Where's the Logic?

It's college graduation time here in Gunnison.  Seeing all the college students leaving campus last Friday, I was reminded of a story a former employee  told me about a recent grad who received a degree in philosophy.  The philosopher, Brad, ran  into an old high school buddy, Scott,  at the mall.  Brad mentioned that he had just received a degree in philosophy.  "What good is philosophy?" asked Scott.  "Philosophy is the practice of thinking rationally and using questions to come to logical conclusions," said Brad.  "For example, do you own a dog?"  "Yes, I do" answered Scott.  "So, you must live in a house, rather than an apartment," reasoned Brad.  "Yes."  "So, when did you get married?" asked Brad.  Scott was startled.  "How did you know I was married?"  Brad said, "through logic.  It is reasonable to assume that since you have a dog and a dog needs a yard, you must live in a house.  Knowing that you only have a high school education, the only way you could afford a house is with two incomes, so you must be married.  That's the kind of logical reasoning you learn in philosophy classes."  "Well, I guess college isn't worthless after all," thought Scott.

A little later, Scott runs into another friend in the mall.  "Hey Keith, I just talked to Brad, and you'll never believe what he went to college for -- philosophy!"  Keith laughs, "sounds about right, a waste of four years and a lot of money."  Scott says, "no, it's really kind of interesting.  It taught him how to reason out stuff.  For example, do you have a dog?"  "No," says Keith.  A stunned Scott shouts, "Dude, I didn't know you were gay!!!"

I think one of the biggest failings of our education system today is that students aren't taught to think critically.  If they learn at all, it is usually a regurgitation of whatever the teacher tells the class.  That carries over to adult life, where the public is easily led or misled by the media.  Last week Americans received great news.  Usama bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers in Pakistan.  The news was greeted with celebration and unquestioning praise for President Obama's decision to take out the terrorist.

Only the most inept administration in American history could turn this accomplishment into the series of logical questions it has become in only a week.  First, it was reported that the president personally changed the plan to take out bin Laden.  The military suggested a bombing of the compound where bin Laden was living in Pakistan.  The president insisted that the American people will want "proof that we killed bin Laden."  So he, in turn, insisted on a raid by the military to capture or kill bin Laden in order to provide the proof America would require.  When a firefight resulted from the raid, it was reported that bin Laden and other terrorists used women as shields to protect them from the Americans.  Usama was killed in the resulting battle.  His body was taken by the Americans to ship where, after a 40 minute Muslim ceremony, he was buried at sea, in compliance with Muslim traditions.  Or so the administration said.  Next, the president decided not to release pictures of bin Laden's because it would inflame Muslim sentiments around the world.

So, let's look at this critically.  First of all, ever since September 12, 2001, we have been told that Muslims were not responsible for the terrorist attacks.  The attacks were carried out by radicals that practiced a perverted version of Islam.  If that is the case, why is the Obama administration concerned first of all about providing a traditional burial for bin Laden?  He perverts Islam to justify his terrorist attacks, right?  So what true Muslim would be offended if his body was brought to the United States?  Next, the president delays the attack on bin Laden's compound from August 2010 until April 2011 in order to plan and approve a ground attack rather than a bombing to provide "proof" of bin Laden's death.  So, the soldiers follow orders and take photographs of bin Laden's body, record the ceremony and burial onboard the ship and dump the body (the only "proof" of his death) overboard in an undisclosed location.  Then the marginal proof provided by the photograph will not be made public, once again to avoid enraging Muslims around the world. Yesterday the White House announced the photographs will only be shown to selected senators in the CIA building.  Logic, anyone?

Next came reports about how bin Laden's hideout was finally located.  It seems that, while being waterboarded,  Khalid Shiek Mohammed gave up the nickname of one of bin Laden's most trusted couriers.  Several years later, another terrorist - captured in Iraq, by the way, connected the courier's nickname to his real name.  By tracking down this courier the CIA was able to find bin Laden.  This information created a dilemma for the Obama administration.  Since day one of Obama's presidency, he and his administration have claimed that the CIA never got useful information from "enhanced interrogation" techniques like waterboarding.   One of the president's first acts was to discontinue the practice.  Then came the inconvenient truth about Iraq's tie to terrorism, one of the "Bush lies" to justify invading Iraq.  Now the great news about killing the most wanted terrorist in the world has turned into a nightmare of spin for the administration. 

Finally the most illogical contradiction of all.  Despite the original stories of the firefight, cowards using their wives as human shields, and Usama bin Laden going down in a twenty minute gunbattle, the story emerged that the most feared terrorist in the world died unarmed.  In fact, the Pakistani government reported that no weapons were found at the compound.  It seems that the assault team's orders were to kill, not capture, bin Laden.  Personally, I think it was the right decision.  But if waterboarding, simulating drowning to gain information to save American lives, goes against our core principles, where is the logic in ordering the killing of an unarmed man?  How is shooting an unarmed, "confused, doddery old man" in the head in line with our core principles, as outlined by Eric Holder and Barack Obama?

