.

Those who know me know I am a little bit of a low-carb fanatic.  Off and on anyway.  I like cupcakes as much as the next person, but, periodically, I go on a low carb diet and, most of the time, I limit the amount of carbs that I eat.  I treat french fries, cupcakes and pasta the same-- they are all occasional treats not dietary staples for me.  I eat a low carb bread (Sara Lee's Delite ful brand that has about 5 carbs per slice) and have bacon and eggs for breakfast, not cereal.

The evidence is accumulating that for a person like me, who most likely has an inherited predisposition toward diabetes (both parents, older sister and cousin are diabetic), a low carb diet is the best way to prevent the onset of diabetes. I worry about diabetes enough that I bought my own glucose testing kit just so I wouldn't have to go to the doctor all the time to find out what my blood glucose is.  They are not necessarily expensive-- Walmart sells its cheapest one for less than twenty dollars.  So far so good for me.  My last Ha1c test was 4.5 which is, to quote my physician, stellar.  Harvard Researchers recommend lowering the glycemic index of your diet to help prevent or postpone diabetes.  Clinicians say, simply, your choice is medicine or lay off the carbs.  If you reduce your blood sugar levels you can prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is also called adult onset diabetes.  It is a different disease from type 1 diabetes.  In type 1 diabetes your body doesn't make enough insulin to handle the carbs that you eat.  In type 2 diabetes your body manufactures plenty of insulin, but your cells, over time, develop a resistance to the insulin and don't use it properly.  The second type of diabetes can be prevented by keeping both your blood sugars and your insulin low.  When your body is functioning properly, it generates large amounts of insulin whenever you eat refined carbs and sweets.  That insulin can, over time, do damage to your organs just as the sugar in your blood can cause damage to your organs.  That accounts for the horrible diabetes related problems: kidney disease, heart disease, blindness and peripheral neuropathy which eventually cuts off circulation to your extremities.

After decades of recommending low fat diets to diabetics based on very questionable science, researchers have begun to perform clinical studies of the effect of diets on blood sugar for people who are pre diabetic or diabetic and not being treated with medication.  The results are stunning.  Even short term low carb diets reduce blood sugar very significantly.  Weight loss is also much greater, even while consuming the same number of calories, for people with metabolic syndrome who follow low carb vs. low fat diets.

Clinical trials where subjects are matched and one group follows one diet and one follows a comparison diet are the gold standard in scientific research for diets.   This study, published in the American Diabetes Association Journal shows that over a fairly short period the blood glucose for subjects following a diet with 20 percent carbohydrate (about 100 grams per day if you are eating a 2000 calorie diet, more if you are eating more), was dramatically lower than the blood glucose of those who followed a low fat diet.  119 vs, 198,  For those of us who follow these things, neither of those readings are terrific but 119 is a lot better than 198.  It is close to normal.

If clinical trials comparing like subjects are the gold standard, this study, performed with people in the clinic so that actual consumption of food could be closely monitored, is the platinum standard. It was performed in hospital so that energy expenditure and food consumption could be closely monitored.
It shows that women whose carbohydrate consumption was controlled, but who were allowed to eat as much protein and fat as they wanted, spontaneously ate less.  This is a claim made for low carb diets by both Atkins, and other proponents like Drs, Mary and Dan Eades who offer the Protein Power diet.  Put simply, the study concluded that people who have metabolic syndrome will be less hungry if they eat fewer carbohydrates, will eat less and will lose more weight simply because they are less hungry.

This study, sponsored by Jenny Craig, shows that low carb diets are more effective in achieving weight loss as well as helpful in reducing  insulin resistance (a precursor of diabetes).  I should note for the conspiracy theorists that Jenny Craig sells pre-packaged foods to help attain weight loss.  They have no investment in either low fat or low carb.  Their investment is in selling a combined counseling and weight loss program that actually works.  Doubtless, their research was designed to find out which approach was more likely to be effective so that they could incorporate it in their products.

