Cayblogger - THE Cayman Islands' Blog Man

Going Green - A Fat Person's Guide To A More Beautiful Environment

If you’re overly sensitive or prone to fits of political correctness stop reading… now.

A lot has been made about going green, green buildings, green homes, green cars, etc… and quite frankly if it wasn’t so damn annoying it would border on the ridiculous. Because absent from the great “go green” propaganda machine’s output is the most important element that should be green.

Us. Humans. People. You and me. We should all “go green” in our own bodies – and here’s where it gets unpopular.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – if you are obese or morbidly obese you are disgusting to people who are not. If you have to purchase two airline seats and both of them are for you, you are a fat disgusting pig; and we are staring at you and we are disgusted by you.

Unpopular? Insensitive? Not politically correct? Sure. True? Yes.

You see, I’m just saying (again) what other people are thinking. If you are fat – whether you choose to believe it or not – you are seen by non-fatties and fit people as disgusting. What’s the solution? Two words: go green.

Environmentalists will tell us that “going green” will save the environment and reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases - in spite of the fact that there, to this day, is no definitive or conclusive data supporting that notion.

Regardless, I’ll take going green one step further. So, fat people: go green with your bodies and save your lives.

There IS definitive data supporting the notion that if humans “go green” within their own bodies they can in fact reverse the damage they’ve done by stuffing their gobs with garbage, and they can make their self-contained systems a healthier place. They can save their own physiological environment – their own world...their own lives.

You see, scientists can prove that if you are a fat, pie-eating, soda-swilling, gravy-sucking, candy-munching, vegetable-dodging, couch-lounging, do-nothing, slug you will die – or at the very least run a higher risk of developing diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and a whole host of types of cancer.

But still, in this day and age, you can go to Kirk Supermarket or Hurley’s or Foster’s and see the fat slobs (with their fat kids in tow) in line with carts full of candy, custard creams, sodas, chips, and an array of other foods that are loaded with fat, processed sugar and chemicals that will make them sick and that will eventually kill them; and that presently make them a drain on insurance companies or the government who ends up paying their medical bills.

And the great insult continues within our own government because the very leaders who are trying to better Cayman’s health care system and improve the quality of life here in Cayman are themselves overweight, out of shape, unhealthy fatties. The very politicos who tell us not only to keep our environment healthy but also to keep ourselves healthy as well are the largest offenders. “Do as I say, not as I do… pass the donuts.”

So why don’t fat people just “go green” and start eating a healthy diet? Because they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions that led them to where they are and they shift the burden of responsibility from themselves onto society and ultimately our health care system. Why? Because they have no incentive to do otherwise.

Leaders in Cayman refuse take the tough stand and say, “If you’re fat – you will die” and they refuse to take a hard line on something that is one of the top (if not the top) financial burdens on our society – unhealthy living. The government has a golden opportunity to make Cayman a shining example not of sweeping environmental reform but of unprecedented healthy living reform. Cayman’s goal should be to be the healthiest islands in the Caribbean. We could be the first “Green Population: - I would bet a healthy environment would follow.

Am I advocating some sort of healthy living laws? No. But if I was, would I be so far off the mark? We live in a society in which the health care system stands a very good chance (for a number of reasons) of continuing to suck money out of the government's pockets (and our pockets) at an unheard of rate which affects us all in so many ways.

Yet still the government refuses to acknowledge that unhealthy living is not only a physical and emotional burden for fatties, but a financial burden for the rest of us. They can’t see the wasted money through all the fat.

Going green should be an idea that we embrace more in our kitchens than on our beaches or on our roads. Going green with our diets would lead to a happier and healthier human population.

Going green in our kitchens would help reduce instances of liver disease, high blood pressure, heart diseases, diabetes, high cholesterol, immune disorders, and more. Going green with our diets would help fat-asses be not so fat. Going green with our food choices would help Cayman reduce the astronomically high numbers of people with diabetes who suffer not only with the disease but with a sub-par health system and a crappy low-benefit government SHIC (Shiity Health Insurance Contract) plan.

Going green might encourage local commerce by increasing the demands for products from local farmers.

And going green would mean that I don’t get stuck next to one of you larders on an airplane (okay, so I’m a bit selfish).

Going green isn’t just about reducing greenhouse gasses, driving some little gay-looking hybrid car, carrying your groceries home from the market in a reusable cloth bag or turning off a light. Going green is a concept that should be embraced as a lifestyle in order to make the world a better place.

Because at the end of the day if we can encourage fat people to lose weight by “going green” it’s going to lead to a more beautiful environment, right?

I’ll leave you with a simple question: How can we save our planet by “going green” if we can’t even save ourselves? We can’t.

So change YOUR world. Go green in YOUR world and the beautification of OUR world will follow.

Global Warming: A CONvenient Lie

Global warming - what a load of crap.

Left-wing, militant environmentalists and their merry band of liars and creative, hyperbolic alarmists are subjective contrarians who disregard valid scientific data of anything inconsistent with their message of man-made global warming. And they are wrong.

Why? Simple - because they fail to include or acknowledge facts, figures, studies and historical environmental trends that have a far greater impact and influence on the current global condition than do we humans.

And it's not like this information is hidden. It's everywhere.

In March of this year the magazine of the American Mensa Society, The Mensa Bulletin (without endorsing or rejecting) published an article labeling the current theory of man-made global warming a case of "environmental McCarthyism."

Lately there are more and more global warming alarmists who are accusing individuals, organizations and governments of failing to be environmentally conscious and subsequently blaming them for the current perceived environmental crisis - much the way Senator Joe McCarthy haphazardly accused people of being communists ultimately ruining families, careers and lives before being revealed as a fraud reliant upon nothing more than hearsay, rumours, innuendo, bad information and lies.

