Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article on the Senate’s proposal to lower the age for people to ‘buy in’ to Medicare and lower the income requirements on Medicaid.  It’s an amazing solution to our healthcare problem, since both of these programs are scheduled to run out of money in the not-to-distant future (even with their present rate of growth).   They also seem to have forgotten the large number baby boomers who will automatically qualify for Medicare in the next few years.

The article points out:

“Medicare reimburses doctors and hospitals at rates 70% to 80% below those of private insurers, which means below the actual treatment costs in many cities and regions. Providers either eat these losses–about half of U.S. hospitals are running a deficit or close to it–or they raise prices for private payers. This cost-shifting isn’t dollar for dollar, but all empirical research shows that it adds tens of billions of dollars to consumer health bills, and this will accelerate if several million new patients are added to Medicare. That means higher prices for health insurance.”

This means that as more people move into Medicare and Medicaid, more financial pressure is put on doctors and hospitals.  One of the other unintended consequences from this idea would be the chance that employers would drop healthcare for anyone over 55.  Why would a private business pay for something the government will provide?

The bottom line here is that the Senate is desperate to pass a bill labeled ‘healthcare reform’ and send it to the President for his signature.  In their rush to do this, they have put aside common sense and the interests of the people who elected them.  All the Democrats really want is a bill passed before Christmas.

The alternative healthcare proposals (which haven’t gotten much publicity) from the Republicans include tort reform, portability of insurance across state lines, insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help people afford health insurance.  Those are the reforms that would actually save money and save American healthcare!

On December 7, 2009, wattsupwiththat posted an article by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, about the forces behind the global warming scam that is currently being attempted.

Mr. Coleman lists those forces as follows:

(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,

(2) The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,

(3) Environmentalists who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more “natural”, primitive lifestyle,

(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,

(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that “the sky is falling” is the best headline of them all,

(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.

The total financial resources and power structure behind the attempted global warming scam are staggering.

Mr. Coleman concludes at the end of this article:

“There is no significant man-made global warming, there has not been any in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Carbon dioxide is a natural trace gas in the atmosphere with very limited greenhouse impact on temperatures and naturally produced CO2 greatly exceeds the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. There is no tipping point when the impact of CO2 sets in to cause an increased impact because of “forcing.” The bad science behind the global warming myth is based on a hypothesis that has failed.”

When you consider that the news coming out of Copenhagen includes such items as poor countries demanding reparations from wealthy countries to compensate for wealthy countries’ supposed contributions to global warming, you begin to wonder what this debate is really all about.  When you further investigate only to find that many of the loudest proponents of global warming coincidentally will make millions of dollars in a ‘green energy’ economy, you really begin to wonder what is going on.  The fact remains that we have a carbon based world economy.  When the alternate fuel economy is practical enough, it will naturally (and probably gradually) take over.  The automobile did not replace the horse and buggy overnight–it took assembly lines and cost measures to make the car practical.  The infrastructure that supported the car followed.  I believe alternative energy is part of our future–I just don’t think it can be forced–I think it will be a natural occurence.  There will be people who will make a lot of money when that happens, but it will be the result of entrepreneurship–not politics! 

The Canada Free Press is doing a better job of reporting what is going on in America than most of the American media.  On Tuesday they posted a story about the fact that while Social Security recipients received no Cost of Living Adjustment this year, Congress received a “$4,700.00 cost of living allowance or whatever you want to call it in 2010.”

Congress has arranged it so their raises happen automatically–they don’t have to go on record as having voted for them.  I just want to know how come if there was no increase in the cost of living, Congress got a raise. 

The article at the Canada Free Press makes a few suggestions as to some basic restraints we can put on Congress to end the financial gravy train many of our Congressmen find themselves on.  It is a sensible list, and I strongly recommend that we take action on some of the items on the list. 

According to CBS News on November 6, 2009, there are 237 millionaires in Congress.

The article at CBS News reports:

“The median reportable net worth for members of the House in 2008 was $622,254.

“Levinthal notes that “in some cases, [lawmakers’] wealth is being derived from the very companies that in many cases benefit from the taxpayers.”

“”The top companies at which members of Congress are investing, many of them are TARP recipients that have received billions and billions of dollars from you and me,” he said.

“Among the companies in which members of Congress hold assets are Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

It seems to me that the raise given to Congress would be better spent given to the Social Security recipients.  Somehow I think the percentage of millionaires in that group is considerably lower! 

