Smoots and Truths

GorT is taking a break from the six 11 to 15 year olds in the house and retreated to the palacial master bedroom suite (which GorT replicant #3 tried to lay claim to upon arrival) to check up on teh internets (because while Al Gore didn't or did build it, someone has to keep it running so all those evil corporations can keep making all those evil profits).  In so doing, GorT came across two items of note:

Item the first: catching up on the other Gormo-posts, GorT noted this passage by the esteemed Dr. J:

First, Dr. J. apologizes for taking an internet meme that went disturbingly viral unbeknownst to him and satirically attributing it to your refrigerator. He only did that because you are not only the the most IT savvy of the Gormogons, but also because you have most articulately discussed parental limits on technology with our readers.

GorT would classify his post (which he and Mrs. GorT both found amusing) in the "we laugh because it's funny, we laugh because it's true" category.  If the subtle mentions in my two vacation posts weren't clear, we're on vacation with six children: three of our own and we allowed each to bring a friend.  Each friend had to be approved by GorT & Mrs. GorT and then we had to clear it with their parents and explain how we expect the vacation to unfold (eating, sleeping arrangements, travel, etc.).  Once here, Mrs. GorT gathered all the children and set the ground rules:

1. Show respect to all adults (essentially, we expect the pleases, thank yous, holding doors, etc.)
2. Watch your volume - we're staying in a residential neighborhood where there is a mix of year-round property owners and rental homes.
3. Clean up after yourselves - guess what? Mr & Mrs. GorT are on vacation too.  We're not your maids - you all know how to pick up dishes, food, trash, clothes, etc.  Do it.

To date, it's gone really well.  And a big kudos to all the kids (ours and the others) for showing great respect and attentiveness to Mrs. GorT's 91-year old grandmother who we took out to Sunday Mass and to a bunch of Mrs. GorT's relatives who we had over for a few hours on Sunday evening.  It is of little surprise as one of the criteria for "approving" the guests was a good understand on our part of how we thought these kids would behave.

So the viral refrigerator post isn't far off from what we'd use to motivate our kids as well.

Item the second:  Smoots.  GorT, Sr. wrote in with the following:

I was amused to see the term smoots in Dr J’s post about I-95.  Smoots, legend says, was a freshman at MIT who was used to mark the length of the Massachusetts Ave bridge over the Charles River, just adjacent to MIT’s campus.  The story goes that Smoots was laid end-to-end and a mark made at each length.  I counted those smoots as I walked across that open bridge in the depth of winter as the sub-zero wind came down the Charles many times.

After writing the above, I found this on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot

PS I was there in 1963 and 1964.

Olympic Non-trovercies

The thrill of victory...

This article was linked to on Drudge, the other day. Basically, Ye Shiwen, a female Chinese swimmer and 2012 gold medalist enjoyed a 28.9(3) split in the last 50 m of the women's 400 IM, compared to 29.1 seconds in Ryan Lochte's final 50m. The difference was about two tenths of a second.

At first glance, Dr. J. found this peculiar. Not so much because she broke the world record by a second, that happens often enough in Olympic swimming, but because she also beat her personal best by five seconds, something rather profound. Not unheard of, but profound. 

Then Dr. J. then reflected some more. Ryan Lochte, as great as he is, isn't a finisher in the races that Dr. J. has watched. He has observed Mr. Lochte's competition catching up with him, especially in longer races. He doesn't pace himself in the way other swimmers do.

But what convinced Dr. J. that this is more likely a bunch of media horsepucky in order to drum up some drama than a case of actual doping, (other than Ye's fresh faced youthful appearance, as noted above) was something a friend of his posted on her Facebook page. She swam at Ivy University when Dr. J. was there. This friend is a reliable source as she missed qualifying for the Seoul games by hundredths of a second and the Barcelona games by quite a bit more, because of something involving strength to mass ratio and a poorly timed taper. In other words she has some serious swimming bona fides that Dr. J. does not have.

This is what she had to say: 

In 1981, 16-year-old Mary T. Meagher had a 32.27s split in the final 50m as she set the world record in the women's 200 butterfly in 1981. This time is as fast, or faster than four of the semifinalists' final 50m splits in the men's 200m butterfly during this year's U.S. Olympic Trials -- 31 years later.

Dr. J. suspects that the difference here is between speed and stamina. If Ye and Lochte were to race each other in a 50m freestyle sprint, there is very little doubt that Lochte would prevail. That being said there is a hell of a lot of difference between a 50m sprint and a 50m sprint after 350m of IMing.

...and the agony of defeat. Gosh, Dr. J. misses ABC coverage!

Controversy the second, revisiting Ms. Wieber's trevails. Dr. J. doesn't think he convincingly explained why the rules as they exist stuck in his craw.

Dr. J. finds it perfectly reasonable that no more than two (or any other arbitrary number of athletes) represent a nation in a given sport/event. This is an international showcase after all. The problem is that in swimming and track, those American athletes are determined after the U.S. team trials in the good ole U.S. of A. Substitutions happen at the games, but those are the exception, rather than the rule.

In gymnastics, the participants in individual all-around and apparatus finals are determined at the Olympics  based on who puts in the best performance at qualifiers. It is also determined before the team all-around finals where the team needs that third person at their physical and mental best. Dr. J. just thinks if only two are going to go to the individual all-around final, that it is best for said third place athlete's sanity and upcoming performance that that be determined in advance. Trust Dr. J. on that. He got an A in psychiatry...

NYT Editors' Hypocrisy, Recall Election Edition

'Puter imagines this to be the creative process
in the New York Times' editorial suites. Here
comes another double-flusher from Keller!

'Puter was enthralled to read today the the New York Times editorial board fervently believes that judicial retention elections are TEH WERK UB TEH DEBBIL!!11!!1!  Intrigued, 'Puter read on to discover what sort of shenanigans were afoot. 

Surely, the New York Times' editors had uncovered some nefarious right wing plot to illegally -- maybe even unconstitutionally -- subvert the will of the people and established political order!  Let's see here.

Under Florida’s system of choosing Supreme Court justices, the governor makes the initial appointments, then voters get to decide every six years whether to keep them.  This system of “retention elections” was intended to avoid the politicization of the courts associated with regular, multicandidate judicial elections.

Holy moley! A smoking gun! Conservatives are having a judicial retention election, as mandated by law! OH NOES!!1! And an unsupported allegation as to legislative intent being to prevent politicization of the judiciary! O. Mah. Gawd. The New York Times has uncovered this generation's Watergate!

But wait, dear reader.  It just gets worse. In an election open to all eligible voters and subject to all applicable local, state and federal election laws, conservatives are ADVOCATING FOR THEIR PREFERRED CANDIDATES! ZOMG!!1!

Some conservatives are trying to purge three moderate justices facing a retention vote in November: R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince. The only Democratic appointees on the state’s seven-member court, they are being singled out for various rulings, including a decision in 2010 that blocked from the ballot a misleadingly worded constitutional amendment designed to permit the state to opt out of national health care reform.

'Puter especially enjoys the part where the three judges are defined as "moderate justices" in the first sentence, and we only learn in the second sentence that all three of the allegedly "moderate justices" are in fact Democrats.

But surely evil Floridian conservatives have been biased in their targets.  Conservatives must be taking on only liberal Democrats, right? Not so much.

An effort to remove the two Republican judges who voted with them [the three Democrat "moderate justices" -'Puter]on the case failed two years ago. But this year’s antiretention drive, which is being led by a group based in Orlando with ties to the Tea Party, Restore Justice 2012, appears more robust, and it is being aided and abetted by the Republican governor, Rick Scott.

So let 'Puter get this straight, New York Times editors.  Your position is that an election held as mandated by state law and in accordance with state law on whether to retain Florida's Supreme Court justices is bad and wrong because it can be used for political purposes? 'Puter politely leaves aside for the moment the admitted fact that the New York Times' conservative nemesis has used Florida's judicial retention elections to oppose both Republicans and Democrats. 

