Mandatory Mischief

The Harvard Law states: Under controlled conditions of light, temperature, humidity, and nutrition, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.
Larry Wall-author

We stopped at Burger King today for lunch and ate in the restaurant. After we had finished our meal, I glanced at the place mat, or whatever it is they use to line their serving trays. Printed on the thing, both the front and back, was nutritional information. The front explained how I could have it my way for under 650 calories, by ordering one of six meals displayed.

On the back was the listing of their entire menu, followed by columns with the header listings for Calories, Calories from Fat, total Fat, Sat. Fat, Trans Fat, Cholesterol, Sodium, Carbs, and Protein.

Overlooking the fact that all this vital information was presented on a paper, placed on the tray under the food I had already ordered, my question is, who wants it? I go to Burger King to get my comfort foods: a burger, fries and a Coke. If I was worried about all that gobbledygook, I would not be in Burger King, I would be at home eating salads.

I do not know if this information is Burger King’s attempt to be responsible or if it is government mandated, but it is a waste of time and money printing it out. I did not see anyone else in the crowded restaurant even look at it. If Burger King wants to do something for me, start cooking the French fries in the earlier generation of cooking oil, the one that gave the fries the great taste. I am an adult. I do not need Burger King, or the government, telling me what to eat, and I damn sure do not need them trying to tell me what I like.

As for it being for my own good, I have already lived longer than 95% of the Homo sapiens who walked this earth, and I’m still good for a lot more years. Any health problems I enter into now will be due to aging. Neanderthals did not live long enough to have to worry about aging diseases. Is it not wonderful that we do?

As a child, I lived on a farm. I do not remember my mother ever fixing a meal that did not include gravy. We ate fried meat, fried eggs, fried potatoes and fried green tomatoes. It did not harm us. Does anyone really think that changing their diet will allow them live forever?

I grew up in a society where over 50% of the people smoked. None of them ever believed smoking was good for them, but it was something they enjoyed. The only one of them that died of a smoking disease was my father, emphysema got him after smoking a couple of packs a day from the time he was 14 until he was into his seventies—well over the average life expectancy. He enjoyed it, it was no one else’s business. I never started smoking because my high school coach said smokers would be kicked off the football team, but all the second-hand smoke from a lifetime of being around smokers never harmed me.

Working on the farm, I handled animals, fertilizers and pesticides. They never harmed me or anyone else. They allowed us to improve and increase farm production, and to feed more people.

It is time for the government, and the do-gooders, to get out of our kitchens, get out of our bedrooms, get out of our businesses and get out of our lives. If the do-gooders are concerned, they should spend their time and money cleaning up their own lives—the lives that concern them. If the government wants any credibility, they should read the bills they pass, and those bills should affect them just as much as the everyday citizens. The government that governs the best, governs the least.

Published in: on January 22, 2011 at 2:05 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: ,

Which is the biggest scientific fraud in history?

There are some circles in America where it seems to be more socially acceptable to carry a hand-gun than a packet of cigarettes.
Katherine Whitehorn–journalist

I study global warming to the point of immersion (hours every day). It has long been my belief that global warming, and the resultant push for cap-and-trade, is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world. Maybe I am wrong, not in the fraud, but in it being the greatest scientific fraud.

In my curiosity-induced wanderings of the internet, I stumbled over the resurrection of another scientific issue I had not read about lately: secondhand smoke—or passive smoking if one is more politically correct.

A recent article in the BBC News reports on the first global study on passive smoking. My first alarm bell rang when the article said 600,000 people a year die of passive smoking. The second alarm was when I saw the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted the study.

The WHO is the same organization that brought us the swine flu pandemic, which they said would directly result in millions of children and young adults dying if they were not immunized. Some well-positioned pharmaceutical companies (WHO contributors perhaps) made millions of dollars on their vaccine, even though millions of doses ended up in the trash due to lack of interest. The total loss of life WORLD WIDE from the swine flu was less than 15,000, and most of them were of people with their health previously compromised through asthma or other lung diseases. The normal death toll, to our regular, garden-variety flu in the United States, is around 30,000.