There are many more studies than I have listed.  The three I have listed are more recent and closer to the gold standard of clinical trials than other studies so I cited them.  To be more specific, they came up on the first page of a google search and were from reputable sources.

If you look on the labels of many packaged foods that you buy, you will discover that the USDA (your government) recommends that 60 percent of your diet should consist of carbohydrates.  These studies show that such a diet, for people predisposed to diabetes or with diabetes, is not good for them.  Their blood sugar and all their other diabetes related measurements are better on a diet which is 20 percent carbohydrates.  Rather than consuming 300 grams of carbs a day, as recommended by USDA, if you are pre-diabetic, or have insulin resistance (which is probably the case if you are overweight) you should be limiting your carbs to 100 grams and making up the rest with proteins and fats.

And what would be the consequence if a significant percentage of the diabetes prone population would change their dietary habits in this fashion?  According to this congressional study, about 32% of Medicare expenditures are related to treatment of diabetes and the consequences of diabetes.  While the figure is a smaller percentage for the overall population it is still very high, about 10 percent of health care dollars for treatment of diabetes and another significant percentage for treatment of diabetes related illnesses.  Getting people to just change their diets could reduce medicare expenditures by  10 or 20 percent.

Can the government change people's behavior?  Yes, if the science supports it.  Tobacco use has dropped dramatically since the government and medical leaders began talking about the harm that smoking does to health.  More and more the science supports the recommendation that people who have diabetes or who are prone to diabetes should limit their carbs.  100 grams of carbs a day is, by the way, not all that low.  Protein Power recommends a maximum of 50 grams a day and Atkins starts you off with 20 grams a day.  100 grams a day would allow you to have 2 glasses of milk (26 grams) a small orange and an apple ( about 40  grams) and a couple of slices of bread or a small baked potato.  The rest of your diet would be fish, meat, eggs, leafy green vegetables, lower carb fruit (strawberries are very low in carbs) and nuts.  (Peanut butter without sugar added is pretty low in carbs).

People who call themselves nutritionists sometimes are adamantly opposed to low carb diets.  The new school lunch guidelines, supposedly designed to reduce obesity and the early onset of type 2 diabetes, advocate a diet that the research I cited above, is likely to CAUSE obesity and high blood sugars.  This is what happens when the self designated experts capture an agency.   Some of these zealots are people who advocate vegetarian eating almost like a religion, in the face of the substantial evident cited above and in other journals. For them, it is not so much that they are pro-carbs as it is that that is what you eat if you eschew animal based food. You can follow a low carb diet if you are a vegan.  It's just very difficult and consists of a lot of tofu and tempi.    Some may simply be in the pay of industrial giants like Kellogg, Archer Daniel Midlands, and General Mills.  The natural result of the widespread adoption of low carb diets by the diabetes prone would be a reduced consumption of grains and starchy vegetables.  Since I doubt that the potato farmers have a huge lobby, I am going to finger Archer Daniel Midlands and the cereal producers as the lobbyists who support the present dietary guidelines.   I don't have a lot of data to back it up, I admit.

If you are among the diabetes prone, you don't have to wait for the government to act.  Following a limited  carb diet will make you feel better fairly quickly and will reduce the chance that you will develop diabetes.  I want to point out for those of you who eat a high carb diet and have normal weight and blood sugars, that I am not advocating a low carb diet for everyone.  The evidence is strong that different people process carbohydrates differently and that diabetes is a genetically linked disease related to the processing of carbohydrates.  It just appears that a lot of us have that condition and should be aware of it and respond appropriately.

The Benificent Left and Social Security

The people who are so worried about not making anyone feel bad (unless the people who feel bad are white, old or male) have lately taken to talking about Social Security recipients as if they were welfare recipients.  They also talk about all federal spending as "handouts".  "Handout" is, of course a demeaning term that implies that the recipient of said handout is getting something for nothing, is a social parasite.