Yet people are so thirsty to drink in the catastrophe that they readily accept this bad information as hard-and-fast indisputable fact. Hmmm... world leaders invade Iraq based upon bad information and we deride them for their decisions, yet a bloated ex-vice president floats up a book loaded with emotion and half-truths and we embrace him as the messiah of the environment. Interesting.

Anyway, these modern day McCarthy-esque environmentalists are selling their ideas to the world in spite of scientific data to the contrary that suggests an alternative explanation to their "the sky is falling" theory of man-made global warming. Not only do a lot of these environmentalists choose to ignore contrary arguments, they fail to include them as alternate possibilities - completely ignoring the scientific process they claim to use to support their arguments. And all for no other reason than to further their careers or make a name for themselves.

I think you all know where I stand on global warming, but if you don't then pay careful attention to the next sentence. I think it's a farcical notion of ridiculous proportion perpetrated by people who fail to consider an alternative explanation as to why our planet is the way it is. I mean come on; how reliable can the global warming argument be if it is supported by the Hockey Stick Diagram, eh?

Is the world getting warmer? Sure. But here’s a little news flash for you: it’s been warmer. It’s also been colder. And it’s also been warmer again. And it’s been colder again. And it’s been warmer again… (yawn)

Depending on who you choose to believe, there are statistics that tell us the mean temperature of the earth has gone up .8 of one degree to 1.8 degrees in the past 100 or so years… which a lot of scientists, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, etc… will tell you isn’t surprising or even significant to anyone other than a person running for political office or trying to sell a “green” item. The earth's temperature fluctuates.

And I agree - this fluctuation is not significant nor should it be troubling and here’s why.

Right now, today, at this very moment, we are in an interglacial period of the most recent ice age known in the United States as the Wisconsin Ice Age. In layman terms: we're in between glaciers. This is a fact that is indisputable. But regardless, we are actually and presently in an ice age.

You see, the earth over its billions of years of existence has seen a number of ice ages during which the polar ice shields have advanced and receded and as recently as 95,000 to 20,000 years ago the better half of North America as far south as St Louis, Missouri was covered by a sheet of ice 8,000 to 10,000 feet thick known as the Laurentide Ice Sheet. But where did the ice go?

Global warming. But wait a minute – global warming? 20,000 years ago? Really? Yeah – really. And guess what. One of these days the ice is going to come back and there is absolutely and positively nothing we can do about it. Sweet dreams.

Does the world heat up and cool down as a result of what we do? No. Period. End of story. The planet heats up and cools down as a result of what IT does. Some may call this line of reasoning “fatalistic” but actually if you understand that the earth will continually build itself and destroy itself, well that’s the amazing thing about our planet; so actually this line of reasoning is "realistic."

The earth is capable of amazing self-sustaining activity that will keep things in a relative state of geological continuity; and will do so in the presence of - and also in spite of - our best efforts to alter it one way or the other.

Do we really think we have the power to alter geological activities to such an extent that we can alter our planet and avoid the inevitable? Try changing the course of a lava flow. Try preventing tectonic activity that generates powerful tsunami. The hubris of man never ceases to amaze.

Human beings haven’t been around very long at all. And human beings haven’t been producing that much significant environmentally harmful waste for very long either. It’s estimated in some studies that of all the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere right now, man-made carbon dioxide accounts for no more than approximately 3% (three per cent) of the total amount. THREE per cent.

I'm no statistician, but I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that if six billion people are responsible for three per cent of the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, that could hardly be called "statistically significant." Moving on.

If the planet is billions of years old - which it is - our negative impact on it is infinitesimal compared to the geological trends that have been going on for hundreds of thousands – if not millions and even billions – of years.

When did the industrial age begin - back in the 1800s, right? When did we start throwing exhaust into the air? Shortly thereafter? So are we to believe that 150 or 200 years of human impact is truly enough to effect a system that has been self-monitoring and self-correcting its environment for millions and billions of years, and has had numerous incidents of global warming and global cooling?

With the presence of the scientific data related to global environmental conditions, how do environmentalists explain the numerous periods of heating and cooling that took place BEFORE humans arrived on the scene? Simple - they get out their tap dance shoes and strike up the band and cast the spectre of our demise back on to fossil fuel emissions and other sorts of man-made pollutants. Because to cite anything else as a cause would mean relinquishing control and admitting to an alternate possibility - and they just can't do that.

The earth is a pretty resilient system and in spite of what people may think or say our best efforts to pollute and destroy the earth pale in comparison to everyday geological events doing just that. This is something that cannot be disputed - the documented history of human beings on this planet dictates that our impact is far less severe than the natural forces at play on our planet day after day for billions of years.

Does this make it right? No. Does it mean we shouldn't try to clean up the environment and lessen our impact? No. But not because the ice will melt and the seas will rise; that’s going to happen anyway. This planet has been (and will be) hotter and colder than it is now unless somehow and for some reason when we arrived the planet simply stopped being the planet it had been for billions of years. And current trends prove such is not the case.

Do we impact our environment? Sure – I’ll agree with this notion in my non-scientific way based solely on the fact that anytime you have six billion people off-gassing, polluting, dying, etc… there could be a by-product that could affect the environment. I'll grant that. But to somehow think that we alone have caused our current state and that we alone can alter a process that has been happening for billions of years is, in the words of our beloved British brethren, “bollocks.”

In spite of common sense, fact or scientific data, it seems nothing will stop global warming alarmists from pointing the finger of blame at certain governments or political figures and telling us they are responsible, and that the sky is falling, instead of looking at the problem from all sides and realizing that our presence – while maintaining an appearance of negative impact on the overall condition of this entire system – is, in actuality, nothing more than a minor inconvenience to our planet.