Now, when I see the WHO quoted, I turn on my crap detector. When I see something like this:

The global health body said it was particularly concerned about the estimated 165,000 children who die of smoke-related respiratory infections, mostly in South East Asia and in Africa.

my crap detector jumps off the scale. Excuse me, most of them in South East Asia and in Africa? Is that not where the average income is about $2.00 a day? Who knew they were spending it on Chesterfield menthol lights? A better guess might be that those children are living in unventilated huts that use dried dung for cooking and heating. While I suppose one could call that passive smoking, tobacco has nothing to do with it.

While wondering just how the WHO came up with the 600,000 number, I went back to an old Numbers Watch blog That particular article had to do with the statistical convolutions the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) had to go through to show a 1.9 risk ratio in secondhand smoke. A risk ratio of less than three is within the margin of error and considered meaningless. The 600,000 passive smoke deaths, without any verifying information showing any of those who died were ever in a tobacco smoke environment, is an example of a PDOOMA number, see

In science, the poison is in the dosage. Massive doses of almost anything can become poisonous. Sucking smoke directly into the lungs from the filter of a cigarette is a near perfect delivery system, and the results show up on the death index; however, it is much different from picking up the much-reduced concentrations of smoke released into the air by a smoker. Most of the passive smoke inhaled is immediately exhaled, leaving only a harmless trace dose actually absorbed.

While there is a small percentage of the population who has an adverse effect to passive smoke, there is a similar percentage of the population allergic to shellfish, chicken feathers, peanuts and other substances. These people are expected to avoid the things they are allergic to, but for some reason there is no push to keep the rest of the population from ingesting them. Actual science, not meta-analysis of hundreds of studies involving different, conflicting factors, indicates that damage of passive smoking is in the mind, not in the lungs, of the average person.

Please do not read any personal bias into my doubts of the dangers of secondhand smoke. I have no axe to grind. I do not smoke and never have; in fact, I believe smoking it probably the worst single thing people can do to their own bodies short of suicide. Still, science is science, and if one has to cook the books to garner support for a particular position, in global warming or secondhand smoke, it is wrong.

Published in: on December 1, 2010 at 3:32 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Advice for the incoming House of Representatives—Part 2—Obamacare

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.
Abraham Lincoln

The country has had time to, as Speaker Pelosi described, “see what’s in the healthcare law,” which is colloquially called Obamacare. Obama wanted it. Obama pushed for it. Obama signed it. Now it is the law of the land, and the people have had a chance to see it. They do not like it. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 57% of likely voters want it repealed. When one considers that 20% of the population calls itself liberal, and want Obamacare, that leaves only 23% of the rest of the population who wants to keep it or is not sure.

Why is Obamacare so unpopular? Sorry, the reasons cannot be listed here. This is a mere blog, not the Library of Congress. There is not nearly enough room or time to list everything here, but perhaps there is enough room to list a few of the most egregious reasons.

First, in reference to Part 1 of this blog series, it is too long and too convoluted by at least a magnitude of ten. Instead of a single 2,200-page bill, it should be ten or fifteen single-subject bills, written in common English, instead of trying to disguise the disaster in legalese. For this reason alone, it needs to be repealed and completely rewritten. There is no way to modify this mess to the point it can be understood, and Obamacare has taught the American people that bills should be understandable.

If you are wondering how it could be broken down into smaller bills, take a few of the simpler items. College loans: why should college loans be included in a healthcare bill? Why is only one bank allowed to make college loans? There is no reason, unless one wants to allow only certain, approved-people into college . . . or someone wants to have a weapon to hang over students’ heads . . . or someone politically connected controls the bank.

What is tax law doing in a healthcare bill? Obamacare calls for 13,000 new IRS agents, a requirement for every business to send 10-99 tax forms to every entity from which it purchases more than $600 dollars worth of goods or services, and even includes something as silly as a tanning tax for those using tanning beds.

Why does Obamacare include a mandatory requirement for everyone to buy insurance? Either buy insurance or pay a fine. Never before has the government had the authority to force any American citizen to buy anything. On its face, this section of the law appears to be unconstitutional; however, if activist Supreme Court Justices say it is constitutional, should the citizens prepare for the mandatory purchase of a Chevrolet Volt from Government Motors? How about the purchase of individual carbon credits for every breath exhaled? What else could citizens be forced to buy? Let your imagination run wild because this may well be the slipperiest slope of history. If for no other reason, this is why this law must be repealed.

