“Private health-insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists are threatening the health and stability of America. Some argue that this is equivalent to crimes against humanity. Perhaps these lobbyists should be sent to prison.”

You have to wonder who is actually arguing that or is the writer hiding behind the word some to reveal his own fascist bias. Since he doesn’t reveal who these people are, one must presume that is what some Gary S. Chafetz thinks should be done with AMERICANS redressing differences and grievances with their government. He is described as “an author and former Boston Globe correspondent.”  If you think the media isn’t full of anti-freedom human waste like this, just remember the media supported campaign speech restrictions.

Increasingly, the idea of doing nothing about global warming is said to be a crime against humanity.

Should a crime against humanity actually be a crime against humanity? If you nationalize healthcare, you force doctors to work for what the government tells them to work for. There is no real negotiation, no market price.  Since no self-respecting doctor wants to live or work as a slave, or have HMO regulations replaced by still more government regulations on treatment, it is doomed to vitiate our liberty of contract to find the doctor, patient, or insurance, that suits us.  A single payer, single-toilet system for the whole nation means standing in line. Many will drop dead as they do in other countries with socialism.  Don’t they count as crimes against humanity?

The reality is capping human progress is a crime against humanity.  And for what? They claim to be fixated on changing temperatures. Yawn.  These cons just hate humanity. They think that people who want a better life and work for it should be destroyed.

This could be seen in the “sense of life” of a new Russian novel by a Kremlin insider.  The novel hosts an opposition journalist who tells the protagonist that she hates those in power — a “greasy crowd” of governors, deputies, ministers, security service officials and police. He replies: “It’s not those in power that you hate, but life.” What a projection! Just like the democrats calling those who want a freer country nazis!

The protagonists says that unfairness, the use of force and stagnation are just part of life. He tells her to live with it rather than try to destroy it.

Now you see the spiritual rot that props up socialism. People need to accept that life can’t be better. That is why the Soviets wanted to restrict outside influences which prove to their slaves that life can be better. This acceptance of injustice is exactly contrary to the will to live, which tends to be strongest in those who are young and idealistic.  Today’s aged life cannot fathom that America want to make life measure up to health, happiness, and freedom.

That is what animates the Tea Parties and the sink the socialism of the menacing Obama movement.

A world of snooping, snitches, and state security is all over the Obama administration.  Anyone with a strong opinion against health care must be reported.That’s a little different that sniffing out suspected terrorists.

That’s the kind of world we are doomed to live under with national socialism in health care, a capped and sealed socialist sewer. You wonder how people named Chafetz could be leading the charge for national socialism, i.e., demanding crimes against humanity, but there you have it. Someone who surely knows history and is determined to repeat it.

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

“There are inescapable realities we must address if we are to strike an intelligent balance between quality of life, real cost of energy, and an environment that is in balance.”

What does it mean for the environment to be out of balance? What is balance? Let’s sweep those ideas off the table for some common sense.

First, the environment is always changing.  The rainforests didn’t always exist. Most of the animal species that ever walked the earth are already extinct.  There are ice ages and periods of heat. Big whoop!

What we know is that nature is dynamic.  It is not a static system, but a system in constant motion with actors and influences coming and going creating the environment we see.  Thus, the concept of an environment out of balance or in balance makes no sense at all. Environmentalists fail to grasp the essence of nature. It is not a Garden of Eden, but a world swarming with fire and ice assaulting life everywhere.

No one can keep the environment in balance.  It is a mystical impulse to try to do so.  It is a losing battle.

Let’s grasp that either man is in sync with nature and able to use its resources to survive, or he fails to do so and we die.

That means not wasting efforts trying to “save the planet.” The planet isn’t going anywhere.  We are!

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

Any large scale organization will have administrative costs. Their absolute costs tend to escalate the larger the organization is.  Look at the difference between the administrative costs of your own household versus those of your employer. In fact, the biggest organization in the US, the complicated complex of our federal, state, and local governments is about as laden with administrators and their costs as could be.

Anyone who has worked at Wal-Mart must marvel at how it is able to keep hundreds of employees at any one store administrated, updated, and trained by one HR specialist and an assistant.  Truly outstanding and amazing when you consider the millions of people who run through the organization annually. Then consider the billions of tons of product these employees administrate from one end of the company to the other, coast to coast, and around the world, 24-hours a day.  Now consider the DOD and how billions are unaccountable and lost forever.

Could Wal-Mart lose billions of tons of product down black holes and survive?  On an administrative basis, government cannot compare because it has no genuine accountability to taxpayers, customers, investors, or users.

So, how could it be that if government is traditionally rife with inefficiencies, old computers, and lousy workers could it reduce the administrative costs under any circumstances?

It just doesn’t make sense.  How could anyone make that claim and stand a chance of not being laughed out of the room?