The impact our sun has had and continues to have on our planet with its constant bombardment of earth with radiation has a much greater impact on our planet than the man-made causes the media will scare you into believing will cause our untimely demise. And even today the earth is peppered with radiation, cosmic rays and other assorted space debris on a daily basis.

The environmentalists will tell you that the sun's impact is a result of man-made pollution eroding the atmosphere; but they will not tell you what natural causes have historically eroded the same atmosphere during periods of glacial advance and glacial retreat prior to the man-made hysteria known as "global warming."

Scientists will also explain to us how too much ice is just as dangerous to our precious atmosphere as is too little ice - which is why the earth is constantly shifting between the two extremes. Yet environmentalists will ignore this phenomenon which is responsible for trapping untold amounts of co2 in our atmosphere.

And our environmentalists would have you believe that humans are responsible for global warming, but how many of you have heard global warming alarmists speak of the following scenarios - also causes of global warming? Atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases caused by the movement of continents and volcanism); changes in the earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the earth's surface which could affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output (the sun's radiation/heat output increases 10% every one billion years); the orbital dynamics of the earth-moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of super-volcanoes.

Regardless of how environmentally conscious any or all of us are, the earth will do what the earth will do.

Robert Frost during his inauguration address for President John F. Kennedy said, “We were the land’s before the land was ours.” And this is as true today as it was in the 1960s; and as true as it ever has been or ever will be during and in the history of this planet.

For while we like to believe that we are in fact in control of our planet, there is no denying that this earth – in all its splendor – will burn out (or freeze over – perhaps both) and life forms will suffer or be blotted from existence as a result - again.

Some environmentalists will point to the extinction of a number of species as the symptom that we humans are destroying the planet without telling you that each day dozens of species of plants and animals disappear from the earth without so much as a footnote in a scientific journal. Dozens each day. Is this a result of man-made global warming? No. It's been going on since well before humans arrived. It's what the earth does.

We need to realize two ideas, and here they are: we don't own the planet - it owns us and; we don't control the planet - it controls us.

There truly are only two results of blaming humans for the current condition: 1) a sense of thinking that we can alter or change the inevitable that somehow we have caused and; 2) a prettier and cleaner earth to live in.

Am I an environmentalist? No. What I am is someone who has a healthy and reasonable respect for the environment simply for the fact that I hold out hope that we can achieve number two without regard for the falsehood that we will ever truly validate number one.

Fundamentally I have no problem with environmentalists. If you want to keep the planet clean, then let's keep it clean. I fully support that effort. But don't lie to me and tell me that littering, driving a car, drilling for oil, etc... is somehow going to hasten, slow or stop a geological process that has been happening for billions of years because that simply is NOT true!

The problem I do have with environmentalists is that they exhibit a nearly wholesale rejection of any science or history that does not support their argument of man-made global warming because they cannot accept the fact that global warming may NOT be our fault!

Me? I'll accept the notion that six billion people affect the planet; and I'll also accept the notion that six billion people CANNOT control the planet... but six billion people ought to at least be able to keep the planet tidy.

Does man-made global warming exist? I don't know - from what I've read I know enough to know that it's going to take a lot more scientific data for me to believe it does. There's too much propaganda with too many holes.

I mean really - just a few hundred years ago the most intelligent scientific minds and religious leaders alive told us the world was the center of the universe - and flat. Now the trend is "going green" and everything we do causes the earth to get warmer. Whatever...

There's no denying our climate is changing, but what is arguable is WHY it's changing. The vox populi will tell you that we're causing the earth to heat up when in actuality there is no definitive proof that man-made global warming is the cause of our climatological ills any more than naturally occurring events; especially if naturally occurring events that have a direct causal relationship to the planet's climate are being largely ignored.

So who do you believe? It certainly isn't the people with the hippest catch phrase, the coolest T-shirts, the grooviest bumper stickers, the most sympathetic argument or the fattest ex-US vice president spokesman.

I say before you make a decision on what to believe you should at the very least make yourself available to the possibility that not everything you're hearing from the environmental mafia is true and should be tempered with historical trends and solid, unambiguous and unbiased scientific data obtained through prudent execution of the scientific model. Then - fully armed with information from both sides make a responsible and educated decision on this (or any) issue.

So, Happy Earth Day! Plant a tree, pick up some trash, walk to work, turn off a light… do whatever you have to do not because it will save the planet (because it won’t) but because it makes the planet a prettier place to live and it's the right thing to do... nothing more.

Because at the end of the day, doing the right thing is far more important than living with the delusion that the earth we live upon has any care or concern for us - and that we as humans can do anything to prevent it from swallowing us at a moment's notice.

Hater of The Year Alden McLaughlin; The Minister With A Warped Vision

Perpetuating hatred, fear and small-mindedeness is no easy feat in the year 2008 but Alden McLaughlin pulls it off with the style and grace usually reserved for someone wearing ice skates and doing double axels and triple toe loops.

So hats off to Alden! Here’s to 500 more years of isolationist idiocy and paranoid hatred in Cayman!

When you’re elected Person of The Year by a substandard, unscrupulous and unethical publisher of a local fish wrap, how do you follow that up? You become the poster child for fear and hatred, which is why I’m proud to name Alden McLaughlin the Cayblogger Hater of The Year for 2008.

In a day and age when we are making remarkable strides forward in an effort to cure HIV/AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer’s and even the common cold, Alden has proven that we are no closer to curing fear-based bigotry and hatred than we are landing a man on the sun.

Alden McLaughlin is a small-minded coward who hates people just, well… just because. Here’s proof from today’s Compass.

“The concern that everyone seems to have that somehow this is going to force the recognition of civil unions in the Cayman Islands…that fear needs to be addressed,” he said. “When we talk about the need to get the United Kingdom to agree to restrict its ability to legislate for the Cayman Islands, to extend legislation to the Cayman Islands; this is a perfect example of what can happen if we do not achieve that objective.”

