Was there any purpose in NBC broadcasting, during its prime-time Olympics coverage, the actual footage of Georgian Nodar Kumaritashvili dying in a luge accident … and doing so a full day after the event?

Hmm. Let me think…

Was it a grab at ratings?

Was it “just” a sudden lapse in basic human decency?

Was it a plunge by our media further down the slippery slope of snuff entertainment?

Was it all of the above?

It’s impossible to tell what NBC was thinking. However, this is one viewer who is thoroughly outraged and disgusted.

A person’s death is never entertainment.

Personally, I’d like to see NBC issue an apology to me, to all the other viewers and especially to Nodar Kumaritashvili’s family.

I doubt that will happen. But in the meantime, NBC, here’s your Shovel Award. Please, use your shovels to smack yourselves up the sides of your collective heads. Maybe that will help your badly misfiring moral synapses to correct themselves and function properly.

What were you thinking?

Just askin’.

According to Rush Limbaugh’s comments on his radio show today, you’re a “warmist” if you believe that man-made global warming is real. It doesn’t matter if global warming IS real, if global warming really IS man-made at least in part, if you’re a scientifically skeptical sort who thinks that the weight of the evidence IS in favor of the man-made global-warming hypothesis. No matter what your convictions on the issue, or how soberly you arrived at your considered opinion, you’d better start calling yourself a “warmist” so that TRUE conservatives can identify you, rip on you, deride you and ridicule your position on this issue.

Now, let me say that I’m not a supporter of the Al Gore school of global
climate change. The Al Gore school of thought seems to believe that the globe is warming at a rate of (up to) one degree per decade, and that the whole human race will be facing calamitous changes in all of our lives because we’ve unknowingly fallen into the “sin” of failing to accuse Big Oil of conspiring to poison our environment with their carbon-emitting products.  This school seems also to accommodate the radical view ascribed to Ted Turner recently, that within a short time the whole world will turn to cannibalism, because of the catastrophic effects of climate change on the availability of water, farm-able land and human tempers. This school also seems to accept such far-out ideas as each and every American farmer paying $150 per year (or more) for each head of “methane emitting” cattle in the US, a proposal floated by the Bush administration’s EPA a few years back, and then (mercifully) put back on the shelf. I’m not a supporter of the Al Gore school of thought because, after all, how the heck does accusing Big Oil and paying “cow-fart” taxes to the feds actually improve the climate?

On the other hand when I look at the evidence, it’s pretty clear that the globe IS warming. Whether this warming is man-made or not is an open question (but more about that in a minute). And no, I’m NOT using data from the (“discredited”) University of East Anglia to support my view.

Last month, I found a graph of global temperature at the NOAA website, showing just how much our globe has warmed in the past 100-plus years.

This really neat graph shows average annual temperatures from weather stations around the world since 1880, carefully vetted by the premier weather-and-climate agency in the world, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  NOAA is an agency of the US government that provides independent weather and climate data to individuals, business and governments around the world. The National Weather Service is a part of NOAA.

Average, worldwide, annual temperature is colored blue in the graph if it’s below the long-term average temperature, and it’s colored red if it’s above the average. I think this shows pretty clearly that our globe is warming. Curiously, land is warming faster than the ocean. The land-and-ocean together seem to have warmed by about 1.5 °F over the past 100 years. The average temperature bounces around a lot from year to year, but there’s a pretty clear long-term trend.

Yet a graph like this gives NO indication about what is causing the warming. We could be at the high-point of a 200-year cycle (it kind of looks like it, to my eye), so temperatures could be headed downward over the next 100 years. We could be experiencing climate change due to our sun’s sunspot activity. The warming trend COULD be man-made; it MIGHT be a long-term warming trend that’s going to continue for over 1000 years or more. But we just don’t know at this point.

