I didn't realize that Vietnam had any relevance to anything in the current election, but apparently some conservative blogger on Yahoo - who was probably born - after the Vietnam War decided he had to show how the "liberal media" started and chose Walter's observation that the Vietnam Was was not winnable as that point.
Now I know that my friend RedStateVT devotes most of his blog to pointing out explicit ways in which the media is liberal, and sometimes I find him to be correct, but mostly I usually think they are just facts being lined up in a manner that is accurate and not friendly to a conservative point of view. I find most mainstream media to be balanced. I think if anything they bend over backwards to not criticize unfair conservative commentary of President Obama in order to be balanced in their view. After all, the Affordable Health Care Act was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, but try to find an explanation of why everyone needs health insurance in any major media outlet.
Anyway, this Yahoo blogger blames Walter for giving encouragement for the Vietnamese to continue their war effort and drive us out. Let us remember, Vietnam was having a civil war and 1st the French and then the U.S. decided to intervene on one side. The Vietcong and North Vietnam did not need any encouragement to continue to fight. They wanted one country and they were determined to drive out the colonialists. The Vietcong were South Vietnamese and had plenty of support from their local populations. You cannot win a civil war unless you either have overwhelming military control (The Union in the U.S. Civil War) or the support of the indigenous population (most other civil wars). Our side did not have the former in Vietnam and the other side had a lot of the latter. So this blogger was far to shallow in his presentation and wrong.
Unfortunately, this seems to be characteristic of partisan political writing of which we have far too much of these days from both sides of the spectrum. The Truth requires an analysis of the facts and usually ends up with a proper policy that is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.
Please read my book review on the History of Religion which is now 5 or 6 blogs down.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
I think the Constitution is pretty clear on the separation of church & state
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/telnaes?hpid=z4
But that also means I respect the right of each individual and their religion to practice whatever they want to provided it does not interfere with the rights of non-members and complies with other laws.
But that also means I respect the right of each individual and their religion to practice whatever they want to provided it does not interfere with the rights of non-members and complies with other laws.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
What are we doing in Afghanistan?
RedStateVT and I had this discussion somewhere on the front nine of The Links last year and at that time we actually were in agreement. And I am even more convinced now that it is time to develop a prudent exit strategy.
We have won. Al Qaeda is defeated. That does not mean we can relax our guard against terrorism, but it does not mean we have to defeat the Taliban. Pushtan Islam is a very big tribe that cuts across the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They do not want to be occupied, and they will keep fighting until they win.
The Taliban did not attack the U.S. They did harbor and condone Osama bin Ladan, and they have paid a steep price for it. If we leave, we need to make sure they stay contained in their region, but we can do that with Drones and missiles.
Watching the Afghans en masse parade around protesting the unfortunate burning of Korans shouting Death to American and then managing to shoot four Americans with turncoat or hidden locals in Afghan Army uniforms leaves me wondering "What is our objective now?"
Nation Building has to be done by the locals. We cannot be occupiers or colonialists and be successful at nation building. We cannot defeat a large tribe of people who have a babies like rabbits. There is no objective that we have that cannot be achieved with drones and missiles. By staying, we are increasing our debt burden with this war because Republicans will not raise taxes to pay for the war and our brave troops are getting burned out.
It is time to bring the troops home in a responsible manner.
We have won. Al Qaeda is defeated. That does not mean we can relax our guard against terrorism, but it does not mean we have to defeat the Taliban. Pushtan Islam is a very big tribe that cuts across the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They do not want to be occupied, and they will keep fighting until they win.
The Taliban did not attack the U.S. They did harbor and condone Osama bin Ladan, and they have paid a steep price for it. If we leave, we need to make sure they stay contained in their region, but we can do that with Drones and missiles.
Watching the Afghans en masse parade around protesting the unfortunate burning of Korans shouting Death to American and then managing to shoot four Americans with turncoat or hidden locals in Afghan Army uniforms leaves me wondering "What is our objective now?"
Nation Building has to be done by the locals. We cannot be occupiers or colonialists and be successful at nation building. We cannot defeat a large tribe of people who have a babies like rabbits. There is no objective that we have that cannot be achieved with drones and missiles. By staying, we are increasing our debt burden with this war because Republicans will not raise taxes to pay for the war and our brave troops are getting burned out.