Still, even the worst of laws have a few good things in them. These things should be sought out and placed in a new healthcare law. Pre-existing conditions should not keep anyone from getting insurance, although it should probably require a higher deductable. Medicare and Medicaid fraud should be sought out and vigorously prosecuted (although it should probably be in an individual bill).

Along with salvaging the good sections of Obamacare, the rewritten healthcare bills should include things that were obviously left out. Things like tort reform. Things like insurance companies being allowed to compete for customers nationwide. Things like everyone being treated equally under the law: everyone includes unions and Congress members, as well as their families and their staff. If a law is good enough for the citizens of the Unites States, it is good enough for the Congress that passes it.

There is no doubt; Obamacare needs to be repealed and rewritten. If the replacement bills are good bills, and easily understood bills, both Republicans and Democrats should be proud to vote for them. The President should be proud to sign them into law. If they are good bills, and Democrats do not want to vote for them, and the President does not want to sign them . . . well, there is an election coming up in two years. The public is now awake.

In the meantime, Republicans, and Democrats who have heard 57% of their constituents speak, should do what they can to stop, or delay, the institution of Obamacare. It is a horrible bill.

Published in: on November 22, 2010 at 10:51 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

For the good of the people

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson

In the past, the intent of most House and Senate bills fell pretty much into one of four categories. They addressed routine funding for critical services, they echoed the will of the people, they fixed recently discovered problems, or they were for the greater good. The intent of most bills pushed through during the Obama administration is so fuzzy, it is hard to tell what they were designed to do. Because many of the bills proposed under his watch would, and have, radically changed the entire direction of the government, they have come under more scrutiny that those of pervious administrations. The more one looks at them, the less obvious their intent.

I have always been skeptical of almost everything the government does, but since the election of President Obama, my “huh?” meter has been pegging out almost daily. Any time I hear about a new bill, especially any that are so convoluted that no one can read them, four things pop into my mind. #1: What is the intent of the bill? #2: Who stands to gain financially from the bill? #3: What are the unintended consequences of the bill? #4: Can this thing possible be constitutional?

Take the healthcare bill. It was possible the most convoluted, impossible to read bill ever written. It was rushed through congress, without being read (“we have to pass it to know what is in it,” according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), all so that most of it can be implemented in 2014, after President Obama is out of office. Why is that?

What was its intent? Was it written to gain control of one sixth of the economy, to control rising health costs, to lower insurance rates, to make sure every person in the Unites States has insurance, to control student loans (yeah, that is in there too), to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid, to assist hospitals or to assist doctors? Perhaps it was all of the above.

Who stands to gain financially from it? Well, trial attorneys and that little bank that is now the sole student loan outlet jumps to mind. There are some perks for unions and some pharmaceutical companies. The IRS certainly gets a boost in employees. New bureaucracies are established. They have to be staffed with powerful new appointed supervisors and personnel. All of those gain, and they are just the obvious ones.

What are the unintended consequences? There are too many to list here. I recommend a list maintained by The Foundry called Side Effects . They started it right after the bill was signed into law and updated it constantly as more flaws are found.

Can this thing possible be constitutional? To be truthful, I never asked this question prior to the Obama administration. I never saw the need. Now it must be considered with every new bill. If the Supreme Court, in reviewing this bill, finds that the government can force individuals to buy insurance as a requirement to be a citizen, then they can control what and where individuals can get anything. The first indication is contained in the same bill.

As indicated above, nestled in the huge bill is a section on student loans. Now, thanks to the foresight of our ever-diligent congress and President, anyone looking for a student loan has had their life simplified. There is no longer the drudgery of searching for the loan that best meets a student’s needs. The student is limited to one bank and one interest rate – – presumably controlled by the government. Why doesn’t that give me a warm and fuzzy feeling? Thank God, we longer have to worry about marketplace competition.

