<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>FireSociety - Mike Moody</title>
    <link>http://www.firesociety.com</link>
    <description>FireSociety - Mike Moody</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 01:04:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <webMaster>admin@firesociety.com</webMaster>
    <generator>FireSociety</generator>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    
    <item>
      <title>Health Care Reform, A Conservative Approach</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/article/25253/Health-Care-Reform--A-Conservative-Approach/?src=103</link>
      <description>There has been much discussion in the media and within the competing campaigns for the Presidency that purport to deal with the health care crisis in America. All of these plans have one thing in common: they deal with the issue of who pays for what benefits and for whom. None of them deal with the problems on the supply side of the market; they are concerned with the demand side alone. I would like to suggest a plan to the members of the Fire Society that deals with the fact that the supply of medical services is insufficient to meet demand. As I see it, the medical services market has been over-regulated, insufficiently invested, and inappropriately regulated for more than three decades. My plan will increase the supply of medical services avalable to Americans and thus lower the real price of medical care in this country. The key agent for change in my plan is a new organization I call the Medical Services Guarantee Corporation (The MSG Corp.). This corporation would serve as the Small Business Administration of the medical sector and its mission would be to expand the quantity of medical services available to Americans at an affordable ...</description>
      <category>Other</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 01:04:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/comments/25625/Discussion---Health-Care-Reform--A-Conservative-Approach/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>An Economic Stimulus Plan</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/article/23415/An-Economic-Stimulus-Plan/?src=103</link>
      <description>I believe we as conservatives must do better in the the bread and butter issue that concern all Americans if we are to have the success we need t achieve this coming November. I have some thoughts on economic stimulus that I would like to submit for the consideration of Fire Society members. With these comments, I encourage discussion and feedback. As it says in the Bible, iron sharpens iron and some of the proposals I would advance for consideration as public policy do need to be sharpened. I think the way to a return to economic growth in America is through the construction of a new American infrastructure, maximizing the use and economic benefets from autonomous, robotic systems, and the development of a new economic sector, space commercialization. By space commercialization, I mean very simply the promotion of the right of private property in the short term on the Moon, asteroids, and comets. I call specifically for a formal deratification of the Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and the replacement of that treaty with another that permits private enterprise to develop and utilize space based assets. I think we should also promote the use of robotics ...</description>
      <category>Economy</category>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:33:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/comments/23603/Discussion---An-Economic-Stimulus-Plan/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Lesser of Two Evils, Reasons Why</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/article/22733/The-Lesser-of-Two-Evils--Reasons-Why/?src=103</link>
      <description>Although the choice is not in the hands of any conservative, I have come to the conclusion that we would be better off as a nation for Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee rather than Barack Obama. I take that position because of an unstated issue that Hillary Clinton has never exploited. Much has been made of the fact that Barack Obama is very inexperienced in foreign affairs. What has been completely missed is the fact that Barack Obama is part Kenyan. I think it is a highly legitimate to ask what would Barack Obama use his powers as Commander in Chief to do in Africa that other candidates would not do. For me the turning point on Barack Obama happened when Kenya almost imploded in the month of January. The proximate cause of the violence in Kenya in the last month was an election that was without any doubt both rigged and poorly executed. The United States and the European Union exerted a lot of pressure on the two competing claimants to the Presidency of Kenya to stabilize and settle an incendiary and potentially catastrophic political situation. Senator Barack Obama, who as far as I know, has no ...</description>
      <category>Foreign Policy</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:52:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/comments/22908/Discussion---The-Lesser-of-Two-Evils--Reasons-Why/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Coping with Global Warming - Conservative Options</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/article/20446/Coping-with-Global-Warming---Conservative-Options/?src=103</link>
      <description>This purpose of this article is to present a plan to manage the problem of &amp;quot;Global Warming&amp;quot;.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Many conservatives are suspicious of &amp;quot;Global Warming&amp;quot; and unfortunately with good reason.&amp;nbsp; Liberal politicians, environmentalists, and far too many scientists are not being honest about this issue.&amp;nbsp; They say we need to reverse &amp;quot;Global Warming&amp;quot;, but they never say to what.&amp;nbsp; Should we turn back the clock on the climate to the 60&amp;#39;s, the 70&amp;#39;s, the 80&amp;#39;s, or what?&amp;nbsp; The climate is a dynamic system that has a thermodynamic balance and how you can change the balance point of a thermally balanced system in equilibrium, no one can say.&amp;nbsp; Most importantly, how we can achieve the nebulous,&amp;nbsp; unstated goals of the &amp;quot;Global Warming&amp;quot; crowd is never, ever said. I personally condemn those climate scientist, who know what they are asking the world to do, for not telling us what they want the world to do and when they want the world to do it. But with that qualification, I do believe that climate change is a problem.&amp;nbsp; I happen to think that as I define that problem, it is a problem with a solution.&amp;nbsp; I don&amp;#39;t think climate change itself is a problem.&amp;nbsp; ...</description>
      <category>Environment</category>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:28:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/comments/20705/Discussion---Coping-with-Global-Warming---Conservative-Options/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Treaty Term Limits Amendment</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/20035/The-Treaty-Term-Limits-Amendment/?src=103</link>
      <description>I would like to make a suggestion that I thought of just today for the first time.&amp;nbsp; I was thinking about the Kyoto Treaty and the environmental movement.&amp;nbsp; I believe that not only was that treaty very biased agaisnt the United States but that it is completely out of date.&amp;nbsp; It is supposed to expire in 2009 and some of the environmental discussion in Bali was to talk about the shape of a replacement for a treaty that never worked in the first place.&amp;nbsp; As I thought on these things, I realized that treaties frequently become out of date as times go by.&amp;nbsp; So I would like to propose for discussion purposes here that we seek to enact a term limits amendment for treaties.&amp;nbsp; &amp;quot;The United States shall not enter into any treaty or law with other nations that is subject to ratification by the United States Senate for a term exceeding twenty years.&amp;nbsp; Further, the United States shall not enter into any treaty that contains no provision for revocation or dissolution of said treaty for just cause.&amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; Comments on this idea are&amp;nbsp;welcome.&amp;nbsp;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:31:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/20035/The-Treaty-Term-Limits-Amendment/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Chinese Bias</title>
      <link>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/20034/The-Chinese-Bias/?src=103</link>
      <description>I believe that regardless of how you stand on the issue of &amp;quot;Global Warming&amp;quot;, there can be no dispute on one ipoint in this issue.&amp;nbsp; From the Treaty of Kyoto to the latest scientific research on the subect, the Chinese economy gets a pass for its contribution to the problem.&amp;nbsp; There is almost no discussion about the fact that the Chinese economy puts as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the U. S. economy.&amp;nbsp; Because of the nature of the statistics covering these matters, I am sure that the Chinese economy has far surpassed the American economy as a contributor of particulates and &amp;quot;greenhouse&amp;quot; gases.&amp;nbsp; Yet you see almost no liberal commentators taking the Chinese government to task for their failure to curb pollution.&amp;nbsp; You see all kinds of liberal pressure for the United States to sign on to a biased Kyoto Treaty that requires nothing of the Chinese&amp;nbsp; I think we need to say to liberals, and the world at large, &amp;quot;We&amp;#39;ll commit, but only to the same extent that the Chinese government will reciprocate in kind.&amp;nbsp;&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; I am sure that you will hear liberals and environmentalists change their tune if this type of message gained wide acceptance ...</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:17:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mike Moody</author>
      <comments>http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/20034/The-Chinese-Bias/?src=103</comments>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

