No Ducking, this time...

Well, in nominating Judge Alito, President Bush has, at last, delivered on his promise to appoint a judge in the tradition of Scalia. And from the screaming being done by numerous on the left, it appears that the Gang of 14 may be tested, and perhaps even the Constitutional Option, before it's over.

Judge Alito appears to have the history, as well as the training and demeanor to be a good conservative -- but not extreme -- nominee to the bench. Moreover, having been twice confirmed by the Senate in the past, they will have some difficulty trying to defame him this time. SCOTUSblog notes that,

Judge Alito would energize the President's conservative supporters. But he would not be as much of a fight as the others. Luttig and Owen, in particular, raise the serious prospect of a filibuster and it seems unlikely in the current environment that the Administration is anxious to have that fight.

I'm not so confident that a filibuster will be avoided, but if it occurs, I think -- and hope -- that it will be rapidly shut down by the Constitutional Option that has been too long side-stepped.

The time for mere posturing is long over; the time for defending the Constitution, as required by each Senator's Oath of Office, is at hand. Let your Senator know what you expect.

Hillary's Proposed Tax...

So, the junior Senator from New York wants to save us all from the evil petroleum companies and their high prices. Story here.

My questions are these:
1. Since the high price of gas is at least partly due to the noble action of our elected Congress-critters, how exactly is more of the same an improvement?

2. Since I'm currently paying over $0.50 in taxes on each gallon of gas, just how is an added tax going to reduce my costs?
3. Did you sleep through your economics classes, Senator, or do you merely believe we're all too stupid to figure out how this works?

Tax on a corporation is overhead. Overhead is added to other costs of production. Prices are raised to equal all costs, plus something to allow for a profit. Ergo, an added tax means a higher gas price.

There endeth the lesson.

Racism Continues...

The Political Teen has coverage, with a video, of comments made in an appearance at Howard University by a Dr. Kamau Kambon. The contemptible nature of his words cannot be overstated:

And then finally I want to say that we need one idea, and we’re not thinking about a solution to the problem. We’re thinking about all these other things, but we’re not dealing with a solution to the problem. And we have to start to think about a solution to the problem so that these young brothers and sisters who are here now, who are 15, 16 or 17, are not here 25 years later talking about these same problems.

Now how do I know that the white people know that we are going to come up with a solution to the problem. I know it because they have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they’re monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. *tepid applause* Now I don’t care whether you clap or not, but I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. And I will leave on that. So we just have to just set up our own system and stop playing and get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem and the problem on the planet is white people.

How can anyone justify the employment of such a person in a tax-supported institution of learning (North Carolina State University)?

And who among us would wish to have a child educated by such a man?

Bork on Bush...

In commentary given in an interview today on FoxNews, Judge Robert Bork described President Bush's performance as "indifferent" to conservative values. He cited spending, as well as judicial nomination issues.

Bork is right. President Bush has disappointed many conservatives, and has done so on many issues. The frightening consequence is that the more he disappoints, the more the voters are likely to be primed to favor a Democrat in the next election, and should that mean the (still junior) Senator from New York, God help us all.

A Disaster Averted...

Harriet Miers has withdrawn from nomination, so she will not be suffering the hearings that would otherwise have been unprecedented in their destructive effects, as both parties would have been on the attack. The inescapable consequence of that would have been that having comported themselves with all the dignity of a pack of howling Democrats, the Republicans would have lost any possible rationale for moving the process back in the direction it needs to go.

The Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent to the president's nominees. Not to inspect and veto, nor to castigate and flagellate. The vote on Ruth Bader Ginsburg may serve as a model of what the Constitution intends. After hearings in which the "Ginsburg rule" was created -- the rule that declares a nominee need not answer on any issue that is, or will foreseeably be, in front of the court -- Ms. Ginsburg was approved by a vote of 96 to 3, with one member not voting. That was clearly an example of consent. And clearly, it was not stained by any partisan division, even though Ms. Ginsburg is the posterchild for liberal lunacy on the bench.