I’ve been saying for over a year now (down at the barber shop, mostly) that there are three important questions that I want to see answered about Global Warming before we commit to a policy direction:

1. Is it happening?
2. Does it matter?
3. Is there anything we can do about it?

Obviously, if you answer “No” to question one, you don’t need to ask questions two and three. But I believe that the answer to question number one is a clear YES, it IS happening! So I go on to question number two: Does it matter? And the scientific answer to this is “We just don’t know”. IF the warming is a continuous upward trend rather than a cycle, and IF it’s mostly caused by carbon dioxide emissions from carbon fuels that we’re pulling out of the ground, and it’s NOT due mostly to sunspots or some other natural phenomena, and IF there are no natural processes that limit the increase, then it MAY matter. Right?

And if it does matter, then we’ll need to ask question number three. But right now, we just don’t know the answer to question two. And I have to wonder if it’s responsible to forge ahead on actual policies before we’ve answered all three questions. Sure, lets debate the issues with civility, but how can we know what’s good policy before we’ve asked the right questions?

And we aren’t going to have the answer to question two for quite some time, maybe 10 or 20 years. Yes, the global temperature may increase by one or two tenths of a degree in that time. But that’s a pretty small increase given the daily swings in temperature (around 20 °F) and seasonal temperature swings of well over 100 °F in some parts of our country. So we need to press the climate scientist to keep their noses to the grindstone, keep up the scientific debate, and keep on challenging each old and new hypothesis that comes along. And, while we’re at it, I believe we should all keep our heads bowed in prayer, thanking God for the amazing world he gave us, and commit ourselves to continued good stewardship of this world of ours as we learn more fully what’s going on.

In the mean time, I want to encourage my friends on the left to recognize that I’m with them when it comes to acknowledging the reality of world-wide climate-warming. However, on matters of public policy, skipping questions two and three makes no sense to me. Jumping from “It’s happening” to “Let’s trust the federal government to intervene in our lives, raise our taxes, take our cars away, and tell China and India to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere even though we know that’s bad” just seems like lunacy to me. Let’s be sober about the issues.

On the other hand, I want to encourage my friends on the right to
accept the scientific data, consider the possibility that the situation could be very serious for future generations, and press forward on answering questions two and three. If conservatives continue to fight the data, they seriously risk becoming irrelevant in the debates ahead; they seriously risk a total collapse of credibility on the issues. And if conservatives lose their credibility, the folks proposing loony solutions might be the only credible policymaking force left standing a generation from now. Which would be a serious problem for all of us, in my estimation.

So why do I think Rush’s comments deserve a 5-shovel award? Because it seems to me that Rush is continuing a recent trend among conservative talk-show hosts of digging himself into a hole he can’t easily get out of for years to come. Rush may have a perspective worthy of debate when he says that the policies of the current administration make little scientific sense. But he’s got to back up his position with scientific facts if he’s going to have any credibility in this. Currently, I see him largely dissing the science, oversimplifying the complexity of the issues, and ignoring the risks to our children (and their children’s children) brought about by complacently doing nothing for generations to come.

So, now that you know what a “warmist” is, are YOU a “warmist”?

Just ask’n.

The health insurance industry has dug itself a hole so deep that even our standard five-shovel award doesn’t cover it. So–I hereby award the health insurance industry their own excavator.

I am not even remotely a fan of either of the bills in the Senate and the House.

However, as someone who spends an inordinate amount of time fighting with health insurers to properly provide contracted benefits, I am very much on the “reforms badly needed” bandwagon.

It isn’t just the insurers that are the problem, however. It’s also the employers who decide for employees what benefits are to be provided, in what fashion, and by whom.

Example: yesterday’s mail contained within it an “Explanation of Benefits” (EOB) statement for a recent medical event. The insurer doesn’t require pre-authorization. Care from facilities and providers within plan are covered at a certain percentage of total; care from providers outside the plan are covered, but at a significantly lower percentage.

Prior to the visit, we had spent three hours of our time on the phone with the insurer to assure that we were going to a covered provider, for a covered event.

We were.

Apparently not, according to the EOB. Not only did the insurer claim in the EOB that the provider was out of plan, they also claimed that the plan paid nothing for out-of-plan events.