"Everyone" doesn't have this concern Alden, but you are correct in one aspect – it IS a perfect example of what can happen if you get the UK to restrict its ability to legislate for the Cayman Islands. You end up with a scared and bigoted population filled with unfounded fear and hatred, lead by a bigot.

It’s sad. The Cayman Islands are the self-proclaimed “gem of the Caribbean.” A gem with one major flaw: fear-based hatred. Thank you Alden for waving your hate flag high and proud.

People in Cayman are running scared. “Scared of what?” you ask? Rising gas prices? No. A stale tourism product? Wrong again. Lackluster education system, mediocre health care system, softening economy and real estate market? No, no, no and no again.

People in Cayman are afraid of gay people. The “leader” of government business even admitted he is concerned about civil unions “sneaking into local law” which begs the question: If our legislators are doing their jobs correctly, how do things “sneak” in to local law? Have we learned nothing from CINICO and the HSA?

Either way, it’s all about misplaced and misguided fear. Cayman isn’t afraid of drunk drivers, people with knives or guns, spousal abuse, child abuse, unemployment, employers failing to provide health care and pensions, political corruption, bad roads, or hurricanes. Cayman is afraid of gay people. Gay people!

And for good reason, because as we all know gay people engage in abhorrent behaviour that threatens our very way of living and could tear apart the beautiful tapestry of these Islands. They do disgusting stuff like go to work, go home, go out to restaurants, go to church, cook and serve food, handle financial transactions in our banks, handle legal matters in our law firms. They work in our government. And, yes, some even go so low as to cut our hair. God help us, these gay people are everywhere!

They must be stopped! How can we do that? We keep them from reproducing. How can we do THAT? We keep them from getting married, because as we well know if you’re not married you can’t have babies - right? Ask anyone in West Bay.

No civil unions equals no gay marriages equals no gay babies equals a clean and safe Cayman. Problem solved Heil Alden!

It’s amazing when you think about it. In ten years you can train someone to be a doctor, but in 500 years Cayman can’t seem to figure out how to break an attitude of blanket hatred against a demographic that is here, has been here and will be here.

And before the God Squad starts filling my in box with passages from The Bible I have heard you and I understand your reasoning. But I would be willing to bet (and I’m no biblical scholar) that there are more instances of The Bible telling us to love one another than there are telling us homosexuality is wrong. There are more instances of The Bible telling us to spread the light – not the hatred and fear. There are more instances of The Bible telling us to hold love near and dear to our hearts – for where love exists there is no fear; and where fear exists there is no love.

If you are truly faithful and God-fearing creatures you will embrace love, spread love and live a life of love – by example – and let your actions be the light that illuminates your path. Perhaps you will come to realize that this is not a case of who’s right and who’s wrong – it’s a case of who cares and why?

And the people who care the most are the people who have the most fear and the most hate – and the most to lose; or so they think.

We don’t need to ban civil unions, we need to ban uncivil servants who spread fear and hatred under the guise of protecting Cayman from something that isn’t a threat to it. We need to ban stupid people who try to convince us they’re smart based solely on their societal and professional position and not on their education, experience or tolerance.

We need to ban people who use fear and hatred to ostracize and discriminate against others based solely on some misguided notion that they are somehow better at being human beings.

And we need to ban people like Alden McLaughlin who choose to cure fear and hatred by making it legal.

So the Cayman Islands will not be forced to honour same sex civil unions… hardly surprising given the large number of heterosexuals who fail to honour their marriage vows.

Banning Same Sex Civil Unions - Fear, Lies, Hatred And The Jerks Who Spread It

Just how stupid are people with regards to banning same sex civil unions in Cayman? Yeah… I’m about to tell you.

I’m going to go on the record here and say I have no problem with my position on homosexuality – I don’t agree with it. I have a number of friends who are gay and have girl/girlfriends and boy/boyfriends and they are aware of my beliefs on the matter. It's not for me. I don't get it. But hey - whatever floats your boat.

However, I happen to believe that everyone has a right to be happy and if that means two guys or two girls want to get married, so be it. It doesn’t mean I condone it or find it any less disagreeable; but who am I to prevent two people in love from being together and who am I to judge?

Who is anyone to do this? People who are happy together should stay together – there’s too much misery and pain in this world to legislate impediments to happiness, and shame on those who try to do so.

Emotions aside, let’s approach this from a logical and statutory perspective.

One major argument in the US and UK – and now here – is that civil unions afford people certain rights or “benefits” that would otherwise not be afforded to them absent this legal union. According to the Compass story today, “Civil unions, or civil partnerships as they’re known in the UK, are legal arrangements similar to marriage which allow same sex couples to receive certain benefits such as health care coverage, tax breaks, pensions, etc. that would normally be available to heterosexual married couples.”

Hmmmm… Did I miss something? Check me if I’m wrong, but isn't there such a thing as heterosexual civil unions (sometimes called “common law” marriages)? So I guess we're just going to outlaw the same-sex ones. Furthermore, current laws allow for heterosexual couples in civil unions to apply for and receive health care benefits as a “family” so we wouldn’t be upsetting the system that much.

Secondly, am I mistaken or do we not live in a country where medical benefits and pension benefits are MANDATORY? Further to that, was I asleep during the implementation of the Cayman Islands personal income tax during which time I was afforded a tax break for being married?

So now, perhaps, someone can explain to me the “benefits” of same-sex civil union partners receiving health care, pensions and tax breaks when WE ALREADY GET ALL OF THAT regardless of our political, religious or sexual orientation!

Should I tell the politicians and religious leaders that the gay people in Cayman already have health insurance, pensions and partners or should I let them wrap themselves up in their little blanket of homophobic fear and disillusion? Nevermind.

