Barack Obama--he's Jimmy Carter, part 2

OK, it’s hard to ignore the fact that we will be voting this November. Do we want another four years of Obama? Let’s consider the big picture--what has he done in general?

On the domestic front, he has halted all efforts to turn back the waves of illegal aliens streaming across the Mexican border. Then there’s Obamacare--he has jammed down America’s throat an unpopular government takeover of health care that runs roughshod over our most cherished religious freedoms.

How about his handling of the economy? His health care boondoggle only promises to hurl us further into quicksand deficits. The hundreds of billions he has spent on “stimulating” the economy has done little more than cause paralysis. Remember Solyndra and how he was going to pick green companies to invest in? Unemployment remains at more than 8 percent despite his administration’s promises to dramatically lower it. And the truth is that with all the people who have quit looking for work, that rate is much higher.

Then there’s his promise to be a new kind of politician. He was going to rise above partisanship and make bold decisions. How has that worked out? In truth, he has led timidly just as he did serving in the legislatures in Washington and Illinois, where his record of “leadership” became a mockery of indecision for all the times he couldn’t take a stand and instead voted “present.” Or maybe he voted that way in a cold, calculating manner to avoid controversies as he ran for President. Either way, that’s not what we want from a good leader. Even on the Keystone Pipeline decision, one that seemed so obvious to help our economy, Obama nixed it only because, he whined, Republicans forced his hand and didn’t give him all the time he wanted to dawdle and stall over the important issue that could provide jobs for thousands of workers.

Has he had any successes? The only area for which he might be commended is in foreign affairs, where he has doubled down on so many of his predecessor’s policies aimed at killing terrorists. He has kept open the prison at Gitmo, oversaw two surges in Afghanistan and expanded drone assaults to new heights. And he deserves credit for ordering Osama bin Laden killed. But this is the same man who spends a lot of time apologizing to the Muslim world for America.

Just when you think it can’t get worse, another item pops up on the news. Just recently his campaign formed a group called “African Americans for Obama.” I thought we were trying to purge racism from politics. Can you imagine the reaction if I started “Whites for Santorum”?

As someone said, it looks like Obama is trying to finish Jimmy Carter’s second term. I’m discouraged that so many people still support him

Great praise music

I love good praise music. As a kid, I thought heaven must be pretty boring if all you do is sit around and praise God. But good, loud, and inspiring praise music has changed my mind. It's a way to experience a bit of heaven right now. Here are my current favorites. Go to YouTube and listen to them if you haven't heard them before.


"I Will Rise"
There's a peace I've come to know
Though my heart and flesh may fail
There's an anchor for my soul
I can say "It is well"

Jesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the dead

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise

There's a day that's drawing near
When this darkness breaks to light
And the shadows disappear
And my faith shall be my eyes

Jesus has overcome
And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won
He is risen from the dead

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise

And I hear the voice of many angels sing,
"Worthy is the Lamb"
And I hear the cry of every longing heart,
"Worthy is the Lamb"
[x2]

[Chorus:]
And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise




“You Never Let Go”
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
Your perfect love is casting out fear
And even when I'm caught in the middle of the storms of this life
I won't turn back
I know you are near

And I will fear no evil
For my God is with me
And if my God is with me
Whom then shall I fear?
Whom then shall I fear?

(Chorus:)
Oh no, You never let go
Through the calm and through the storm
Oh no, You never let go
In every high and every low
Oh no, You never let go
Lord, You never let go of me

And I can see a light that is coming for the heart that holds on
A glorious light beyond all compare
And there will be an end to these troubles
But until that day comes
We'll live to know You here on the earth

(Chorus)

Yes, I can see a light that is coming for the heart that holds on
And there will be an end to these troubles
But until that day comes
Still I will praise You, still I will praise You




"Always"
My foes are many, they rise against me
But I will hold my ground
I will not fear the war, I will not fear the storm
My help is on the way, my help is on the way

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

Troubles surround me, chaos abounding
My soul will rest in You
I will not fear the war, I will not fear the storm
My help is on the way, my help is on the way

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
I lift my eyes up, my help comes from the Lord
From You Lord, from You Lord

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always
I will not fear, His promise is true
My God will come through always, always

Oh, my God, He will not delay
My refuge and strength always, always

Global warming as mass hysteria

I found online a great article titled “Global warming -- the great delusion” by Matt Patterson. He pulls no punches in his attacks on the global warming crowd.