It seems the editorial could've been more succinctly written thus:

Florida's judicial retention elections are valid if and only if the results always and without fail retain Democrat appointees. Love, the New York Times editors XOXOXO

Consider 'Puter's world rocked, New York Times.  You've plainly demonstrated how destructive to law and order the forthcoming Florida judicial retention elections are.  'Puter's certain you, being the pinnacle of leftist thought and the setter of the daily agenda in all right-thinking newsrooms across America, are consistent in your hatred of all duly held elections that may subvert the will of the people, right?

Wrong.  Here's the New York Times editorial board opinining on June's recall election of governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

As Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin faces a well deserved recall vote next month after stripping public unions of their bargaining rights, voters are discovering the generosity of Diane Hendricks.

That's the editorial's lead sentence.  Please feel free to read the rest of the cited editorial, but you'll only find the usual liberal "ever since Citizens United we've been getting our asses handed to us" schtick.* But debating wrongheaded liberal opposition to constitutional laws is not 'Puter's primary purpose in this posting.  'Puter's purpose is to call out the New York Times editors for their blatant hypocrisy in pursuit of their favored political outcome.  

How is Wisconsin's recall election scheme materially different from Florida's judicial retention election scheme? It's not.  Both are legal methods of obtaining citizen input on the performance of government employees.  In fact, the Wisconsin recall election law is inarguably more destructive to political order than Florida's judicial retention election law because the former interrupts the term of a duly elected public employee while the latter occurs at the end of a duly appointed public employee's term of office.

There is no rational basis for opposing judicial retention elections on the one hand and supporting recall elections on the other.  Unless you, like the New York Times editorial board, are willing to sacrifice your good name in support of your pet political cause.

*'Puter thinks the Citizens United decision is merely correlated with the Democrats' political fortunes, and not causative, but 'Puter'll defer to the plainly superior intellects at the New York Times.

High Capacity Magazine Ban Legislation: Dems Continue To Display Their Ignorance

'Puter stole this picture from Czar's
wedding album. Just out of the frame
is GorT sporting the newest in plasma
powered portable rail guns.

Liberal coastal elites' willful and inexplicable ignorance on all things bang-stick-y is showing again. Democrats in the House and the Senate are not only renewing legislation to ban high capacity magazines, but also new legislation to limit online sales of ammunition.

'Puter'd like to single out Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) for displaying a colossal amount of ignorance about hunting.  The erudite and thoroughly knowledgeable Sen. Lautenberg states the following, with his customary smug arrogance:

“We need to start today on efforts to prevent the next attack,” he said in a statement. “We should begin by passing my legislation to ban the sale of high-capacity gun magazines. No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck, but allowing high-capacity magazines in the hands of killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner puts law enforcement at a disadvantage and innocent lives at risk.”

First, 'Puter commends Sen. Lautenberg on his appreciation of duck hunters' skills.  Many of us take pride on our ability to flop a descending mallard with, at most, 52 shots. Jackass.

Second, there are no commercially available 100 round magazines for shotguns.  At least, there are none that 'Puter was able to find immediately.  'Puter's quick internet search did turn up this totally bitchin' 22 round magazine for the Remington 870.  Sure, there are commercially available 100 round magazines for rifles, but 'Puter's limiting himself to shotguns for reasons explained in detail below.

Last, as Sen. Lautenberg must know, it is already illegal to hunt waterfowl with rifles, pistols and shotguns capable of holding more than three rounds. The good Senator surely must be familiar with 50 CFR §20.21, which states*:

Migratory birds on which open seasons are prescribed in this part may be taken by any method except those prohibited in this section. No persons shall take migratory game birds:

(a) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machinegun, fish hook, poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;

(b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does not exceed three shells. However, this restriction does not apply during:

(1) A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

(2) A Canada goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, as set forth below:

(i) During the period of September 1 to September 15, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part; and

(ii) During the period of September 16 to September 30, when approved in the annual regulatory schedule in subpart K of this part.

Did you catch all that?  Contrary to Sen. Lautenberg's uninformed rant, and in contradiction to his stated rationale for banning high capacity magazines (i.e., "[n]o sportsman needs 100 rounds to kill a duck"), it is already illegal for waterfowlers to be afield with a shotgun capable of carrying more than three rounds of ammunition.  Is the Senator unaware of the laws and regulations of the United State?  It would seem so.

What part of "[n]o persons shall take migratory game birds ... with a ... rifle, pistol, ... [or] a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells ..." is so difficult for the good Senator to understand?

'Puter's certain Sen. Lautenberg would respond that 'Puter's making his point: hunters do not require (and cannot legally possess) high-capacity shotgun magazines afield. 

To which 'Puter responds that Sen. Lautenberg should quit picking on law abiding waterfowlers and get his facts straight.  Using a bullshit, easily disproven rationale as the sole stated basis for liberals' grandiose gun-banning schemes strikes 'Puter as colossally stupid.

But then 'Puter's a simple, uneducated man, incapable of higher thought, reason, logic or any combination of the foregoing.  'Puter is unworthy to question Sen. Lautenberg's intellectual capabilities as he clearly inhabits a much,. much higher intellectual plane than 'Puter.

*'Puter only cites federal law here, as all ducks are considered migratory waterfowl, and are therefore subject to federal regulation.  That's why hunters have to purchase duck stamps annually.  Federal law regarding migratory waterfowl hunting preempt inconsistent state laws.  Thus, 'Puter did not inquire as to New Jersey's regulations (or any other state's) as such laws and regulations are at a minimum as strict as the federal laws.

Dr. J. addresses GorT's issues with I-95

Still not as confusing as beltway traffic...

Dear GorT,

First, Dr. J. apologizes for taking an internet meme that went disturbingly viral unbeknownst to him and  satirically attributing it to your refrigerator. He only did that because you are not only the the most IT savvy of the Gormogons, but also because you have most articulately discussed parental limits on technology with our readers.

Now that Dr. J. has done sufficient penance regarding that issue, he would like to discuss the suckage that is going down from five lanes to three on the interstate. You see, the interstate system is like the cardiovascular system, specifically blood vessels.

The French physician Poiseuille did all the work regarding this issue. He demonstrated that flow is proportional to pressure, radius (to the 4th power), and inversely proportional to viscosity and length.

Interestingly this relationship also holds true with driving on the interstate. The change in pressure is not dissimilar to the speed limit on the road,. and the radius can be measured in lanes, just as it can be measured in feet, meters, and even smoots. Viscosity can be equated with the number of cars on the road, because drivers slow down with an increased number of cars. The length of the road can be equated with the length of a straightaway.

So flow (driving speed) is proportional to the number of lanes on the road, and is most noticeable at the choke points, which is where the other factors are held constant and the radius decreases.

Now back to your regularly scheduled vacation!

Warmest Regards,

Dr. J.

Math Class Is Hard, Admits NYT Writer

You know, the Czar has said for years that you will likely go your entire life without ever encountering a legitimately natural-forming quadratic equation. But to suggest that algebra itself is a time-wasting distraction is losing the baby with the bathwater.

Even so, New York Times’s Andrew Hacker seems to be arguing exactly this: that perhaps there is too much emphasis placed on learning algebra, and that’s why math scores are so low.

Let us see: math scores are pathetically low in the US compared to other countries despite outrageous amounts of spending per student. The cause? Perhaps the math is too hard.

Nope, not buying it. And Hacker agrees that math is important; after all, consider this powerful statement:

I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.

Yeah, those are two domains largely populated by mathematicians.

Curiously, some of Hacker’s logic works in other categories. For example, he suggests that dollars would be better spent on more practical math. This is the same logic (and prudent logic) that the military used in eliminating bayonet training—we spend too much time teaching soldiers and Marine a fighting system that is nearly unheard of today. Got it.