By contrast, the recent approval of John Roberts -- against whom no dirt could be flung, and whose knowledge of the court and its findings may accurately be described as encyclopaedic, a man with traditional values, a calm demeanor, and a very sharp mind -- was achieved by a vote of 78 to 22. It would be difficult to rationalize in such a vote the absence of partisan ill manners.

Traditionally, the hearings have been intended to determine the bona fides of the nominee. To discover whether the nominee has the skill and experience to ably serve in the appointed role. The hearings are not supposed to be held for the purpose of determining whether the nominee will vote according to the pleasure of any particular party line, nor in accord with the views of Senators Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, nor any of the others whose shenanigans have so illuminated the history of that body.

In short, if the nominee is found to have the skills and experience to be capable of performing as a justice, then the Senate should consent. And in doing so, it would be a mark of grace befitting the institution were it to vote in near unanimous form, signaling acceptance, and burying any ill will that may have flared up in the process.

We may now hope that the new nominee, whoever President Bush selects, will be better handled by both parties in the coming hearings.

The Madness of "Single-Payer" Medical Care...

So many people appear to desire government benefits that we must look at what makes them so desirable. The most desired of these is health care, so we have to look at the benefits of government health care, as provided in other countries.

In Canada, the Province of Ontario enacted their health care plan (OHIP) in 1972, so this is a mature system to consider. OHIP is managed by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Every citizen of Ontario, as well as every legal immigrant, is covered by OHIP. In daily life, this means that you can walk into a hospital ER, or your doctor's office, and receive care without receiving a bill.

We all know that medical care is expensive, so we can all appreciate how nice it would be to receive free medical care. But of course, nothing is free. OHIP pays for the medical care provided by disbursing tax dollars, so the taxpayers are paying for medical care, as might be expected. Now, since there are many who could not afford to pay for such care on their own, nor to pay for medical insurance that would cover such care, we can easily imagine that the cost to each taxpayer might be higher than in a private health care system. Yet many -- perhaps most -- Canadians seem to believe that the system is essential, and would not wish to do without it.

Now let's look a bit behind the scenes. In order to manage the cost of delivery, OHIP must in some way limit what will be spent. This is accomplished in a variety of ways. Definite monetary values are assigned for each and every action a doctor may take. So much for a prescription, so much for an appendectomy, and so on. Hospitals are managed differently; each hospital is given an annual lump sum, and is required to provide care to all who enter.

Doctors maximize their revenues by maximizing the number of bodies per hour through their offices. Hospitals, however, must do what they can to minimize the care provided. If they do not, they will exhaust their funding, and be unable to provide care to anyone. It's not quite as simple as turning people away, but each doctor in a hospital must be mindful of the relative worth of providing any particular care. And elective procedures, of course, are still paid for by individuals -- OHIP will not pay for breast implants (except perhaps, post-mastectomy).

One of the inevitable consequences of socialized medicine, however, is very long waiting times in hospital ERs. Another is the shortage of expensive equipment. In the Toronto Region (Ontario has a regional government scheme, not county governments), when I last lived there, the Ministry had determined that a total of four MRI machines would be sufficient. And they meant it: when a private donor gave a fifth MRI to a hospital in the region, the Ministry confiscated it, and placed it elsewhere. Should you need an MRI, you may find it impossible to obtain, and indeed, there is a stream of people from Ontario traveling to Buffalo or to Detroit to obtain MRIs, among other things.

Perhaps the most damaging effect of socialized medicine, however, is the impact on enrolment in medical schools. Most people realize that a doctor must go through extensive schooling, and then an internship and residency, before being prepared to practice a specialty. For the most part, people undertake this burden because there is the promise of a large income once they begin to practice. Under OHIP, and in fact, all socialized medicine schemes, the income is limited, and the long-term effect is a drop in medical school enrolment. That makes medical care a precious commodity, and one increasingly hard to obtain. Among other things, it also leads to increased enrolment of students from very poor countries, some of whom will return to their native countries after spending a few years in practice in Canada.