It is time to bring the troops home in a responsible manner.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Lying Should not be Protected as Freedom of Speech
For those of you looking for my book review on the history of religion, it is 2 blogs earlier than this one.
I was fascinated by the summaries of the Supreme Court argument yesterday on whether the Federal law making lying about being awarded a military honor illegal was a violation of Freedom of Speech. The basic points were Freedom of Speech is to be respected at all times when there is no harm vs. misrepresentation of honors devalues the honors to those who have been legitimately honored.
I would like to add another point to the argument although the Supreme Court will not hear it, only you loyal readers will. I think lying causes harm whenever it results in someone making a decision based upon incorrect information. I have fired any employee who has ever lied to me because lying is a violation of trust. Politics is full of lying generally in negative advertisements about other candidates, with the classic case of John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam being dissed in the name of winning an election. I wish a law could be crafted to make lying in politics illegal. However, such a law would clog the court system with many frivolous cases as where do you draw the lines between exaggeration of political statements vs. outright lies vs. different points of view vs. circumstances changing and generating a need for a new position.
I recognize that civil procedures for slander represent a limitation on lying and I think that is where the Supreme Court comments yesterday on what harm was caused by the misrepresentations vs. the right to free speech. However, I am so distressed by lying that if a law can be crafted to make it criminal in a specific situation, I think it should be upheld.
I was fascinated by the summaries of the Supreme Court argument yesterday on whether the Federal law making lying about being awarded a military honor illegal was a violation of Freedom of Speech. The basic points were Freedom of Speech is to be respected at all times when there is no harm vs. misrepresentation of honors devalues the honors to those who have been legitimately honored.
I would like to add another point to the argument although the Supreme Court will not hear it, only you loyal readers will. I think lying causes harm whenever it results in someone making a decision based upon incorrect information. I have fired any employee who has ever lied to me because lying is a violation of trust. Politics is full of lying generally in negative advertisements about other candidates, with the classic case of John Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam being dissed in the name of winning an election. I wish a law could be crafted to make lying in politics illegal. However, such a law would clog the court system with many frivolous cases as where do you draw the lines between exaggeration of political statements vs. outright lies vs. different points of view vs. circumstances changing and generating a need for a new position.
I recognize that civil procedures for slander represent a limitation on lying and I think that is where the Supreme Court comments yesterday on what harm was caused by the misrepresentations vs. the right to free speech. However, I am so distressed by lying that if a law can be crafted to make it criminal in a specific situation, I think it should be upheld.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Why All Religions Should be Respected and our Religious Politics Do Not
The Republicans are claiming that President Obama is waging a War on Religion when all he wanted was to insure that health care plans treated all women fairly. In other words, giving them an option to control their biology in a manner of their choice. Yet, all I see in the paper today is these Republicans waging a war on others for believing something different than they do.
The Rev. Franklin Graham is not sure President Obama is a true Christian because the President is not waging a war against Islam by preventing the Arab Spring. Where is Rev. Graham's respect for Islam as a religion and where is his respect for democracy? Not to mention the limitations of American influence and military reach. We cannot wage war everywhere.
Then Maureen Dowd wrote an excellent summary on Rick Santorum, but I was struck by her phrasing of Republican hypocrisy. "Why is it that Republicans don't want government involved when it comes to the economy, but do want it involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?"
Meanwhile, the Tea Party has taken New Hampshires motto "Live Free or Die" for their own purpose without applying it universally. They would have more credibility as libertarians if they exhibited belief in individual choices across both economic issues and personal issues. That after all is what General John Stark considered to be the meaning of the revolution and his words for commending it when he wrote the toast in 1809.
The Rev. Franklin Graham is not sure President Obama is a true Christian because the President is not waging a war against Islam by preventing the Arab Spring. Where is Rev. Graham's respect for Islam as a religion and where is his respect for democracy? Not to mention the limitations of American influence and military reach. We cannot wage war everywhere.
Then Maureen Dowd wrote an excellent summary on Rick Santorum, but I was struck by her phrasing of Republican hypocrisy. "Why is it that Republicans don't want government involved when it comes to the economy, but do want it involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?"
