E Pluribus Unum

Whether you are a hippie singing peace songs in the sequoias or  a hard-ass fighting in an Idaho militia, you two have more in common with each other then you think you do.

A strong overbearing federal government is the enemy to both of you.  It is an enemy because neither of you can predict the future.

Who again will rise to power?  Adolf Hitler?  Josef Stalin?

Both left and the right are led by the mainstream media into fighting for issues that are secondary to the size of the federal government.

Nothing is more important in this or any time than limiting the powers of King Louis the 14th and Marie Antoinnette, excuse me, the federal government.

Social issues such as abortion and gay rights are important issues, but they are secondary to the size of the arrogant monstrosity that now rules us.

With a strong federal government, it is winner  take all, one side alternately leap-frogging over the other.

On the other hand, applying the motto of our country, e pluribus unum, and putting it into action, it is possible for both people on the right and the left to have a say-so and to live together in peace.

Focusing on social issues, dividing the people, is precisely what King Louis IV wants; it keeps us from deposing him.


On Friday I had to go down to the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew my driver’s license. Part of the renewal was getting fingerprinted.

As I placed my fingers up on the scanner the attendant looked at me and said, “Yeah, were all on The Matrix now.”


My first thought was that it would be easier to solve crimes now that everyone was fingerprinted.

It seems logical, right?

But is this what our focus should be?  By that I mean should we be focused on solving crimes or preventing crimes?

It reminds me of a conversation I had with an older doctor many years ago in my training.

Back in the day there was this bacteria called Haemophilus Infuenzae B that would ravage the bodies of those infected with it.  In the early 1980s were only a few antibiotics that would work against it.

One day on rounds I looked at the older doctor and said, “Well,  I guess we’ll have to come up with some new antibiotics for this.”   He replied, “Well, the goal should be to prevent the infection not finding new ways to kill it.”

“What do you mean,” I asked.

“Well, hopefully we will be able to develop a vaccine against it.”

And so we did. Thank God that we don’t have to deal with that bacteria anymore.  That bacteria was like a malignant criminal in the community, the Anton Chiguhr of bacteria.  By focusing on prevention rather than cure we did ourselves a big favor.

Are we taking the same approach in our society today?  Should we be focusing on ways of catching criminals who will always use new technologies to evade the system?  Or should we take a step backward and recreate the society of tolerance, trust and greater opportunity that existed 50 years ago, a society that was less free of school violence, mass shootings, beheadings, and outrageous cruelty?

Think about this:  Suppose organized criminals hack into the national databases, something that’s never been done before, and are able to obtain your physical data (on every driver’s license) plus your fingerprints and then are able to plant those fingerprints via new technology at a crime scene.

You could go to jail.

I Want to Believe

I want to believe that there is still hope for this country. But when your phone guy tells you that it’s all over, it may just be. A few weeks ago I was talking to my phone guy, Mike, about America, specifically the future of America. I said to him, “I still have hope that everything will be okay.” Mike shook his head and said, “No, they went too far.”

Of course, if you look at the history of America, this country has been failing forward since the day it was founded. The rosy notion we have of the past as the good old days is false. There were no good old days. Well, maybe there were a few.

But of course that was an America that was free. Can we say that America is us free today as it was 100 or 200 years ago?

My concern about the future is that under an oppressive central government, no different then the governments under the kings and queens Americans will not be free to experiment and do their own thing. If this is the case we are in for a long dark age.

For me at this point in history there is no greater issue than the size of the central government. Social issues are important but they take a second seat. What’s the point of debating social issues such as gay rights and abortion if there is no freedom at all?

The reason our ancestors came to this country was for freedom. If they had wanted equality they would have stayed in Europe. Indeed that is what Europe was many years ago, a sea of equal poverty ruled by an elite king.

Only here in America were they able to break free.

How about us?

Where Marxism Fails

Marxism fails not just because of its central planning, but because it fails to consider that contributing and the need to contribute, even if that contribution results in failure, is a basic human need as much as breathing, eating, sleeping and having sex.

People want to have a real say in what goes on in their lives, even if they are living in utopia.  So, if we give man utopia without the ability to contribute, he will walk away from it.

The events in Ferguson are an example of this.

White people want to know why many people in the black community can’t just abide by the law.  Why can’t they just follow what the police officer says?  I’ll tell you why.  Defying authority is the only option for many people in the black community to have control of their lives.  What the government has created, in its mind, in the black community, is a Marxist utopia where all needs are provided. Think about it.  In the inner-city black community, the government provides healthcare, housing and food.  What is not provided is for the inhabitants of that black community to have a say-so in their lives.  Instead, that ability to contribute is replaced with a maze of bureaucratic rules where the people are told when and where to show up for benefits and so forth.  Who would not be frustrated in such an environment?