What might be the next government edict on what individuals must buy? I would say trash hauling services, but here in St. Louis County the government as already forced me to give up an inexpensive trash service that I liked and forced me to buy a more expensive service, with mandatory embellishments, I do not use and extra charges for things I used to get free. Once again, confusion from marketplace competition has been eliminated.

In the last couple of years, any of our homes have been outfitted with smart meters. I am sure I paid for mine; however, I do not recall placing the order for the one installed on my house. Smart meters are wonderful little gadgets that allow the electric company to not only check on a homeowner’s electric usage whenever they want, but to control the usage. In the future, when the coal-powered generators are shut down because of their CO2 emissions, the brown outs can be controlled from a central location to try to offset wind and solar power deficiencies.

Part of the stimulus package was for the installation of insulation and weather-stripping on houses. Homeowners could get a tax rebate for having the work done. This was usually done for a cost of a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars, but the cost in stimulus money was about $78,000 per insulated house. Whether you insulated your house or not, you are paying for those who did – – and at a price you never would have paid yourself.

Europe has phased out incandescent light bulbs to force everyone to buy the compact fluorescent light bulbs – – they are more ecologically responsible; even though they constitute a hazardous material if they are broken, they flicker and alter the appearance of everything and are generally hated. With Obama pushing the U.S. toward the European system, how long before that happens here. Presumably, all it will take is to place the requirement deep in the next unreadable bill. We will learn about it after it is passed. Either that or Obama can simply nationalize all the companies that make light bulbs.

The American electorate has allowed the first steps to be taken on a very slippery slope. Only the present makeup of the Supreme Court and an upcoming election can pull us back to the top. November 2nd is a serious date. Every household should have it marked on every calendar. And until 2012, we need to pray Obama does not get to name any more Supreme Court Judges. The Constitution cannot stand any more justices who think the Constitution is just another scrap of paper; even if Obama thinks it is for the good of the people.

Published in: on August 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

The unending pandemic

Think off-center.
George Carlin-comedian

Have you noticed the ill effects of the H1N1 flu pandemic lately? Yep, it is still raging. Either that or some flu serum manufacturer still has not sold enough if its vaccine to pay off the bigwigs at the World Health Organization (WHO) for calling it a pandemic in the first place.

WHO actually had to change the definition of pandemic in order to call H1N1 a pandemic, and then they pushed it with scare news releases of a disproportionate number of children and young adults dying in order to get anyone to use the vaccine.

They did not mention that, in an average year, somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 people die in the United States alone due to the flu de jure, what ever its genesis. According to a 7/21/10, article in Planet Arc (Click link), the total death toll (in the whole world) attributed to N1H1 is 18,337. From reports on their state of health before the flu, most of them had preexisting respiratory problems. For the average human being, N1H1 may well be the most benign form of influenza ever encountered.

Solely because of the WHO’s alarmism, millions and millions of people were placed in fear to the point they wore surgical masks in the streets, children were kept from school, and workplaces were interrupted. All this for a flu strain with a death count that would be statistically lost in random clutter; and it is still going on, still a pandemic, still with warnings to get a H1N1 flu shot.

Every death is traumatic to someone, but WHO causing all this unnecessary angst is unconscionable. Perhaps it is time for the United States to quit funding WHO. We are already paying enough for alarmism in the imaginary global warming arena; we do not need it for imaginary flu pandemics too.

Published in: on July 21, 2010 at 3:28 pm  Leave a Comment  

A simple comparison

Cutting up fowl to predict the future is, if done honestly and with as little interpretation as possible, a kind of randomization. But chicken guts are hard to read and invite flights of fancy or corruption.
Ian Hacking-philosopher

The Earth’s temperature has been rising for the last thousand years. Okay . . . okay . . . I know there were extended periods during those thousand years when the temperatures went down, but you understand what I am getting at. During those same thousand years, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rose. It was immediately obvious to the climate scientist, receiving government grants to prove CO2 is causing the warming, that the rising CO2 caused the warming. Correlation is causation.

On another front, the stroke rate for women in their late 30s to the early 50s has tripled in the last two decades: so says an item from Reuters Health Information (click for link). It refers to a study published online in Stroke (click for link).

The reason for this enormous increase: obesity of course, although according to the Reuters report, more women are now on blood pressure and lipid-lowering medications.

