The Catholic Cricket

I heard some politician (I believe it was a House Democrat, but I could be mistaken) talking on some talk radio show (I think it was Michael Medved) as I was driving to or from some contract job or other.  As you can tell, the details are really sharp in my mind.

What is really sharp was his complaint that people who want to see some type of tax incentive for businesses to hire more people are clueless about the impact any such tax rebate (or however it would be handled) would really have.  His chief complaint: no business would hire a new employee, paying them $50,000 (including benefits) for a $10 tax break.  He went on to say something along the lines of ”it would have to be something like $1000, and that’s a lot of money” (very much paraphrased).

On another show at a different time (go figure….still no recollection of who or what show), an “expert” suggested a secondary problem to tax breaks for new employees: unfair competition.  If restaurant A is fully staffed, and brand new restaurant B opens up across the street, hiring an entirely new staff, B would get a huge tax break that A wouldn’t have access to.

So I thought “why not put the ideas together”.  Instead of giving a tax break for every new job, give a tax break for EVERY job.  Every single job gets a $2000 tax break.  Hows that for an incentive?

But wait, you say.  That’s a lot of money.  Is it?  The population of the US is roughly 308,841,458, give or take a little.  If every single man, woman, and child were employed…100% full employment and beyond, the tax incentive would cost $617.6 billion dollars.  That’s significantly less than the $787 billion stimulus plan from 2009. 

That would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars, keeping money in the hands of the businesses and giving them an incentive to unfreeze hiring.

I’ve been a bit busy, and thus haven’t had an opportunity to comment on things, but there’s one main thought I had after the underwear bomber inspired those charged with ensuring safety on airplanes to start using those ridiculous full-body scanners.

What a waste.

I don’t know how much those things cost, but they surely aren’t cheap.  And plenty of people will not want to go through them.  On top of that, I read recently that some people are trying to use religious reasons for not submitting to such a scan (“Thou shalt not undergo a full body scan”?), and if that’s enough to avoid such scrutiny, then even the false sense of safety that comes from such technology is elminated.

Wait…”false sense of safety”?  Of course.  The thought I had upon hearing that those scanners were going to be installed at various airports was: “Then terrorists will simply go deeper.  Implant a double-bladder inside the abdomen of the suicide bomber that contains the chemicals to be mixed.”  Think of those chemical glow-sticks that are everywhere around Halloween for the kids to carry.

And, of course, what did I see recently in the news?  Female suicide bombers with explosive “augmentations“.  How will the TSA respond to these things?  Mandatory x-rays and MRIs?

I don’t know what the right response is, but I do know that these full-body scanners won’t do much to improve safety.  The cost/effectiveness of them is negligible, and the work-arounds are plentiful and simple.

I like science.  I’ve always liked science.  I have great respect for the scientific process.  Which is why I find the “stolen” CRU documents to be so disturbing.  It’s not just the fact that scientists appear to have cooked the data to fit their preconceived notions, as bad as that is.  It’s not just that those same scientists appear to have put pressure on scientific journals to not publish opposing work.  Nor that they used the lack of published work to detract from the weight of anti-AGW arguments.  All of that is bad, and I think it hurts all of science.

What bothers me the most is the lack of outrage among other scientists.  There should be all sorts of complaints out there about how the scientific process has been undermined.  There should be people calling for the resignation or suspension of involved scientists pending review.  Scientists, corrupting science to drive a policy agenda?  It strikes at the very heart of what’s supposed to make science such a good tool: objective evaluation of collected data to explain what is observed and predict, again objectively, what will happen.

Good science relies on quite a few important legs.  One is objectivity.  Others include openness and repeatability.  The processes involved in adjusting the raw data to account for various factors (urban heat islands, movement of surface stations, etc.) should be clear and understandable.  It must be repeatable and reasonable.  Quality controls need to exist for any algorithms used to make those adjustments.  All of these things seem to be lacking in the case of AGW.

Without those things in place, it’s not science.  It’s just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts saying “trust us”.  Why should we trust them?  They’re not acting as scientists, they’re acting like magicians.  Their incantations are secret, not meant for the ears of mere mortals.  We are supposed to just accept their declarations without question.