I say this with surety that if white people were placed in a similar community with no opportunities save to follow government rules, they would resort to violence also; they would clock police officers in the face also.

The avenues for public expression that Marxists offer are bullshit; they are just fake meetings that the authorities hold for their own benefit so that they can feel good about having provided public input.

What is needed in Ferguson is real input.  Private enterprise, horror of horrors, would be a start.

Evidence-based Dogma

What is evidence-based medicine?  It is statistical medicine, employed by health insurance companies and their academic collaborators, intended to deny you healthcare procedures, tests, medicines and treatment modalities.  The new game in town is taking care of the healthcare corporations first, you second.

When I trained, the goal was to look after the patient first, business second, which helps explain why doctors write off so much money each year in failed collections.  We were trained to order tests if there was a reasonable chance it might help the patient, and reasonable might mean different things to different doctors, and for good reason.  Doctors vary in their skill sets and training.  No one doctor can know it all, and so doctors need to order more tests than normal, some more than others.  An endocrinologist who treats diabetics regularly is going to be more efficient in ordering the right tests than a family doctor who sees far less per year.  What this means is that there has to be some leeway in the kind and frequency of tests doctors may order.  A one-shoe-fits-all methodology based upon what the doctor with greater expertise may order will result in a greater morbidity and mortality amongst patients.

As an example, compare Tom Seaver in his prime to a rookie pitcher.  Shall we narrow the strike-zone to Tom Seaver’s standard?  How well will that rookie pitcher do?

Compounding this variability in doctors’ skills is that life occurs prospectively meaning that a doctor can not see into the future.  Everything looks easy in hindsight.  Add in the lawsuits for failing to diagnose, plus the reality that doctors are human, not machine, and thus prone to stress and failure, is it any wonder that doctors order more tests and prescribe medicines to maximize patient comfort?  Isn’t that why doctors exist?  You don’t go to a car mechanic to under-diagnose and under-replace parts do you?

The insurance companies want none of this; indeed, their shareholders demand it.  Thus the drive to produce studies demonstrating that tests, medicines and treatment modalities are unnecessary.  Has there ever ben a study showing that doctors are under-prescribing or under-ordering?  I have not heard of it.

Complementing this, conveniently, is a political correctness to this cost-saving.  This manifests itself in such activist positions, arguable, that cold medicines are unworkable and a danger to children under 2 years of age, and that chest x-rays present a significant radiation risk to patients.  Regarding the former, one has to wonder how billions of mothers suffered under such a mass delusion for so long.  The latter is simply laughable.

Evidence-based medicine is not true medicine at all; it is dogma, moneymaking dogma, posing as science.  Unfortunately, you will pay the price.  You, Sir, are an acceptable loss.

Common Core

The problem and essence of Common Core is that we view each other as cogs in a machine with the machine being more important than the cogs. If one of the cogs is defective that cog must be discarded. Nothing must obstruct the proper functioning of the machine, certainly not  an individual.

Because The Bill of Rights is about the rights of an individual, The Bill of Rights serves as an enemy to Common Core. As such the Bill of Rights must be defeated if Common Core is to survive.

Common Core does not exist to make students better; it exists to advance the agenda of totalitarianism.

If Common Core is permitted to rule, individual creativity will be replaced by dogmatic political correctness.  Indeed, individual creativity will be viewed as a threat.

Common Core is not enlightening; Common Core is darkening and regressive.


America’s Beacon

People want to know how America can best handle affairs in the world; they rightfully want to know how best to manage threats such as ISIS and what level of involvement we should deliver.

Lost in this discussion is whether we should become involved at all.

It only seems natural to want to do something, but does action necessarily translate into success?

In another century America approached the world differently.  Warnings against entangling alliances were heeded, and America focused on its inner strength and consequently became a beacon to the world.

This was the beacon that so many leaders speak of, the beacon that brought so many Americans to this land.

A beacon has a life; and in life a light grows bright, then dim, then bright again.

America’s beacon can only grow brighter on its own accord; it does not grow bright when America is seen as a bully, a tyrant and a usurper.

For over 100 years, America has traveled the world and made the world its business.  The results are arguable, but what can not be argued is that the beacon’s light has grown dimmer.

People a century ago came to America for opportunity, not violence.

911 is almost 15 years gone, and America has retreated into a state of siege and fear.

This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.  What they hoped to build was a land of peace and strength, unafraid, a bright beacon to the world, a beacon that persuades through illumination, not force.