Strangely, people who are conservative, and opposed to excessive government spending, hardly ever talk about social security recipients that way.  Some people might argue that the reason conservatives don't talk about social security recipients with such mean contempt is that conservatives get more of their votes.  But that is not always the case.

I think the reason is that people who are conservative, like me, respect work.  People who are receiving social security, by definition worked.  Certainly you can argue that many will receive far more than they would have received from a private investment program.  But the truth is that most of those people are the people who have been collecting social security for a while.  Those of us who just started receiving social security, particularly formerly high income earners, can expect to receive less in benefits than we would have received from a private annuity for the same expenditure.  For those who don't remember the history of Social Security, the cause of this change is that Social Security tax rates were dramatically increased by that conservative warrior, Ronald Reagan, in order to keep the system solvent.  So those of us who are the Younger Oldsters, paid a lot more in Social Security and Medicare taxes than older Oldsters.

The derisive sneers coming from the left in my direction because I rail against big government while receiving Medicare benefits and Social Security are, to me, just further proof that the left really cares nothing about people and everything about power.  If they can be so derisive and contemptuous of people who were forced to participate in a government retirement and medical insurance program (that would be all of us)  then, they really care nothing about people.

By talking about us as if we were welfare recipients the left proves how little good faith there is in any supposedly charitable programs they sponsor.  I, after all, worked and paid FICA taxes and Medicare taxes for  about 50 years and about 45 years respectively.  I wasn't given the option of a private retirement program instead.  I was allowed to have a private retirement program in addition, and I do have it. Yet to the left, we are just like all of the other recipients of federal charity. There is no difference between us and a person who receives welfare benefits.  All of us should shut up and be grateful for what we are given by the benificent government.

 Strangely, I don't hear about my private pension being, somehow, a handout from the insurance company that pays it to me.  That money, I am assured is my right and my entitlement.

  It's true the money I paid in taxes was used to pay for benefits for my parents and grandparents.  In a private annuity, companies invest the money they receive in companies and real estate and government bonds.  They pay the annuities from the money they receive from investments.  Not so from Social Security.  Social Security pays current benefits from current revenues and invests the rest in loans to the federal government, which government uses said funds for current expenditures.

The difference in attitude between government funded retirement benefits and privately funded benefits tells me everything about the left and the big government group.  They expect and require that private companies keep the promises they make.  It's the law.  We have a law called ERISA that imposes standards on private companies requiring that they not reduce benefits already worked for and promised.

Not so for government.  I am assured by those on the left that the promises made by politicians in the 60's, the 70's, the 80's (when Social Security tax rates were doubled) and the 90's are neither morally nor legally binding on the people who run the government today.  I should be grateful to big government that it has kept its promise to me by paying the Social Security I was promised.  It is, the implication is clear, more than I deserve because I have the effrontery to call it a Ponzi scheme.

You might think that the people who are the late entrants to the scheme (meaning the young people of today) would be greatly concerned about it.  It is the late entrants who don't get paid.  Yet they all voted for big government.

Be that as it may, the reality of why so many seniors voted for Republicans is not that we are all crotchety racists who don't want a black man for president.  We understand that if the government  continues  to borrow so much money from foreign sources and treasury bond investors that the interest payments alone will exceed the money available to repay the loans, there won't be any money to pay the money we were promised.  Many of us hope to live for a decade or more  into the future.  Obamacare transfers money from Medicare to Medicaid, meaning when we need medical care we will get a phony sympathetic hand holding and death counseling while someone young will get actual medical care.  That's what we are afraid of.  We are afraid that the money is going to run out before we die.  It's pretty simple.  And we are afraid for our grandchildren.  That would be young people.  We may not care about anyone else's grandchildren, but we want ours to have a good life.  Many of us try to be a little bit thrifty so we can leave them money when we die.  But it looks like all the money is being spent on crazy investments in companies that pretend to be devoted to new sources of energy but appear, in practice, to be merely shells used as conduits for large amounts of government money to go into the pockets of rich friends of whoever is in power.