Meanwhile, the Tea Party has taken New Hampshires motto "Live Free or Die" for their own purpose without applying it universally. They would have more credibility as libertarians if they exhibited belief in individual choices across both economic issues and personal issues. That after all is what General John Stark considered to be the meaning of the revolution and his words for commending it when he wrote the toast in 1809.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Why All Religion Should Be Respected (Repeat Post)
I have just finished reading The Faith Instinct by Nicolas Wade. I recommend that anyone interested in the history of religion, the role of religion in societal development, and/or the validity of any specific religion read this book. This book review will not do the depth of knowledge contained in the book any justice.
The book begins by describing how the author has reached the conclusion that religion has a genetic basis. This does not imply any specific religion has a genetic basis; only that the need to believe in something that explains the unknowable is common to all and has been a core element of survival. The book goes back 50,000 years to the original hunter and gather's tribes by looking at the behavior of those few tribes who survived around the world as hunter and gather's until modern times.
Mr. Wade's 1st book Before the Dawn is about what what our ancestors, going back the 2000 generations to the beginning of human existence, did in their daily lives. Out of that work, came the urge to investigate and document this history.
He uses 1st level source material to document as much as he can of more recent developments (the last 4,000 years) and really mines anthropological studies of the last hunter gathers to convincingly present his view that the need for religion is genetically ingrained. On that basis, I believe that all religions should be respected because no religion has more claim to being correct than any other religion.
After all, science cannot answer the last two unknowable questions: (i) what was the origin of the universe and (ii) how did life come to exist. There are theories but that is all, so anyone who wants to believe in God should have that right respected. Even though I am an atheist, I do not believe atheists do themselves any good fighting the expression of religious belief. If such belief has helped the species survive for 50,000 years, and given us a moral code to live by productively, it absolutely deserves to be respected.
Now I became an atheist because I was born into a family of Christianity and Judaism. As I became of age, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the legend of Adam & Eve, Moses talking to God left me wondering about the inconsistencies between the stories of each religion and reality, and therefore the validity of any religion. Add to that, wars with a religious basis that left me wondering how could a God favor one tribe of people over another tribe of people. Thus, I do not believe in God and am probably a Buddhist by philosophy. Such migration is actually quite common in the U.S. Witness the migration from the traditional Protestant sects to the evangelical sects, who like their musical expression as did the original hunter gatherers.
This book does an excellent job of explaining the role of religion in fighting wars and why religion is not the cause of wars, rather it is the political process using religion to advocate for their tribe that creates the wars. The book also explains how religions keep tribes together regardless of borders and form the basis of commercial trust of which Judaism is the best example.
The book does an excellent job explaining how all the modern religions were made up without casting any judgements on the validity of their beliefs because respect for all religions is a central theme for the book. It does not matter that they are made up if their members want to believe in God. The other issues of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed (who may not have been a real person - think of those ironies given what certain sects of Islam advocate), or Joseph Smith are secondary to the basic role of religion in exhibiting respect for God, honoring God and the patrons' willingness to behave in a manner that the religion of their choice demands of them. All this is central to the role of religion for the 50,000 years since the beginning of human being existence.
This does not mean that atheists do not deserve respect also. After all, they are just another tribe, albeit, most of them are really members of the tribe that they do not follow any more. Judaism for me, whatever for anyone else. At the end of the day, we are still members of that tribe because more than likely we follow the moral code of that tribe. The book spend a lot of time discussing whether our society's morals would be what they are without religion. Religion's influences last and can be easily revived. Russian Orthodoxy took almost no time to reestablish itself as the state religion after 80 years of communism. Confucianism remains the core of Chinese society even though the state is run by communists who practice state sanctioned socialist capitalism. Most American atheists were raised in a Judaic-Christian religion or their parents were.
So all religions are made up, but they all deserve respect because they are central to our core being. No one has the answer to the two key questions and it is just as possible that a God created it as it is that the universe is an experiment in some other creature's beaker glass or is some quirk of circumstances.
The Faith Instinct is well worth reading.
The book begins by describing how the author has reached the conclusion that religion has a genetic basis. This does not imply any specific religion has a genetic basis; only that the need to believe in something that explains the unknowable is common to all and has been a core element of survival. The book goes back 50,000 years to the original hunter and gather's tribes by looking at the behavior of those few tribes who survived around the world as hunter and gather's until modern times.