According to CNSNews today House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (a Democrat from Maryland) has stated that new laws would have to be passed in order for leftover TARP money to be used for job creation rather than to pay down the national debt. 

According to the article:

“…current law (says) that the money has to go to financial services institutions and that the returned funds would pay down the deficit.”

There is roughly $200 billion of TARP funds that is unspent, and a number of  banks have been paying back TARP money ahead of schedule. 

Representative Jeb Hensarling (a Republican from Texas) stated in a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, “TARP was never intended to be used as a revolving slush fund to pay for the (Democratic) Majority’s political, economic or social agenda,” he continued. “Any unused or repaid TARP funds should be returned to those who originally paid for it – the American taxpayers.” 

Hensarling told Pelosi that “current law states that repaid TARP funds are to be used to reduce the debt” and reminded Pelosi that she had told Americans in September 2008 that they would be “repaid in full.” Indeed, before passing the bill that created TARP last year, Pelosi said it would “include a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full.”

I think we need to hold Mrs. Pelosi to her word and not let her spend TARP funds for anything other than to pay down the deficit!

The sources for this article are The Hill and Hot Air.  My focus is on Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska, and his stand for life.  Senator Nelson has stated that no federal funds should pay for abortions.  The banning of the use of federal funds to pay for abortions has been in place for 30 years. 

The article in The Hill points out:

“”No one should use the healthcare bill to expand or restrict abortion,” Reid said during an emotional floor speech. “And no one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good healthcare.”

“Six Democrats voted with Nelson: Sens. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.).”

The two Republican Senators from Maine voted against the Nelson amendment. 

Senator Nelson had stated that he would not support any bill that used public funds for abortion, but Hot Air quotes his statement after the vote:

“I want to continue to work on this,” he said, not ruling out his support, at least “not at this point in time. I want to continue to work on the project we’re working on… This makes it harder right now [to support the bill]. We’ll have to see if they can make it easier.”

That really does not sound like a statement from someone who is willing to stand on his principles; it sounds more like someone who is waiting to see what he can get for his vote.

There is a website called the National Center for Policy Analysis which supports consumer driven healthcare.  It is a good place to gather information on what is happening with healthcare legislation and what the alternative proposals to the current healthcare bill are and how they would impact healthcare.

The Hill today is reporting on some of the ways in which the stimulus money was spent.  I am sure that some of the political connections involved are purely coincidental. 

$5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus went to Burson-Marsteller, a global public-relations and communications firm headed by Mark Penn.  It preserved three jobs.  Mark Penn was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pollster in the 2008 presidential election. 

The article points out:

“Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was issued to Penn’s polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, according to federal records.”Federal records also show that a former adviser to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign received nearly $70,000 from that contract to help alert viewers in difficult-to-reach communities that their televisions would soon no longer receive broadcast signals.”

Wow.  Other instances of questionable spending cited:

Two million dollars in stimulus money went to build a replica railroad as a tourist attraction in Carson City, Nev.

A dinner cruise company based in Chicago received nearly $1 million in funds to combat terrorism.

The State University of New York at Buffalo won $390,000 to study young adults who drink malt liquor and smoke marijuana. The National Institutes of Health got $219,000 in funds to study whether female college students are more likely to “hook up” after drinking alcohol.

The article lists more examples.  Please keep these examples in mind as the debate on spending the TARP money begins! 

Today Townhall.com posted an article about the suggested economic recovery program proposed by President Obama.

The article points out:

“…Republicans cried foul, claiming that the leftover and repaid TARP money must be used exclusively for deficit reduction or additional bank bailouts, as the law setting it up spells out, and not for what amounts to an expensive new stimulus program to create jobs.

“The stimulus money clearly was a spending bill. TARP was a loan _ a loan to be paid back. And we know that a number of the banks are, in fact, paying it back,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “So I don’t think raiding a loan program to launch another spending spree is the best way to create jobs.””

The lesson here is that it is unwise to give Washington (or any other government) money.  If they see money, they feel obligated to spend it.  Massachusetts residents are still paying a temporary increase in personal income tax that was instituted in 1989.  We need to remind the President to follow the laws that were part of the origination of the TARP program.

Today’s Los Angeles Times reported that each job ‘created’ by the stimulus problem has cost $246,436. 

The article reports:

“According to its own shovel-ready recovery numbers, the nearly 11-month-old Democratic administration claims to have created 640,329 good ol’ American jobs so far this year by spending $157.8 billion of that stimulus money.”