What of the claims made regarding better health care under OHIP? Universal health care has some easily identified side effects that heavily impact the statistical performance of the system. First, infant mortality is reduced because all pregnancies are managed with a standard level of care, since the mother is not paying. Second, a similar effect is in play at end of life, thus extending life expectancy. Third, homeless people are entitled to the same care as those living in suburbia who bear the costs of the system. All of these circumstances elevate the perceived performance of the system. What is less apparent is that the bell-shaped curve has a lower crest than would otherwise be found. The quality of health care delivered to the middle classes is lower than if provided under a privately supported health care system.

Finally, in countries with socialized medicine, it is generally illegal to pay for care, so with the exception of elective procedures, those who could afford better care are denied it, unless they travel to another country for treatment.

But there is more. Waiting periods for treatment have become a serious problem, and will always be so, in countries with socialized medicine. A report on the problem in Canada is available.

Another interesting aspect of medical care is medicine. The United States has for decades produced an amazing number of new medicines, as development is encouraged here by the prospect of profits to be made. Other countries ride on our coat-tails, as does Canada, in particular. The Canadian approach has been to negotiate a low price on medicines, with the threat of legislation if the companies do not cooperate. While this benefits the citizens of Canada, it is effectively a tax on Americans, imposed by a foreign government.

Now for the ugliest truth of all. All of what I report here is known to Hillary and her buddies, who have sought for so long to impose such a system on the United States.

Backing into Complete Socialism...

"We are less than one generation away from Congress being unable to pay for anything other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the federal debt -- leaving not so much as a penny for defense or homeland security."
-- Dr. Edward Feulner, President, Heritage Foundation

Frightened? I am.

Whether you believe that the leftward trend of the last half-century has been damaging and dangerous to our country and its future, you must certainly notice that politicians will find the easiest solution to the problem Dr. Feulner describes by simply completing the destruction of the Republic, and casting us all into the socialist pit.

When the means of production are all state-owned, and the production of money is unconstrained by any realistic considerations, then the problems of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are ended.

When we are all chattels of the State, then security and medical care are what the State says they are, and the quality of care is similarly subject to no discussion.

Retirement age and health decisions will be decided for us, and no appeal will be needed, or in fact, possible.

We have come to this pass, I believe, largely because our citizens are largely ignorant of basic economic principles. Were the average citizen aware of some fundamental realities, the lies told by politicians on both sides of the aisle would readily be seen for what they are, and voters would be likely to turn the scoundrels out.

Some key points:

• Corporations cannot be taxed
• Minimum wage creates unemployment
• Government benefits are expensive, not free

When a corporation is taxed, the corporation has limited choices available. The one most favored is to raise prices and pass the tax to the consumer, leaving profits unaffected. Competition may make this impossible, however, and then the tax may result in a) reduced profits or b) layoffs and other cost cuts.

It is easiest to appreciate this reality if you consider a public corporation, which is required under law to make every legal effort to be profitable. You didn't know that? Think back to some of the arguments about why a Microsoft monopoly was a Bad Thing, and needed to be punished. Or think of the many Enron stories. Damage to shareholder equity is a phrase that should come to mind. The Board of any public corporation is legally required to work for the benefit of the shareholders, and such benefit comes only through profits. Therefore, when a corporation is taxed, they can only look at the tax as overhead, and seek to defend their profits from erosion.

What this means is that all corporate taxes are actually taxes on consumers.

When Congress sets a minimum wage, they are declaring that any work at all has a minimum value. While that make sense to a politician pandering for votes, it is unlikely to have the same meaning to people paying for things. Consider any sort of casual labor, such as taking out the garbage, sweeping the sidewalk, and so on. Are these tasks worth paying the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15? Here in California, the state mandates a minimum wage of $6.75, and in San Francisco, that bastion of liberal caring, the minimum wage is $8.50. For details, and to see where your own state stands, look here.