Mr. Wade's 1st book Before the Dawn is about what what our ancestors, going back the 2000 generations to the beginning of human existence, did in their daily lives. Out of that work, came the urge to investigate and document this history.
He uses 1st level source material to document as much as he can of more recent developments (the last 4,000 years) and really mines anthropological studies of the last hunter gathers to convincingly present his view that the need for religion is genetically ingrained. On that basis, I believe that all religions should be respected because no religion has more claim to being correct than any other religion.
After all, science cannot answer the last two unknowable questions: (i) what was the origin of the universe and (ii) how did life come to exist. There are theories but that is all, so anyone who wants to believe in God should have that right respected. Even though I am an atheist, I do not believe atheists do themselves any good fighting the expression of religious belief. If such belief has helped the species survive for 50,000 years, and given us a moral code to live by productively, it absolutely deserves to be respected.
Now I became an atheist because I was born into a family of Christianity and Judaism. As I became of age, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the legend of Adam & Eve, Moses talking to God left me wondering about the inconsistencies between the stories of each religion and reality, and therefore the validity of any religion. Add to that, wars with a religious basis that left me wondering how could a God favor one tribe of people over another tribe of people. Thus, I do not believe in God and am probably a Buddhist by philosophy. Such migration is actually quite common in the U.S. Witness the migration from the traditional Protestant sects to the evangelical sects, who like their musical expression as did the original hunter gatherers.
This book does an excellent job of explaining the role of religion in fighting wars and why religion is not the cause of wars, rather it is the political process using religion to advocate for their tribe that creates the wars. The book also explains how religions keep tribes together regardless of borders and form the basis of commercial trust of which Judaism is the best example.
The book does an excellent job explaining how all the modern religions were made up without casting any judgements on the validity of their beliefs because respect for all religions is a central theme for the book. It does not matter that they are made up if their members want to believe in God. The other issues of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed (who may not have been a real person - think of those ironies given what certain sects of Islam advocate), or Joseph Smith are secondary to the basic role of religion in exhibiting respect for God, honoring God and the patrons' willingness to behave in a manner that the religion of their choice demands of them. All this is central to the role of religion for the 50,000 years since the beginning of human being existence.
This does not mean that atheists do not deserve respect also. After all, they are just another tribe, albeit, most of them are really members of the tribe that they do not follow any more. Judaism for me, whatever for anyone else. At the end of the day, we are still members of that tribe because more than likely we follow the moral code of that tribe. The book spend a lot of time discussing whether our society's morals would be what they are without religion. Religion's influences last and can be easily revived. Russian Orthodoxy took almost no time to reestablish itself as the state religion after 80 years of communism. Confucianism remains the core of Chinese society even though the state is run by communists who practice state sanctioned socialist capitalism. Most American atheists were raised in a Judaic-Christian religion or their parents were.
So all religions are made up, but they all deserve respect because they are central to our core being. No one has the answer to the two key questions and it is just as possible that a God created it as it is that the universe is an experiment in some other creature's beaker glass or is some quirk of circumstances.
The Faith Instinct is well worth reading.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Outside One's Comfort Zone
The Sunday paper today is rich with topics that revolve around the title of this blog. I could probably write 10 pages today if I were to cover all the thoughts that were stimulated reading the paper, but I will try to contain myself to a reasonable length.
1st, the personal. It is not easy to reinvent one's self. I have been deluding myself that I could find a job at age 58 just by being my normal easy going self, relying on what was good for me when I was job searching 10 years ago. However, my career coach took me out of my comfort zone and I understand why she did that. The skills I need to present to people are the skills that make me both a good person and a good employee. They are the strengths I bring to daily life at home and at work. The skills that I do not need to present are the achievements that I made in risk management and in portfolio management. Although they are a record of my achievement, they are only supportive facts that my target audience may not even understand. I have not finished this work yet, but today's news discussions have stimulated my brain. This will not be easy, but I will persevere.