First, he refers to an old book from the 1800s that examines financial panics, medical quackery, alchemy, and witch crazes. The author of this book wanted to know why so many people choose to believe so much that is false and potentially deadly. His answer:
“We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”

Patterson sees a connection to the global warming fanatics. He calls the current debate “superstition masked as science; Western guilt over having conquered the world manifesting itself as hatred for the technologies that made it possible; apocalyptic yearning in the guise of political enlightenment.” Wow, good stuff there.

Patterson goes on to call global warming the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history. This wouldn’t be so bad except it has the potential to cause real problems. As he puts it, “And like every mass delusion, there is danger – danger that Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy.” I agree totally, having watched the issue over the past several years.

Patterson is optimistic. After all, more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm. As an example, he talks of what happened last September: Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy.

In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever lambasted the society’s public stance that global warming is an incontrovertible fact:
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

But this man is not an isolated case. Patterson notes that recently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:
“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”

Of course, the big question remains--why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? As they say, follow the money. If you can get people scared, you can wring money out of politicians for academic research and you create a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

The other piece of good news is the reaction of the public to this alarmist rhetoric. Voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.

Patterson ends his piece with a devastating comment: “In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.” Again, I agree. It’s been wonderful to see reason coming back in style, at least in this part of life.

A different kind of higher education

There's a new book out called Change.edu by Andrew Rosen. I saw a review of it and wanted to pass it along to you. Once again, it involves education, my area of interest.

Mr. Rosen, who is chief executive of Kaplan Inc., one of the largest for-profit higher-education providers in the country, has created a book after lots of research. He did in-person interviews and firsthand reporting at colleges across the country. One of the book's themes is that most colleges and universities have trouble identifying exactly whom they are trying to please and thus what exactly they are supposed to be doing.

And little wonder—think only of the tangled network of income sources and self-interested constituencies that vie for the attention of a college administrator. There are of course students and the parents who pay the tuition bill. There are taxpayers, who underwrite college subsidies in one form or another (including research grants and financial aid). There are alumni, whose donations are a key to university solvency. There are even sports fans, whose enthusiasm plays no small role in college branding and consumer appeal. Unfortunately, this mix of financial imperatives can lead colleges to focus too little on what students are learning in the classroom. Amen!

Mr. Rosen's answer to the higher-ed mess is for-profit education. He believes that for-profits are the rightful inheritors of America's abiding mission to expand access to higher education. But unlike public and private not-for-profit schools, for-profits can be single-minded: The student is the customer. Imagine that. Tuition makes up almost all the revenue of a for-profit school. At private not-for-profits, tuition accounts for only 29% of revenues and at public colleges as little as 13%.

The accusations of misconduct that have been leveled at some for-profit schools in recent years, Mr. Rosen concedes, are not unfounded—pushing unaffordable loans on students, recruiting students who are not able to do the work, etc. He merely says that, in the for-profit world, companies that cheat their customers or that aim at only short-term profits will not survive. Meanwhile public and private not-for-profits can remain in business regardless of how badly they behave.

What are the teachers like at for-profit schools? Their professors are engaged exclusively in teaching, not research. No one has tenure, so incompetence means dismissal. Teaching is quality-controlled and student performance strictly measured. Nice . . .

The for-profit schools can track "learning outcomes" because much (though not all) of their education is online. For a book with a "dot" in the title, Mr. Rosen's Change.edu does not spend a lot of time defending this mode of education—it's just, well, the future. And maybe it is. He is careful not to overstate the value of online learning, acknowledging that there is plenty to be gained in the traditional, seminar-room, residential model of college—he calls it the "meandering" model. But there are many students who want a "direct route" to knowledge and skills. Mr. Rosen makes a strong case that for-profits, when properly run, are ready to provide it.

I still enjoy seeing students in a classroom, but I do believe some would benefit from online classes. We'll see how these for-profit places do when they come up against the power of traditional schools. It should be interesting.