When an employer decides that some jobs are not worth the minimum wage, the likely solution will be to cut jobs, and to distribute the tasks to other employees. Moreover, when approached by a teen looking for work, how many employers will consider the average teen of today to be worth paying the minimum wage?

In places where the minimum wage is higher than in others, history shows that unemployment is also higher, and that jobs for teens are few and far between.

President Bush has suspended the Davis-Bacon Act for the repairs to New Orleans post-Katrina, and has been loudly criticized for doing so. But the Davis-Bacon Act requires that wages be paid not at the local prevailing rate, but at a mythical rate even higher, that satisfies the arcane terms of that law. It also results in employers hiring only the most highly qualified and most productive workers they can find, and effectively locks out the thousands of locals whose skills may be below standard, but whose need for employment is dire. President Bush has opened the possibility that locals will be employed in this process, and no other choice would have been rational.

The only mystery is why the population at large remains so much in ignorance of the harm done by minimum wage laws.

Government services are not free, they are paid for by the labor of taxpayers. That much should be obvious to all. But there's more, as usual.

Tax dollars are not very well used. When we pay taxes, there is a percentage that covers pure government overhead. You won't find it anywhere, but it's there, and it's where things like the salaries of Senators and Representatives, and IRS employees come from, as well as those of other, less easily identified government employees. But that's minor.

Next, the tax dollar is divided according to the various things on which government spends money, such as defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and other things.

But there is another division that demands your attention, as it's the biggest single impact on your tax dollars: at present, just less than 50% of wage earners pay taxes. So regardless of how the budget is apportioned, you may consider that for every dollar of your taxes that goes to benefits, no more than 50% of it will come back to your own benefits.
Most of us are inclined to make investments only for profit. Whether in a savings account, a certificate of deposit, or a mutual fund investment, we make the investment in the expectation of greater returns. In government benefits, not only do you get no greater returns, but you are guaranteed to get less than you paid in.

And that may be the biggest mystery of all.

Freedom of Speech...

Almost every day we hear some rant about freedom of speech, but it is clear, from some of the rants, that many people have no concept what freedom of speech means. And certainly the supreme Court, with its bevy of bizarre decisions in past decades, has not clarified things one iota.

Today while I was in a store, someone removed from my car a magnetic sign, one of those ribbons that says "God Bless the USA". Now, putting it on my car was an exercise of my own freedom of speech, and no doubt, there are some who would contend that removing it (since I was shopping in Santa Cruz) was an expression of that person's freedom of speech. But that is utterly wrong.

When I purchased the sign for my car, I was engaging in commerce, giving payment to a shopkeeper from something I wished to own. That sign became my property. When someone stripped that sign from my car, that was an act of theft, or vandalism, or both. It had nothing whatever to do with free speech. But in the People's Republic of Santa Cruz (a nuclear-free zone, as declared by the city council), property is, at best, a slippery concept, and is given little more than lip-service by many of the residents (except for the protection of their own property, of course.)

On a larger scale, we have heard complaints from some in Hollywood that people have tried to repress their own right to speak, through boycotts, or threatened boycotts of their films. Let's review. When actors or actresses decide to make public statements of their own political views, they are exercising their freedom of speech. And when money-paying moviegoers elect to spend their money on the films of other actors or actresses, having decided not to spend on the films of people with whose views they disagree, that, too, is an exercise of freedom of speech.

It seems to confuse many people, but freedom of speech comes at a price. That is, we are free to say whatever we want (except where it might violate public safety, incite to riot, etc.), but having said it, we may find that some members of our audience take exception, and may in turn decide to exercise their own freedom of speech, in a way that may be bad for our level of income. In particular, when an actor makes some speech that we find offensive (see, for example, Sean Penn) we are free to decide never to contibute again to his livelihood. That's also freedom of speech.