I believe these questions will be hushed up, then ridiculed just like the birth certificate issue was.  Just like the president's birth in Hawaii, there is no reasonable doubt that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  The problem is that the so-called "most transparent administration" in the nation's history refuses to be transparent again.  I think that eventually the administration will produce the photographs of bin Laden's body as proof of his death.  Just as was the case with the birth certificate, the proof will allow the president and his minions in the media to ridicule those calling for the proof as racist, uneducated, hillbilly, "deathers" who are "clinging to their guns and religion."  Probably just in time for the 2012 elections.   Now there's the logic!!!  

An Electric, or at least Hybrid Mess

The Obama administration has never been confused for the Bush administration when it comes to energy policy.    Even as a presidential candidate, Senator Obama told reporters that under his policy, "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."  Now this is not like the Sarah Palin "quote" that she could see Russia from her front porch.  That was actually Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live spoofing Palin, although you couldn't convince thousands of Palin-haters of that fact.  Senator/candidate Obama actually said his plan would cause the cost of energy for every American, no matter what their income, to "necessarily skyrocket."  And no news organization or "journalist" asked him about this plan, before or after the the election.  In fact, outside of a few conservative radio talk show hosts, you will never hear anything at all about this plan.


All right, the president plans to make our electricity rates skyrocket.  Surely he won't mess with our other energy costs too, right?  What is the president's plan to reduce the emissions from our cars?  Well, first of all he had to takeover a car maker - GM.  Then he had to force GM to manufacture a car that the American buyer didn't want or need and that GM was not ready to manufacture, the all-electric Volt.  Now the Volt may be the "car of the future," as the president of GM - Barack Obama claimed.  But as one reviewer said, "only if your future is 40 miles away.  Actually 20 if you want to get back home again."  That's right, the Volt has a range of 40 miles in its all-electric version.  After these horrible reviews, Chevrolet announced that the Volt now has a greatly improved range.  They basically turned it into a hybrid.  You know the kind of car that Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have been producing for years.  Only it's smaller and not as reliable as the Honda, Toyota, or Nissan.  Oh yeah, it's more expensive too.  Only $40,000 for a subcompact car.  Who doesn't want to pay $40,000 for a Cavalier or Focus?  American car buyers, apparently.  In January and February combined Chevrolet sold 602 Volts, up from its double digit sales from each of the previous four months.  This incredible increase proved that Americans were starting to warm up to the idea of an overpriced, unreliable clown car, right?  Well not exactly.  They also announced sales of over 5,000 Tahoes.  If you are not familiar with the Tahoe; and judging from the lack of sales by the company, most Americans are not, the Tahoe has enough space to haul everyone in my hometown of Graham, TX and their luggage on a two week vacation.  With enough room leftover to pick up a few souvenirs on the trip.  While that be a slight exaggeration, it would take the vacation budget of Graham to buy the fuel needed for a long trip.  The new fuel-efficient hybrid version of the Tahoe gets 20 miles per gallon!  So obviously gas mileage is not a major concern for the American car buyer. 

So what is the president of GM, Barack Obama, to do to encourage Americans to pay too much for a car they don't really want?  Go back to the engineering drawing board and design an electric car big enough, reliable enough, and efficient enough that the buyer will be happy to pay for it?  Don't know what country you're from, but that's not Barack Obama's America!  His plan is to take taxpayer money and give it to anyone who buys an all-electric car, in the form of a $7,500 tax credit to the buyer.  That would make the Volt a $32,500 embarrassment, rather than a $40,000 embarrassment.  Well, apparently, not enough people that pay enough taxes (49% pay nothing at all, but that's for another post) to make a $7500 credit worthwhile fell for the scam.  Those folks generally travel more than 40 miles per trip and carry cargo larger than a bag of M&M's, so the Volt isn't too practical.  Another slight glitch in the plan - to get anyone to buy the Volt at any price, with any incentive, Chevrolet had to go back to the 1990's hybrid technology.  So now the credit has been re-written to include hybrids.  And rather than a tax credit, the Obama administration is planning take the $7,500 straight out of the dealer's overflowing bank account and give it to anyone who buys a Volt.  The dealer is then responsible for filing for reimbursement from the similiarly overflowing vaults of the United States Treasury.  Most auto dealers who dealt with the government in the "cash for clunkers" scam will tell you how excited they are to participate in this plan.

What's the next step in getting the public to buy government-produced electric cars?  How about $4+ per gallon for gasoline.  I'll get to that in my next post.

Charity begins at home, at least in the conservative home

A conservative sees a poor homeless man and feels sympathy.  The conservative offers him a job, so he can earn money to get clean clothes and a place to live.  A liberal sees the same homeless man and feels compassion.  He turns to the conservative and says, "give him some of your money."  I read that years ago and I think it was attributed to Winston Churchill.  Of course, just about every humorous quote is attributed to either Churchill or Mark Twain.  