“…Total compensation earned by the average American payroll employee during the month of October was $59,867 on an annualized basis, Pethokoukis reports. That’s only 24% of the nearly quarter-million dollars it costs the federal government to create that spot.”

The above numbers show why the government is not the proper vehicle for job creation.  We need to lower taxes in corporate America and allow the private sector to use their extra money to grow their businesses and create economic growth. 

In an article posted at Power Line yesterday, John Hinderaker pointed out, “The United States is the only country in the world that deliberately fails to develop its own energy resources. Other than instituting price controls, this is the single most destructive economic policy that a country can pursue, which is why no one does it except us.”

So what is happening here and why?  Mr. Hinderaker points out that Brazil has a dynamic and growing economy and is pursuing oil production at a rapid pace. 

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported:

“Petrobras, which until recently was little known outside oil circles, has launched a five-year, $174 billion project to provide platforms, rigs, support vessels and drilling systems to develop tens of billions of barrels of oil. Energy officials here project that Brazil — still an oil importer five years ago — will in the next decade have one of the world’s biggest oil reserves.”

Who are the investors in Petrobras?  According to the Washington Post:

“Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg.”

This is how the scenario works.  If America can be prevented from developing her energy sources (regardless of what the ‘green’ movement is doing, we are a carbon-based society), we will be forced to buy oil and petroleum products from other countries.  This cripples our economy while making the major moneyman of the Democrat party a very rich man. 

We need to develop our own energy resources both for economic and security reasons.  If we don’t, all of us will be living in a third world country in a very short time.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared carbon dioxide a danger to human health.   Carbon dioxide has now been declared a pollutant. 

According to the article:

“Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act.

“The EPA signaled last April that it was inclined to view heat-trapping pollution as a threat to public health and welfare and began to take public comments under a formal rulemaking. The action marked a reversal from the Bush administration, which had declined to aggressively pursue the issue.”

This declaration by the EPA opens the door for a war on global warming without the consent or input of Congress.  It takes Congress out of the equation and puts it solely in the hands of the EPA.  The EPA can now begin to regulate all industry in this country that has any relationship to carbon dioxide.  Since carbon dioxide is the gas we exhale when we breathe, I don’t think there are going to be too many industries that are going to escape the control of the EPA.  If the EPA is allowed to continue unchecked, we will be quietly going down the road to becoming a third world country.  Just for the record, trees absorb carbon dioxide.  It’s part of their growth process.  To declare it a pollutant is ridiculous.

 A blog entitled Health Care BS has posted a list (complete with page numbers) of the 111 new bureaucracies that the current healthcare bill will create.  Obviously, I am not going to post the entire list, but here are a few highlights:

• 19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

• 24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

• 25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

• 36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

• 48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

• 59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

• 65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

• 78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

• 86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

• 99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765

After you read even this partial list, is it possible to believe that this healthcare bill is going to save money?  Burearacracies never shrink–they only grow!  What is the cost of one new agency–office space, staff, equipment, etc.?  

This bill needs to be stopped and a reasonable one written–tort reform, portability of insurance across state lines, insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help people afford insurance.  That bill could be written in a way that would actually save money and not create more ineffective government! 

Remember Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius assuring us that the guidelines that were recently released stating that women didn’t need mammograms before age 50 would have no impact on anything.  Women just needed to talk with their doctors and follow their advice.  Well, guess what.  That’s not what’s happening.

The North County Times in southern California reported yesterday that:

“The eligibility age for state-subsidized breast cancer screening has been raised from 40 to 50 by the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will also temporarily stop enrollment in the breast cancer screening program.” 

That state’s decision was announced December 1 with an effective date of January1.  I thought this was exactly what we were told would not happen. 

The article points out:

“The federal recommendation, made Nov. 16 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, has encountered strong opposition.

“The task force later retreated a bit, adjusting its recommendation to state that mammograms for women ages 40 to 49 should be considered by their doctors on an individual basis.

“Moreover, private health care systems such as Scripps Health have rejected the federal task force’s recommendation, choosing instead to keep the existing standard, which calls for a mammogram at age 40, with annual mammograms thereafter.

“That means doctors will be using two medical practice guidelines, distinguished not by knowledge but by the pocketbook, said Dr. Jack Klausen, a gynecologist and obstetrician who practices at Vista Community Clinic.

