Smarter Than Thou!

SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND SMOKING

     I consider the apparently endless discussions on national health care policy to be a gift from Heaven, as far as devising commentary for this blog.  I was watching the morning news show on MSNBC (the official government network) and one of the idiots on it pronounced how we can afford to pay for everyone’s care. 

      His suggestion was to outlaw cigarettes.  He then offered the “fact” that smoking related diseases, etc, “cost” the USA a zillion megaillion superillion dollars… per day!  So, logic dictates, if we eliminate this cost then the savings can be moved over to paying for everyone’s doctor bills, plus tips, and with the excess we can all go to Disney World, and actually afford to make a down payment on something to eat inside the park.  Forget for a moment that, even if this money were “saved,” it does not end up in some one’s bank account where it can be withdrawn and used. It is simply money not spent.  

      Logic has its limits.  And it is pretty much useless when it is used by stupid people.  It MAY be true that smoking, directly, “costs” the country a certain amount of money.  So what happens if this people all stop smoking tomorrow, as if cigarettes never existed?  They will not die of smoking related illnesses.  Does this save us all that money?  No, not if the people die of something else.  It is personal opinion that they will die. 

      As I understand it, the most expensive medical treatment comes in the last year of life.  This makes sense.  It is more difficult, and thus expensive, to heal people who are close(r) to dying.  These new non-smokers WILL all have a last year of life.  Unless they are all suddenly killed while in perfect health, we must assume that their last conditions, even if not caused by smoking related diseases, will cost… a lot.  Eliminating smoking does not eliminate death.  Apparently the MSNBC commentator does not know this.   

     In fact smokers, if anything, REDUCE the overall national cost.  As they then to die sooner, they necessarily require less medical care than people who live longer, e.g. into their 70’s.  That is, they provide less competition for, and consume less, scarce medical resources.  And this means making more doctors, medicine and hospital beds, available for you and me, when we need it, as well as keeping prices down.  Thus their smoking is beneficial to our health. 

       I wish a short and (nicotine induced) happy life to them all!

       It is a proven fact that reading “Analysis and Explanations” each month will lower your blood pressure, even if you do not want it any lower.  Recall that health care is no longer an option in this country.  So subscribe.  And the paper can be used to roll cigarettes.    

IT'S BETTER THAN KILLING THEM... MAYBE

    IN a recent (insightful) commentary, I argued that the multiplication of new federal government “agencies,” headed by “Czars,” or Czarinas, might actually benefit the nation.  I now offer yet another reason, sustained from another point of view, why this could be good news.

   My conclusion is based upon the following premise, given to me by my very smart cousin, Bobby.  Bobby has been astoundingly successful in “business,” lots of them.  He understands how new businesses succeed and how old ones fail.  He states, dogmatically, that “90% of the work is done by 10% of the workforce.  The problem for business is keeping that 90% out of the workforce.”  I am not certain if the percentages are precisely right.  However, I fully agree with the approximate formula. 

   These new agencies, such as the one under the Czar of Television Cartoon Quality, need people to sit around in its offices, and not do much, all day.  Where will these people come from?  Who cares?  However, one place they will NOT be is in private businesses, getting in the way of that effective 10% who do the real work of the nation.  In other words, Bam-Bam may be solving the “Bobby problem,” by increasing the number of government workers, who will not be destroying, from the inside, private companies.     

     As Shakespeare once put it:  “The worst of intentions are not yet enough to bring about evil.”      

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

    THERE was a recent news story about an executive in AIG, one of the companies bailed out by federal funds, getting a big bonus.  As I understand it the company checked with Washington (not the president) to see if this policy were “allowable.”  And then a bunch of, mostly conservative, commentators objected. 

      But why?  What is this guy going to do with his extra million, or two, or three?  Either he is going to spend it (and thus stimulating the economy, probably the fine imported wine market), or he is going to “save” it (in a bank or in investments).  In the first case the money goes into the private market, which is what conservatives want.  In the second case, some government bail out money is thus  transformed to private money, and/or increases investments and/or helps troubled banks recover.  And this is exactly the same as a tax cut (when more money is private, and less money is public).  In other words, the bonus is exactly what the smaller government conservatives want. 

     So I say, “Bring on (or send out) the bonuses!”  It is stuff like this which made America great. 

YOU too can stimulate the private sector.  Subscribe to Analysis and Explanations. I promise either to save or spend the subscription fee of $30.  

 

DRIVING HIS HILLARY

     THIS analysis is based upon “Media reports.”  I often advise everyone, including myself, not to trust the Mass Media.  However, the reports seem, to me, to be credible, so I assume them to be true, and proceed. 

     In the Ottoman Empire the sultan often had a large number of sons, each of whom could succeed him to the throne.  This pretty much guaranteed an uninterrupted dynasty.  It also increased the probability of civil war, as the rejected princes could serve as the causes of revolutions.  So the “policy” became as follows.  When the old sultan died, and a new one was chosen, the “silken bowstrings” was sent to certain officials.  They used these to strangle the sultan’s other sons.  Royal blood was not to be shed, but potential alternative sultans could not be allowed to continue to live.  

       When he became president, Bill Clinton noticed a “fellow son,” a senator named Sam Nunn.  He trapped Sam into a politically murderous dilemma, and Nunn retired.  It was an indirect, but effective, assassination.  He understood that, in order to secure his dynasty (of two terms) he first needed to kill off alternative candidates. 

       For a time I wondered if anyone would learn from Bill, who was a brilliant politician.  Badass Obama has.  His “fellow son” was (but no longer is) Hillary.  By appointing her to be Secretary of State he forced her to accept and to support all of his policies, and, as a result, she could not oppose him in 2012.  Her only alternative is to resign under protest, and then look like a loser and quitter. 

       She may have expected that she would be “real” policy force.  But according to the reports Obama is using “special embassies” to communicate and to effect his real policies.  Once again, Hill is restricted to tea parties with other figure head women.  She has to shut up and go along, or she has to remove herself from the office, and vanish from sight.  Figure heads do not move unless attached to a ship. 

       As much as I dislike Obama, I can give him credit for this.  He saved the nation from Hillary.     

Your only protection against Hillarism is a subscription to the A&E.  Preserve your loved ones today, before it is too late.  $30 per year.  

THE ENEMY IS US

     THERE is an interesting aspect to the “torture debate,” which I wish to comment on, and insightfully so.  By this I mean the various opinions at what should be done, and how, to the prisoners of (not quite a) war captured over there in Asia.  This debate involves whether these guys should be given any legal rights.  

     The Liberals tend to argue that they should be given every legal protection, up to everything “owed” to American citizens.  They also tend to argue that the reason for this position is that anything else is not in keeping with the “American character.”  Usually, they add something like “we” (i.e. Americans) have such a value system that that such full legal protection is mandated. 

      Really?  How can anyone determine what is consistent with THE American character?  Americans killed Indians, sometimes without just cause.  Americans stole about one third of the country from Mexico.  Americans stole Cuba from Spain, for no good reason.  America sustained legal slavery for quite a time.  On the other hand, of course, America has done a lot of good things.  For example, it has provided unmatched economic opportunity, and a lot of personal freedom, to many.  And, for a long time, it kept women from voting. 

      My point is that, like every other nation, America has done lots of good things as well as many bad things.  So which parts of its history are used to identify what is in keeping with American-ism?  If only the better parts are used, and the rest considered aberrations, then America would be Heaven on Earth, and its citizens would be angels. 

       But then if only the good actions of a human are counted then even Badass Obama would be considered to be no worse than Charles Manson.  

Be a true American, or a false one (if this is what you want), by subscribing to the A&E.