Obama's nightmare budget

President Obama this week came out with his budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. Wow, after reading about its details, I’m impressed. Now before you go into shock, let me explain something. I’m impressed that he is such a leftie that he will never abandon or even modify his fanatic beliefs in higher taxes and reckless spending as a way for America to rebound. Some details are in order.

He makes several claims. For one, he thinks a tax increase on the wealthy and defense spending cuts that will never materialize will help solve our problems. He also asserts that in his second term revenues will soar, outlays will fall, and $1.3 trillion annual deficits will be cut in half.

But let’s review the past four years to see if these promises are based on Obama’s fiscal history. His can claim four years of spending of more than 24% of GDP, the four highest spending years since 1946. In the current fiscal year of 2012, despite talk of austerity, Mr. Obama predicts spending will increase by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion, or 24.3% of GDP. Also, another deficit of $1.327 trillion in 2012, also an increase from 2011, will make it four years in a row above $1.29 trillion. When was the last time that happened? Never. In addition, revenues are at historic lows because of the mediocre recovery and temporary tax cuts that are deadweight revenue losses because they do so little for economic growth. The White House budget office estimates that for the fourth year in a row revenues won't reach 16% of GDP. The last time they were below 16% for any year was 1950.

What is the financial result of these disasters over the past four years? All of this has added as astonishing $5 trillion in debt in a single Presidential term. We as a nation stand at a national debt held by the public (the kind you have to pay back) will hit 74.2% this year and keep rising to 77.4% next year. Economists warn that when debt to GDP reaches 90% or so, the economic damage begins to rise. And this doesn't include the debt that future taxpayers owe current and future retirees through the IOUs in the Social Security "trust fund."

Despite all the terrible news, Obama says this will change in 2013 if he is re-elected. Next year, revenues will suddenly leap to 17.8% of GDP thanks to tax increases on the wealthy, which we are supposed to believe will have little impact on growth. Didn’t someone say they never got a job from a poor person?

Meanwhile, spending will fall by one percentage point of GDP to 23.3%, thanks to the automatic cuts in last year's debt-ceiling bill. But there’s a catch here in this supposed good news. More than half of those cuts are scheduled to come out of defense, which even Mr. Obama's Defense Secretary says are unacceptable. They will be renegotiated next year no matter who wins in November. The cuts also include an estimated $1 trillion in savings in domestic discretionary programs that also won't happen, especially because Mr. Obama's budget proposes to add $350 billion to these programs. His budget also proposes no meaningful reforms in entitlements, which are the fastest growing part of the budget and will grow even faster once ObamaCare really kicks in. Won’t that be dandy?

So what can we count on? One thing only--the monumental tax increase. His plan would raise tax rates across the board on anyone or any business owners making more than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. These are the 3% of taxpayers that Mr. Obama says aren't paying their fair share, though that 3% pays more in income tax than the rest of the other 97%.

That’s enough bad news for now. I’ll have one more blog to lay out the rest of the bad news. Thank goodness the G.O.P., weak and inept as it is, controls the House and will drive a stake through the heart of this budget.

The science fiction religion

I love science fiction and have taught it several times out at Palomar College. When I was researching Scientology, I read about L. Ron Hubbard's belief in thetans. Wow, it's another great science fiction story. The only downside is that it has deluded so many people over the years and taken so much of their money. Here's the thetan story in a nutshell.

In the primordial past thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe is thought to have no independent reality, but to derive its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity. Eventually, they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.

When a person dies — when a thetan abandons its physical body — he/she goes to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. Says Hubbard, "If you can get out of that [the capsule], and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you're all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you're OK. And you just eventually just pick up a baby." This is basic reincarnation.

Now, there's so much to say here. First, isn't it sad that sharp people who have ridiculed Christianity for its miracle stories of Jesus will fall for Hubbard's nonsense? None of his story can be backed up, of course, unlike the gospel stories of Jesus which have good manuscript evidence. Secondly, I love Hubbard's comments--they don't sound like they were thought out very well. Third, I'm amazed people don't see how he has simply taken Eastern religion and put it in a new wrapper.

People say it's too hard to choose between religions ("they're all the same"). Nah, that's lazy thinking. There are huge differences--look at the founder, look at the beliefs, consider the evidence they present. I'll take Christianity any day over the science fiction of L. Ron Hubbard.