Can you hear me thudding my head against a wall? Actually, I don’t dare do that, as it might necessitate medical intervention, which would require even more hours of our lives sucked into the ever-spiraling black hole of correcting insurance coverage errors.

I lay part of the problem flatly at the feet of the employer through which this coverage comes. The employer, which has moved its home office to a different state, decided to switch its insurance policies for certain classes of employees to be a plan that provides coverage within a state in which the employees don’t live.

Got your head around that? It means that if we hadn’t screamed “foul” when the new policy first appeared a few years ago, that we would be paying for coverage that would never pay for anything but out of plan events at best.

Under this policy, I don’t recall having a single claim that has been processed correctly yet.

This is just one of a plethora of problems we encounter on an on-going basis in dealing with our insurance.

The employer’s response? “It’s not our problem. We only provide the benefit.”

That would be the benefit that we have no choice over, in any form whatsoever, that the employer holds the contract for and negotiates as to provider, coverage, details and costs?

Mmm hmm. That benefit.

The current health “reform” bills in Congress don’t address the core of the problems we’re having.

So, here’s just one thought about the kind of reform that might have some teeth in fixing insurance plan problems.

Make insurers–and employers that contract for the plans–accountable for their errors and obfuscation. Every time an insurance company makes an error on a claim (incorrect denial of coverage, etc.), penalize the company and the employer by making the insurer pay not only the claim, but also pay an amount equal to the claim directly to the insured as damages. And make the employer responsible for part of those damages, say a negotiated percentage between 30% and 50%, to hold their feet to the fire too in how they select who they chose to do business with on behalf of their employees.

Set up an independent ombudsmen board, through State Commissioner of Insurance offices, to represent claimants and require binding resolution within 180 days of the insurer sending out an EOB.

The beauty of this is that insurers who are responsible corporate citizens, who work hard and well to be both efficient and accurate (and yes, there are insurers out there who already are this way) get rewarded. They spend less, as they aren’t paying penalties, leaving more for profits, and are more competitive because they can offer the same coverage at lower costs than their inefficient and sloppy competitors.

If insurers and employers aren’t accountable for their actions–and the reality for the insured for all practical purposes currently is that they aren’t in these sorts of day-to-day operations–there isn’t a “reform” plan in the world that’s going to work that cuts costs and provides us with insurance that really works.

Just sayin’.

Am I the only one out here who thinks that the Transportation Security Administration needs a change in policy regarding the use of “profiling” as part of our screening for terrorists attempting to fly into the United States post 9/11?

Profiling is “bad.”

Oh, really?

It is politically incorrect. It can (and historically has, in many notable and horrible instances) be abused. But profiling isn’t bad per se. It’s a tool, and one that countries like Israel use to great effect.

Instead of setting up a system that puts in checks and balances so that profiling doesn’t get abused, our TSA has instead chosen to use a system that is politically correct. We don’t screen travelers based on “profiling.”

Gee, how’s that working for us?

Here are brief profiles of two individuals I know personally who were selected out from flight lines for special extensive screening in the last year, based on the TSA’s current screening methodology. Both were plucked out of their passenger queues and escorted into private rooms for a thorough physical check, all their carry on and checked baggage was completely gone through, and both had extensive questioning and had records checks done on them before they were allowed to board their flights.

Person #1.

• Gender: Female
• Age: 75+
• Race: Caucasian
• Religious Affiliation: Mormon
• Education: High School
• Occupation: Retired homemaker
• Citizenship: United States (natural-born)
• Criminal History: none
• Group associations: Volunteers at Mormon temple regularly
• Round-trip ticket: Yes
• Luggage: Yes
• Bought Ticket with cash: No

Person #2.

• Gender: Male
• Age: mid-50s
• Race: Caucasian
• Religious Affiliation: Episcopalian
• Education: Master’s Degree in Theology
• Occupation: Priest
• Citizenship: United States (natural-born)
• Criminal History: none
• Group Associations: President of Episcopalian seminary, member of Jaycees, etc.
• Round-trip ticket: Yes
• Luggage: Yes
• Bought Ticket with cash: No

Now, let’s bump these profiles against known facts of the profiles of terrorists trying to destroying airplanes or use airliners as missiles during 9/11 and after.

