Lt. Michael Murphy, US Navy, is awarded Medal of Honor -- Post Mortem

He laid down his life for his friends. Excerpt from the President's speech:

On June 28th, 2005, Michael would give his life for these ideals. While conducting surveillance on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan, he and three fellow SEALs were surrounded by a much larger enemy force. Their only escape was down the side of a mountain -- and the SEALs launched a valiant counterattack while cascading from cliff to cliff. But as the enemy closed in, Michael recognized that the survival of his men depended on calling back to the base for reinforcements. With complete disregard for his own life, he moved into a clearing where his phone would get reception. He made the call, and Michael then fell under heavy fire. Yet his grace and upbringing never deserted him. Though severely wounded, he said "thank you" before hanging up, and returned to the fight -- before losing his life.

Unfortunately, the helicopter carrying the reinforcements never reached the scene. It crashed after being struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. And in the end, more Americans died in Afghanistan on June 28th, 2005 than on any other day since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. This day of tragedy also has the sad distinction of being the deadliest for Navy Special Warfare forces since World War II.

One of Michael's fellow SEALs did make it off the mountain ridge -- he was one of Michael's closest friends. Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell of Texas, author of a riveting book called "Lone Survivor," put it this way: "Mikey was the best officer I ever knew, an iron-souled warrior of colossal and almost unbelievable courage in the face of the enemy."

For his courage, we award Lieutenant Michael Murphy the first Medal of Honor for combat in Afghanistan. And with this medal, we acknowledge a debt that will not diminish with time -- and can never be repaid.

Our nation is blessed to have volunteers like Michael who risk their lives for our freedom. We're blessed to have mothers and fathers like Maureen and Dan Murphy who raise sons of such courage and character. And we're blessed with the mercy of a loving God who comforts all those who grieve.

Blackadder's Catholic Free Market Approach to Healthcare

Kudos to M. Z. Forrest for allowing Vox Nova commenter Blackadder to present his thoughtful analysis regarding free market solutions to health care industry problems. Contrary to some of the recent squawkings that Hillary Clinton's health care proposal is somehow "catholic", he points out that there is a lot more respect for subsidiarity and the common good in market solutions than in single-payer systems. Here's a teaser, but read the whole thing, it's quick:

By taking over functions that used to belong to the family, church, and voluntary associations, the state has broken down the authority and power of these mediating institutions between the state and the individual. The result is that people increasingly are unrooted, isolated, and socially adrift. Many of these institutions have become frayed and particular affections and loyalties have broken down, leaving people isolated and dependent on the state for protection (ironically, people who oppose this are often called “radical individualists”). State intervention outsources charity and replaces real social solidarity with the fiction that sending tax dollars to Washington bureaucrats (or, rather, being in favor of others sending their tax money to Washington bureaucrats) is somehow charitable. People who believe it is the government’s responsibility to care for the poor are less likely to give to charity or volunteer their time, regardless of how much the government is actually spending on fighting poverty (let alone how effective that spending is). This is, I think, not a coincidence.

But if single payer is not the answer, does this mean that we just have to live with the problems of the current system? Not necessarily. There are a number of ways that our healthcare system might be improved that don’t involve a government take over....

Then he goes on to actually provide suggestions of how to improve the current system. Imagine that. These all read like a breath of fresh air to me because it meshes with my experience exactly. When I was 25 years old I had full coverage which I hardly needed. Would have been nice to have that wasted money instead, slap it into a savings account or stimulate the economy of the beer industry, whatever.

Now as a self-employed individual I have a "creative" plan for my growing family which I had to wrest from the insurance rep using a technique I affectionately call "psychological waterboarding", i.e., threatening to go elsewhere. I could even get a cheaper plan if I could threaten to buy an insurance plan out of state, say, South Dakota or Nebraska. He might even have to sell his yacht at that point. I don't think they do the yacht thing in those there parts.

Like the gallows, competition doth greatly focus the mind of these insurance galloots, even if you don't enjoy threatening business people as much as I do. Nothing personal, I got a wife and kids, buddy. It be a Catholic thing -- noam sane?

Mudville

If anyone knows any grief counselors looking for work, send 'em up to Cleveland.

Oh, well, great season.

New Sidebar Feature

The new feature here at Est Quod Est is creatively entitled "The Pile of Stuff I've been reading". The fact is that I'm too lazy busy to blog on everything I check out on the 'net, even though I find much of it interesting.

So if something catches your eye over there, please feel free to comment on some "unrelated" post. Remember: rudeness is the rule here and shyness is "right out" as the Brits say. Sure, I'm the Dictator for Life at this blog, but think of it as a Banana Republic where the ruling class is a bit ambition-challenged and drinks a lot of rum.