A couple questions may jump out at those not involved in the study. Did this study consider any causes other than obesity? Could the blood pressure and lipid-lowering medications have caused it? Could other stressors have played a part? More women are joining the workplace out of necessity. Schools are failing in their children’s education. The incidence of single parenthood is skyrocketing. Adult children are staying at home and mooching off their parents. Taxes keep going up. The list goes on and on. Were any of those things even considered? It probably was not necessary because consensus says obesity is the only possible cause.

Oh, and to let you know just how bad this tripling of the stroke rate for this group of women, the number jumped from 6 in 1,000 to 18 in 1,000. That is a significant number, but according to the American Heart Association (click for link) 34% of all women are obese. One would expect the increase to be much higher. Presumably, for the increase to be significant for this group, every single one of those 18 out of a 1,000 women suffering a stroke would have to be obese. Somehow, I doubt that they were.

If correlation is causation, this stroke rate increase obviously must be linked to global warming. Global temperature is going up and obesity is going up. Oh oh, now I am confusing myself. Is it global warming that causes obesity or is it obesity that causes global warming? Maybe global warming causes strokes. Correlation is causation you know.

Published in: on June 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

PDOOMA and error bars

Where the senses fail us, reason must step in.
Galileo Galilei-scientist

For those who do not spend much time studying the charts and graphs attached to articles as diverse as global warming and healthcare, there are often shaded areas on those graphs to indicate the error possibilities; kind of like covering the spread when betting on a basketball game. When things are not an exact science, this is the +/– in percentage, degrees, dollars, etc. These shaded areas are called error bars. I guess one could call it wiggle room for charts, but it is a way of saying they are ‘reasonably’ sure the truth falls somewhere within the error bar limits.

Many charts do not have error bars. This is an indication of one of two things. The numbers either are exact, and not open to question, or they are PDOOMA.

PDOOMA was a new term to me until today. I stumbled over it at Link. Apparently it is a common term among engineers. It stands for Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass. There are other, similar, terms widely in use: WAG (Wild Ass Guess), SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), Onager Estimate (an Onager is a wild Asian ass), brown numbers, fudge factor and probably hundreds of others of which I have never heard. They all mean the same thing: this chart is bogus; place no credence in it.

This is just a little heads up for your future reading. If you see a chart without error bars on something like the cost estimates for Obamacare, figure it was PDOOMA and could be off by several hundred percent.

Yet, many things like the global warming proxies in Mike Mann’s discredited hockey stick chart do have error bars; and when they do, pay attention to them. If they indicate the error possibility of +/- 2 degrees C or more, when talking about .762 degrees of temperature change, that indicates the .762 degree falls well within the limits of statistical error and has no meaning.

See, this science stuff is getting easier already.

Published in: on May 17, 2010 at 4:03 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Ponzi schemes

Every diminution of the public burdens arising from taxation gives to individual enterprise increased power and furnishes to all the members of our happy confederacy new motives for patriotic affection and support.
Andrew Jackson-former president

I look at what the government foisted upon me, for my own good, and wonder. I did not ask for Social Security, but I was forced to pay into it throughout my working life. I did not ask for Medicare, but I was forced to pay into it throughout my working life. Now that I am retired, and am the proud recipient of my bounty, I am . . . disappointed.

Both programs were started with the best intentions, but like most everything the government tries to do, they were both poorly conceived and underfunded. They were built on the framework of a Ponzi scheme.

The Wikipedia definition of Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.

That means, the first ones in the program, upon retirement, received benefits from what they paid in, as well as by the ones who came in behind them. The problem with a Ponzi scheme is eventually, the pyramid runs out of blocks. There is not enough new blood coming in to pay off the old blood that retires. They are never sustainable. It simply falls apart. That is why Ponzi schemes are illegal.

Once the wheels fall off, the only way for the government to keep them going is through infusions of tax dollars. Then the people who have paid into it for years and years get the privilege of paying twice for the same benefit . . . if they live long enough to collect.

If the payroll deductions had been placed in individual accounts, or even into a pool, where that was invested or drew interest (that “actual profit earned,” which would have removed the Ponzi scheme label), they would be solvent, and everyone who had paid in over their working life would have a tidy sum for Social Security or Medicare payments after retirement.