I am not going to make a plea for kinder rhetoric.  That would be a waste of electrons.  Increasingly, people on the left look like people whose ability to feel good about themselves is dependent on looking down with contempt on others. This week it is old people.  Next week, it will be the military.   It is a poisonous attitude that can never lead to real harmony because it always needs a scapegoat.  It is a deliberately divisive attitude that separates the smart, with it in crowd from the stupid, dependent others.

A Day to Give Thanks for All the Riches in Our Lives

I count my riches in people more than things, not because I lack things but because people are what life is about.  So I am thankful for my family, my children, especially my grandchildren who give me a real and physical connection with the future.  Having friends in my life who care about me over the years and over the miles is another great benefit.  It is people who make my life feel so full and satisfying.  I thank our Creator for bringing all of these beautiful people into my life.

Twinkies and the Law

 A lot of blather is going around the internet about what caused Hostess to fail.  But there are a few things being said that betray a serious lack of knowledge of bankruptcy law.  Don't feel bad.  Most lawyers know next to nothing about bankruptcy law and most laypeople who haven't filed know even less.

So here's the deal.  When a corporation files for bankruptcy it can file under either Chapter 11 for a reorganization or under Chapter 7 for a liquidation of assets.  Chapter 11 filings are chosen by those businesses whose leaders think they can rescue the company if the company can get some breathing space with its creditors and be relieved of onerous contracts that limit its future operations. An example of the kind of contract that might be voided is a supply contract where the price of the supplies was above market price, or a labor union contract. Debts already incurred would go into a separate pile for consideration.  They might be eventually paid off at less than a 100cents on the dollar.
 A lot of airlines have filed chapter 11 and come out of it still flying.  When a company is in chapter 11, virtually every financial aspect of how the company operates is subject to review and approval of the bankruptcy court, including executive salaries.  Hostess was already in chapter 11.  It's threat to the unions was NOT that it would file for bankruptcy, it was already in chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy.  It's threat was to convert its chapter 11 bankruptcy to a chapter 7, liquidation, meaning it would go out of business.  Also, by virtue of the fact that it was in bankruptcy, executive salaries would have been submitted to the bankruptcy court and approved by it.  Those who claim that the managers were simply trying to loot the company would have more credibility if they had made those claims to a bankruptcy judge who would have had full power to stop any such looting.  In fact, that is one of a bankruptcy judge's jobs-- to prevent looting of corporate assets.  Any corporate assets distributed to individuals in the 90 days before the bankruptcy filing can be recovered almost automatically, and any distributed in the year prior to filing can be recovered if there is evidence that there was not fair compensation paid.  The claim that this company was being looted WHILE in bankruptcy looks mighty suspicious only because it is precisely the job of the bankruptcy judge to keep that from happening.

Another issue is the ability of the unions to look at the books.  Since the company was in bankruptcy already, a perusal of the reorganization plan would have given a lot of information to the unions.  But even more important the National Labor Relations Board, which regulates collective bargaining with private companies requires that companies which plead poverty in collective bargaining negotiations open their books to the unions affected.  So, assuming the unions have some knowledge of the NLRA, the books were opened to them.  The teamsters accepted some pretty deep cuts to keep the company in business, the Bakers did not.  The bakers had a second chance when the judge postponed ruling on the motion to convert the bankruptcy to chapter 7 in order to have the parties go back to mediation.  The bakers again rejected any offer made to them.  The only rational conclusion is that they preferred unemployment to wage cuts.  Since Hostess had already filed in bankruptcy court to shut down the company, they had to know that Hostess was not bluffing.

They can say whatever they want but it is clear that they chose unemployment benefits over working.  They must have known after the court put off its decision on the conversion, that Hostess was serious about shutting down.  And they must have known that the court would approve the shut down if they did not take the contract that was offered to them.  They were given an opportunity to show the court that the company could still be viable if they were given what the union wanted in a contract.  Apparently the court didn't buy it.