Folks, this has nothing at all to do with economics and everything to do with stupidity and fear. The idiots who make the laws and cram religious zealousness down our throats are scared. Scared that allowing furtherance to a practice already allowed for among heterosexuals - in an environment where all of the "benefits" exist for everyone anyway - will somehow turn the Cayman Islands into the “Gayman” Islands.

In spite of what politicians and religious leaders will admit to, here's the reality of the situation. Straight, right-wing, fear-mongering, small-minded, homophobic, assholes feel that every gay person in the world is out to convert them. I have news for the right-wing religious zealots – the homos don’t want you!

All the gay people want to do is to be treated equal in the eyes of the law – which is a concept not at all uncommon for all of us straight folks as well.

This isn’t (or shouldn't be) a religious question because ultimately we, as humans, are not the ones who make the call on whether or not any of us go to heaven or hell. How they are treated in the eyes of God is not for humans to decide.

And it certainly isn’t a question of economy because the laws mandate compulsory health insurance and mandate pension benefits for (basically) everyone here. And in spite of the fact that gay people – especially gay couples – earn more, save more and spend more than their hetero counterparts, if you’re going to argue economics as a reason for banning civil unions you’d better think twice.

Banning civil unions in the Cayman Islands is nothing more than the self-righteous, overly-religious, myopic right-wing freaks trying to run everyone’s lives by attempting to spread hatred by legislating their ideas of morality and impose them on people who (gasp) may not share their exact views.

These are the same people who cry “foul” on homosexuality, but who follow leaders who canoodle altar boys in the preacher’s office. These are the same people who oppose abortion, yet support the rights of anti-abortionists to kill doctors and blow-up clinics. These are the same people who say we’re all going to hell in a hand basket but make no attempt to resolve the situation other than to point the finger at those God-less sinners whom they blame for all our ills without taking a good long look at themselves.

These are the same people who cry out for human rights and equality, but get drunk and spit on police officers and hurl ethinc epithets.

And these are the same people who fight for human rights – just so long as those rights apply to their definition of what a “human” is. Apparently if you’re gay, you don’t qualify in the Cayman Islands. Sorry…

Banning civil unions in Cayman? Don’t let any politician or religious leader lie to you and tell you it’s a matter of economics or a matter of morality because it’s not. It’s a matter of misinformation, fear and hatred.

There are no human rights in Cayman because there exists a pervasive idea of close-mindedness in this society that prevents people – especially our political and religious leaders – from behaving as humans.

I could be wrong, but I’m sure that’s not quite what “He” had in mind when “He… founded it upon the sea.”

CINICO - There's A Hole In The Bucket, Dear Liza

(Cayblogger remarks in bold face. Sorry… too lazy to be creative.)

Cayman Islands Monetary Authority Chairman Tim Ridley said Wednesday he feared government would have to heavily subsidise CINICO – the government–owned insurance company – long into the future.

Repeat after me: “No shit, Sherlock.”

Speaking at an industry luncheon that was part of the Cayman Islands Insurance Association’s Insurance Week events, Mr. Ridley prefaced his remarks by saying they were his personal opinion, and not the official views of CIMA.

“CINICO is a well–intentioned attempt to provide health cover for civil servants, indigents, children, seamen and veterans, the uninsurable and those older than 60 in a more efficient way than by Government simply writing the cheque in a disorganised manner,” he said.

Re-stated, “CINICO is a money hemorrhaging boondoggle designed to offer crappy coverage at a sub-par facility to people who don’t pay anything for it, can’t pay anything for, won’t pay anything for it, and due to health conditions aren’t allowed to pay for it by insurance companies in Cayman.” And as far as Government writing a cheque in a disorganized manner – that statement sounds like it’s straight out of the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.

“It is hard to conclude as yet that CINICO has helped control health costs for Government. Indeed, it could be argued CINICO has unnecessarily added an expensive layer of administration to what existed before and with no obvious benefit.”

Wait a minute – CINICO was formed to help control health costs for Government? How so? By forming a company with ridiculous overhead, run by total incompetents, working with an archaic health services authority run by idiots, to “manage” a product that it gives away with little or nothing in return in the way of premium or cost shares and then being surprised that government has to constantly inject cash into a system that has no feasible economic viability and no solid plan for economic self-sustenance?

Wow… how could a system like this possibly NOT work? Hats off to the geniuses at CIMA for letting us know that “it’s hard to conclude as yet that CINICO has helped control health costs for Government.” Hey, Tim - get back to us when you guys finally come to some sort of conclusion.

Mr. Ridley did concede there was understandable resistance from long–time civil servants to any attempts to limit their full cover, particularly when they had contracted for specific benefits.

“That’s just a fact of life.”

Of course civil servants are resistant to change. I mean come on – how can the largest segment of the population responsible for the greatest abuses of the system possibly be expected to make any contribution whatsoever to the financial vacuum that is the government sponsored health care disaster without pissing and moaning about it? The very government that created this fiasco is also the reason why it is so financially strapped. Another prime example of a government implementing the “do as I say – not as I do” model of irresponsible governance. And the explanation we get? “That’s just a fact of life.”

Mr. Ridley said he hoped over time CINICO could become a sustainable and efficient company and at least break even.

And Mr. Ridley followed that up by telling the audience that for Christmas he wanted Santa Claus to bring him a new 10-speed bike and an X-box.

“But my fear is that it is more likely to join the list of heavily subsidised government–owned companies for quite a long time in the future.”

“Likely to join?” Really? Ya think?

Then speaking officially for CIMA, Mr. Ridley said the Authority has always unequivocally stated CINICO would be treated no differently from any other Class A health insurer.

“The current recapitalization of CINICO is reflective of the Authority’s position.”

