Your tax dollars at work

Somehow, I have come to be on the National Academies Press mailing list. Every once in a long while, I come across a topic interesting enough to download the report, and sometimes even to read bits of it.

But usually, I am merely entertained by the topics of research for which our tax dollars pay.

And here is one worth remarking upon:

Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary

The authors are Rapporteurs; Forum on Global Violence Prevention; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine

Why is it globalists are so enamoured of French terms? Why does the U.S. Government Institute of Medicine have a Board of Global Health?
But wait a minute! the IOM web site says that it is "an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public."

Sure. Well, sorta. But not really. The IOM is part of the National Academies, whose 2011 Annual Report to Congress reported $ 280,156,384 in grants and contracts from U.S. Government agencies and $ 49,692,077 from non-federal sources. 85% of the NAS total revenues came from the Federal government.

So, now that you know where a small sliver of your tax (and federal debt) dollars go, that is to Rapporteurs; Forum on Global Violence Prevention; Board on Global Health, what have they discovered?

I admit, I haven't read the article. But the synopsis on the web page gives a clue:

"On December 8-9, 2011, the IOM's Forum on Global Violence Prevention held a workshop to explore the intersection of violence prevention and information and communications technology. The workshop - called "mPreventViolence" - provided an opportunity for practitioners to engage in new and innovative thinking concerning these two fields with the goal of bridging gaps in language, processes, and mechanisms. The workshop focused on exploring the potential applications of technology to violence prevention, drawing on experience in development, health, and the social sector as well as from industry and the private sector."

I suppose I should read more deeply to discover what sort of violence they are intent on preventing with technology. I have a sinking feeling they intend to stop genocide with Twitter.

However, the use of technology to prevent violence isn't really a new subject. It has been extensively studied and there are some proven technologies available to address the full spectrum of threats:



Colt M-1911 A1 .45 cal

The semi-automatic handgun technology has been preventing violence against persons for over 100 years.




Many rungs up the ladder, the U.S. Marines continue to prevent violence against U.S. National interests, allies and the powerless for over 200 years.


USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)

 "Peace Through Strength" is the motto of the USS Ronald Reagan. A carrier strike group parked off your shore is a strong influence in favor of peaceful conflict resolution.


The U.S. Army's Warrior Ethos is more than skin deep. It goes all the way to the core, and has deterred violence or brought an end to perpetrators of violence on every continent.



LGM-118A "Peacekeeper" ICBM

Kept the USSR and PRC among other relatively peaceful for 50 years.

What the AP thinks you should think

AP sources: Administration mulls pared health law

An entire article of *no news* is news only because its main purpose seems to be guiding readers what to think when finally there is news on the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

"Even if the requirement that nearly every U.S. resident have health insurance is declared unconstitutional, the remaining parts of the law would have far-reaching impact, putting coverage within reach of millions of uninsured people, laying new obligations on insurers and employers, and improving Medicare benefits even as payments to many service providers get scaled back."

How terrible it would be for the Supreme Court think Health is unconstitutional! But our guardian would go ahead and put coverage within reach of millions, make nasty corporations fulfill their obligations to us the 99% and it would simutaneously improve Medicare benefits and scale back payments to 'service providers' (aka the doctors, nurses and hospitals that actually provide us with medical care and services - but who are inordinately among the *not 99%)*.

"Because the law's main coverage expansion does not begin until 2014, there would be time to try to fix serious problems that losing the individual coverage requirement may cause for the health insurance industry."

In case you forgot, it is the nasty Republicans and their partisan allies on the court that threaten to cause 'serious problems' to the insurance industry - NOT the Obama administration, Democrat lawmakers or their allies who will profit from the law - so who ya' gonna vote for?

"Surviving parts of the law would "absolutely" move ahead, said the congressional official. A Congress mired in partisan trench warfare would be unable to repeal or amend what's left of the law, allowing the administration to advance. Much of the money for covering the uninsured was already provided in the law itself.




"Legislatively we can't do a thing, and we are going to move full speed ahead (with implementation)," the official said."

Why do I hear a "Bwwaaaa-Haaaa-haaa-HAAA" in that statement?

"Skeptical questioning by the court's conservative justices during oral arguments this spring has fueled speculation that the court may invalidate the so-called individual mandate."

Umm. Sonia Sotomayor is not usually counted among the 'court's conservative justices.' And yet, she appeared skeptical too.
But the AP does give both sides of the issue - sorta.

"Opponents say the requirement that individuals have coverage is unconstitutional, that the federal government can't tell people to obtain particular goods or services."

vice:

"Supporters say the mandate is a necessary component of a broader scheme to regulate health insurance, which is well within the powers of Congress. By requiring people to carry health insurance or pay a fine, the law seeks to broaden the pool of people with coverage, helping to keep premiums affordable.