But this analogy assumes that algebra is not useful; in most respects, all math is an algebraic expression. When you ask a third grader what three times three is, you really are asking 3 * 3 = x; solve for x. The ability to problem solve like this is what leads people to solve simple problems that also solve for x, such as “how many hours do I need to work to pay for x?” “If I refinance my mortage tomorrow, the amount of money I could save in five years is x.” “If my gas mileage is 22 mpg, how many miles do I have left on a half-tank of gas?” This is all algebra, and real people—not just writers and social scientists—use it every day.

To forego teaching it because it hurts whites and minorities equally is insane. If kids are falling behind nationally, and algebra hasn’t changed in say 1100 years, then perhaps the problem is with the educational delivery. Maybe we aren’t teaching properly, with our emphasis on standardized fill-in-the-blank testing and multicultural presentations and how does x even feel about being unknown.

You would think a social scientist could do the math on that.

Yes, We Did In Fact "Build That"

Pictured: Czar pulling his sword out
of a recently gutted left wing pundit.

'Puter finally realized what's really been bugging him, aside from the passel of yellow jackets nesting in his unitard.  More specifically, 'Puter's been annoyed by President Obama's "you didn't build that" quote.

In today's Washington Post, Richard Cohen dutifully lays out the liberals' standard rebuttal to conservatives' wrath about Mr. Obama's quote.  In a nutshell, the liberal media's denial jig goes something like this (sung to the tune of My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean):

1.  Mr. Obama didn't really say "you didn't build that."

2.  If Mr. Obama did say it, he didn't mean it

3.  If Mr. Obama did say it and did mean it, then evil conservatives are taking Mr. Obama out of context.

4.  If Mr. Obama did say it, did mean it and it is in context, then "you didn't build it" is true.

'Puter opines here that if the liberal media actually believed the quote was true and defensible, they'd lead with that argument.  It's not good form to use truth as a last ditch argument.  People have an annoying habit of assuming you're lying about the truth of something if that's not your first line of defense.

Mr. Cohen's column specifically cites the GI Bill, the internet and the Erie Canal (oddly) in support of his proposition that government is the great provider, the sine qua non, that without which businesses could not operate or thrive.  That, right there, my friends, is liberalism in a nutshell.  There is nothing you are, there is nothing you do, there is nothing you own, there is nothing you create that the government does not or should not have hand in. 

'Puter's response is thus.  Yes, Mr. Obama, we did in fact build this.  At least the 53% of Americans who actually pay taxes did build it.  Even if we grant your baseline assumption that the government is solely responsible for the interstate highway system, the internet, the military-industrial complex, Tang and legal ruled notepads, we still built it.

Government is no more and no less than the mechanism through which consenting individuals on a national scale enact their will for the good of the whole.  That's the sole reason for the existence of government: to provide a mechanism for the people collectively to do necessary things individuals cannot do for themselves.  That's it.  Nothing more.

So, Mr. Obama's claim that "you didn't build it" is verifiiably disproven.  We did build it.  Steve Jobs built it with his tax dollars.  So did Chik-Fil-A.  So did the illegal immigrant Mexicans who while breaking the law nevertheless have federal taxes withheld from tehir paychecks.  We all built it.  Each one of us built it. 
We taxpayers have ponied up more than our fair share over the years to "build that."  We each have the right to use that which we have built. Heck, those of us who paid to "build that" are so nice as to allow those who are freeloading to use that which we have built as they see fit at no cost to them.  The fact that many of liberal Democrats' base voters haven't taken advantage of what we Americans have collectively built through our government to better themselves does not make it true that we "didn't build that." We did.

And 'Puter's just about done listening to liberals claim otherwise.

GorT On Vacation

GorT and family are on vacation this week visiting the lovely Palmetto State.  It's been a frequent destination for the family and we enjoy it tremendously.  We've had a spat of thunderstorms but all-in-all the kids are having fun, we've visited with some relatives and GorT's internal clock is still functioning (years of waking early have programmed it beyond adjustment) but he is relaxing with morning bike rides before the rest of the house wakes.

The one note I'd make is Interstate 95.  I understand that I-95 serves as a major artery for commuter, vacationer, and interstate commerce shipping but what I don't understand is why the highway planners didn't build it to accommodate the traffic load better.   We have left for the south at various times - as early as 4:30am and this year marked the latest at 8:15am (we have additional non-family members traveling with us and didn't want to subject them to a super-early morning).  Traffic was fine until the HOV lanes ended around Dumfries, Virginia.  Then, I-95 reduces those 5 lanes to 3 lanes and further south it narrows to 2 lanes.  Once past the Virginia-North Carolina border, traffic dissipated and the rest of the drive was fine - aside from the (largely NC drivers) who wouldn't pass other vehicles and hang out in the left lane.  Even with an increase in stops, we made it to our destination in decent time without incident after passing many "Peaches & Fireworks - next exit" signs.

I'm sure the families around us on the beach aren't happy with the glare off GorT's hyper-polished titanium-molybdenum outer skin, but there's little to do about that.

The Spawn's Hatching

Thank goodness for Mrs. 'Puter's
genes. Otherwise, Spawn would
be slow and unattractive like
'Puter. Though if there's justice,
Spawn inherited 'Puter's balding gene.

Eleven years ago, around three a.m., 'Puter's youngest son Spawn burst forth from his shell entered the world. He was on the smallish side of normal, and not breathing too well, but he did just fine, and Mrs. 'Puter and I took him home timely.

Eighteen months later, Spawn was "failing to thrive," couldn't keep food down and sounded like a whooping crane when he slept.  Mrs. 'Puter finally convinced the doctors to take a good, long look at Spawn.  The doctors determined that Spawn had abnormally large tonsils and adenoids and unusually small breathing passages. 

Out the tonsils and adenoids came, thanks to an excellent local pediatric otolaryngologist surgeon, and immediately, Spawn commenced his newly found favorite activity: eating. 

The good surgeon told us at a follow up visit that Spawn had the worst case of enlarged tonsils and adenoids he'd ever seen in a child that young and that in his then 30 years of surgical experience, Spawn was the second youngest child he'd ever had to operate on.  And belated thanks to the good surgeon for not sharing that information with Mrs. 'Puter and 'Puter prior to Spawn's surgery.

Spawn has thrived from that day forward, to this point surpassing my already high expectations for him. Spawn is smart, athletically talented and musically talented.  In fact, Mrs. 'Puter has already witnessed throngs of girls screaming Spawn's name as he emceed his grade school's talent show.  Spawn's teenage years will certainly be ... interesting, both for him and for 'Puter.

Spawn shares his birthday with several of our personal friends, along with notables such as Milton Friedman and Harry Potter.

So, on this 31 July 2012, 'Puter wishes his son Spawn a lifetime full of challenges to overcome, health and happiness.

'Puter will love Spawn always, no matter what.

Mail Bonding

Well, this is not entirely the Czar’s fault. The post clearly stated we were on vacation. You cannot expect us to update everything all the time.

Dread and Awful (pun) Czar:

I recently read in "Ur Seyentz 2Day" where researchers at the University of Michigan were studying the "Muni Bond", where investments of energy could possibly be repaid at a modest rate, but the returns would not be subject to taxation entropy. However, it turns out that the electrons foolishly squander the energy to gain popularity with non-charged subatomic particles that really contribute nothing to the molecule, and end up never returning any energy at all, but rather just demand more from their energy-rich neighbors.

The Muni Bond is used extensively in public buildings and bus systems.

Your minion,
ScottO

Poor guy thinks we forgot about him. Well, not.

The Democratic Party Profits From Teachers' Union Members' Pedophilia

Ms. Brown is a sharp reporter and a
beautiful bride. Please ignore Dan
Senor (right), the lucky bastard.