And while I’m upset with the media’s poor coverage of this, and with the scientists involved, I’m even more upset with other scientists who should be raising integrity issues instead of defending this as “normal”.  They should be defending science, not scientists.  They should expect and demand that all scientists who put forth hypotheses give full disclosure of all relevant data needed to reproduce the results.

Where is the integrity in science?

Thank you.

A lot of the Catholic blogs I read are up in arms (figuratively, obviously) over Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker at this years graduation ceremony.  While I understand and share their dislike of this situation, I have a slightly different perspective I’ve not seen brought up anywhere.

It is no surprise that Dame issued the invitation.  The administration there has wandered all over the place with regards to the Catholic faith, doing some good things but also doing some incredibly stupid things, things that are out of alignment with Catholic values (at least, from my perspective).

No, it was no surprise at all.  They’ve issued such invitations to Presidents regularly (from what I recall and have read).  Not all in the recent past have accepted.  Carter did, Reagan did, Bush did, Clinton didn’t, Bush did.

What I question is why the President accepted. 

The charitable side of me says that President Obama was truly honored to be asked to speak at the ceremony, and delightedly accepted such an honor.  The cynical side of me, the side that is currently winning in my evaluation of the reasons, laughs at this idea.  My inner cynic thinks that it is another attempt to pander to Catholics.  To me, it is an attempt to placate his Catholic supporters, to say “I care about my Catholic friends” while doing so much that is so completely contrary to Catholic teaching.

I don’t think he expected the response he got…at least, not the amount.  But it’s all directed at Notre Dame, and not Obama.  He is not the target of the anger.  If it keeps up as is, directed almost entirely at Notre Dame, liberals will be able to paint this as just a bunch of ultraconservative kooks who are out of touch with America.  Their accomplices in the press will help push this concept.  And because the driving force is Obama’s stance on life issues, they’ll be able to use this to harm the pro-life movement.

Instead of simply railing at Notre Dame, this needs to be used to drive home why Obama is bad for America.  Yes, he shouldn’t be speaking at a Catholic commencement ceremony, he shouldn’t be receiving an honorary law degree from the premier US Catholic university.  These events are a travesty.  But they’re a travesty because of Obama’s stance and actions with regards to abortion and ESCR. 

He has written a death sentence for millions of innocent babies.  He’s made you and me pay for those deaths.  He’s done it in the name of scientific advancement and personal freedom and privacy, as if any of those justify killing another human being.  And now he’s trying to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of many Catholics by making them feel good because he paid attention to a Catholic university.

The sad thing is…it’ll work.  After all, a school as prestigious as Notre Dame wouldn’t give an honorary degree to someone unless they really deserved it, would they?

There’s all this hoopla surrounding the faux Congressional outrage (and media-generated public outrage).  While I agree in essence with my brother’s take on it, I have a slightly different response.

I’m outraged.

I’m not outraged that public money was used to pay the $165 million in bonuses.  Those were contractually-required bonuses, from what I understand.  No, I’m outraged that public money was given to AIG in the first place.  I’m outraged that $170 Billion of taxpayer money was given to AIG with no strings attached, no oversight, no direction on how it was to be used, and seemingly no planning.

I’m further outraged that some Congressional Democrats are now calling for a retroactive tax on those bonuses (and bonuses paid out to people working at other companies that took bailout money).  Excuse me?  Who do you think you are, to change the rules in place after the event has taken place, and penalizing people for something that was fine at the time of the action?  The action is complete, the transaction finalized, the taxes taken out and paid (at current rates), the bonuses delivered.  If you want to change the rules now, then the new rules apply from here on out.

I’m trying to find a good analogy, but I just can’t.  Changing a golfer’s handicap after the round and declaring the loser a winner?  Not quite.

Ahh…I think I have it.  You go out to a restaurant for a meal.  You order the meal, eat the meal, pay for the meal, and go home.  Two weeks later you get a bill from the restaurant saying that they had raised prices on their entrees and you owed them another $20 for that meal from two weeks ago.