“If we are in a situation where we don’t screen, but the private-practice doctor can screen, then we are actually not practicing to the standard of care,” Klausen said.”

This is called rationing healthcare to decrease cost.  It is what happens when the government controls healthcare.  The question at hand is, “Do you want the federal government to have the ability to engage in this sort of foolishness?”

Yesterday’s Telegraph.co.uk posted an article on the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen climate-change summit.  The local limousine company, which normally has twelve vehicles on the road, will have two hundred at the beginning of the summit.  The total number of limousines for the week is already over 1,200.  Since there are not enough limousines in the country to meet the demand, they are having to drive them in from Germany and Sweden.  Among all the limousines, there are five electric cars or hybrids.  To quote Majken Friss Jorgensen, the managing director of the largest limousine service in the city, “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”  

The airport says it is expecting more than 140 extra private jets during the conference. 

The article states:

“According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.”

I guess leading by example is not a major tenet of the global-warming crowd!

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog reported yesterday:

“Thomas Joscelyn reports that former Guantanamo detainee Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish has emerged as a leading ideologue and theologian for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – one of the strongest al Qaeda affiliates in the world. Rubaish was capture on the front lines at Tora Bora. We held him at Gitmo from late 2001 until December 2006. Then, the government transferred him to Saudi Arabia where he was placed in the Saudi “rehabilitation program” for jihadists. However, Rubaish escaped from Saudi Arabia and fled to Yemen.”

I truly think there are some problems with the concept of the Saudi “rehabilitation program” for jihadists. 

Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish is now the deputy of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula where part of his job includes providing the theological justifications for the organization’s terrorism against the Saudi government.  This is rather amazing since the statement he made to his interrogators at Guantanamo that resulted in his freedom was:

“Before I mentioned that the United States is a partner with Saudi Arabia, so how could I consider it an enemy of Islam if it’s a friend of Saudi Arabia?”

How many innocent people have died because we decided that this person was not our enemy in the war on terror? 

It gets worse.  Marc Falkoff, a lawyer for some of the Guantanamo detainees, published a book called Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak.  One of Rubaish’s poems was in this book and was described by Attorney Falkoff as “most moving to me and that I find most literary.”   Now Mr. Rubaish is free to use his literary talents to convince Muslims to join him in the jihad against the west.

This is one reason that closing Guantanamo is short-sighted and dangerous! 

On November 29th, the New York Times reported that Switzerland had voted to ban the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques.  In a related story on November 30, Fox News reported the following:

“Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.”

Wow.  There are a lot of things here to look at. 

Time Magazine reported on March 19, 2008:

“The Vatican has confirmed that it is negotiating for permission to build the first church in Saudi Arabia.”

Has Amnesty International commented on the lack of Christian churches in Muslim countries?

Blogger News Network reported on April 24, 2007:

“There are a 900 000 Philippinos in Saudi, 90 percent Christian, and an estimated 600 000 Keralan Christians from India, not to mention Hindus, not to mention Christians from Africa, Lebanon, or Palestine. Yet there is no Christian church in Saudi Arabia.  More prosperous Catholics can fly to the small Gulf states for Christmas and other feast days. Yet there is something misearable for a Catholic Christian not to be able to receive the sacraments, and the idea that small groups of Christians meeting for rosary or bible study face arrest.”

The Swiss have voted to ban the construction of minarets, and the EU and Amnesty International cried ‘foul,’ but somehow Amnesty International closes its eyes to the lack of religious freedom in the Muslim world.

Will the vote of the Swiss people for a law in their country which affects only their country be allowed to stand?

Today’s American Thinker has an update on what is happening in the case of Rifqa Bary.  Rifqa was the Muslin teenager who converted to Christianity then fled to Florida because she feared for her safety.  The Florida court returned Rifqa to Ohio and placed her in foster care with the hope of eventually reuniting her with her parents.  The update is on Rifqa’s situation, but also on the apparent bias of the reporter covering the story.

The American Thinker article points out that the courts are ignoring Islamic Law, which states that if a person who has left Islam does not return to the religion, he is to be killed.  It doesn’t sound to me as if that leaves a lot of room for negotiation.

Rifqa has been kept pretty much in isolation.  The few visitors she is permitted are fingerprinted. 

