Timeline of evolution of life on Earth

Kind of cool.

Tea Party vs. Central planning

Here's what the TP itself really fears, in an inchoate way that for most of its members doesn't rise to the level of clear understanding, but is still intuitively very powerful: the US is embracing central planning as a governing theory, as fast as our legislative processes will allow. . . . Central planning has two primary flaws, when compared with economic freedom: it misallocates resources, and it magnifies the impact of corruption. I could write a decent-sized book explaining both of those mechanisms, but because I've never been busier in my life than I have been these past few weeks, I'll cut to the conclusion.

The endpoint of central planning, if not outright failure, is a much deeper and more intractable division of society into haves and have-nots. After promising a better world for everyone, the progressives will end up creating a society that is more polarized than ever. . . . And we're already seeing everywhere, from David Brooks to Noam Chomsky, the signs of how the elites will have to deal with the polarization: by loudly proclaiming in their captive media that the have-nots are stupid and, eventually, evil.

from here, via this. 

Healthcare to look forward to ...

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine 
"Doctors repeatedly mistook a teenage girl's cancer for migraines--spotting three tumours only after her father refused to leave the hospital until she had a CT scan," London's Daily Mail reports:

Danica Maxwell, 14, said she felt like 'a nuisance' and 'just another kid with a migraine who was making a fuss' when she was seen at the West Cumberland Hospital, in Whitehaven, Cumbria.

When she was eventually operated on she was told she would have died had the cancer gone unnoticed any longer.

The tumours removed from her body were deemed so unusual they were sent to America for analysis.

Danica's tumors ended up at Princeton University, where former Enron adviser Paul Krugman produced the following analysis: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

from here.

Parent of an autistic child treats with medical marijuana

Interesting

Obama now micro-managing hospitals ...

Obama extends hospital visit rights to partners of gays

To be clear - I think a person's life partner should certainly have visitation rights. I just don't think the President of the United States should be making that call. How is it the government's business or responsibility?

I wish I could believe this was actually true

Libertarian sentiment has finally gone mainstream.

A movement that said that people should do whatever they wanted as long as it didn't hurt anyone else couldn't compete during the culture wars that began in the 1960s.

But after two wars, a $12 trillion debt, a financial crisis and the most politically tone-deaf president in modern history, Americans may have finally given up on big government.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Hating-the-government-finally-goes-mainstream-90852389.html#ixzz0lB7bXp8y

Heh

Besides, the notion that an obscure teacher of constitutional law could be catapulted to one of the highest offices in the land is absurd on its face.

What is a libertarian?

See here

 It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

In this particular case, the author is discussing the government mission to 'help the poor'. Welfare programs do not help the poor. At least they don't help them to not  be poor anymore. Rather they encourage them to become ever more dependent on the government. 

This is not very helpful to the poor, but it is very helpful to the politicians who continue the programs and expand them to more and more people.

Politics ...

The Purposes of Political Combat -  

How is it that Obama can fail to see that changes of the magnitude he is seeking would compel those who believe that those changes are dangerous—who honestly believe that they are bad for the country and whose belief is grounded in powerful ideas about how society should be ordered—to marshal their forces to do whatever is in their power to prevent them from taking place? And that it would be wise not to dismiss or belittle the energy and resolve of the opposition, but rather to take their full measure and plan accordingly?

This has been frustrating to me as well. I get accused of being contrary and partisan because I disagree fundamentally with the current government's approach to governing. They believe government should be large and have expansive power and responsibility. I believe government should be small with limited power and responsibility. These are fundamentally opposite views. I don't disagree with them because they're Democrats (or Republicans in a lot of cases), I disagree with them because I think they are wrong, whoever they are.

The Aurora Borealis ... from the other side

A picture from a Japanese astronaut on the International Space station.