Another point of confusion for many is that the 1st Amendment, in granting freedom of speech, did not provide for a venue, nor for an audience. That is, you are free to speak, but others are free to listen, or not. And to secure a venue, you may have to pay someone, so that you can exercise your freedom, as when someone elects to rent a hall, for example. But it may come to pass that no one chooses to attend, whether the event is free or bears a ticket price.

Freedom of speech seems such a simple concept, but in our age of entitlements, it is so broadly misunderstood.

It's Your Health...

Angry in the Great White North has an article today on Canadian health care that is essential reading for anyone who thinks Hillary knows what she's talking about on that subject. Quotes in that article are from an article in the National Post of Canada.

There are huge problems in the imposition of any national health care system:

• The standard level of care drops to mediocrity
• The attention of doctors is diverted from the patient to politics and paperwork
• In the long term, the system becomes a disincentive to anyone thinking of a medical career

I was resident in Canada when OHIP was initiated in the early seventies. At that time, fees were based on an annual survey of physicians in the Province (Ontario), and OHIP would pay 90% of the average fees determined in that survey. The remaining 10% was the responsibility of the individual, though most employers then provided coverage that picked up the 10%, as well as the cost of meds. Later, a stink was raised, and the 10% was eliminated, on the premise that it denied health care to some who could not afford even that percentage. That event was critical, as it was at that point that the individual ceased to have any voice in his own care -- he was no longer the customer.

When the doctor need only satisfy a bureaucracy to obtain his income, health care is dramatically changed. The doctor then concerns himself with following the rules, and getting the forms properly filed, and treatment is incidental to that. A dozen years ago, when I again lived in Toronto, I saw that were it not for the chart in his hands, the doctor would have no idea who the patient was.

In the care of any serious condition, treatment will take some time, and continuity of care becomes an important issue. When the doctor is reduced to processing bodies per hour, any sense of individual patients and their histories is lost.

When the patient pays nothing for service, his cries about the quality of care go unheard.

Doctors in any country must commit to years of education and more years of what amounts to an apprenticeship, before they are qualified to work on their own. For many, perhaps for most, this is acceptable only because the compensation they will later earn ensures them of a rather rich and secure life. Under a national health care system, that changes. In Canada, and in England for a longer time, the incomes of doctors have been limited by the rules established in the national health system. The only means of maximizing income is once again to maximize the number of patients seen per hour.

More important, when a ceiling is placed on the compensation a doctor may earn, then unless that ceiling is very high -- and it is not, in either Canada or England -- there is a very real economic disincentive to becoming a doctor. England has labored with this aspect for some years now, and Canada is just now beginning to appreciate the same difficulty. There is a shortage of doctors in the system, and that further degrades the care delivered, as it again forces the processing of more bodies per hour.

Casual inspection of Canada's system tends to excite people, as there are a number of statistics that make it seem very attractive:

• Reduced infant mortality
• Increased life expectancy
• Universal availability of care

The problem is, as Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Reduced infant mortality is a side effect of universal care. All pregnant women, including the indigent, are entitled to equal care, and that reduces infant mortality. However, as with our own misbegotten welfare system, it reduces the need for prospective mothers to exercise any responsibility in the decision to become pregnant.


Increased life expectancy is also directly a result of the universal coverage. Homeless rummies in the park tend not to fare well in the Great White North in the winter -- it's very cold, and they die. But with universal care, they are entitled to the same care as you or I, and this inflates the stats, giving the appearance of increased longevity, even though the reduced quality of care may have actually reduced longevity for the middle classes.


So, as with all other forms of redistribution of wealth, whether you call it welfare, or universal health care, the ultimate loser is the one paying the bill: the middle class.