'Puter's happy to see Campbell Brown's piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal.  Well, 'Puter wasn't happy about the piece's content, but pleased that someone is finally forcing Democrats to confront their horrible double standard.

As Ms. Brown ably details, New York State's teachers' unions are not merely content to have lifetime job guarantees and guaranteed annual raises, coupled with insanely generous pensions and benefits.  Nay, to consider such a package is to laugh.

Teachers' unions also want their members to remain teachers even after shown to have molested children. Yes, 'Puter meant what he wrote there, inflammatory as it is.  Teachers' unions knowingly and unforgivably put child molesters back in the classroom where unwitting parents subject their children to the union-approved pedophiles' continued predations.

But maybe 'Puter's just hypersensitive.  Maybe these teachers are really good guys whose actions were misunderstood.  Judge for yourself.

One example: An arbitrator in 2007 found that teacher Alexis Grullon had victimized young girls with repeated hugging, "incidental though not accidental contact with one student's breast" and "sexually suggestive remarks." The teacher had denied all these charges. In the end the arbitrator found him "unrepentant," yet punished him with only a six-month suspension.

Another example from 2007: Teacher William Scharbach was found to have inappropriately touched and held young boys. "Respondent's actions at best give the appearance of impropriety and at worst suggest pedophilia," wrote the arbitrator—before giving the teacher only a reprimand. The teacher didn't deny the touching but denied that it was inappropriate.

Then there was teacher Steven Ostrin, who in 2010 was found to have asked a young girl to give him a striptease, harassed students by text, and engaged in sexual banter. The arbitrator in his case concluded that since the teacher hadn't actually solicited sex from students, the charges—all of which the teacher denied—warranted only a suspension.

'Puter, as his company's compliance officer, would fire an employee on the spot for behaving as the "teachers gone wild" did above.  And in 'Puter's office, the harassed party would at least be an adult, not a defenseless child. 

Yet the Democrats continue to take countless millions of dollars annually from the union captured educations industry, knowing full well that their generous (with other people's money) union benefactors are aiding and abetting the return of child molesters to the classroom.  And before any of you liberal yahoos start angrily sputtering that a few bad apples don't ruin the bunch, 'Puter's got four words for you before he punches you in your tofu-chewing teeth: Catholic Church Sex Scandal.

'Puter doesn't want to hear it from any Democrat politician or any Democrat voter any more.  Every discussion about the Catholic Church's position on any issue, from transubstantiation to abortion to gay marriage is met with a spittle-flecked, red-faced moron screaming some version of "ZOMG!!1! CATHOLICKS IS KID RAPURS!!1!!!one!!" Usually, this is the moron's leading response to 'Puter, rather than a last resort when it's clear he's been bested on logic and reason.  And, not for nothing, priests have a lower incidence of child molestation than do public school teachers, so suck it, haters.

If you support the teachers' unions, you are supporting a course of conduct almost identical to that of some in the Catholic Church's hierarchy when confronted with plain instances of pedophilia: return the molesters to duty and don't warn anyone.  If you're taking the teachers' union's money knowing full well they're returning molesters to the classroom, you're complicit in the unions' pedophile enabling activities.
For the record, 'Puter doesn't excuse, condone or tolerate the Catholic Church's organizational behavior during its pedophilia scandal. But at least those who looked the other way, permitting the molester priests to continue molesting are finally being called to account.  Can you say the same for the teachers unions? Not yet you can't.

The Democrats will never willingly permit its money laundering public sector unions (taxpayer money to public employees wages to mandated closed shop union dues to campaign contributions) to suffer any real consequences. Why should the Democrats? The unions' victims are just poor children, and the money's good. After all, we Democrats don't have to watch the kids endure the molestation, or watch the kids and families endure the consequences of the molestation for years. And we Democrats also are doing Big and Good Things with the blood money campaign contributions. The ends justify the means, right? RIGHT?!?

If the Democrats really need to condone child rape to support their campaigns, they should be more honest about it and open a bordello chock full of kids at the next National Education Association convention.  Or is it the Democratic National Convention? It's tough to tell the two apart, since they're attended by almost exactly the same cohort.
What's worse? Allowing pedophiles to return to their jobs to protect your organization (Catholic Church) or allowing pedophiles to return to their jobs in return for 30 pieces of silver campaign contributions (teachers' unions)? Both are so ghastly, 'Puter can't say with certainty, other than he's darned sure both parties are going to Hell.

Enjoy pulling the lever for President Obama in November.  And remember, if you do so, you're complicit in child rape.  

Smart Operatives Spot Smart Things

Dread Czar,

Further to your discussion with Dr. J on opening ceremony nonsense, did you notice that when NBC showed banners from past Olympics, the two recent American games went down the memory hole?

I noticed it in the TV broadcast, but you can see it in this clip on NBC's website. Both 1984 and 1996 are missing, along with Berlin 1936. Starting at about 2:30.

The Los Angeles games were boycotted, but so were the 1980 Moscow games, and they were shown. Atlanta had the bombing, but the 1972 Munich games had a terrorist attack, and they were included. So I don't know why these two games were excluded. I sent an email to NBC on it -- maybe I'll hear back tomorrow, or next month, or the fifth of Never.

Best regards,
AH

Most curious. One suspects that these were edited for time, without the juvenile editor realizing the importance of 1936, 1984 and 1996. Well, maybe not 1996 so much. Aside from the bombing, which while serious was not enough to disrupt events the way 1972 did, the 1996 Olympics were a bit dry. But so were the 1992 Olympics, and yet, there they were. Let us know if you hear anything of substance—which is unlikely.

Eye Want a Chicken Sandwich

Much ado about chicken...what's next, air conditioners? Oh, wait...

The Chick-Fil-A non-troversy is a frustrating one for religious conservatives. The Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, as well described here by 'Puter, describes a calling and a challenge for gay Catholics who wish to be Catholics in good standing, but not one that is impossible, and that is, basically, to live a chaste life. That is a calling the Church makes to all unmarried Catholics regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Church calls for all Catholics to love and accept our brothers and sisters regardless of sexual orientation, and never to treat them unfairly.

It is a free country, and an individual can choose to remain Catholic, leave the Catholic Church, or even disagree with the Church, show up on Sunday and grumble about how wrong they think the Church afterwards at brunch. That is not the point of this post.

Indeed, Dr. J. has a Catholic and a Presbyterian friend who are confirmed bachelors, and who, at least by all appearances, live a chaste and rather fulfilling life where they are defined by their professional accomplishments, spirituality and content of character rather than by whom (if anyone) they are attracted to, or what they do in their respective bedrooms.

He has a third, lapsed Catholic, agnostic, confirmed bachelor chum, who he thinks is just a strange old hermit...but that is another story for another day.

In addition, it wasn't until recently that Anderson Cooper and Sally Ride came out of the closet, and the latter posthumously. Both of them will be remembered for their accomplishments rather than their sexual preferences because they lived lives defined by what they've done, rather than their sexuality, or in the case of Mr. Cooper, also rather than because of his family ties.

The point is this, and it is succinctly made by Dr. J.'s buddy Jamie Jeffords over at the Eye.

Cast aside my true belief that government ought not regulate marriage at all. Marriage is a cultural/religious institution that predates government in the first place. There is no conceivable way any government will relinquish it power to regulate marriage, so there is no sense in even discussing the idea further. I do not condone gat (sic, ed.) marriage. I am a traditionalist who believes marriage is between a man and a woman. The idea that homosexuals should be able to marry is relatively new. Even ancient societies well accepting of homosexuality drew the line at marriage. However, when gay marriage is legalized--not I say when, not if--I will bebop along as I always have. 

What I have just demonstrated is the difference between condoning--the act of approving--and tolerating--enduring something one opposes. Chic-fil’A’s critics do not have to condone the company’s support for traditional marriage, but they do have to tolerate it. Unfortunately, there appears to be an epidemic among progressives that tolerance is allowing something they do not like, not trying to either change it or, failing that, get rid of it altogether.

