Archive for November, 2010
Deliberately breaking babies bones

Doctors are deliberately breaking babies bones rather than scheduling caesarians for at risk mothers:

“We push down on the clavicle with our thumb and finger”

Breaking bones causes pain. Babies feel it:

The baby will not move the painful, injured arm. Instead, the baby will hold it still against the side of the body. Lifting the baby…


OK. Sometimes even with the best system in the world it will be necessary to on occasion break bones to save the baby from worse harm. But I don’t think we are talking about that. I think we are talking about the lefty abhorrence of the modern West and in particular of its increadibly safe mode of birth. The sisterhood advocate against caesarians. And boy, do some of them hate caesarians:

Social workers have placed the five-year-old daughter of a professional couple on the child protection register for “emotional abuse” after the mother told the girl she was delivered by caesarean.

Rather puts this into perspective

Dr Pecoraro said despite the risks it was better to let an obese woman try and labour naturally rather than carrying out an elective caesarean.

I wonder what he means by “better”? It’s certainly cheaper. The kids are too young to complain, so who cares?

How many kids are we talking about?

Doctors in Queensland say the shock procedure is carried out on up to 1000 infants across the state.

Brisbane obstetrician Dr Gino Pecoraro, president of the Australian Medical Association Queensland, said an increasing number of cases meant junior doctors now took part in regular mock-up trials.


Queensland is the State health system that unleashed Dr Death onto the people. Your tax dollars at work, and he probably would still be at work if he had limited himself to breaking babies bones.

Thus progresses the slippery slope of a State medical system. Obama and the Democrats will have the blood of dead American babies on their hands. Mark my words. It is not only the grandma who has to worry, it’s the grandkids. All are costs to the government when it is paying for their “care”.

As Krugman would say, bring on the “death panels”. As long as you are dying from bureaucratic forces its OK. Just don’t let those market forces save you. Yep, that’s a poke at the Canadian system.

Wikileaks Bank of America

Wikileaks are working through Bank of America material

“At the moment, for example, we are sitting on 5GB from Bank of America, one of the executive’s hard drives,” he said. “Now how do we present that? It’s a difficult problem. We could just dump it all into one giant Zip file, but we know for a fact that has limited impact. To have impact, it needs to be easy for people to dive in and search it and get something out of it.”

Hat tip Computerworld

Market ticker found the following comments:

It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume. Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation.

For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.

This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.

If this matches previous leaks there are bound to be more investigations and they could be wider than Bank of America. If so it could result in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Now wouldn’t that be something.

The vested interests currently controlling the government will do their best to stop it. I hope Julian has a guardian angel. Rape allegations may be the least of his worries.

Why the Left lie

The left love to quote President Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, as evidence of Hoover lack of government action during the depression. They then cite Hoover’s failure to prevent the depression as evidence of how misguided Mellon’s approach was. For example:

Hayek’s fellow countryman, Joseph Schumpeter, went further: “Gentlemen!” he announced to his students at Harvard University (there were no ladies). “A depression is healthy! Like a good ice-cold douche!” If depressions did not exist, Schumpeter thought, we would have to invent them. They were “the respiration of the economic mechanism.”

Agreeing with Schumpeter was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon. In his memoirs Hoover was bitter toward many, but bitterest of all toward Mellon, whom he called the head of the “leave it alone liquidationists.” Hoover quotes Mellon: “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” Hoover opposed Mellon’s policies, he said, and worked to undermine them. But what could he do? He was, after all, only the president. And Mellon was Treasury secretary.

The massive interventions by Hoover are part of the historical record. As he says himself:

“These programs unparalleled in the history of depression in any country and in any time, to care for distress, to provide employment, to aid agriculture, to maintain financial stability…..

There are page, after page of interventions detailed in The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover Volume: Vol. Three: The Great Depression 1929-1941:

I believe these extracts from Wikipedia are uncontroversial:

“Roosevelt campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating “immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures,” “abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances” and for a “sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.”

Roosevelt campaigned and won on those grounds because of the extent of Hoover’s economic activism.