The article points out:

“Hussein Wario, a native of Kenya and, like Rifqa, an apostate from Islam, tells the truth that Heagney ignores: “I am very concerned for Rifqa. If the judge reunites her with her family, you know that she will either be severely persecuted or killed here in the United States or elsewhere. An ardent Muslim father would rather kill his child in order to preserve his family from ridicule (from fellow Muslims) than see him or her alive. Mr. Mohamed Bary would be hailed as a hero to Muslims if he were to carryout-God forbid-Islamic judgment on Rifqa because she refuses to revert to Islam.””

 

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by John Fund with a possible explanation of why the Democrats are so determined to pass a healthcare reform bill that is opposed by a majority of Americans.  According to the article, “Public support for the bill averages only 39.2% backing in all polls compiled by Pollster.com.”

So why are the Democrats so determined to pass the bill?  76% of Democrats back the healthcare reform bill–the Democrats in Congress are afraid that if they do not pass a healthcare bill, the base of the Democrat party will not vote in 2010 and many Democrat Congressmen will join the ranks of the unemployed. 

The article points out:

“That fear is backed up by a new poll taken for the Daily Kos, the left-wing Web site: 81% of self-described Republicans say they are certain or likely to vote in 2010 compared to 65% of independent voters and only 56% of Democrats. “Democrats have simply not been given enough of a reason to come out and vote yet,” writes liberal blogger David Dayen. “The left is waiting for that long-promised ‘change’ they can believe in.””

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, our Congress has stopped representing the people who elected them and started representing their own self interest.  I guess we just need to keep voting people out of office until we find people who will represent us.

The Hill is reporting today that Senator Sherrod Brown’s
(D-Ohio), Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)are planning to sign on to Republican Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and David Vitter of Louisiana’s amendment that would require lawmakers to join a public
insurance plan included in healthcare legislation. 

The article states:

“A Coburn spokesman, however, pointed out that Brown actually
voted against the Coburn amendment when the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions (HELP) Committee debated it.

“”We’re delighted to have Sen. Brown’s support of Dr. Coburn’s
amendment, particularly after he voted against it in HELP Committee,” said
spokesman John Hart. “We’re glad that he shares our view that members of
Congress should lead by example and enroll themselves in the public
option.””

If members of Congress are willing to lead by example and be covered by their own health insurance bill, I might be willing to take another look at the bill.  Until then, I remain skeptical.

Andy McCarthy posted an article at The Corner on National Review Online stating that he has information from reliable sources that Louay Safi has been brought to Fort Hood as a instructor to lecture our troops headed for Afghanistan on Islam.  Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA),
and served as research director at the International Institute of
Islamic Thought (IIIT).

According to Mr. McCarthy:

“ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land
Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted
co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding
Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no
surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood’s umbrella entity for Islamist
organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to
enable Muslims in North America “to adopt Islam as a complete way of
life” — i.e., to further the Brotherhood’s strategy of establishing
enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an
essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood’s rally-cry
remains, to this day, “Allah is our objective. The
Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in
the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood’s spiritual
guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for
attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam
will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.”“

Congress has already begun its investigation of the party crashers at the White House.  Do you suppose they might be willing to investigate who chose this man for this job?    

According to the U. S. Department of Labor the unemployment rate has dropped to 10 per cent.  If you go to their website, you can get a little more information on how the numbers actually stack up.

Among the major worker groups, unemployment rates for adult men (10.5 percent), adult women (7.9 percent), teenagers (26.7 percent), whites (9.3 percent), blacks (15.6 percent), and Hispanics (12.7 percent) showed little change in November. The unemployment rate for Asians was 7.3 percent, not seasonally adjusted.

I might mention here that historically, every time the minimum wage is raised, teenage unemployment goes up.

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs fell by 463,000 in November. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) rose by 293,000 to 5.9 million. The percentage of unemployed persons jobless for 27 weeks or more increased by 2.7 percentage points to 38.3 percent.

Employment in professional and business services rose by 86,000 in November. Temporary help services accounted for the majority of the increase, adding 52,000 jobs. Since July, temporary help services employment has risen by 117,000.

This does not paint a great picture for the future.  The number I was looking for but didn’t find was how many civilian jobs versus government jobs were added to the economy.  The rise in temporary help seems to me to be an indication that businesses are unsure about the future because of the economic policies of the current administration.