In Toronto Region (county governments were folded into regions some 30 years ago), the government determined that only 4 MRI machines were needed. So sure were they of this that when an individual donated an MRI to the region, the government confiscated it. When my then girlfriend tore her ACL, and needed an MRI, she was told that she could not get one in less than several months. "Perhaps if you had a brain tumor" was what her surgeon said. But the torn ACL must be diagnosed and surgery undertaken within days, or the opportunity is lost. So once again, degraded care is what the system delivers. Of course, what he didn't say, but had been very public knowledge at the same time was that if she had been playing for the Toronto Maple Leafs, the MRI would have been only hours away. So much for universal coverage.


Too little is said by any with real experience of the Canadian system so adored by Hillary. And for no good reason I can determine, Newt Gingrich recently announced that Hillary knows more about health care than anyone else in the country. Utter nonsense.


Take heed. Read the articles linked above. Reality bites, and Hillary is a politician playing us for fools.

For service, speak English!

We are overdue for a constitutional amendment that will declare our national language to be English. I have written before on the notion of ESL as discrimination, and it seems that this is a topic that should be pounded on regularly.

My position is simple. English is the language of commerce in America, English is the language of power in America, English is the language of success in America.

To coddle immigrants with courses offered in their native languages is not only expensive, but does them a disservice, as it delays their coming to grips with their new language. We should make it a national priority to teach all immigrants to be capable, not merely functional, in English. This should be accomplished as rapidly as possible after their immigration. To do otherwise is a racist act that holds them back from success in their newly adopted country.

In many countries, English is being taught to young students anyway, so this would amount to reinforcing their earlier studies. For those from countries where English is not taught, such immersion would remove from their path barriers that would otherwise make it impossible to rise above the status of a manual laborer.

To those who say that it would be unfair to force English instruction on immigrants, I say nonsense. Wake up and smell the coffee. Do we truly welcome immigrants? Or do we want them here only to care for our gardens, clean our houses, and serve us horrible fast food? If we honestly respect the people who come here, then we should be doing all that we can to help them find success here. We would do no less for our families and friends.

...fix 'em, dammit!

Katrina has made an impact on our country that will not soon be forgotten. The cost estimates for the repair of New Orleans, as well as for various approaches to the repair and improvement of the levees are staggering.

But in the aftermath, a couple of things are clear. First, the blathering eco-freaks who successfully prevented the Army Corps of Engineers from doing the work approved by Congress some years ago should have been lined up and shot. The effect of their good intentions verges on treason. Second, the repair and restoration of the city of New Orleans cannot and should not be effected without first ensuring that the new investment will be protected.

So the question we face is, against what level of storm must the levees be effective? For those who may have spent the last two months on another planet, the answer is clear: the levees must be capable of protecting against a category 5 hurricane. We've just seen proof of that, and nearly had that proof emphasized by hurricane Rita, which instead, luckily, dropped only a good deal of rain on New Orleans.


I have said before that this blog will address issues of economics, and this is surely one. But rather than develop an analysis myself, I prefer, in this case, to link to an excellent analysis by Jonathan Rauch on the Reason.com site. The following quote is compelling:

In any given year, then, figure that the expected economic cost of the swamping of New Orleans is $1 billion (divide the $200 billion cost over 200 years). A $2 billion levee project could be expected to pay for itself, probabilistically speaking, in two years; a $14 billion Delta restoration project, in 14 years.

But wait. New Orleans's 200-year flood might take place a century from now instead of right away (remember, this analysis is from a pre-Katrina standpoint), and money lost in the future matters less to us than money lost today. At an interest rate of 3 percent, Viscusi says, the present value of averting $1 billion in expected annual damage forever is $33 billion; at 5 percent, $20 billion; at 10 percent, $10 billion. Any of those numbers is higher than the estimated cost of hurricane-proofing the levees, and all but the smallest are higher than restoring the Delta.

Bravo, Mr. Rauch!