However, somewhere along the line, the politicians decided that the money could be better spent on entitlement programs for the few instead of the many who had paid it in. Now, those politicians, while defending Obamacare, keep throwing the, “you don’t want new government programs, but you sure want your Social Security and Medicare.” Hey, pal, I did not ask for Social Security or Medicare, but you made me pay for it; now you are darn right; I want what I paid for. The problem is you spent the money. For Obamacare you are starting out with the mandate that everyone must have insurance from the get/go. Like every other government program, it is underestimated and underfunded, but this time there is not going to be any “new blood” coming in for it to be a Ponzi scheme. It will be insolvent in a relatively short time and drive the country into a death spiral of debt.

Published in: on May 10, 2010 at 3:46 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

Hold the salt

Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from the birth as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink and wear.
Thomas B. Macaulay–Historian

Ah, the things the American working class does not know. We are so stupid we do not even know how to season our food.

According to the Washington Post, Link coming soon to a store or restaurant near you, at the behest of the Food and Drug Administration, are controlled levels of salt in the food you buy. Yep, unrestricted use of salt will kill you. Everyone knows that hypertension and heart disease are caused by the overuse of salt. We should all restrict our diets to the 2300 mgs of salt that the FDA says is best for us.

The link between salt and the incidence of hypertension and heart disease is easily proven. All we have to do is look at the health of the countries using the most salt per capita. Take a look at Japan. Link They use much more salt than Americans and they . . . uh, wait, they are among the longest lived people in the world. Huh, that doesn’t seem right. How about the Jews. They load their food with kosher salt, and they . . . well, they are long lived too.

Well, there are some subsets of African Americans that unfortunately do have a high sensitivity to salt, but is that a reason to lower the daily requirement for the rest of the country? It turns out that 2300 mgs comes in at 17% lower than the lowest level worldwide, and . . . holy unsalted mackerel! It is 38% lower than the worldwide average sodium intake.

Why would our government want us to drop our salt intake to levels that play with the diseases brought on by salt depletion? There is a good reason. There is always a good reason. Usually it is because someone will be getting rich. All we have to do is figure out who it is. Meanwhile, start hording salt. No one knows how long it will be before the purchase of salt is banned. When this government involves itself in what is good for the people, it always goes overboard.

The recipiants of the healthcare bailout

And one who is just of his own free will shall not lack for happiness; and he will never come to utter ruin.

I have a bad temper. I beat my wife and children. I lost every job I ever had because my coworkers were afraid to be near me. Now no one will hire me.

I can never have enough of anything. I want the very best. I lied, cheated, committed fraud, stole and robbed to get more. Now I’m in prison.

I didn’t like school, so I dropped out. Working an everyday job was a drag, so I quit. I joined a street gang so I could pretend I had friends. I’m getting older now and want a normal life, but the tattoos and criminal history keep me from getting a good job.

I know that I’m superior to everyone else. I’m of the superior race, I’m smarter, my mind works better and my ideas are better than the inferiors around me. I’m physically fit, stronger and faster than anyone I know. The rest of the world should be looking at me as if I am a god; but they don’t. No one listens to me or wants to be around me. I jump from job to job looking for a place that recognizes my superiority.

I am the epitome of the macho man. I love love so much that no one is safe. In my various guises, I love women, men, children and animals. If they don’t willingly accept my overtures, I will force myself on them. These desires have led to a whole list of orders of protection and more than a little jail time. It has made it impossible for me to get a job.

I snuck into this country because I want what you have: your success, your house, your car, your clothes, your job and your healthcare. I will stay here until I’m physically kicked out.

At an early age, I discovered that I had no tolerance to things that could be abused; but I didn’t avoid them. I am an alcoholic, a drug abuser and obese. My addictions have wrecked my health, my life, and made it impossible for me to hold a job.

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Sound familiar? They are the seven deadly sins. These make up a large portion of the Unites States uninsured. Are they disadvantaged, or did they create their own situation? Are they the people for which you work? Are they the ones deserving of your tax dollars in a government bailout? Think about it.

Published in: on April 18, 2010 at 5:00 pm  Comments (1)