Science, Technology & Health: June 2011 Archives
James Richard Verone is a very sympathetic case, but certainly we as a society can't allow a person to rob a bank to get free prison healthcare.
A couple of months ago Verone started weighing his options.He considered turning to a homeless shelter and seeking medical help through charitable organizations.
Then he had another idea: commit a crime and get set up with a place to stay, food and doctors.
He started planning.
As his bank account depleted and the day of execution got closer, Verone sold and donated his furniture. He paid his last month’s rent and gave his notice.
He moved into the Hampton Inn for the last couple of days. Then on June 9 he followed his typical morning routine of getting ready for the day.
He took a cab down New Hope Road and picked a bank at random — RBC Bank.
Verone didn’t want to scare anyone. He executed the robbery the most passive way he knew how.
He handed the teller a note demanding one dollar, and medical attention.
“I didn’t have any fears,” said Verone. “I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police.”
Let's assume that the story as presented is true. (I'm moderately skeptical of its veracity.) Obviously this is an unsustainable and undesirable strategy, and society has a strong interest in preventing others from following this same course. Several ideas present themselves:
1. Taxpayer-subsidized healthcare for everyone, not just prisoners.
2. No taxpayer-subsidized healthcare for anyone, including prisoners. This issue highlights one of the major problems with using imprisonment as our primary form of punishment: a prisoner is a total drain on the economy. I'm already on record opposing imprisonment for non-violent criminals.
3. Charge Verone with some sort of fraud-like crime that reflects his true intent.
(HT: Marginal Revolution.)
Forget global warming... it looks like the sun is sending us into a mini ice age!
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age. Average magnetic field strength in sunspot umbras has been steadily declining for over a decade. The trend includes sunspots from Cycles 22, 23, and (the current cycle) 24. Credit: NSO/AASIce skating on the Thames by 2025?
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.
The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.
...
As NASA notes [1]:
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.
Quick! Burn more dead dinosaurs!
So now we're told that if we don't like the Obamacare mandate then we can simply earn less money.
[Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general] responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”
[Judge Jeffrey] Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”
Wow, I really hope that President Obama runs with "Earn Less Money!" as his new campaign slogan. That'll be a winner. Though, it's hard to imagine how everyone earning less money will help our economy grow.
Hey, maybe all those "unexpectedly" unemployed people are just taking Obama's advice?
(HT: Gateway Pundit and Instapundit.)