Whatever the costs of administrating today’s health care, they cannot be used as a pretext for socialized medicine.  People are free to spend their money as they see fit and if they want an array of health care options, services, and the like, there will be administrative costs associated with that level of care. It comes with territory in an advanced health care system.

Administrative costs are a non-issue.

In fact, if the government takes over health care, these costs are not the costs borne by private payers, but rather taxpayers, which then would make it an immoral cost-shifting.  So, the notion that single-payer, one nation-one toilet health care can save on administrative costs by firing the insurance companies and replacing them with government bureaucrats is sheer Marxist propaganda.

The real costs of administrative issues is the doctor’s time with patients. That’s the real issue.  Time and again we hear how government run health care leads to shortages, waiting lines, murderous delays in care, all due to the single-payer inefficiencies and abject neglect of patients. Imagine how much less time with patients a doctor would have under socialism, where he must spread out his time among twice as many patients in long waiting lines with fewer resources to treat them, more controls on costs, and more restrictions on the information and counseling he can provide.

Obama’s doctor of 22 years, David Scheiner, rejects Obamacare, not for a genuine laissez-faire health market, but because he wants government controls all over the health care system. He is a true Marxist, “If I had to say the single one thing which is the worst part of it, is that private insurers continue to be a part of the health scheme.” How is that for being against private enterprise?

One way to solve the administrative costs of the current approach is to have a voluntary uniform policy code with various exceptions, similar to the Uniform Commercial Code which helps parties to a contract resolve disputes not discussed when they signed their contracts.

Where policies agree, there is uniformity. Differences exist on what insurers do not reimburse, which adds administrative costs as medical people try to recoup their expenses.  These added administrative costs could be reflected in premiums. In other words, plans that cover less would be more expense administratively. Using the power of sheer voluntary choice, this would tend to make the best policy, the most uniform and the most widely-used because it is the least administratively expensive, i.e., the easiest to use, just the opposite of what is happening under single-payer or the government restricted care of today.  Of course, that is only if people are buying administrative services, which they are not.

Just as good money drives out bad under a system that respects property rights, the best plan will tend to drive out lesser plans when people have liberty of contract and ingenuity.  If people want more or less health care, they can pay for it to suit their needs. As we know from other products and services, the mass market pays one thing, and exceptions for premiums plans are more expensive.  Nothing new there. In fact, quality tends to trickle down to the mass market, and mass market plans will absorb features of premium plans, just as high quality TV’s go mainstream.

We know that socialized medicine would inflame, infect, and kill American leadership in quality health care. That should be where the debate is taking place, and not on the issue of paperwork. Even here we can see how the paperwork issue is an issue of health care quality, even though socialist must side-step the issue of quality directly.  Socialism can never win on the issue of quality.

In essence, if the real issue is opening up time with your doctor by addressing administrative costs, how does that square with the overall dilution of a doctor’s time, as it is spread around onto an extra 40 million uninsured?  Obama talked about spreading the wealth around.  Now he is spreading time-with-your-doctor around.  Does Obama have the right to spread either our time or our money around? Who gave him that right? And who must fight to reclaim it?

Government is a wild animal roaming over us with impunity.  No one man can stop the government. And the government is smart. It only takes us out only one man at a time. That is why socialism is seductive to many. They think they will not be harmed by socialism, someone else will be first.  “My plane will not crash, someone else’s will first. I will not be the first to die under socialized medicine. You will!” That is why the people entertain socialism, the gamble of something for nothing.  If the price for socialism was getting stabbed in the eye, who would be a socialist?

Administrative costs are a sub-issue that Obama-lovers claim to address in place of the real issue, time with and access to, the doctor, his care and expertise and treatment, the key measure of quality.

Americans have to decide whether they can live with administrative costs or waiting lines.

Since that is what the debate is coming down to, Obamacare can be toast.  It depends on whether Americans have a will to live and whether they will put their will to live above their love for Obama. You never know what Americans will really do under those circumstances. Some Americans do have a propensity from time to time to engage in the hysteria of mass self-sacrifice. Anything is still possible.

We know that people who have a will to live balk at socialized medicine because it threatens their lives. So, why should they surrender to socialists now when socialists talk about paperwork cost-savings, when time with your doctor is the key issue and is doomed to go down under socialism? That’s something for socialists to answer before anyone swallows the poison in their Marxist brew.

Lorenz Kraus © 2009

Driving around I saw a lawn sign that declared “ONE NATION–ONE PLAN!”

My thought:

one nation one plan

one nation one leader

one nation one Furhrer

one nation one crapper!

Lorenz KrausC2009

A scientist has discovered a new drug that can mitigate the effects of radiation. This would come in handy if the US ever got nuked. Surely, if you survive the blast force, you have to deal with radiation effects.  It would seem that if there was a nuclear war, the psychological need to be free of death would be highly intense, and one’s willingness to try something to keep you alive before you die in hours or days would be quiet high.