If the mandate is struck down, that would still leave in place a major expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state safety net program for low-income people.

The Medicaid expansion was originally estimated to account for about half the more than 30 million people slated to get coverage under the law. Without a mandate, the number would be smaller but still significant.

Federal tax credits to help middle-class people buy private health coverage would also survive, as would new state-based insurance markets.

Such subsidies have never previously been available, and millions are expected to take advantage of them, whether or not insurance is required by law. Still, it could be tricky to salvage the law's full blueprint for helping middle-class uninsured people.

Overturning the mandate would have harmful consequences for the private insurance market. Under the law, insurers would still have to accept all applicants regardless of health problems, and they would be limited in what they can charge older, sicker customers.

As a result, premiums for people who directly buy their own coverage would jump by 15 percent to 20 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. Older, sicker people would flock to get health insurance but younger, healthier ones would hold back.

To forestall such a problem, the administration asked the court - if it declares the mandate unconstitutional - to also strike down certain consumer protections, including the requirement on insurers to cover people with pre-existing health problems. That would mitigate a damaging spike in premiums.

Whether or not the court goes along with that request, more work would be needed to find alternatives to a federal mandate. That could provide an opening for state officials, as well as major insurance companies, to join in finding workable substitutes for the mandate. Congressional approval would likely be needed.

Without the individual requirement, some 14 million people would still get coverage, budget office estimates suggest. Supporters of the law point out that's still a lot of people."

Yeah. That's balance.

Hold in Contempt that which is Contemptable

The list of things which make Eric Holder contemptible is a long one. It reaches all the way back to the pardon of Frank Rich during the Clinton administration.

At last, Rep Darrell Issa is preparing to call Mr. Holder publicly what he is prima facially: in contempt of the Rule of Law - that little thing that his office was created to uphold. Rep. Issa is pursuing Mr. Holder's dissembling cover-up of Operation Fast and Furious - the BATFE program in which law-abiding gun-shop owners were forced to sell guns to Mexican drug lords so that they could be used to a) influence public opinion in favor of gun-control laws and b) kill Mexican civilians and U.S. Law Enforcement Officers.

At the same time, the Senate Republicans doubt Mr. Holder's organization's ability to objectively investigate the National Security leaks the Obama Adminstration has tried to use to burnish his less than shiny record. I think that's obvious. He doesn't share their concern that he has proven himself to be too partisan to direct a proper investigation into the adminstration's shenanigans.

The funny thing is his total blindness to the point of not being careful in his public statements. Sen Cornyn "cited a litany of actions he said demonstrated that Mr. Holder has “allowed politics to trump independence, transparency and accountability.” "“Meanwhile, you still resist coming clean about what you knew and when you knew it with regard to Operation Fast and Furious. You won’t cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation, and you won’t hold anyone, including yourself, accountable,” he said. “In short, you’ve violated the public trust, in my view, by failing and refusing to perform the duties of your office.”"


 Holder defiantly replied: "This “leads me to believe that the desire here is not for an accommodation but for political point-making,” he said. “And that is the type of thing that you and your side have the ability to do if that’s what you want to do. It is the thing that I think turns people off about Washington. While we have very serious problems, we’re still involved in this political gamesmanship.”"
 
"Your side" does not bespeak non-partisan, even-handed application of the laws in pursuit of justice.
 
Impeach this contemptible person.

Will there ever be an effort in eradicating thinking deserts?

Will Philadelphia’s experiment in eradicating ‘food deserts’ work?



Philadelphia, which boasts the poorest citizens of any of the top 10 cities, is fixing to spend a big chunk of $27M of other people's money to provide convenience stores with free refridgerators and subsidized fruit and vegetables. And the proprietors are taking the money to go bananas even if they can hardly give them away.

Combine this with NYC's insane prohibition on salt, soda and transfats (so far) and how far are we really from making citizens buy brocolli?

Sometimes the Forces of Evil in the country manage to create nuanced talking points to obscure the evil they are intent on inflicting on us. The sophistry vomited out of the mouth of Ba'al to cover opposition to a law making sex-selection abortion illegal is a case in point.

The way the regime intended the message to be sent:

"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way."


The way a Congressional witling garbled the Party Line:



Thanks to the incompetence of prominent members of the Left like Shelia Jackson Lee, only the most Kool-Aid-intoxicated drone would fail to see the preposterous position that defending girls in utero from death by abortion is "an affirmation of the devaluing of woman."