I went down this path because much of today's discussion revolved around Charles Murray's book on the breakdown of traditions in America's white working class. I was raised in this world so I like to think I know it well despite my achieving upper upper middle class status. To some that might mean rich, but when you know that if you do not work again, you will be moving to a lower cost housing situation before you die, or you will run out of money; you do not think of yourself as rich.
The opening article was about how many people in this economic strata take government benefits but vote for the tea party because they know the government cannot run a deficit like it is forever and prefer to cut these benefits rather than pay more in taxes. The interesting thing to me was that they do not even consider the fact that a middle path might be the appropriate one. All or nothing. But the core thought I had related to my need to leave my comfort zone to find my next gig. I am trained for the global economy and it will not be easy for me. What are people who are not trained for the global economy to do? It is no wonder that they are angry and do not have a clear idea about what policies are needed.
This ties into Thomas Friedman's thoughts that the GOP is locked into conflicting ideologies that are inflexible and inherently are aimed at somehow returning the country to what it was in the 1950's. This is not going to happen. Globalization created the forces that have left undereducated people at the margins of the economy. Construction helped them survive as middle class people until the housing bubble burst. Now they are angry. If you look at where unemployment is the highest, government payments are the highest and the housing crisis is the worst; it is where the Republicans are strongest.
Friedman goes on to advocate things I have talking about for the last year. Recognize that the U.S. can thrive in the global economy (and in any case you cannot go back) and deal with our entitlement problems in a responsible way. It is politically feasible. Another NYT article today discussed a poll they took. "85% agreed that increasing taxes on the wealthy should play a role in reducing the overall federal deficit, and 3 in 5 said it should play a major role. 70% also favored raising taxes on all American, although only 32% said this should play a major role. And 56% favored cuts in Medicare and Social Security; only 20% said this should play a major role."
To get there involves meeting in the middle which I is why I started this blog.
Ross Douthat also commented on Murray's book and I summarize his policy recommendations because figuring out how the U.S. should respond to improve our position in the global economy is where the political debate should be focused. I really like Douthat's following comment: "We are not going to address these problems by gut-renovating our welfare state to fit a libertarian ideal, or by drastically expanding the same state in pursuit of an unattainable social democratic dream"
He recommends: (i) incentivize the poor to be industrious (address current tax policy); (ii) take family policy seriously by looking to Europe for ways to help work-life balance because there are both liberal and conservative models there (note Douthat is a conservative and he doesn't hate Europe); (iii) increase the jobs for lower educated people by enforcing employment laws on undocumented workers (this may be easier said than done) and (iv) reduce incarceration rates. These will only help around the margins, but you can only start to address social issues at the margin. Nationwide change is hard to develop in a country as large and varied as the United States except through the use of big policies that then filter down over a period of time by working at the margin.
Some issues where I think efforts on the margin have helped in the past or could help: Cap and Trade reducing Acid rain in the 80's. Health care exchanges to give the private insurance industry one last chance to prove they can control costs and provide health insurance for individuals at the same cost as they would in a group insurance pool. As President Obama is doing, enforcing employment policies to see if domestic workers will fill the jobs that the undocumented have been filling. I could go on, but you see where I am going.
The country has serious challenges and the election debates have yet to address the real issues that are very difficult for individuals to grasp because they are very complicated. How can we make an educated vote if we don't know where the candidates stand?
1st, the personal. It is not easy to reinvent one's self. I have been deluding myself that I could find a job at age 58 just by being my normal easy going self, relying on what was good for me when I was job searching 10 years ago. However, my career coach took me out of my comfort zone and I understand why she did that. The skills I need to present to people are the skills that make me both a good person and a good employee. They are the strengths I bring to daily life at home and at work. The skills that I do not need to present are the achievements that I made in risk management and in portfolio management. Although they are a record of my achievement, they are only supportive facts that my target audience may not even understand. I have not finished this work yet, but today's news discussions have stimulated my brain. This will not be easy, but I will persevere.
I went down this path because much of today's discussion revolved around Charles Murray's book on the breakdown of traditions in America's white working class. I was raised in this world so I like to think I know it well despite my achieving upper upper middle class status. To some that might mean rich, but when you know that if you do not work again, you will be moving to a lower cost housing situation before you die, or you will run out of money; you do not think of yourself as rich.