So, why is the paternalistic FDA attacking our right to have access to this drug, should it come to market?

The drug would also help those taking radiation treatments.   Isn’t it odd how Obama and the liberals want to broaden access to health care while at the same time deny drugs to us using government regulation today?

The liberal feminists are always bitching about paternalism, yet how many of these are pro-socialists monsters lactating with their own power-lust?

If we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which we do so long as we have a will to live, then, we have the right to trade with others for medicine that can help us in our hour of need. Do we really need to give others the power to say no to us? That is what the FDA is all about. It is the power to say no!

That is what Obama’s healthcare plan is all about. The power to say no any time you want private health insurance.  That is what taxes are all about. You want to spend your money your way, but if you give politicians the power to tax you, you give them the power to say no to the way you want to live your life.

Only an idiot would do that…and we live in a nation ruled by idiots.

Thankfully, nature has the last word on idiots.  Idiots are doomed in the long-run!

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

Michael Jackson died without a peep. No last words. Not so much as a crotch grab for the good old days. Not one for the road. That tells you what we will not miss. They say his influence is great. Yes, we all remember Rosanne Barr grabbing hers.

I don’t know that his music will be remembered by many in 100 years. I am surprised that the Beetles are  still remembered.  Elvis I can see because his songs were far more heart-felt and personal and relate to normal people better than a load of screaming moonwalks from Michael Jackson.  Plus, Elvis sang his songs, instead of screamed them. That goes a long way, you know?

I can’t think of one song that I really like from him. He was all noise. They say he was a genius. Do you know what a genius is? Thriller the greatest music video of all time.  Have you seen the make-up job in it? Have you seen it at all? It’s not a music video. It’s a short movie.

Like any athlete, say Michael Jordan, it’s hard to appreciate their skills unless you see them in person. Since music is the key claim to fame, how does the Jackson name survive? He is not around now to market himself.

Yes, he was a marketing genius, slipping the press odd stories about himself that were bogus. When it got of out control, and he was coined Wacko Jacko, his marketing backfired on him.  Not so genius. For a millionaire, who seems to have died in debt up to his ears, he sure wasn’t a financial genius, but a sort of compulsive spender.

To mask his oddities, he did what all cons do. He gave to charity. It didn’t buy him anything in the end.

I don’t know what he thought of rap music, but if you can measure what popular music became after he came along, it sure sucks. Michael Jackson was likely a bad influence on music. Without Michael Jackson, we would not have Britney Spears and the joint-busting disjointed and distracting “dancing” that surrounds singers today. Without that, we wouldn’t have lip-syncing either. After all, who can dancing vigorously and sing well? So, thanks for nothing. I mean, thanks for the Milli Vanilli scandals.

It takes two to create a media sensation.  Maybe he is the best that popular culture, a pop audience, can produce. That tells you the level of taste people have.  As the Romans say, there’s no arguing taste. So, I won’t argue it.

The big point is that he was put on a pedestal.

A lot of people like his stuff. I never got it.  I don’t think more people will like him in death either.  It’s unfortunate that we even have to conceive of him. Who wants their attention drawn to death, one more time, or to an autopsy of a creep? That the media were asking all the details about how an autopsy is performed also shows the state of the culture post-Jackson. Plain ugly.

Lorenz Kraus 2009

Reports are surfacing that some of the passengers on the doomed flight had connections to terror groups and were already being tracked. So interesting that they were being tracked all the way onto an airplane.

It is very interesting how governments operate.  How could they conclude without any evidence that the Airbus didn’t go down by a bomb within the first reports? You know it has to be propaganda because there is nothing to conclude except this: the safest part of any flight is when it is cruising at altitude, planes are built to withstand tons of turbulence, and lightning strikes planes so often, it could be discounted.

So how could the geniuses conclude it was lightning or air that crashed the plane? If the pilots had no time to respond or send an emergency signal, if the computers spat out a last burst of data, again, that points to something suspicious. The papers write, “a series of automatic messages was sent by the plane’s system just before it vanished, reporting lost cabin pressure and electrical failure.”  What would release cabin pressure more: a puff of outside air or a bomb? Give the vast spread of material on the ocean surface, it is also possible the flight broke up in the air. With 61 French passengers, it is not clear who they were and where they were originally from and what their personal reason was to be on that flight.

Here is the topper from the head of France’s accident investigation agency, Paul-Louis Arslanian, said he was “not optimistic” that rescuers could even recover the plane’s black boxes. “I am not so optimistic. It is not only deep, it is also mountainous,” he said. “We might find ourselves blocked at some point by the lack of material elements.”