CINICO received a $9.2 million bailout from government in January to allow it to maintain its Class A license, which requires a minimum positive net worth of CI$3 million.

Really? No differently from any other Class A health insurers? How many other class A health insurance companies does the government subsidize bailout and allow to operate outside the basic standards and procedures of even adequate business practices? Please tell me. If I’m wrong and the government is in the habit of subsidizing private insurers to ensure they are operating at a positive net worth of $3 million dollars, then the government won’t have any problem cutting me freaking cheque to cover my losses associated with Dyoll. That’s my position.

Since its inception in early 2004 and through June 2007, CINICO had accumulated net losses of CI$18.1 million and had a negative net worth of CI$6.2 million.

So let me get this straight again. CINICO was started to help government control costs. CINICO participants can only use the HSA which is heavily in debt. CINICO operates at a negative net worth of $6.2 million dollars with nearly $20 million in losses during its first three years. The government pulls money from God knows where to fund, subsidize, bailout, whatever… and we’re still thinking that CINICO was a good idea? People, WAKE UP!

How many times have I told you when you have a moron running a hospital and an idiot running an insurance company – neither of which have any business whatsoever to do what they are doing – overseen by a government with not the slightest inkling of a clue as to what insurance is much less how to run an insurance company, you will end up with a system that is in the crapper. And when the system was in the crapper to begin with, being only knee-deep in the dark stinky is the best you can hope for.

Speaking personally on other health insurance matters, Mr. Ridley said his impression of the current health insurance position in the Cayman Islands was that it was “unsatisfactory, costly and inefficient.

“It is unfortunately human nature to abuse a system that provides cover for routine medical and dental visits, and administration costs for employers and insurers are considerable. In my view, cover should be for serious treatment only. This could be achieved by higher deductibles and raising top limits.”

The answer is NOT necessarily higher deductibles and raising limits. The answer is simple and I’ve been saying it all along. The government needs to get out of the health insurance business and let the people who know how to do it, do it.

Raising insurance limits doesn’t necessarily lower costs, it increases an insurance company’s exposure and increases premiums paid by employers and employees (unless you’re a civil servant, and then who gives a shit because you don’t pay anything anyway so why do you care?). It’s like giving loans to people with bad credit at low rates – you end up screwing the banks which ends up screwing up the real estate industry and then we all end up listening to Kim Lund piss and moan because he can’t sell as many overpriced multi-million dollar condos.

Raising deductibles works to a point, but how high do the deductibles have to be to even approach a break-even and make the individual’s risk worthwhile? $5,000? $10,000? $20,000? Who can afford such high deductibles (besides the freeloading civil servants) when they’re already paying extortionately high premiums?

The problem isn’t the deductibles or cost-shares, the problem is that the government won’t let the insurance professionals run the insurance industry – and we all pay the cost.

Mr. Ridley said restricting cover to more serious medical treatments might stop the upward drift of the cost of routine visits to the doctor or dentist. He said that since mandatory health insurance became law, the costs of doctor and dentist visits have gone up.

Restricting cover to more serious medical treatment? Okay… let’s let the cold turn into pneumonia and then treat the serious condition to avoid paying a routine office visit. Screw routine medical screenings, let’s just wait a while and then remove prostates, and ovaries and uteruses because we want to save a few bucks on the front end only to spend tens of thousands on the back end. Let’s wait for the car to crash and THEN replace the brakes. Great idea.

Tim Ridley may be a financial genius which is why I find it hard to believe that he doesn’t understand that preventive care can be just that – preventive. And it can prevent more costly procedures down the line. Don’t believe me? Okay, Tim. I’ll let you tell the Cancer Society that your plan to solve this financial health care cost crisis includes “stop(ing) the upward drift of the cost of routine visits to the doctor” including cutting back on routine visits during which people are screened for cancer. As we all know, it’s much cheaper to treat full-blown cancer than it is to screen for it. Yeah – that’ll do it Tim. Another good idea.

He also noted that healthcare costs for people with insurance are sometimes higher than people with no insurance.

Good point Tim and here’s proof of that. Civil servants. Civil servants don’t have health insurance and they don’t pay a penny. Civil servants and their families have subsidized health care with no deductibles, no coinsurance, no co-pays, and no premiums. I have health insurance, I pay premiums, I pay deductibles, co-insurance, co-pays and balance bills and – yes Tim – my costs are higher than a civil servant who has no health insurance.

“There seems to be something of a conspiracy here and that does not bode well for the insurance industry,” he said.

Repeat after me. “No shit, Sherlock.” It’s a conspiracy engineered by fools who have no idea what they are doing, and perpetuated by fools who don’t know enough to make a transition back to a system whereby insurance companies take control of the industry and are allowed to compete freely and openly which would lead to innovations in coverage options, pricing levels, etc…

Another point raised in Mr. Ridley’s speech dealt with the insufficiency of the upper limits on most health insurance covers.

There have been many complaints about the inadequacy of the Standard Health Insurance Contract 1 in this regard because it only has a $25,000 maximum benefit for each episode of illness and a $100,000 maximum for medical fees during each calendar year.

Okay, how many years and you’ve just now figured this out? These limits aren’t even scaled to account for inflation or increasing costs for medical services, so every year that $25,000 and $100,000 limit actually deflates in value to the end user while premiums increase.

Superintendent of Health Insurance Mervyn Connolly, who was in attendance at the luncheon, said afterwards the Health Insurance Commission board had made recommendation to the Ministry of Health and he hoped to see changes in the law regarding the SHIC 1 cover limits soon.

Okay, how many times have we heard that a recommendation has been made? A recommendation… that and $2 won’t even buy you a cup of coffee. Here’s the rub on the health insurance commission. Connolly is a career civil servant and the last thing he’s going to do is anything that would – God forbid – upset the current delicate balance of health care inefficiency and possibly lead to any sort of solution to this problem. He’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock is labeled, “I don’t know shit about health insurance” and the hard place is “I know I should let the health insurance companies run things but I don’t want to upset my government bosses by supporting anything that would weaken our choke hold on the industry.”