The opening article was about how many people in this economic strata take government benefits but vote for the tea party because they know the government cannot run a deficit like it is forever and prefer to cut these benefits rather than pay more in taxes. The interesting thing to me was that they do not even consider the fact that a middle path might be the appropriate one. All or nothing. But the core thought I had related to my need to leave my comfort zone to find my next gig. I am trained for the global economy and it will not be easy for me. What are people who are not trained for the global economy to do? It is no wonder that they are angry and do not have a clear idea about what policies are needed.
This ties into Thomas Friedman's thoughts that the GOP is locked into conflicting ideologies that are inflexible and inherently are aimed at somehow returning the country to what it was in the 1950's. This is not going to happen. Globalization created the forces that have left undereducated people at the margins of the economy. Construction helped them survive as middle class people until the housing bubble burst. Now they are angry. If you look at where unemployment is the highest, government payments are the highest and the housing crisis is the worst; it is where the Republicans are strongest.
Friedman goes on to advocate things I have talking about for the last year. Recognize that the U.S. can thrive in the global economy (and in any case you cannot go back) and deal with our entitlement problems in a responsible way. It is politically feasible. Another NYT article today discussed a poll they took. "85% agreed that increasing taxes on the wealthy should play a role in reducing the overall federal deficit, and 3 in 5 said it should play a major role. 70% also favored raising taxes on all American, although only 32% said this should play a major role. And 56% favored cuts in Medicare and Social Security; only 20% said this should play a major role."
To get there involves meeting in the middle which I is why I started this blog.
Ross Douthat also commented on Murray's book and I summarize his policy recommendations because figuring out how the U.S. should respond to improve our position in the global economy is where the political debate should be focused. I really like Douthat's following comment: "We are not going to address these problems by gut-renovating our welfare state to fit a libertarian ideal, or by drastically expanding the same state in pursuit of an unattainable social democratic dream"
He recommends: (i) incentivize the poor to be industrious (address current tax policy); (ii) take family policy seriously by looking to Europe for ways to help work-life balance because there are both liberal and conservative models there (note Douthat is a conservative and he doesn't hate Europe); (iii) increase the jobs for lower educated people by enforcing employment laws on undocumented workers (this may be easier said than done) and (iv) reduce incarceration rates. These will only help around the margins, but you can only start to address social issues at the margin. Nationwide change is hard to develop in a country as large and varied as the United States except through the use of big policies that then filter down over a period of time by working at the margin.
Some issues where I think efforts on the margin have helped in the past or could help: Cap and Trade reducing Acid rain in the 80's. Health care exchanges to give the private insurance industry one last chance to prove they can control costs and provide health insurance for individuals at the same cost as they would in a group insurance pool. As President Obama is doing, enforcing employment policies to see if domestic workers will fill the jobs that the undocumented have been filling. I could go on, but you see where I am going.
The country has serious challenges and the election debates have yet to address the real issues that are very difficult for individuals to grasp because they are very complicated. How can we make an educated vote if we don't know where the candidates stand?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Misc. Thoughts on Greece
While I was working out today, I was watching Bloomberg TV. Needless to say, there was a regular rotation through the developments in Greece.
The Greek PM was telling the Parliament that default was not an option as members of the coalition were resigning. I don't understand how a contractual write down of outstanding debt is not a default. Just because the bondholders agree to this does not avoid the definition of default. Greece is in the process of defaulting and there is no way to describe it otherwise.
One of the Rating Agencies said a failure of Greece to get its funding would result in a disorderly default. Well it might be disorderly for anyone residing in Greece (I can imagine all kinds of horrible paths internally if the banking system fails), but the rest of the world will move on. There will be some contagion in Portugal and perhaps Spain, Italy and Ireland, but nothing will motivate those countries to get their act together like seeing the horror in Greece if the banking system starts to fail. The standard of living will return to that of 500 years ago. I hope everyone knows how to farm their family plot.
Meanwhile, the Greeks themselves are showing they do not understand that you cannot get government handouts when the government cannot print money, and when you can print money, you cannot print unlimited amounts of it without running out of imports (i.e. the gasoline they put in their motorcycles to drive the molotov cocktail (gasoline again) to the protest). If the Greeks don't agree to this deal, they might as well leave the Euro and at least make the place cost competitive for tourists.