While I am sorry that another American icon has bitten the dust, I can't say that I will miss them, really. I have never been a frequent purchaser of hostess products.  Like Polaroid and other iconic brands, they didn't keep up with the market and they have bitten the dust.  That is as it should be.

A Message to Chris Christie

I'm really posting this because I want a record of my prediction.  Dear Chris, you just sold out your party and the guy who gave you a bully platform at the Republican convention,  i. e. Mitt Romney.   And please don't give me all your Barbra Streisand about its what a governor should do.  Bloomberg didn't do it and he actually endorsed Obama.   Some people think you are just politically tone deaf.  I don't think you are.  I think you didn't get to be governor of New Jersey being politically tone deaf.  I think you did it for your political advantage.  You are running for re-election next year.  Or scheduled to.  I hope you made a deal to get a presidential appointment.  Not because I think you would do a good job but because it is a shame to see someone sell out his birthright and not even get a mess of pottage in return.

Here's my prediction if you are planning to run for re-election.  The pundits say that Cory Booker is going to run against you.  My prediction is that there will be a few stray Republicans who endorse Cory Booker because he seems intent on positioning himself as a pro-business moderate.  And I will put up ten dollars that says that our newly re-elected president will come to New Jersey and campaign against you.  And he will use all of the identity themes he used in this election.  And, here's a clue, you are not the right identity.  You are Republican and white.  If you thought, even for one minute, you were buying yourself some protection by helping to tip the election to Obama, well, you are wrong.  You betrayed the people who depended on you.  Don't expect a lot from the Republican bench.  As for the Tea Party, truly, don't expect anything.   I really think we are not that stupid.  Heck, I think Cory Booker had more kind words for Mitt Romney than you did.

The Left Needs to Own Their Crazies

Here is an example of how the typical true left thinks:  Posted on Daily Kos   I said in a prior post that the left needs someone to demonize and that would be people who dare to call themselves Republican.  Don't just read the post.  Read the comments.  Threats of violence against conservatives  by the kooks at Daily Kos are a daily phenomenon.  But people who call themselves liberal consistently blame Republicans and the Tea Party for this kind  of hate filled screed.  Please don't ask me not to defend myself.  Yes, I know about Jesus and about Gandhi.

But here is the other side.  We need to fight back, not physically, but ideologically.  This is the part of the core constituency of the new Democrat party.  These are the people who carry signs and show up for demonstrations and walk precincts for nothing.  They literally hate anyone who dares to call himself a Republican.  They do that because they need someone to blame for their miserable hate filled lives.

The people who write this kind of thing rarely get elected to office.  But they are used to get people elected to office.

So here is the problem for Christian conservatives.  Yes we must be charitable to people, meaning in this context, still caring for and seeing even really crazy people as human and objects of God's love even if they don't believe in God.  But we also need to call out the people who benefit by the crazy and hateful energy these people transmit into the body politic.  Much of the divisiveness in our culture is a result of a deliberately cultivated envy and concomitant hatred.  It is a vague and ugly anger that attaches itself first to one and then another object.  It is the energy of mob rule and the antithesis of reason.  Like the family members at an intervention, we need, with love, to tell people when they are wrong.  We need to hold up a mirror to the hatred from the left.  And we need to force them to talk about it.  Because, until we do that, we cannot resolve our differences until we at least come to an agreement as to what they are.

So, think of our conversation with an unwilling, name calling left as an intervention with a family member.  We do have to keep talking and we do have to keep being polite, but we don't have to pull our punches or try to gild the lily.  We need to be honest with them and continue to politely disagree.

The Racism of the Leftist Elites

The racism of the leftist elites was on display again this election cycle.  The party of southern segregation, aka the Democrat party, raised literally tens of millions of dollars to defeat two black Republican congressional candidates:  Mia Love and Allen West.   The money and energy  spent is  ten or twenty times as much as was spent on other races not involving black Republicans. Democrats have targeted these two people for one reason, they are  Black and Republican. It is part of a long history of attempting to destroy Black Republicans. And the reason is simple-- keep black people on the Democrat plantation where the Democrats have done nothing for them in fifty years.