Mr. Jeffords makes a critical point here. Progressives tell their opponents they are intolerant when they are truly the intolerant ones. They use the cry of intolerance as a weapon to bludgeon the respectfully disagreeable into submission. They are typically successful with this tool because they have a willing victim who is tolerant even in his disagreement. Not only has it been recently attempted in the Chick-Fil-A situation, but when the supporters of the HHS mandate turned what was really a war against Catholic not-for-profits into a war-on-womyn.

What is different now is that the opponents of the progressives are no longer afraid of fighting back. They are beginning to learn, as Robert George described in a recent commentary, that a 'Grand Bargain' cannot be struck on certain issues.

The fundamental error made by some supporters of conjugal marriage was and is, I believe, to imagine that a grand bargain could be struck with their opponents: “We will accept the legal redefinition of marriage; you will respect our right to act on our consciences without penalty, discrimination, or civil disabilities of any type. Same-sex partners will get marriage licenses, but no one will be forced for any reason to recognize those marriages or suffer discrimination or disabilities for declining to recognize them.” There was never any hope of such a bargain being accepted. Perhaps parts of such a bargain would be accepted by liberal forces temporarily for strategic or tactical reasons, as part of the political project of getting marriage redefined; but guarantees of religious liberty and non-discrimination for people who cannot in conscience accept same-sex marriage could then be eroded and eventually removed. After all, “full equality” requires that no quarter be given to the “bigots” who want to engage in “discrimination” (people with a “separate but equal” mindset) in the name of their retrograde religious beliefs. “Dignitarian” harm must be opposed as resolutely as more palpable forms of harm. 

As legal scholar Robert Vischer has observed, “The tension between religious liberty and gay rights is a thorny problem that will continue to crop up in our policy debates for the foreseeable future. Dismissing religious liberty concerns as the progeny of a ‘separate but equal’ mindset does not bode well for the future course of those debates.” But there is, in my opinion, no chance—no chance—of persuading champions of sexual liberation (and it should be clear by now that this is the cause they serve), that they should respect, or permit the law to respect, the conscience rights of those with whom they disagree. Look at it from their point of view: Why should we permit “full equality” to be trumped by bigotry? Why should we respect religions and religious institutions that are “incubators of homophobia”? Bigotry, religiously based or not, must be smashed and eradicated. The law should certainly not give it recognition or lend it any standing or dignity.

These are clearly irreconcilable differences between the two sides.

Behold the poster child of the 21st century Progressive movement...

For Roman Catholics, marriage is a sacrament. The legal aspects of marriage are an afterthought.

Dr. and Mrs. Dr. J. were not married, in our hearts until the priest uttered that mystical incantation, "...I pronounce you man and wife..."

According to the state of New York, however, we were already married, as everyone signed the marriage paperwork before mass began.

Ultimately,  Dr. J. cares most about is his religious liberty.

He was talking about this with a number of people lately. In his opinion, sacramental marriage and state sanctioned partnerships need to be decoupled.

How the best to do that is a post for a different day.

What is important is that most people have deeply held religious beliefs. These beliefs are sometimes hard to explain because they tap into a person's ability to hold to something as being sacred mystery, something that cannot be articulated, built upon thousands of years of tradition. These beliefs are civilizing because they remind us that there is something greater than ourselves, and something we should strive towards.

The Progressive movement, in Dr. J.'s opinion does not have a sense of the sacred in this manner, which is why Progressives feel the need to smash every sacred cow that obstructs their agenda. Progressive Elites see in themselves the answer to every societal problem. There is nothing that can't be made better by their touch. They consider themselves self-designated avatars of a utopian society. They do, however, ultimately overreach, has they have done since 2008. Every time they fly too close to the sun, they fortunately burn up, which Dr. J. believes has begun to occur over the last two years. Unfortunately, like in Gotham, they leave a lot of collateral damage.

Dr. J. has a word for Progressives to look up, and that is hubris.

Found on GorT's Fridge...NOW WITH MORE ERRATA

Clever lady that Mrs. GorT...

ERRATA: In order to augment the satirical nature of this post, Dr. J. did not credit his source for this post, namely Spooky Witchy Facebook Friend. When another Gormo did some digging, and found that the original source can be found here. Dr. J. apologies to our Ninjababe, Emily Grace (@greatgrace84), and Doug Mataconis (@dmataconis) and Political Math (@politicalmath) for any confusion. Dr. J. will refrain from any such humor in the future without appropriate attribution, even if that diminishes the humor of the post.

Sucky rules still suck

Citius, Altius, Fortius, unless you put in the third best performance on your team.

Clan J. gathered around the holoscreen last night to watch the women's gymnastics qualification round. NBC's coverage was only trivially problematic, because the United States were in the first group.

You see, four teams rotate through the four apparatuses (apparati?). When they're done, four more teams go, then four more teams go. The US performed in one of the first two groups ahead of the Russians and Chinese (aka, their real competetion).The Americans came out on top of the preliminary round and are headed into the team All Around finals on Tuesday, which is not a surprise, they're quite good, and the Russians aren't the same without the Ukrainians. Team's 5-8 will perform first, then the US, Russia, China and Romania will perform at the same time. Dr. J. would be shocked if the 5th place qualifying team, Great Britain will perform such that they capture bronze, but wierder things have happened. Because teams 1-4 will be performing Tuesday night, the atmosphere in the arena will be far more electric.

Tonight's festivities did not only determine the seeding for the team All-Around, but it also determined the seeding for the individual All-Around and the individual Apparatus finals. The big controversy of the night (and there always is controversy when judges, rather than points or clocks determine the scores) is with a rule that everyone knew about going into the olympics. That rule is that only two individuals from each team will make cut of twenty-four who make the individual All-Around finals. The rule was placed to prevent a monopoly of individual slots to the individuals from the best teams. But frankly it is a stupid rule. It blocked the third place individual from four of the five best teams from making the cut. It is a rule whose impact would have been trivial with regard to national diversity within the finalist pool, but had a devastating impact on individual achievers. 

As a consequence of that rule, the reigning world champion and 4th place finisher Jordyn (yeah, with a y) Wieber didn't make the cut. Nor did the 12th place Russian, 21st place Brit, and 22nd place Chinese gymnasts. They were replaced with the 25th place French, 26th place Polish, 27th place Japanese and 28th place Australian gymnasts. 

Of course NBC is playing up the controversy, with Bob Costas bear-baiting Bela Karolyi, who of course thinks that the rule is horse-pucky. 

Now Dr. J. is in agreement with NBC for once. This rule screwed 4 individuals, including a potential medalist in hopes of giving France, Poland, Japan and Australia their fair share. It wasn't as if the top teams monopolized the slots. Indeed, the US team used a vault specialist (McKayla Maroney) to crush that event, and that move itself prevented two of its 5 athletes from even qualifying for the individual All-Around. 

Let Dr. J. reiterate, everybody knew the rules going in, but it doesn't make anyone feel any better. But alas, such is the way the Progressive Movement, including its Olympic Arm.

Diversity trumps achievement, as the Czar lamented yesterday.

A 4th place athlete is replaced with a 25th place athlete in the All Around finals. That won't teach the kids to be the best they can be, it will teach them to obtain dual citizenship. 

Dr. J. wishes Ms. Wieber the best in the team All-Around finals and encourages and entreats her to perform her best. It is his wish that her individual score in the team All-Around is higher than the individual All-Around medalist. That would be an impressive achievement. 

Re: The Olympic Welfare State

Our beloved Dr. J. (who really is the nicest guy, provided he isnt’t electrocuting you with force lightning, in which case your opinion may fairly differ) grouses that the Olympics’ opening ceremony had a very pro-Leftist feel to them.

The Czar has also seen many other similar comments, including shock over the American athletes’ made-in-China anti-American apparel to the refusal of the IOC to allow the Israelis a moment of silence in remembrance of 1972.