More on the threat to higher education

OK, last time I covered a new kind of educational practice--companies that offer tests for students to show their abilities without having to attend hugely expensive colleges. Of course, these colleges and universities won't let this happen without a fight.

One way they can strike back has to do with court decisions. The article I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentioned Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that companies could not administer IQ tests because they had a racially "disparate impact"--meaning, it discriminates against blacks because they score more poorly on average than whites do.

The Chronicle notes that the disparate-impact test in Griggs, written into law in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, applies only to employers. Educational institutions are free to administer IQ tests, which is essentially what the SAT and other entrance exams are. To assure that their degrees pass muster as a condition of employment, colleges and universities go to extreme lengths to ensure a "diverse" student body, including discriminating in favor of blacks (and selected other minorities) in admissions.

As I blogged some time ago, colleges and universities have developed sprawling bureaucracies to encourage "diversity," at the expense of traditional academics. They suggest strongly that IQ tests are racist, thus keeping them in business and throwing doubt on tests that might replace their power.

The higher education industry's credential cartel is under financial threat owing to the necessity of state and local (and eventually federal) budget cuts and the increasing sense that a degree isn't worth incurring a mountain of debt.

Here's some good news. It has been reported that higher education's use of these racial preferences is under legal threat. There is a strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will abolish or severely curtail the use of racial preferences in college admissions sometime in the next few years. Sounds good to me.

Now, thanks to these testing companies, there is a competitive threat as well. You can expect that the higher-ed industry will do whatever it can to crush this threat. The obvious point of attack would be to claim that the new skills tests have a racially disparate impact. So, get ready, ETS and CAE. The Ivy League is coming after you.

A threat to traditional higher education (and I like it)

As a teacher, I like to see what's going on in the world of education. There's an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that tells of something called "Alternative Certification." It's a new development in the education marketplace that should make many educators nervous. I actually like the idea.

The announcement of agreements between Burck Smith's StraighterLine and the Education Testing Service (ETS) and the Council on Aid to Education (CAE) to provide competency test materials to students online is potentially very important, along with several other recent developments. It all comes down to economics to explain why this is important.


With regards to colleges, consumers typically have believed that there are no good substitutes–the only way a person can certify to potential employers that she/he is pretty bright, well educated, good at communicating, disciplined, etc., is by presenting a bachelor's degree diploma. College graduates typically have these positive attributes more than others, so degrees serve as an important signaling device to employers, lowering the costs of learning about the traits of the applicant. Because of the lack of good substitutes, colleges face little outside competition and can raise prices more, given their quasi-monopoly status. And, of course, this is the problem--no competition.

So colleges have been able to raise prices at will, knowing that students and their families will pay through the nose. But people are now asking an important question: Aren't there cheaper ways of certifying competence and skills to employers?

If someone could offer a less expensive job-hunting license--one that assessed an entry-level job-seeker's worth to a prospective employer at least as accurately as a college degree does--then the demand for college would plummet, as young adults could realize the same gains from a much smaller investment. I'm OK with this since the market should be allowed to operate and come up with better alternatives.

That's where ETS and CAE come in. They will offer two tests. One, called iSkills, "measures the ability of a student to navigate and critically evaluate information from digital technology." The other, the CLA, "assesses critical learning and writing skills through use of cognitively challenging problems." Students can tell employers, "I did very well on the CLA and iSkills test, strong predictors of future positive work performance." The idea is that the business can hire people for less than they would have to pay college graduates who score less well on these tests.

If the practice became widespread, it would drive college costs down and force cost-cutting and downsizing within the higher-ed industry. Sounds great to me. But you can expect the industry to fight hard against it.

I'll discuss ways the schools and colleges will fight back in the next blog.

The global warming scam--part 2

Check my last blog on the further problems of global warming fanatics--no such thing over the past ten years. Why don't we hear more about this con game?


Fear is at work. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. Take one example. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.


Why is there so much passion about global warming? What stirs the hearts of scientists and politicians to get behind this theory? The article I read said there are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old standard, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Al Gore has done very well for himself in the role of global warming prophet.


The sixteen scientists who wrote the article have a simple message: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.


A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Why? It is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.


The conclusion of these scientists is worth quoting in this year of politics: "Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of 'incontrovertible' evidence." Amen.


Here's a list of the authors so you can see their credentials:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.