Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts

Friday, March 16, 2012

"The Road We've Traveled": Just Another Complete Coincidence?

President Obama's re-election committee recently released a 17-minute video called, "The Road We've Traveled."



The title is a bit curious, isn't it?  It sounds completely innocuous but why "The Road We've Traveled"?  The title doesn't convey success nor does it imply a sense that the President has overcome obstacles.

Stuart Chase
Out of sheer coincidence, supposed coiner of the term New Deal, Stuart Chase, wrote a book in 1942 called "The Road We Are Traveling."  Or is it a coincidence? Read on an you be the judge.  Is this a path toward greater freedom for mankind or is it the road to a new serfdom?

The Road We Are Traveling was sponsored by The Twentieth Century Fund, since renamed The Century Foundation.  According to their web site, they support "progressive ideas that advance security, opportunity, and equality."  They claim to be non-partisan, but also freely admit, "we are not neutral."  One of the trustees is John Podesta who is founder of the Center for American Progress, who was also President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, and was also co-chairman of the Obama Administration transition team.  But I'm sure that's all a coincidence, too.


In the book, Chase outlines how the world in 1942 is changing from a system based on "free enterprise" into a new, unknown system that he calls "X".  Here is an excerpt from pages 94 to 97.  One might go so far as to call this a "fundamental transformation."

(click a page to enlarge the original)


In war and peace, boom and depression, the march toward centralized, collective controls has continued. Planning has often been identified with socialism. Yet orthodox socialists themselves are far from pleased with the collectivism practiced in Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and they look with grave suspicion on the New Deal. Something has appeared which nobody anticipated, nobody wanted and nobody really understands. Mr. James Burnham has called it the "managerial revolution," in the first intelligent attempt to understand it which I have seen. Many more studies will be needed before the mystery is cleared up. We have something called "X," which is displacing the system of free enterprise, all over the world. If we do not know yet what to call it, we can at least describe its major characteristics. They include, in most countries: 


Free Enterprise into "X"
  • The underwriting of employment by the government, either through armaments or public works. (see American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
  • The underwriting of social security by the government--old-age pensions, mother's pensions, unemployment insurance and the like.
  • The underwriting of food, housing and medical care, by the government. The United States is already experimenting with providing the essentials. Other nations are far along the road. (in 1942, the United States had passed Social Security, but had not passed the "Great Society" welfare and Medicare legislation of the Johnson Administration) 
  • The use of the deficit spending techniques to finance these underwritings. The annually balanced budget has lost its old-time sanctity. (all of President Obama's budgets have had nearly trillion-dollar annual deficits.  The United States Senate has passed no budget in over 1,000 days)
  • The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies. (see "FDR Ends Gold Standard in 1933" and "Nixon Ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System")
  • The control or foreign trade by the government, with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and barter deals.
  • The control of natural resources, with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency.
  • The control or energy sources--hydroelectric power, coal, petroleum, natural gas.
  • The control of transportation--railway, highway, airway, waterway.
  • The control of agricultural production. (see "Family-farm advocates say new child farm-labor rules would destroy farms' generational structure")
  • The control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes.
  • The enlistment of young men and women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. The CCC camps have just inaugurated military drill.
  • Heavy taxation, with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.
  • Not much "taking over" of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. The formula appears to be control without ownership. It is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the great corporations in depriving stockholders of power.
  • The state control of communications and propaganda.
These characteristics are incipient in some countries, full-blown in others. If you check off those which are observable in the United States in 1942; in Britain, in Germany, in Mexico, in Japan, in Sweden, in Russia, a comparison of checkmarks will show some amazing parallels. Is the whole list good or bad? That is a meaningless question. Some items point strongly to community survival, which is perhaps the most fundamental good there is. Some are clearly contrary to the liberal democratic ideal. Most of them are anathema to the doctrines of Adam Smith. Good or bad, there they are, in the middle of the stage.


Study this list and think hard about it. At first reading, most Americans will not recognize it as something which applies to them. Yet there is not an item on the list which is not applicable in some degree to the United States. We have no official propaganda bureau yet, but the FCC controls radio broadcasting. Further, it is not a war list, though the war has increased the impact. These items are referents for "X," the new structure which is being molded, and for which there is as yet no name. Names are thrown around--"socialism," "state capitalism," "fascism,"-but they mean nothing, and only lead to confusion.


See also ...


  • And another, "The Road We Really Traveled" starring Barack Obama

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Rick Santorum on Prenatal Testing, Abortion, and My Experience with Both

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" on February 19, 2012 to defend a controversial claim that free prenatal screening increases the number of abortions and consequently helps reduce health care costs.  He specifically mentioned that such screening leads to abortions of disabled children, including those with Down's syndrome.  Mr. Santorum has a daughter named Bella who has a a genetic disorder called Trisomy 18.


I'm willing to bet that Rick Santorum will be vilified by the media for his claims, but I can personally attest that his claims are true and that abortion is encouraged even when test results are not 100% accurate..

With our first daughter, our OB/GYN recommended the usual battery of tests including one called AFP (alpha fetoprotien).  A short time later, we heard that the AFP test results were "positive" and we were encouraged to meet with a genetic counselor.  The counselor told us that, based on the test result, it was possible that our child would be born with debilitating spinal bifida.  We were told about the immense costs we would likely personally incur to care for such a child, not to mention the great emotional heartache.  My wife was in tears for quite some time.  Naturally, abortion was the first option offered by the counselor.

My wife and I are personally opposed to abortion but the meeting really tested my personal faith and values.  I mean, if abortion is the recommended course of action by a health care professional, then the outcome must be foreordained, right? After much soul-searching, prayer, and tears, my wife and I both emphatically agreed that we would have our child, regardless of the test results.  My wife recollects that we even had to sign papers to that fact before discussing the matter further with the counselor.

As an engineer and professional skeptic, I questioned the AFP test and the accuracy of the results.  I later found out that the AFP test has a very high false positive rate.  It is meant as a screening test to trigger additional testing, which I found odd because abortion was the first recommended course of action.  We refused abortion so the next recommended course of action was an amniocentesis procedure.  After additional research, I discovered that amniocentesis itself had a higher probability of causing a miscarriage and thereby killing our daughter than the probability that our positive AFP test would be confirmed as a positive by the amniocentesis, indicating that she really might have spinal bifida.

Again, we refused the amniocentesis procedure and opted for a more-accurate level-2 ultrasound.  Although not foolproof, the level-2 ultrasound showed no signs of spinal bifida..

Fortunately, our daughter was born beautiful, happy, and healthy.  In fact, our little supposed "genetic deformity" earns straight A's in school and even won a first place ribbon at the county science fair a few years ago.  Her only disability is the complete inability to pick up her room--which she inherited from her father.

A friend of the family is a nurse.  She found out that she was pregnant at 41.  Because of her age and because she already had children, she was recommended to have an abortion to avoid the possibility of having a Down's child.  Fortunately, her youngest is also completely healthy.

Here in California, I believe that there are indeed financial incentives for the state to provide AFP screening tests due to the high cost of POSSIBLY caring for disabled children.  I can understand this, but the tests must be accurate!

How many prospective parents know that high false positive rate?  How many prospective parents ever questioned the health care system's recommendations?  How many compare the risks and rewards of various treatment options based on scientific facts?  How many perfectly healthy children were unnecessarily aborted because of a POSSIBLE negative outcome?

I believe Rick Santorum is right on this one, but this will be spun out of control by the media and some on the Left.

See also ...