Anti-American and anti-Israeli pro-Leftism has always been associated with the Olympics, and lest we forget, the Olympics were started as a progressive pipedream in the first place. The founders of the modern Olympics honestly thought that the Olympic Games would be a brilliant substitute for warfare: that nations would compete on the sporting field, not on the battlefield. Nice, even though warfare still continued to be the main politics by other means, and in most respects, warfare got nastier and costlier since the Olympics came around—but this isn’t their fault.

The Olympics, especially in 1972 (tragically), 1980 (foolishly), and 1984 (regrettably), have been used as political levers as though the original ideals never existed. The concept of multi-nationalism, in which all players are equal until proven otherwise, is very much another façade of Progressivism—everyone knows which countries are going to win medals, and it always seems to be the same ones. The Cold War refusal to boot doped up sorely needed communist athletes is the same mentality that doesn’t want to offend sorely needed Muslim countries who have vowed to walk out if their flags are lowered for Israel. It’s also the same mentality that allows allegations of corruption, union influence peddling, and missing funds to occur in each and every Olympics with no real improvement—acceptance of this is integral to Leftist progressivism: it’s okay to have haves and have nots, so long as the haves are the folks in charge.

This of course doesn’t make the Olympics less important or less exciting to watch. Like any ritual event, it takes on a life of its own. And the course correction inherent to the Olympic progressivist nonsense is the real stories of athletes triumphing over incredible odds. It’s the athletes indeed who make this drama all the more worthwhile, opening and closing nonsense not mattering as much.

Bogeyman: Why The Press Screws Up Firearm Stories

Since the Aurora, Colorado, shootings, gun sales are up nationally, either despite the media’s fear and terror about firearms, or because of the media’s fear and terror.

Firearms are the media’s biggest bogeyman. And like all bogeymen, this fear is based on ignorance.

Here is what we mean. You have been blasted lately by an onslaught—by both local and national news organizations—about the need for stricter gun control.

As ‘Puter covered beautifully in our absence, none of the arguments for stricter gun control make any sense whatsoever. But the media has been vomiting out their fear of guns repeatedly: even other gun mishap stories—which might not normally make the news—are popping up as “grim reminders” that guns must always be bad.

The more the media talks about gun control, the more worried Americans fear their rights could erode even further...and with that, they race out and purchase that additional pistol, revolver, shotgun, or rifle they have been putting off or mulling over. The media, in our opinion, is responsible for the surge in gun sales. Nice work, ladies and gentlemen!

Ever wonder why the media is so stupid about firearms? Even regardless of your position on guns—plenty of conservatives support some form of gun controls and plenty of liberals enjoy responsible shooting sports—the media is a complete charlie foxtrot on firearms.

For example, the rifle Holmes actually used in his shooting spree is a domestic hunting rifle that requires you to pull the trigger each time you want to take a shot. It must be aimed between each shot, which is why the body count was so low—thankfully, Holmes appears to have been unskilled in that regard. However, the media continue to report it as an AK-47 (wrong), an assault rifle (there is no such thing, any more than there is an assault toaster or assault washer/dryer combo), a military-style weapon (what does style mean?), or that he used some magical military-grade ammunition (nope yet again: the rifle uses standard ammunition). Nearly every reported fact in this regard has been wrong.

The reason is simple: the media’s opinion of firearms is never backed up by the facts. Anytime a reporter decides to go in deep—real deep—into the world of firearms, one of two things happens:

1. They realize there is no story there and give up.
2. They become huge enthusiasts of shooting sports.

It is indeed rare to find anyone on the strict anti-gun lobby who has real experience with firearms. Reporters are no different: once they start learning about the evil, nasty gun culture, they find that most Americans own and use guns, are safe and responsible, and account for the tiniest sliver of fatalities and injuries.

But once in a while, an intrepid cub reporter attempts to do real research on how out of control gun sales are! The Czar was livid when he saw USA Today write a story about that very topic. Either click on that link or sit tight, because here are their conclusions:

• Somehow James Holmes managed to purchase all of this weapons legally. Can you imagine?
• A check of websites shows how quickly he could have done this.
• His AR-15 and one of the .40 Glocks were purchased from Gander Mountain. According to Gander’s website, the rifle costs $729, and the Glock costs $600.
• The Remmy 12-gauge ($319) and the other Glock ($600) were purchased from Bass Pro Shop, according to the prices on Bass’ website.
• The Colorado State Police website allows Holmes to carry a firearm in a vehicle.
• Atlantic Firearms.com sells the 100-round drum magazine he used for $279, although the website does not indicate whether it is legal to ship this to Colorado.
• Gander Mountain’s website estimates the total value of the ammunition Holmes had to be $2,870.
• You can get body armor similar to Holmes at bulletproofme.com for $560, with the rest of the gear totalling up to $970.
• And his apartment boobytraps could be made for $300 with supplies available from bigfireworks.com.

The Czar reads this and thinks two things: (a) we have very brave reporters who never left the safety of the internet to put together a story that (b) will surely increase traffic to Gander, Bass, and the other websites. Thanks for the free advertisting, stupid!

See? This is why the Czar thinks that a free sample hooker at a rundown desert bordello has a more honorable profession than a 21st Century journalist. The sheer intellectual laziness of the media is exactly why we get terrified story after story about the evils of firearms. And its source is this exact sort of ignorance.

Good news: despite all of Ghettoputer’s challenges on this site, and despite all the ridiculously easy fact-checking that rips the media narrative to shreds, none of this matters. Americans are voting with their wallets right now, and guns win. The gun control debate is over, folks. And the gun control side has lost; every argument has been debunked, and recycling the same nonsense over and over never makes the arguments fresher.

Let us move on, as the liberals say.

The 2012 Olympics Salute The Welfare State

Five Rings for Foolish Progressives in their Posh Salons...

The Opening Ceremonies are intended to be a window onto the history and culture of the sponsor nation. Indeed, the Vancouver Opening Ceremony was a celebration of the Inuit culture, the Scotch/Irish and British and French colonists, culminating in modern Canada and what it has to offer. The 2002 Salt Lake Games also was a pageant of the peoples indigenous to the American Southwest and the strength and resilience of the American Spirit in post 9/11. Atlanta featured the American and Georgian history, especially through the prism of song. The Barcelona Games featured the founding of the city by Heracles, and showcased Spanish and Catalonian culture.

That brings us to London. The story began with the transformation of the agrarian British culture by the industrial revolution, including a spectacular visual with the forging of glowing iron rings. Unfortunately, not far behind the industrial revolution, the specter of Marxism was to rear its ugly head.

Ironicallly, conservative J.K. Rowling stood and read from classic British Literature, at which point a legion of glowing hospital beds rolled in in a tribute to the National Health Service.

Now the NHS has among its ranks some of the best doctors and nurses in the world. They have probably the best physical diagnostic skills in the world, a necessity borne out of finite material resources to work with. The doctors and nurses have never been the issue with NHS and socialized medicine, but rather it is with top down control of those resources rather than rational utilization of resources at the level of the patient and provider. Denial of care and long delays are the order of the day in a monopoly top down delivery system.

Fortunately, Mary Poppins was able to save the day.

Dr. J. thought we were safe, from more socialist pap but then along came Frankie and June, a couple raising their family, along with the rest of their clan, in Council Housing. There was something about a lost cell phone and a lot of self worship of the younger generation. Even the Democratic Underground posters had some negative things to say about this chapter. While it was an interesting stroll through pop music including a nice dash of OMD, Dr. J. was shocked that the tribute to the unsustainable welfare state was on display. Thank goodness that we didn't get the games in 2014 or 2016 and be forced to endure an Obamahamian Onanistic Tribute.

Dr. J. was not alone in his criticisms. NRO regular, and Catholic ethicist George Weigel also chimed in, and like Kim Strassel, far more articulately than Dr. J.