With all President Obama's plans to redistribute wealth and fundamentally change America,  I thought I would do a little research on charitable contributions of the wealthy and conservatives compared to liberals.  The president and the media would have us believe that the rich must be taxed to force them to contribute to society.  The only way the poor can survive is if the government takes money from the more fortunate (funny how that's an accepted description of the wealthy, as if it were all luck, education and hard work had nothing to do with their success).  

One of the neat things about people that run for or hold public office, their income tax filings are available to the public.  So, for a little history on charitable contributions.  The grandfather of all liberals, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave on average less than 2% of his annual income to charitable organizations.  Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, who, by the way, did not come from a wealthy family like the Roosevelt dynasty, gave an average of 6% of his income to charity.  The Liberal Lion, Ted Kennedy gave less than 1.5% of income to charity in the years that he released his income tax statements.  I'm pretty sure he came from a fairly well-off family.  

For a little more recent history, President George W. Bush averaged just over Obama's threshold for the wealthy $250,000 per year in the years he was Texas governor and United States President.  In those years, he gave an average of 10% of his annual income to charity.  His vice-president, Beelzebub, I mean Dick Cheney, was inconsistent in his charitable contributions.  In one year reported, he gave 0.1%, but the following year gave over 77% (no decimal in there, 77%!!), for an average of 19% in the years reported.

The current holder of the vice president's office, Joe Biden, was very consistent.  Stingy, but consistently stingy.  In the past 10 years, he has given a low of 0.1% and a high of 0.3% of his income to charity.  And yes, those are decimals in there.  He has given an average of $369 a year to charity in that timeframe.  His boss, President Obama is, by comparison a regular philanthropist.  In 2000, when he ran for senate, he reported contributions of $2350, or 1% of his income.  Now, in total contradiction to his belief that the wealthy don't give more, last year when revenue from his two books produced an income of $4.2 million, he and Michelle gave $240,000, or 5.7%.  


National statistics from 2004 were the most recent I could find.  That year, 2/3 of Americans reported charitable contributions.  They gave an average of $2047 or 3% of their taxable income.  Citizens that made between $200,000 and $500,000 gave an average of almost $41,000 to charity, or just under 9.5%.  


The best way to redistribute wealth is to let those who earn the wealth decide how to distribute it.  That redistribution comes through jobs created and obviously through charitable contributions.  Let's keep the government out of the process!

Oh, I could mention that Jesse Jackson and Al Gore each averaged under 1% in the years they made their income taxes public.  But that would be going overboard in making the point.

I remember an old Saturday Night Live with Chevy Chase playing President Ford.  They did a skit with the debate between Ford and Carter during the election campaign.  Carter goes through a 2 minute dialogue about tax rates, oil company profits, and the effect of the cost of oil on the American economy.  When it is Ford's chance to respond, he has that blank stunned look that Chevy Chase did so well and says "um, they, uh, they promised me there would be no math."  I promise, no more math in my posts.
 

Some More Politics and the Overall Degeneration of Society as We Know It

Like a lot of Americans, I knew absolutely nothing about Barak Obama before the democratic primaries just over a year ago.  And very little about him on the day he was elected.  As Hillary Clinton said, his qualifications and achievements were limited to a "pretty speech" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  So how did we make him President with so little (or no)knowledge of his views and beliefs?  


I got a very interesting glimpse of the way the average, or quite possibly above average, American gathers information about politics and politicians.  I was in a hardware store and overheard the young - middle 20's - cashier telling his co-workers about the unfair criticism of President Obama's delayed response to the Christmas day attempt by a terrorist to blow up an airliner with an underwear bomb (brief bomb?, probably not, boxers are less constricting!).  He said that Jon Stewart said that the President's critics weren't being consistent.  Stewart said that President Obama spoke to the nation only 10 days after the attempt.  Mr. Bush (it's never President, or former President Bush, always Mr.) waited two weeks to say anything about the 9-11 attacks!  I was pretty sure that President Bush spoke on the evening of the attacks in a national telecast, but I am over 40, 45 now, so my memory might be foggy at best.  So I did a very un-old fogey type thing and did a search on Youtube for President Bush 9-11 speech.  And guess what?  My foggy memory wasn't as foggy as I feared!  


One week later when I was in the store again, the same young man (I have spoken to him a lot and he's very intelligent and friendly, which in itself makes this story scarier), was working.  I mentioned what I had overheard the week before and he repeated his concern about the unfair treatment of the President.  I asked him to do the same Youtube search I had done and said he would get videos of President Bush's great speech that begins "TODAY America came under attack."  Some creative, obviously young, techie types have created some very moving videos with President Bush's speech over photographs of the World Trade Center towers collapsing, spliced in with the day's news reports and music by REM and Enya.  He was very polite and said he'd look it up.


I saw him again a couple of days later and he said he had seen the videos and that obviously Jon Stewart was wrong (I'd say LYING).  Being well on my way to becoming a grumpy old man, I recommended that in the future, he should get his facts from more than one source, and the Comedy Channel is probably not the best place to start!  In complete contradiction to the stereotype, he agreed.  Maybe there's hope for us after all.