This is an ongoing unspoken policy for the left.    It was in full view when the left attacked Clarence Thomas during the nomination process for Supreme Court.  And the left continues to attack Thomas intermittently to make sure his reputation never comes back.  The left demonizes any outspoken person who they deem to be a person who should belong to them.

This isn't an accident.  The left puts its coalitions together, not based on issues, but on identity politics.  "You need to vote for us because we will protect you from the evil other guys" is their primary message.  It is the reason for the phrase "people of color".  That phrase was invented by the left to unite people of widely disparate cultures, histories and ethnic identies.  It is made necessary by the numbers.  It helps the left reach the electoral numbers it needs.  So its message is "your color is the most important characteristic you have."  They persuade black, Hispanic and other ethnic minorities that they cannot have a fair chance to succeed in this country because of the color of their skin.  And it works even when the most powerful person in the world who was elected with millions of white votes, is black.   The left preaches a deep and primitive tribalism with a contemporary gloss.  So  when someone from a tribe they think they own, like black people, defects they have to punish and destroy that person. Because they have to hold the tribe they have created together.  Any defection, no matter how small,  is a threat to their coalition of the envious and dispossessed with the rich left that exploits them.  When Mia Love appeared at the Republican convention, a metaphorical  target was painted on her back by the left.  Allen West was already targeted.

And who is the rich left?  Jon Corzine, George Soros, and all of Hollywood come to mind.  And, surprisingly, there are a lot bankers in there like the former head of Countrywide. Angelo Mozillo and  former Treasury secretary, Hank Paulsen.  They position themselves as the benevolent godfathers who protect the poor and disenfranchised.  But in reality, they exploit the poor and middle class by using the government to restrict  the opportunity of anyone, including women, minorities and gays, from competing with them.  And they use the government to carry out their exploitative schemes which involve creating programs that supposedly benefit the poor but curiously always involve the purchase of stuff from the rich.  An example is the free cell phone program.  And while they tell you they want to tax the rich, the people they really tax are the middle class.  That free cell phone program?  Have you ever noticed an item on your phone bill called Universal Access fee?  That's used to buy free cell phones for poor people.  Are you rich? Yet you're being taxed.

The racism of the liberal elites is not a deep visceral thing.  It is a practical, political thing.  People who are divided by race, sex, age and background, people who are made to feel that their ladyparts or skin color or sexual orientation are much more important than the fiscal and social issues, are much easier to manage.  The rallies are all about we're the good guys and they're the bad guys and our good guy leaders are going to protect us from those awful bad guys.   The discussion on the left is  rarely about what allows an economy to prosper, or supports our freedom because those are losing issues for the left.  History condemns them on that score.  The leftist ideology tells them they should not even try to win on the issues because all of us proletarians are too stupid to know what's good for us.  So Bread and Circuses for the stupid class who turns most of the fruit of their labors over to their betters in humble gratitude.  That's the leftist game plan.

Conservatives must understand this psychology and fight back.  Many people who are immigrants like Mia Love, have conservative values as she does.  But the election results tell us that most of those people voted for Obama.  The reason is that they don't trust the Republican establishment.  Sarah Palin understood the need to reach out to women and minorities in the most important way, by supporting young, articulate and attractive candidates who are women and ethnic minorities.  That support says, "you are one of us".  "We trust you". "We want you in our party, not just as voters, but as leaders."   And here's something really important that Republicans need to understand, we don't need to win a majority of the "minority" vote.  We just need to win more of it.  Michael Medved recently pointed out that if Romney had won the same percentage of the Black and Hispanic vote that George W. Bush did, he would have won the election.

There are plenty,  perhaps a majority of "minority" voters who are pro-life, who favor hard work, thrift and taking care of your own.  There are many gay conservatives as well.  They need to be included in Republican leadership.  The Tea Party has welcomed all of these candidates and supported many of them.  It's time for the Republican leadership to do the same.