So much for the French “can do” attitude!  Actually, I never heard the French have a can do attitude in the last 100 years, but rather an attitude of existential failure and doom. So, of course, they are willing to give up before the first pings on the black boxes are even detected.  This is from the same nation that gave us Jacques Cousteau and Jules Verne (10,000 Leagues Under the Sea).

Americans would say that is a cover-up by lack of will and effort.

Lastly, there is culpability involved.

ABC News reported that Air France received a bomb threat by phone related to a flight from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Paris days before Air France Flight 447 departed on Sunday.

This means that all the governments would have known about this because they are sharing information all the time. So, if our government claimed it wasn’t terrorism right off the bat, you know it was a lie. If France claimed it was’t terrorism, they lied. Every government official who discounted terrorism lied because they all know about these threats and share the info immediately.

They obviously lost credibility on this one. What is the point of them probing the bottom of the sea when they know the answer already? Maybe that is why they don’t care to retrieve the black box.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, expressed a different attitude. “A country that could find oil in 3,700 meters deep in the ocean is going to be able to find a plane 1,200 meters deep.” That’s more like it.

No wonder France is a declining nation and Brazil is on the rise.

Lorenz Kraus © 2009

Who knows who Natasha Richardson was, but no one likes a story of a freak accident claiming a life.  An 18-year old girl was killed at a gas station after another car bumped hers, trapping her between her car and the pump, setting the whole thing on fire and burning her to death. Freak accidents are unpleasant reminders that the little things count.

Everything must measure up to your health, happiness, and freedom otherwise, even a freak accident will claim your life.  That is why regulations are so terrible. You can die not from the emergency itself, but from the regulation that prevents you from doing something about it.

Vanessa Redgrave, mother of Natasha Richardson, has been a standout socialist almost all her life co-founding the Marxist Party in England. She put up money to bail out jailed terrorists when others wouldn’t. She is the kind of socialist who tries to put lipstick on socialism. She is a Trotsky-fan, that is, someone who thinks shooting children in the streets to promote communism, actual policy under Stalin, is just a bit too far.

But socialism is socialism. It is mass murder by brute regulation and quotas. It is war of class upon class, waged until one class vanquishes the others. It demands the slaughter of the rich for the sake of the poor; from various articles in 2008-9, you can see the true colors of socialists in our newspapers. They are eager to come out of the wood work.

Fitting that Vanessa Redgrave has to live with the fact that her socialist ideas were a key factor in her daughter’s obliteration.

Canada has socialized medicine which paralyzes the ability of doctors to do their job.  Unlike the US, where we have helicopters to traverse patients to the optimum medical center with specialists, Canada’s bankrupt socialist system has no helicopter system. That left Natasha Richardson stranded for three hours.

Her death was sealed by a socialist waiting line encouraged by her “loving” mother.

This is the perfect example of child abuse.

Remember Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers? Ayers wanted to slaughter 25 million of us to rip out the last of American capitalist society.

Friends with aspiring serial killers and genocidal maniacs.

Obama cronies are now plotting to wipe out “Ron Paul supporters,” by calling them terrorists when they haven’t advocated or taken action of a violent nature at all.

People who believe in government limited to keeping the peace and enforcing contracts are the last band of organized resistance to state-worship, not to mention a more important intellectual resistance to economic policies in violation of the rule of law. Obama’s intend to “spread the wealth around” vitiates the property rights of us all. We are all under the gun—Obama’s gun. As Obama transforms the American system into Stalin’s death camp, where hatred of money-making is explicit, where killing CEO’s is demanded by the State, we should see more such deaths.

Call them Obamurders.

Friends of Obama seek 25 million dead Americans.

John McCain called Obama a decent man.

So would Vanessa Redgrave.

Lorenz Kraus © 2009

The 200 year anniversary of Charles Darwin and his eventual theory of evolution are being discussed and the same old brain-dead idiocy is flowing from the mouths of conservatives.

I think everyone would be willing to entertain an alternative theory to Darwin’s if only conservative critics actually had an alternative observation-based theory.  Darwin’s power and lasting cultural influence despite the overwhelming religious hostility to it is that his theory drew from his observations.

If he drew wrong conclusions from his observations, then draw another theory, but you can’t argue with observations.

Whatever is said in the Bible is not from observation.  It is not only claimed to be revelation, but supposedly superior because it is revelation.  That is why it is not science and is vicious garbage that threw humanity off course time and time again from what should be a Golden Age of Reason and human fecundity—which is our destiny. We’ve come close several times, but always religion comes back to pull humanity under the muck.

If you want revelations open your eyes.

If you want to lift your soul get off your knees.

Though there are critics of Darwin, they are universally useless criticisms absent an alternative observation-based theory.  The critics are just like conspiracy theorists and people who claim to see aliens.

They will always be with us, but we don’t have to take their empty ideas seriously.

Lorenz Kraus © 2009