Hmm. Just for starters, I don’t recall any aged women hauling around bombs, regardless of race or education (or religious affiliation) or even country of origin. Ditto regarding Episcopalian priests. Add into that the information on the rest of these bare minimum profiles and the chances of either of these individuals being bomb-carrying terrorists statistically approaches zero.

Now, who wasn’t checked?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, whose own father had contacted the USA to say his son was a potential terrorist.

Abdulmutallab, who had a profile that was, not surprisingly, nothing like the two individuals listed above and was instead well-matched to other terrorists and was in a database of potential terrorists.

Abdulmutallab, who had known characteristics on top of the above (just to name a few: British visa that American visa was based on had been revoked upon reapplication, no luggage, cash paid for a ticket) that should have had him ripped out of a passenger queue and examined.

A system that chooses a practicing Mormon and an Episcopalian priest as potential terrorists. in preference to hunting for individuals like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is seriously flawed. If Abdulmutallab’s detonator hadn’t malfunctioned, the system would have been fatally flawed for the passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, and countless others that the plane’s wreckage would have rained down on in the Detroit metropolitan area.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider profiling, as part of a revamp of the TSA’s system. Build in the checks and balances to do it right, instead of staying with a system that’s politically “safe”–and horribly flawed.

Just sayin’

WHAT?

That’s certainly worth a maximum-strength Shovel Award for our current Administration.

You can’t celebrate “Christmas” as “non-religious.”

It’s religious by its nature. If you don’t want to celebrate this religious holiday, fine. But don’t try to dress up that pig of an idea, a “non-religious Christmas,” and present it as something other than what it is: a badly warped and objectionable distortion of a Christian holiday.

Yes, there are other secular (and pagan) festivals that preceeded Christmas on this same date. Whoopee. That’s also true of the Fourth of July, and we don’t see Americans quibbling about how we need to celebrate events that happened prior to 1776 on that holiday, now do we?

To squeeze, subvert, redefine and otherwise mangle Christmas into being something other than what it is–the celebration of Christ’s birth, one of the most revered sacred holidays for Christians–asks all Christians to submit to a fatuous lie.

No, thank you.

If the current White House, which represents a Christian nation (what an unpopular thought, no? And how daring to state it!) doesn’t want to celebrate Christ’s birth, they need to call a spade a spade, say they aren’t celebrating Christmas, and go find themselves another holiday to promote.

This one’s taken.

Just sayin’.

But in eight years we have received stacks and stacks of mail from the GOP, all unsolicited, claiming that we are members, and that we Must Send More Money.

Hmm. Really?

To try and get these mailings stopped we’ve:

• Written letters to the addresses listed inside these solicitations;
• Sent emails to the Republican National Committee;
• Sent stacks and stacks of mail back marked “remove us from your mailing list”;
• Called State party representatives for help;
• Called the Republican National Committee Headquarters for help;
• Worked our way up the food chain to the Republican National Committee’s head of membership services and sent her a box (a BOX!) of these mailings when she claimed that the items “obviously” weren’t coming from the RNC, as we “didn’t appear” on their mailing lists.

The letters have gone unanswered.

The emails have gone unanswered.

The phone calls have been shrugged off.

The flow of mail has gone on, although it’s diminished by half recently when the mailings to Clare mysteriously (and blessedly) stopped.

The State Party tells us it’s not their problem–that they don’t “interact” with the National GOP on mailings.

The RNC’s National Office as refused to take any accountability–or action.

Guess what’s in the latest stack of mail? Yes, indeed, another fine set of mailings from the RNC, claiming that we are “late” in renewing our annual membership.

That would be the membership we never had? The mythical one we’ve been trying for eight years to explain that we’ve never had?

So, GOP, here’s your shovel. Why? Well, if, over a span of eight years, the Party can’t manage a simple mailing list, what makes its leadership think it can govern a country?

Just askin’.