For that’s what these multi-hour theatrical extravaganzas have become: a kind of ersatz liturgy of the in vitro World Community, in which film directors (such as Britain’s Danny Boyle) take the role once played by the monks and canons who designed public worship centuries ago. And as such things go, London’s secularized Olympic liturgy on the night of July 27 was perhaps slightly less offensive than others in the same genre. Boyle unabashedly anchored the show/liturgy in history, meaning British history, rather than in the Gnostic and pagan fantasies that have become the Olympic norm. But it does tell you something about what Evelyn Waugh would have called “decline and fall” when the British National Health Service is proposed for global worship as a kind of sacrament, when Paul McCartney (sorry, Sir Paul McCartney) replaces Ralph Vaughan Williams as liturgical hymnwriter, and when H.M. the Queen, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, is reduced to a bit player in a knock-off of the Bond movies.

We are not amused...such things should not be left to commoners.

Coulda Used Some AC in DC

The Czar, family, and retinue has returned from a myriad purpose trip to Washington, DC, where the weather was superb (no rain while there). The Czar has been to DC innumerable times, but still has the odd spot of trouble navigating around the City even still; however, that said, no fatalities occurred.

Compare and contrast.

While there, we took in a ridiculous amount of sites and stops, some of which the Czar has never seen before (the Teddy Roosevelt Memorial), and some of which he has not seen in 30 years or more (the Jefferson Memorial). The Czar would like to make the following un-PC but utterly spot-on observations about people.

Dear Europeans, how dare you lecture Americans about manners. What a fat lot of rude, uncouth badgers you are. Some advice:

Stop pushing your way through crowds. Americans will be happy to make room for you if you just wait one more damned second. Not everything is the flipping Sudatenland, okay? You don’t need to roll over everyone.

There is no reason to hitchhike your way through a Smithsonian building, so please consider leaving your two-hundred pound backpack behind at your hostel, or whatever lefty place you crash at night. We colonials may be unable to name Eero Saarinen’s first wife, but neither do we swing our laundry into exhibits and other visitors like cretin toddlers.

Hey, glad you want a picture in front of that exhibit. But could you please not position yourselves so that you block the only exit out of a gallery? Americans, curiously, are happy to wait while you take a photo, but we get a little annoyed when you spend twelve minutes setting up a shot, and then proceed to take about forty-six photos in succession while the crowd waits for you. There seems to be little point doing that caliber of photographic spread when the teenage girl in the center of the shot badly needs a shave.

What the hell is your obsession with forming human pyramids everywhere you go?

Thank you, repeatedly, for ingressing through the exit and egressing through the entrance of something, so that the crowd has to continuously climb around you because you’re too thick to realize you are progressing backwards through something.

And now, to that Chinese teenager who shoved our seven-year-old out of your way so you could see the Hope Diamond a bit closer, yes: that was your Czar who smacked you really hard in the back and scared the piss out of your friend. Thank you for immediately looking at our feet in deference and apologizing to the boy, because the Czar was a little too winded to pick you up off the ground by your neck and explain your transgression futher.

To the American tourists we encountered in DC:

Thank you for removing your hats in the presence of the original Star Spangled Banner, Old Glory, at the Smithsonian. And to whichever teenager that was who spontaneously broke out singing a quiet “America the Beautiful,” nice touch. That really choked us up.

Speaking of choking, whoever the guy in the white baseball cap was who raced up and Heimliched the elderly woman choking on the sandwich, thanks. You saved her life, and you neither hesitated to help her, nor did you even stay for her thanks. In addition to that, you impressed the boys at how fast you need to be to save someone’s life. Wherever you worldessly disappeared to within a second of saving her, the world is better to have a guy like you in it. Someone’s mother made it home okay.

Thanks to all the people who acted so solemnly at the World War II, Korean, and Vietnam War Memorials. And to the many kids who really understood the seriousness of them. Also, a special nod to the older American man of Vietnamese ancestry who silently and grimly took a photo of our seven-year-old kneeling in prayer at the Vietnam Memorial and then bowed to our wife in respect.

The Czar wants to thank the hundreds of little kids who repeatedly said words like “please,” “thank you,” and “excuse me” throughout the entire trip. Manners matter, and your frequent display of them makes the Czar confident that this country will rebound to a future glory.

Dr. J.'s WSJ Sweetheart strikes again...

Shoot that poison arrow through my heaaarrrt...

Dr. J.'s buddy Kim Strassel has a piece on the WSJ opinion page regarding Obama's "You Didn't Build That" moment.

Dr. J. has struggled to provide analysis of that speech that the President gave because it was utterly contemptible. His emotional response to the speech was that he felt as if the President had utter contempt for him and people like him who kept our noses clean, worked hard in school and as a consequence have become successful.

You see, Dr. J. was raised to believe that if you work hard and take advantage of the gifts that God gave you, you can succeed in life. He also knew that none of us are issued the same deck of cards. Dr. J.'s BFF from high school is an was a tremendous artist and is now a cinematographer. Something he could never do. Another classmate, who wasn't the sharpest stick in the box, is now fantastic chef somewhere in Georgia.

So when the President spoke with palpable disgust saying:

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Dr. J. was quite hacked off. He felt as if the President was denigrating his success, and the success of others who too advantage of their intelligence, and worked hard and earned an outstanding result. But he couldn't explain why it chaffed him s much as it did. After all, being intellectually honest, he does get the notion that no man is an island, but this was much more than a poorly articulated point on the President's part.

Clearly Dr. J. was not alone in his reaction. Kim writes:

It's why Mr. Obama's "out of context" complaints aren't getting traction. The Republican National Committee's response to that gripe was to run an ad that shows a full minute of Mr. Obama's rant at the Roanoke, Va., campaign event on July 13. In addition to "you didn't build that," the president also put down those who think they are "smarter" or "work harder" than others. Witness the first president to demean the bedrock American beliefs in industriousness and exceptionalism. The "context" only makes it worse.

Ms. Strassel puts words to the visceral feeling of disgust Dr. and Mrs. Dr. J. felt when we heard the President's contemptuous and anti-American speech. The President regularly and consistently demeans the Americans, individual and in aggregate, and American Ideals.

The fact that he is still as high in the polls as he is tells you how far America has lost its way in the last few years.

In which The Doctor waxes poetic on the Olympics

Not that Doctor, Dr. J., and you know how he'll light the torch! ZZZZZZZZAP!

A broken clock is right twice a day and a bat-shit crazy one-world-government progressive type can sure throw a terrific party once every two years. Tonight marks the opening of the 2012 Summer Olympiad in London.

Dr. J. has always loved the olympics. He has fond memories that go all the way back to the Innsbruck and Montreal games in 1976. While it may simply be that Dr. J. misses the Cold War, the Olympic games from 1948-1992 were not only sport theatre, but also political theatre.

Would the forces of liberty triumph over the communist juggernaut, who were at a distinct advantage as their governments would fund athletics as a weapon of propaganda, while America and her allies had to tread carefully as not to damage their best athletes 'amateur status', even unintentionally?

As a viewer, you would be cheering on West Germany, the United Kingdom and our other allies in events where we weren't as strong, and you might even find grudging admiration for an Eastern Bloc athlete whom you hoped would be able to defect to freedom in the west.

The 1992 Olympics marked a clear change. The Berlin Wall fell, and with it Cold War sensibilities. Furthermore, professional athletes in the west joined along side their amateur compatriots. With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, the United States developed a strong competitive advantage that it had not previously enjoyed in prior Olympic games. The rivalries and nationalism that were once part of the games is not as strong as it has shifted more towards the individual athletes.