That’s still not quite right.  Let’s try another.

Robin Hood robs from the townsfolk and gives to the nobility, to help them out of a bind they got themselves into through bad decisions (shouldn’t have sunk all that money into new expensive villages where the villagers couldn’t afford to stay there).  The nobility then pay some townsfolk some extra money for being loyal workers.  Robin Hood gets pissed, gets a list of those so paid, and steals the money away from them again, even though he had originally required the nobility to give those townsfolk that extra money.

Man, Robin Hood is a jerk.

Well, that’s about the best I can do.  Maybe someone else out there can come up with a better analogy.

This is really well done:

The proposed stimulus package keeps growing and growing, and is now (if I recall correctly) over $900 billion.

$900,000,000,000, spent on what?  All sorts of weird things that won’t do diddly to stimulate the economy.  Well, here’s my own idea.  Since the government is going to go into debt by nearly another trillion dollars, they should just give it to the people.

According to the US POPClock Projection, there are currently 305,770,596 people in the US.  Giving each person $3000 would cost $917,311,788,000.  Mind you, that’s $3000 per person, so a family of four would get $12,000, while a family of 7 (mine) would get $21,000.

If that money is used responsibly (ha!), people would be able to get current with outstanding bills, and wipe out a significant amount of debt.  For example, I would pay off several medical bills, pay off the car, and wipe out most of my wife’s student loan.  My doctors and hospitals would have additional money, instead of receivables.  The loan holder for my car would have more money they could then turn around and loan out again.  My single credit card company would get a little bit of money which would help them as well.  Banks would get an influx of money as people (hopefully) wipe out unsecured debt.  For other people, they could catch up on mortgage payments, helping to stabilize the housing market.

On top of all of that, it would free up regular income that is currently going to feed these loans and outstanding bills.  I’d be able to spend money on other things, instead of paying for interest.  (I’d be smart about it, and much of it would go into savings so I can get a down-payment ready for the house we’re in now.)  I could buy some much-needed new shoes instead of dragging out the repayment of medical bills.  I could spend money on new things instead of still paying for things that were new a year ago.

Unemployed people would get an additional buffer to give them a little additional time to find a new job.

Sure, a bunch of people would be irresponsible with a sudden influx of money like that, but come on…would they really be doing worse than the heap of government pork currently in the bill?

Please pray for Amy Welborn and her family.  Her husband Michael Dubruiel passed away today.  They have a daughter and two sons.

Senator Kent Conrad, speaking on the vote to confirm Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury, offered the following rationale:

One committee member, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a former tax commissioner, said in normal times, Geithner’s failure to pay his taxes would have led Conrad to oppose the nomination. 

“But these are not normal times,” Conrad said. He said the economy’s not “out of the woods” and touted Geithner’s extensive experience at a time when the country needs a treasury secretary imminently. 

What poppycock.  What makes now abnormal?  Housing slumps?  Economic changes?  Rising unemployment?  That’s all typical stuff for any country.  There are ups and downs in life.  That’s normal.

Think about what Conrad’s logic allows for.  In “normal” times, I wouldn’t  want a bank robber to run Citigroup, but since he has so much experience with money we have to hire this one.  In “normal” times, I wouldn’t want a homicidal maniac in a key leadership position at the DoD, but given the state of the world, we really need this homicidal maniac in place.

We are always in “normal” times.  There are always critical events occurring in the world, and we need to react to them.  That’s a part of living.  Using such a rationale in justifying the appointment of an unfit person to the position of Treasury Secretary is disingenuous at best.

What Conrad is saying is that ethics don’t really matter when times are tough.  Except that’s when they really matter.

Maybe Geithner will do a really good job as Treasury Secretary.  I hope so.  Maybe it was an honest mistake (doubtful, in my mind), or Geithner is truly repentant for his past actions.  But I don’t buy Conrad’s implied argument that it would take too long to find a suitable alternative (surely the Obama transition team had a list of possible nominees), or that Geithner is the only person who can fix things, and that therefore one must