Mr. Ridley also called the lack of compliance by some small employers with regard to mandatory health insurance and pension plans very worrying.

“I am unsure whether the full extent of non–compliance is known,” he said. “I suspect it might be larger than we fear.”

Repeat after me. “No shit, Sherlock.”

Although he acknowledged enforcement resources were limited, Mr. Ridley said it was necessary to send a clear message to employers through successful prosecutions that defaulters would be pursued to the full extent of the law.

Okay, so you can repeatedly give CINICO millions of dollars to account for and support their fiscal mismanagement, knowing full well that CINICO is not and more than likely will not ever be financially viable, but you can’t fund the insurance commission to sue non-compliant employers and protect the interest of the most needy portion of our population from wantonly unscrupulous and callous ignorance of the law designed to keep us healthy and alive? Am I the only one who sees this as the most ridiculously bass-awkward philosophy in government?

Mr. Connolly said the Health Insurance Commission is in the process of hiring another health insurance inspector and might even be recruiting more. He noted the HIC had successfully prosecuted several cases and that two more cases were scheduled for court later this month.

Someone is always “in the process” of doing something that – once done – may or may not have any effect on the current situation. The appearance of progress with no action – a government specialty. Unfortunately, Tim, this is the message being sent to employers more effectively than fear of prosecution.

People, let me explain this to you again. The government just doesn’t get it. What we have here is a situation where the government stepped in and tried to do something very noble. However, they completely screwed it up because they had (and have) no idea what they are doing.

They started an insurance scheme to cover the people who couldn’t pay for it, as well as the people who have no intention of paying for it – and included the people who are not required to pay for it. What we have is 12,000 people receiving health care while at the same time making little or no contribution to the provision of their care in the form of premiums or cost shares. And the rest of us are paying for it while the government fools scratch their heads and ask, “Gee – why didn’t this work?”

Let me explain it to you another way. If CAA came out and said that all Caymanians fly on Cayman Airways for free and ex-pats have to pay for tickets, how expensive do you think it would be for an ex-pat to fly on Cayman Airways? Due to the millions of dollars in lost revenue as a result of Caymanians flying free and ex-pats avoiding Sir Turtle, Cayman Airways would have to hike rates up for passengers and cargo and create a mandatory and compulsory system compelling expats and other paying customers to fly Cayman Airways; continually get bailed out or “subsidized” or; shut down.

Likewise with CINICO. We have 12,000 people “flying free” and a government “subsidizing” the tickets of the freeloaders by taxing insurance companies and over-burdening the paying customers. This can’t last forever because Cayman has limited options with regards to implementing revenue-generating measures that could increase funding for CINICO.

My question isn’t, “When will CINICO be viable?” That answer is a simple, “Never.” My question is, “Where are they getting the extra money to continually bail out this disaster and what government departments will suffer as a result and how much will it cost us?”

Health care is a hot topic these days, but let’s not confuse health care with health insurance. What the government has done is marry one financial disaster (HSA) with a statutory disaster and the bastard offspring is CINICO which is the problem child of the family that always seems to screw up and call in the middle of the night asking for bail money and a ride home.

Breed Specific Legislation: Death and Disability by Dogs Breeds Contempt

Recently whilst emptying my inbox of all the garbage, junk and voluminous and grammatically disastrous hate mail, I came across a petition sent to me by a member of the Cayman Kennel Club representing one of Cayman’s ever-expanding do-gooder clubs: People Against Breed Specific Legislation in the Cayman Islands (PABSLCI).

Normally I would simply hit the delete button, add the sender to my spam list and go on about my day; but as I had some time in the airport and a speedy internet connection I thought I’d play around with it.

The email asked that I publicize the petition being circulated as an effort to change Cayman's Dangerous Breeds Law. While I am always one to support civil causes and I wholeheartedly support citizens' rights to petition their government, in this case I simply cannot support this petition.

First of all it's poorly written, lacking in any substantiating documentation and rife with emotional statements refuted by factual evidence. Secondly... see my "first of all comment."

One thing that struck me as interesting was a quote in the body of the PABSLCI petition that stated, “Readily available data indicates that any dog of ANY breed can bite; there is NO reliable data identifying biting dogs by breed.”

“NO reliable data…?” Really? Hmmm… Well below is what I found after a grueling 30-second internet search. Have a read and tell me if you think the data is unreliable with regards to breeds, biting and fatalities.

“In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers.

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.) “

(Note: If you’re wondering what the JAVMA is, it’s a little organization known as the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.)

“The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006).

“Other breeds were also responsible for homicides, but to a much lesser extent. A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) “

Now, while our Cayman dog lovers would try to convince you that one breed is no more dangerous than another – a fact that may or may not be true in light of the fact that there is, in the words of PABSLCI, “NO reliable data…” – there is no denying that a dog that is physically capable of doing untold damage with one of the most powerful jaws in the canine family is a higher risk to everyone if it is not raised, trained, handled and controlled responsibly, than is a weaker and physically inferior animal.

I’m not saying pit bulls, or any specific breed of dog for that matter, are inherently evil and prone to fits of violence any more than is a four-pound Pomeranian who killed an infant a few years back, but if I had to choose between being attacked by an ankle-biting piece of fluff that I could kick to The Sisters or an 80-pound mound of muscle capable of ripping me apart, the choice is obvious.

Regardless of what you believe and in spite of or because of the existence of anything you or I may call “reliable data” there is no doubt in my mind that an out-of-control pit bull terrier poses an exponentially higher public risk than other breeds. Period. If you do not agree with or understand the simple nature of this statement, then you are a fool.