As the scientific community begins to deal with the fallout from the leaked emails from the CRU, the weather (as usual) is simply weird.   Tuesday’s Houston Chronicle was discussing the possibility of snow in their area on Friday.  New England was in the 60’s today with the possibility of snow on Sunday!  The article in the Houston Chronicle points out that Houston generally gets snow about every four years, and never this early.  At some point I think we as people need to realize that we are simply not important enough to cause weather changes–the weather changed before we had the industrial revolution and it will change long after we are gone.  I do think we need to deal with pollution in practical way in order to take care of the planet, but the current ideas on global warming are nothing more than wealth redistribution programs.  I hope someone at the global warming summit in Copenhagen has some common sense!

According to Tuesday’s New Haven Register, the fourteen New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotion in 2003 due to a racial quota system, will be promoted.  A formal promotion ceremony is scheduled for December 10th. 

Last week the Civil Service Commission, in a unanimous vote, certified two 2003 promotional lists for fire captain and lieutenant, clearing the way for the city to present the lists to the fire commission. 

The victory here is for people who believe that people should be promoted on merit regardless of the color of their skin.  If a minority is not doing well on a specific test, spend some time teaching the members of that minority what they need to know in order to be promoted, don’t penalize the people who scored well on the test.

Martin Luther King, Jr., wanted color blindness–not color preference.

According to NBC News New York yesterday, New York City officials were not consulted by the Justice Department before deciding to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in civilian courts in New York City.  (As an aside, where are they going to find a ‘jury of their peers?’)   Mayor Bloomberg was informed the morning that Attorney General Eric Holder made the announcement. 

According to the article:

“The terror suspects are expected to arrive in New York early next year, at least 45 days after the Justice Department formally notifies Congress of its plans to bring the suspects here.”

New York Police Department Commissioner Ray Kelly has stated, ” The fact is we weren’t asked.  And we will make the best of a situation.  We weren’t.”

Because of the budget crunch that many city and state governments are currently facing, New York City has fewer policemen today that it did on September 11, 2001.  I hope that the federal government will at least increase the security funding for the City during the trial.

Last week, the Telegraph.co.uk reported that five members of the Australian Congress have resigned rather than follow their party and vote for Australia’s version of Cap and Trade legislation.  Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist and global-warming skeptic, pointed out last summer that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, which are both dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal.

The article observes:

“For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW  (Anthropogenic global warming) is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.”

I agree. 

Obviously there were numerous articles written last night and this morning about the President’s speech at West Point last night.  The sources for this article are a piece by Rich Lowry in the New York Post, an article by Chris Stirewalt in the Washington Examiner, and an article by Michael Rubin at Forbes.com. 

Rich Lowry begins his analysis of the speech by giving the President credit for stepping up to the plate and sending most of the additional soldiers that General McChrystal requested.  He then mentions the President’s commitment to begin bringing the troops home in 18 months.  Mr. Lowry points out that some Americans see that as a commitment to a speedy victory, others see it as a promise to get the troops home well before the next presidential election.

Chris Stirewalt points out:

“To anti-war liberals, it was a reminder of their revulsion every time George W. Bush used the (9/11) attacks as a pretext for his foreign policy. From the moment Bush grabbed the bullhorn at the ruins of the World Trade Center, they felt that he had co-opted a national tragedy for his own agenda.

“So it came as a particularly cruel irony for many of the president’s most ardent supporters when he argued for escalating a war most liberals believe should be ended, framing his argument in the same terms that launched the Bush doctrine.”

Mr. Stirewalt points out the President Obama won his party’s nomination on an anti-war platform.  He regards last night’s pledge by President Obama to increase troops while promising their withdrawal as cynical.  There are some real doubts that the war can be successfully wrapped up in eighteen months.

Michael Rubin stated that he felt the President ignored the advice of General McChrystal by sending only 30,000 troops.  He points out that General McChrystal is experienced in counterinsurgency and asked for the number of troops he needed to get the job done quickly and efficiently.  To send him less is to undermine the mission.  Mr. Rubin points out why the commitment should be open-ended depending on conditions on the ground.  The message the President is sending to the Afghanis is ‘we have your back for the next eighteen months, after that you are on your own.’  All the Taliban now has to do is go into the villages and say, ‘the Americans are leaving in eighteen months, and we will still be here.  Watch what you do.’   It’s the equivalent of giving the mob the names and locations of all the people currently in the federal witness protection program.  Anyone who helps us for the next eighteen months will be putting his life on the line.

The content of the speech was not totally unexpected.  This was a speech that was designed to please everyone and wound up making very few people happy.