The Greek PM was telling the Parliament that default was not an option as members of the coalition were resigning. I don't understand how a contractual write down of outstanding debt is not a default. Just because the bondholders agree to this does not avoid the definition of default. Greece is in the process of defaulting and there is no way to describe it otherwise.
One of the Rating Agencies said a failure of Greece to get its funding would result in a disorderly default. Well it might be disorderly for anyone residing in Greece (I can imagine all kinds of horrible paths internally if the banking system fails), but the rest of the world will move on. There will be some contagion in Portugal and perhaps Spain, Italy and Ireland, but nothing will motivate those countries to get their act together like seeing the horror in Greece if the banking system starts to fail. The standard of living will return to that of 500 years ago. I hope everyone knows how to farm their family plot.
Meanwhile, the Greeks themselves are showing they do not understand that you cannot get government handouts when the government cannot print money, and when you can print money, you cannot print unlimited amounts of it without running out of imports (i.e. the gasoline they put in their motorcycles to drive the molotov cocktail (gasoline again) to the protest). If the Greeks don't agree to this deal, they might as well leave the Euro and at least make the place cost competitive for tourists.
Glad to see my Reader in Russia is Back
I was worried that he/she had something happen to them.
I know of this individual because blogspot tells you what followers you have in other countries.
I know of this individual because blogspot tells you what followers you have in other countries.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
As a conservative Democrat, I am distressed.
I have no idea how the President decides when to make a decision and when he just goes along with his staff or the Cabinet Department recommendation, but two administration decisions this year have distressed me. One because it was an incorrect decision and one is perhaps correct, but boneheaded if he wants to be reelected. It is time to be courting the middle and both these decisions were aimed at the base.
The first was the Canadian Tar Sands Oil pipeline. Yes, there are some issues with its route in Nebraska that could have been handled within an approval but that is the extent of the valid environmental issues. The U.S. has no responsibilities for how Canada controls its global warming and besides Canada is far ahead of the U.S. in this area. This handed the Republicans a job issue for which there is no benefit in gaining support from independents.
The second was the application of health insurance regulation to the Catholic Church non-church health plans. Catholics are a key component of the political spectrum center. This decision is at least in the same zip code as would be a decision to disallow Quaker's belief in non-violence as sufficient reason to avoid military service. The latter has been in place since the Revolutionary War and I know of no questioning of it since then. While one may disagree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception, their not providing it in Health Insurance does not prevent anyone from obtaining it (except perhaps because the cost may be too much for a working poor person). So while this may have been a correct decision in a technocratic sense, it was boneheaded to get the church mad at your administration when you need their support in 8 months.
This could cause great harm to the effort to prevent a Republican Administration from undoing the real progress that the Democrats have been able to achieve over the last 3 years. Not to mention, that a Romney Presidency will only enhance "the corporations are people" position that is now firmly in place.
I hope the President finds a way to back off this church decision very soon as it should not have been made in the 1st place.
The first was the Canadian Tar Sands Oil pipeline. Yes, there are some issues with its route in Nebraska that could have been handled within an approval but that is the extent of the valid environmental issues. The U.S. has no responsibilities for how Canada controls its global warming and besides Canada is far ahead of the U.S. in this area. This handed the Republicans a job issue for which there is no benefit in gaining support from independents.
The second was the application of health insurance regulation to the Catholic Church non-church health plans. Catholics are a key component of the political spectrum center. This decision is at least in the same zip code as would be a decision to disallow Quaker's belief in non-violence as sufficient reason to avoid military service. The latter has been in place since the Revolutionary War and I know of no questioning of it since then. While one may disagree with the Catholic Church's position on contraception, their not providing it in Health Insurance does not prevent anyone from obtaining it (except perhaps because the cost may be too much for a working poor person). So while this may have been a correct decision in a technocratic sense, it was boneheaded to get the church mad at your administration when you need their support in 8 months.
This could cause great harm to the effort to prevent a Republican Administration from undoing the real progress that the Democrats have been able to achieve over the last 3 years. Not to mention, that a Romney Presidency will only enhance "the corporations are people" position that is now firmly in place.
I hope the President finds a way to back off this church decision very soon as it should not have been made in the 1st place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)