PABSLCI will tell you that the problem with dogs biting is due to the fact that the owners do not properly care for their pets – a fact with which I agree. However, dogs are capable of attacking for any number of reasons such as: encroaching on a dog’s territory, getting too close to a dog’s food, posing a perceived threat to a dog or its offspring, abuse, becoming wild, being teased or chided, high-pitch sounds, etc… and more than half of the attacks occur in the home and more than 75% occur on the dog owner’s property with the victim being a family member or a friend.

Here’s some more (what I’m sure PABSLCI would call) unreliable data from the United States. There is similar data available for the UK as well – a jurisdiction that has had a dangerous breeds law on the books since 1991:

~ The average number of fatal dog attacks has risen from 17 in the 1980s and 1990s, to 31 deaths in 2007

~ Dog bites cost insurers $345.5 million in 2002, $321.6 million in 2003, $317.2 million in 2005, and $351.4 in 2006. The number of claims paid by insurers was 20,800 in 2002, but fell to 15,000 in 2005. The insurance payment for the average dog bite claim was $16,600 in 2002, but rose to $21,200 in 2005.

~ Dog bite claims in 2005 accounted for about 15% of liability claims dollars paid under homeowner’s insurance policies

~ Dog attack victims in the US suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion

~ A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta (CDC) concluded that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually. (Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.)

~ Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. (Weiss HB, Friedman D, Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments. JAMA 1998;279:51-53.)

~ Dog bites send nearly 368,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (1,008 per day). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:605-610. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is published by the CDC.

~ 16,476 dog bites to persons aged 16 years or greater were work related in 2001. (Ibid., Nonfatal Dog Bite–Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments — United States, 2001, MMWR 2003;52:608.

~ Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service)

~ Getting bitten by a dog is the fifth most frequent cause of visits to emergency rooms caused by activities common among children

~ An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (Centers for Disease Control)

Every argument PABSLCI makes can be refuted by data – reliable or not. Likewise, any argument I make will result in the opposition providing data that will contradict the data I used to oppose their viewpoint. Same thing with gun control, abortion, capital punishment, etc…

And who’s to blame? Human beings.

But until such time as the government can control the dog owners, the dogs will suffer - and people will continue to be bitten and killed.

Even one of the aforementioned studies states: “Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, ‘Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.’”

Opinions, but opinions based upon very telling information.

In the absence of the ability of the public at-large to self-govern the privilege of pet ownership it is the responsibility of the government to take steps to protect the public – or more accurately, create the appearance that they are doing so.

As pointless as this law may seem to some, the government at the very least understands that there is in fact a direct relationship between a lack of human responsibility and the presence of animal hostility; and that relationship when coupled with certain breeds of animals can put the public at a greater degree of danger than with certain other breeds.

The problem here – I’ll agree again – isn’t with the dogs, it’s with the humans: dog owners and government officials alike.

However, in light of the fact that the government can’t control the humans it might as well control the animals. Kind of like guns: guns don’t kill people, humans do. But since the government can’t control the people who use guns, and a few people that use guns do so irresponsibly, governments around the world have no choice but to limit and prohibit the ownership of firearms.

Perhaps the PABSLCI petition shouldn’t be against the government regulating certain breeds, but actually in support of the government getting off its collective ass and doing something about the morons who consciously and wantonly disregard the welfare of their pets and the welfare of the public, regardless of the presence of current laws on the books that contain punitive measures for offenders. But the government has figured out that it’s easier to create laws to outlaw activities than it is to effectively implement the existing laws to allow its responsible citizens certain simple privileges.

PABSLCI argues that, "The majority of the owners of the targeted breeds are responsible, law-abiding citizens." The same can be said of owners of firearms - yet here we sit in a jurisdiction where firearms are banned; and people still die from gun violence, and very few people would argue that everyone should be allowed to own firearms and the government should simply punish the irresponsible ones after something bad happens which would be consitent with the "punish the deed, not the breed" mentality.

"Punish the deed, not the breed." Bullshit.

Unfortunately to punish the deed instead of the breed means that a deed must be done. And for a deed to be done this means that someone - usually a child - must get bitten, mauled or even killed. The government is trying to prevent the deed NOT by punishing the breed, but by banning the pressence of the breed in Cayman; the same as they've done with firearms. And in spite of the spate of gun violence in recent times the firearms laws do work.

PABSLCI I’ll make you a deal: If you’ll support my desire to own guns in Cayman, I’ll support your right to own any type of dog you like; because if people can’t control their animals and they become a threat to me, at least I’ll have the means to protect myself by removing the threat – along with the right to do so.

My point in all of this? Don’t simply read a petition and sign it because the proponents have filled it with emotional and editorializing statements and pseudo-facts. And don’t be hoodwinked into agreeing with anyone’s point of view just because they lie to you and tell you there is “NO reliable data” that is contrary to the opinions they are presenting. Do some research, do some reading and use your brain to draw your own conclusions – but use facts.

For every fact there is an opposing fact. For every opinion – the same holds true. But there is no denying the devastating physical, emotional and economic impact certain dog breeds have on society when they are not handled correctly – a factual piece of data as reliable as anything PABSLCI will provide you (or avoid providing).

At the end of the day you fight the fights not necessarily worth winning but worth fighting. This fight is hardly worth the effort until such time as PABSLCI can present some sort of reliable data that shows we can trust the humans that own these potentially deadly animals.

Until such time as humans stop needlessly and wrecklessly killing other humans, NO breed of dog is worth the battle, especially when that breed becomes dangerous as a result of human irresponsibilty and indifference - and especially not a breed that falls within a category responsible for nearly 70% of all dog related fatalities.

So Cayman Kennel Club, as per your request I have publicized your petition. You're welcome.