My Position

For any who may be wondering, I am a libertarian, not to be confused with a Libertarian. Depending on whose survey I fill out, I may be classed as conservative, or as libertarian/capitalist. As to conservatism, since I believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution, and am opposed to government doing any more than providing essential services, I am arguably more conservative than people who call themselves conservative.

While I am appalled by the moral lapse that has been overtaking much of the U.S. population, I am opposed to any effort by the government to legislate morals. That's not the job of government, and besides: a) our elected representatives have too often demonstrated a serious lack of morals, so should not be trying to dictate, and b) the government doesn't do anything particularly well, so best they stay out of it.

On marriage, though I oppose the notion of gay marriage, I believe that the real problem is that the government is in the business of performing marriages at all. Were they not pronouncing people man and wife, there would be no question as to whether they could declare a marriage between two people of the same sex. And further, were they not in the business of marrying people, they might be less in the business of divorcing them. Better that all this should be handled by churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

On abortion, I am troubled and conflicted. On the one hand, I consider that abortion is wrong (but would provide for abortions in cases of incest and rape), but on the other hand, this is another case where it is not clear that the Federal Government has any status in the matter. States, on the other hand, would seem empowered by the Constitution to legislate such things, and more power to them. People can elect to move from a state whose laws they find unacceptable to one with laws they like. Let the market decide.

On immigration, I have no doubts, and am resolute. Immigration is a legal process, hence the phrase illegal immigrant is an oxymoron. Illegal aliens should be rounded up and deported, post haste. My wife and step-daughter are immigrants to this country, and we have gone through numerous hells with the procedures of INS/DHS to ensure that they remain legal. To see illegal aliens allowed to remain here, and worse, to see them receive services, gratis, that are available neither to citizens nor to immigrants, is infuriating.

Now, here is a point that may be surprising to some: I believe that the U.S. should have a national language: English. And I believe that all lessons in public schools (so long as those hell-holes continue to exist -- but that's another entry) must be in English. Points of interest:

• English is the language of commerce in the U.S.
• English is the language of power in the U.S.
• Lack of English skills limits societal mobility
• Lack of English skills limits many to menial labor

Now, given those realities, can anyone argue that ESL is a boon to immigrants? Isn't it closer to being a racist act to support teaching (other than transitional) classes in the U.S. in any language other than English?

and Life Goes On...

Well, I had intended to be more active in my posts, and there's certainly been plenty to provoke comment, of late, but as they say, if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans....

A few weeks ago, I gave in to the considerable stomach discomfort I was enjoying[sic] and went to the doctor. Come to find out, it was just gastritis causing the pain -- but -- the gastritis was caused by pancreatitis, a more serious issue. Now the good news is, that on a scale from 0 to 1000, with 65 being normal maximum, and 700 being the level that gets you slapped in the hospital, my reading was 81, so it was something we caught early. Still, the fun was just beginning.

If I had needed hospitalize, I would have been treated to an enforced 4-day fast, with nothing but a glucose drip. This might be a good time to mention I am hypoglycemic....

Instead, as I had only a mild(!) case of pancreatitis, I was put on a zero protein diet. Now, having managed my hypoglycemia for almost 40 years by controlling my diet (meaning, for the most part, no carbs unaccompanied by protein), I was dismayed to learn that I was now looking at a diet of... carbs. The first few days were predictably unpleasant, but I slept through much of it, because with my blood sugar down, I had no energy anyway. A first experiment with protein (hard-boiled egg whites), after four days, was a painful failure, so back on the carbs. Zzzzzz....

I've also been taking pancrease, which pretty much tells the pancreas to do nothing. And Protonix, which shuts down production of stomach acid. After two weeks of the carb diet, I am now slowly adding protein, and it seems ok. So now I am beginning to reduce the incidence of a) headaches, b) low energy, and c) shaky hands.

The bad news is that it may yet be months before I can indulge in anything as radical as a medium rare steak. I am in mourning.

In spite of all, now that brain function is returning, I will endeavor to make some semi-regular entries here. Watch this space!