Barone Contrasts Latest UAW Strike with Previous in 1970

Here. His conclusion:

It turns out that market competition punishes those firms whose costs are out of line with others. It also produces better value for consumers, as today's cars are far superior in quality to the clunkers of 1970. And it can make things better for workers, as well. The reason the UAW demanded 30-and-out in 1970 was that workers hated their assembly-line jobs. Newer manufacturing techniques, pioneered by Japanese firms, give workers more autonomy and responsibility -- and more job satisfaction. The business model of 1970 is history. But most of us are better off today.

To the disparaging "clunkers", I prefer the more affectionate moniker "land yachts".


Also the article kind of reminds me of that Yaz tune "Goodbye Seventies". Nothing like dating myself, totally.

Sense Amid the Fear-mongering

Every since I heard Bjørn Lomborg interviewed on the radio for his new book, Cool It, I've wanted to check it out. From the Amazon.com review by author Michael Crichton:

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming will further enhance Lomborg’s reputation for global analysis and thoughtful response. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a perfect place to start. Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

In the interview, which was on Prager's show, he showed himself to be sensible and uninterested in the standard utopianist screeds about who's to blame. Basically he 1) firmly believes that global climate change presents a problem, 2) believes that it is to a great extent caused by human activity and 3) looking at reality, concludes current proposals to address it are wrongheaded. So he separates the facts from the fear-mongering. He gets attacked, of course, for not partaking of the envirofreak koolaid. But he's on Time's influential 100 list, and his detractors are probably out smoking homegrown and griping. This made me laugh:

Lomborg was not the first to say these things, but he hit a nerve. Environmentalists reacted to him in the way that corporate public relations departments had learned not to react to them: by fanning the flames with intemperate attacks. He was vilified in Scientific American magazine. He was found guilty of "scientific dishonesty" by a national committee of Danish scientists (the verdict was later overturned by the academy). With each attack, sales of his book boomed. And try as they might, the critics could not paint this mild-mannered, bicycle-riding, leftish vegetarian as a corporate apologist.

So he's smart, healthy, and these dweebs helped him get rich -- good for him. I'll bet he rides a really nice bike.

As an example of his practical, big-picture view from his radio interview, he agreed that global warming will be a boon to the Anopheles Mosquito, ergo more cases of malaria for those in prone areas. But he points out that in regards to human victims of the disease, poverty will still be a much greater indicator for fatalities than temperature and climate. So resources committed to forcing nations to comply with greenhouse gas emissions standards would be better spent in providing nets and medicines to those potential victims.

But this argument probably only appeals to me because I'm a human who is more interested in helping other, especially poorer, humans than in sticking it to richer humans. If any non-humans, sub-humans, space aliens, human-animal hybrids, envirodorks or anopheles mosquitoes would like to comment, please do so.

"Scribblers" and Scientific Chastity

Oswald Sobrino posts on a book by Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. The book was first published in 1934 and most recently reissued in 2002. Mr. Sobrino provides some excerpts from this edition to "help us keep scientific claims in perspective, especially when those claims are pushed forward by non-scientists." His insightful conclusion:

Popper offers a chastened view of scientific claims that most scientists, I think, share; but that few non-scientists are aware of due to the fact that we are so dazzled, as outsiders, by so much scientific achievement in the modern era. In contrast, we have unrestrained scribblers, usually non-scientists, who do not show the restraint of scientists. Well, we live in a society that is, in many ways, out of control -- temperance or chastity are just not the marks of American culture today. To be chaste is not just a sexual virtue. To be chaste is a virtue of humble restraint needed throughout the culture. The lack of temperance courses through our culture from the highly personal aspects of life to the highly public claims of pseudo-scientists. Maybe, there is a testable link.

What would be an example of this kind of link? Could one be a link between people who are into "free love" and, like, totally freaked out by man-made global warming? Maybe... I don't know if it's testable; I'm a non-scientist. But I'm not sure if it really needs to be tested either.

More Red Mass Hysteria

By way of Roger at Catholic Lawyer, we see another frowny-face made at the Red Mass, this one from a secularist point of view. The first attack I saw mainly focused on the scary guns and patriotic music. (I highly recommend the comments in that one if you are in need of a laugh.) Excerpt:

The homily, or sermon, was delivered by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee. Archbishop Dolan characterized the event as an opportunity "to rejoice in a mutually enriching alliance between religion, morality and democracy." But what he meant, of course, was that we should rejoice in an alliance between a particular religious denomination, Catholicism, and the government. This was no celebration of religion as a general matter.

I'm glad Ms. Hamilton is around to educate us on what the Archbishop really meant.

I welcome substantive discussion of why you think either of these viewpoints is right, wrong, thoughtful or stupid, especially from those readers with law degrees. As a mere layman, I'll just list three things that these reactions remind me of:

1) The widely reported recent Mass at which the Pope "intentionally wore Green vestments", ostensibly to make an environmental statement.
2) Bill Murray's character in the movie Ghostbusters warning of the possibility of "dogs and cats living together and mass hysteria" if they didn't stop the evil spirits.
3) The Spanish Inquisition's use of a "comfy chair" to torture a little old lady on an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Shocking.