Dr. J. had the privilege of attending the Barcelona games and was richer for the experience. While he had to grab a copy of El Pais to keep up with the previous days events, seeing the Opening and Closing ceremonies live, watching amazing swimming, gymnastics and track and field, and catching the Dream Team decimate Lithuania were once in a lifetime memories. He met a lot of terrific people sitting in the stands with him, cheered on a couple of schoolmates from Ivy University, and even met an athlete or three, including a really cute Swiss pistol shooter when he was out clubbing one night (but he will say no more regarding that).

Also, stronger commercialization of the games along with nigh-monopoly broadcasting rights owned by NBC have resulted in a more homogenized product. Dr. J. longs for the days of Jim McKay in one of those tacky mustard yellow blazers with the ABC Wide World of Sports logo, but instead he has to listen to broadcasters like the perky Katie Couric (who is no longer with NBC) and Matt Lauer try to fill the air with some sort of 'point' when taking in the spectacle would serve so much better. He also doesn't need to know about every athlete being born the son of a sharecropper and having to work two jobs and climb up hill both ways in order to realize his dream of being an olympic shot-putter. Dr. J. wants to see sports, with perhaps the occasional personal interest story, not a 'show' or as they say 'block of programing.'

The internet also has affected the games as now we can get results before they are broadcast, and we can even live stream some events.

So while the Olympics may not have the same grandeur and intrigue as they once did, they still are appointment television for Dr. J., and in his opinion, very entertaining. Dr. J. will be watching them with great excitement alongside the rest of Clan J.

Indeed, Mrs. Dr. J. is lobbying to go to Sochi in 2014, but Dr. J. thinks the kids are too young to appreciate it. And it is a little pricey. Dr. J. feels that we maybe forced to wait until 2020 or 2022 given the venue choices between now and then (Rio 2016 and South Korea 2018) depending on their location.

Mailbag - Second Opinion Edition

The Gentle Reader may recall Dr. J.'s discussion regarding third party payors and how that model has contributed to the rapidly escalating cost of healthcare. You may also recall how a gentleman who goes by the handle Cziltang, and blogs at the site Ratlands wrote a thoughtful reflection on Dr. J.'s discussion. Dr. J. then kindly gave Mr. Cziltang a shoutout for his spotlight on Dr. J.'s post. Dr. J. has always been a shameless self-promoter in that regard.

Well, Cziltang sent Dr. J. an email this week on the subject:

Thanks for the link, but more importantly, thanks for the considered discussion. 

In retrospect, the fact that there would, at present, be zero incentive for practices to offer discounts for self-filing and up-front payment seems obvious and I should have though it. I suspect I didn't, in part, because even though our medical bills are processed in a corporate office and our primary care physician operates out of an office with 20 other doctors, looks up our treatment history, makes notes, and faxes prescriptions to the pharmacy in our presence while still in the examination room from a wireless laptop, I am conditioned to think of her as our "family doctor." Being old enough to remember rotary dial phones and 5 digit telephone numbers and having actually had a family doctor you could call at home at night when there was a serious problem (I grew up in a small town in Kansas) does tend to color my thought process a bit. 

Also in retrospect, I realize I probably sounded a lot snippier about the monthly office visits to the pain specialist than I intended. I do realize there is significant medical value in having regular contact with patients who are taking high-powered narcotics. I often lose sight of that fact. After 30 years in Corrections, during which time I spent several years running a drug treatment program for convicted felons, I've heard of literally dozens of ways to obtain narcotics (obviously not all successful, or I wouldn't have heard them from persons convicted on drug charges) ranging from how to present symptoms (real or fictional) to maximize the chances of getting a prescription all the way to how to look for a reliable black market source (i.e. how to find a good drug dealer). Call me cynical and/or paranoid (neither of which I find offensive), but I see "no refill" rules the way I see locks; they're there to keep honest people honest. And, given the successful felony prosecution of a local pain specialist in the not-too-recent past, they seem like a handy way to criminalize doctors who don't conform exactly to whatever protocols the powers that be currently dictate are the "right way" to practice medicine. Given the amount of defensive documentation necessary for a pain specialist who does it for the right reasons (which I believe describes my wife's pain specialist) just to keep practicing and avoid prosecution, I really don't begrudge him a steady income stream for his trouble and risk. 

Anyway, thanks again for reminding me about the realities of corporate medicine. Please keep writing about it. At the risk of sounding like a complete suck-up, I find your perspective valuable. 

cziltang

Dear Cziltang:

Thank you for writing in.

Point by point:

• In addition to being the principal driver as to how we are paid, the federal government, the federal government, more and more, tells us how to do our job. When Dr. J. was a wee pup, the entirety of his medical records spanning age 5-22 could be found on several pieces of very narrow ruled 8 1/2" by 11" sheets of card stock in a folder in his pediatricians office. A single clinical encounter would typically have a date, a few words/phrases regarding Dr. J.'s complaint (fever 101, sore throat 2d), a few lines of physical exam (ery thr c ex, +LAD, o/w nl) test result (strep +) a one to two word diagnosis (strep), and the treatment (amox 150 TID x 10d). Now, the pediatrician would want to maximize his revenue given that reimbursement has been decreasing, if only to be able to keep his doors open and earn a reasonable salary. Remember, the business owners are the last ones paid. So, each part of the history and physical exam need a certain number of elements in order to demonstrate complexity. As a consequence, notes have moved away from a scientific document and are now a billing document. They are proof that the doctor did the work that they are billing insurance/medicare for. 
• While we now have electronic medical records, every bit of innovation that saves time has been offset by time wasting regulations that prevent us from spending more of each encounter with the patient. Dr. J. probably spends half of his time allotted to a patient seeing the patient and the other half documenting that he did so. 
• What the hell is a rotary phone?
• Regarding narcotics. Dr. J. believes that patients receiving chronic narcotics for pain management need to be followed closely because the develop a tolerance and over time will probably need some degree of uptitration. Close monitoring is the order of the day. While many, if not all of us have a DEA license, primary care doctors, oncologists and pain specialists tend to write the bulk of these prescriptions. Dr. J. uses narcotics and benzodiazpines for conscious sedate for procedures, but has only written one prescription for narcotics for chronic pain in a patient with chronic stable angina refractory to maximal doses of beta blockers, nitrates, calcium channel blockers and even ranolazine, and was not amenable to stent placement or bypass surgery. It was a treatment of last resort for a man whose life expectancy was only a couple of years. These meds have big downsides to the patients, so even if they weren't watched so carefully by the DEA, or other governing bodies, a doctor must have a healthy respect for them and for the patient who truly needs them. 

Thanks again for writing in.

Dr. J.

Krugman Is Nuts

Paul Krugman uses his Op-Ed column in today's New York Times to try to deflect the cause of the slow recovery from the Obama Administration. He writes:

New GDP report out today; slightly stronger than expected, but still very weak. So what’s holding back recovery?
You know what the usual suspects are saying: big government! Bad Obama! Insulting businessmen!

The GDP grew at 1.5% over last quarter. Hardly something that I would use the term "stronger" in any comparison. So Mr. Krugman presents a chart that shows that business investment has risen since 4th quarter 2009 and the government purchases of goods and services has declined since roughly the 3rd quarter 2010. He observes:

Business investment has actually gone up a lot; maybe you think it should have gone up even more, but it’s not the heart of the problem. On the other hand, we’ve had a lot of cutbacks in government — mainly at the state and local level, but federal aid could have avoided that.

The implication is that more "stimulus" spending (allegedly what he means by "cutbacks in government") by having government at various levels buy more goods and services would improve the recovery. He phrases it as follows:

This isn’t a picture of an economy hobbled by Big Government; it’s a picture of an economy hobbled by premature austerity.

Yes, investment in business has increased and government spending has been cut - one might term that austerity, although I would disagree. However what Mr. Krugman avoids discussing about Big Government is the increase in regulations and the uncertainty for the last 18 months or so with regards to the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a/ ObamaCare) and its future impact on businesses. Private industry doesn't like uncertainty. Plans are made and measured against and, primarily for public companies, have significant repercussions.