Roosevelt certainly helped things go down hill:

“After the election, Roosevelt refused Hoover’s requests for a meeting to come up with a joint program to stop the downward spiral and calm investors, claiming it would tie his hands. The economy spiraled

Roosevelt’s programs probably stopped the economy recovering. His policies were responsible for the duration and depth of the depression. Sadly similarly misguided efforts are looking likely to cause the Greatest Depression.

Bradford DeLong’s and the Left’s attempts to tar Hoover with the Mellon brush and thereby discredit Mellon’s policies is deceptive at best. A dishonest lie may be nearer the mark. Does this, sourced from Hoover’s Memoirs sound bitter? Does this sound like a man claiming he was thwarted by Mellon?

Two schools of thought quickly developed within our administration discussions.

First was the “leave it alone liquidationists” headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, who felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula:

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” He insisted that, when the people get an inflation brainstorm, the only way to get it out of their blood is to let it collapse. He held that even a panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” He often used the expression, “There is a mighty lot of real estate lying around the United States which does not know who owns it,” referring to excessive mortgages.

At great length, Mr. Mellon recounted to me his recollection of the great depression of the seventies which followed the Civil War. (He started in his father’s bank a few years after that time.) He told of the tens of thousands of farms that had been foreclosed; of railroads that had almost wholly gone into the hands of receivers; of the few banks that had come through unscathed; of many men who were jobless and mobs that roamed the streets. He told me that his father had gone to England during that time and had cut short his visit when he received word that the orders for steel were pouring toward the closed furnaces; by the time he got back, confidence was growing on every hand; suddenly the panic had ended, and in twelve months the whole system was again working at full speed.

I, of course, reminded the Secretary that back in the seventies an untold amount of suffering did take place which might have been prevented; that our economy had been far simpler sixty years ago, when we were 75 per cent an agricultural people contrasted with 30 per cent now; that unemployment during the earlier crisis had been mitigated by the return of large numbers of the unemployed to relatives on the farms; and that farm economy itself had been largely self-contained. But he shook his head with the observation that human nature had not changed in sixty years.

Secretary Mellon was not hard-hearted. In fact he was generous and sympathetic with all suffering. He felt there would be less suffering if his course were pursued. The real trouble with him was that he insisted that this was just an ordinary boom-slump and would not take the European situation seriously. And he, like the rest of us, underestimated the weakness in our banking system.

But other members of the Administration, also having economic responsibilities—Under Secretary of the Treasury Mills, Governor Young of the Reserve Board, Secretary of Commerce  Lamont and Secretary of Agriculture Hyde—believed with me that we should use the powers of government to cushion the situation. To our minds, the prime needs were to prevent bank panics such as had marked the earlier slumps, to mitigate the privation among the unemployed and the farmers which would certainly ensue. Panic had always left a trail of unnecessary bankruptcies which injured the productive forces of the country. But, even more important, the damage from a panic would include huge losses by innocent people, in their honestly invested savings, their businesses, their homes, and their farms.

The record will show that we went into action within ten days and were steadily organizing each week and month thereafter to meet the changing tides — mostly for the worse. In this earlier stage we determined that the Federal government should use all of its powers:

What is it with the truth and the left? Yes I know they don’t necessarily believe there is such a thing as Truth. But even so, surely something else explains their ready resort to lies and deceit. They can’t all be looking for a job with an investment bank, or some fat consultancy or speaker fees.

Could it be cognitive capture? They can’t help but see the world through their pseudo-socialist prism. A horrid mish-mash of politically correct hogwash corrupts their view of reality. If so, then were they not so damaging they would warrant our pity.

Or perhaps it is simply their view that the end justifies the means. Neither people nor facts can be allowed to stand in the way of progress. Their ideology approved the killing of millions of, Kulaks, Cambodians, men, women and children. Why would those in its modern incarnation let the facts and truth stop them?

They just know we need more government. Any lie or act of deception that furthers that aim is not just acceptable, but good. It’s enough to make you sick. Literally sick, there is ample evidence that being poor and unemployed decreases your life expectancy. Nice. Yet more human misery to heap on the immense mountain of Left induced suffering.

By lying about the past the Left are distorting policy in the now and causing misery tomorrow. Do not underestimate the importance of the history wars.