Unintended consequences of bad laws are sometimes hard to imagine until they become apparent, but Florida's Stand Your Ground right to defend yourself has to hit the heights of lunacy if not reexamined by the Florida Legislature.
Whatever the real facts prove to be, the following irony is entirely possible.
Mr. Zimmerman was following Mr. Martin in a threatening manner to Mr. Martin. We know this because he told his girl friend he was being followed and was concerned. So, if Mr. Martin defended himself by attacking Mr. Zimmerman, he would have been within his rights according to the Stand Your Ground legislation. In turn, Mr. Zimmerman would also have been within his rights to defend himself if attacked by Mr. Martin. So, the logic of this law is two people can attack each other and neither is guilty of anything if harm comes to one or the other.
The only way Mr. Zimmerman can be found guilty of anything is if Mr. Martin continue his walk home and never threatened Mr. Zimmerman. I am not sure the exact facts can ever be discerned but I do know this law needs to be reexamined if Florida is not going to become the OK Corral for drug dealers and anyone else prone to threatening each other. Not to mention random acts of attack on innocent people.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Path to Compromise on Health Care
Epiphany almost happens when you least expect it. Perhaps that is because the mind is most clear at such times.
The paper today brought together thoughts that I have expressed before with a new insight into the dangers of politicizing health care, which is what a single payer plan would do. The danger is that once you have a national health care plan, taxpayers want their Congressperson to fix things. I know this to be true because as a Congressional Intern I saw how much time the office spent helping constituents fix relationships with the VA, Social Security and other aspects of the government. Health care would exacerbate this particularly if the Cost Control Panel did anything serious to control end of life expenditures in a systematic way. The latter needs to be done but perhaps it is better to let the insurance companies take the blame.
David Brooks column was part of this process and is worth reading for its own merits.
Link to David's Column
Previously I had read that both Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of Federal support to the states to cover health care costs at various times. Also, someone pointed out that what the Democrats do not want for Medicare, they do want for the <65 population and what the Republicans do not want for the <65 population, they do want for Medicare. Somewhere in there should be ground for compromise and a path forward.
Let me review what I believe the path forward for health care needs to cover.
Costs must be controlled. There are many aspects to this. Fair and honest management of end of life care is an important part of that but also a third rail politically. Chronic conditions need to be managed outside of emergency rooms in an insured manner. Fee for Services incentives need to be altered to incentivize package pricing and control of costs. Competition is part of this.
The uninsured need to have insurance so their expense does not enter the insured's expenditures through cost allocation processes. A critical part of this is not allowing insurance companies to exclude people because of pre-existing conditions.
A base level of coverage must be mandated by regulation for reasons of fairness and to limit price competition by eliminating aspects of base level coverage. Many people cannot understand the differences between such coverages and would not spend the money for services they need. In other words, when they need the service they would enter the system as uninsured and the costs would reenter the system. People need to pay for the insurance they need.
Separate Health Insurance from employment. Put everyone into the individual insurance market.
Allow Insurance companies to compete across state lines. (Although this may be a function of state regulations, not federal),
Limit malpractice awards.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the Affordable Health Care Act, the evolution of health care in this country is not complete until costs are controlled. On that point both parties agree and the solution is not in what we had before the Affordable Health Care Act nor does it lay in abandoning the good things in the Affordable Health Care Act.
The paper today brought together thoughts that I have expressed before with a new insight into the dangers of politicizing health care, which is what a single payer plan would do. The danger is that once you have a national health care plan, taxpayers want their Congressperson to fix things. I know this to be true because as a Congressional Intern I saw how much time the office spent helping constituents fix relationships with the VA, Social Security and other aspects of the government. Health care would exacerbate this particularly if the Cost Control Panel did anything serious to control end of life expenditures in a systematic way. The latter needs to be done but perhaps it is better to let the insurance companies take the blame.
David Brooks column was part of this process and is worth reading for its own merits.
Link to David's Column
Previously I had read that both Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of Federal support to the states to cover health care costs at various times. Also, someone pointed out that what the Democrats do not want for Medicare, they do want for the <65 population and what the Republicans do not want for the <65 population, they do want for Medicare. Somewhere in there should be ground for compromise and a path forward.
Let me review what I believe the path forward for health care needs to cover.
Costs must be controlled. There are many aspects to this. Fair and honest management of end of life care is an important part of that but also a third rail politically. Chronic conditions need to be managed outside of emergency rooms in an insured manner. Fee for Services incentives need to be altered to incentivize package pricing and control of costs. Competition is part of this.
The uninsured need to have insurance so their expense does not enter the insured's expenditures through cost allocation processes. A critical part of this is not allowing insurance companies to exclude people because of pre-existing conditions.
A base level of coverage must be mandated by regulation for reasons of fairness and to limit price competition by eliminating aspects of base level coverage. Many people cannot understand the differences between such coverages and would not spend the money for services they need. In other words, when they need the service they would enter the system as uninsured and the costs would reenter the system. People need to pay for the insurance they need.
Separate Health Insurance from employment. Put everyone into the individual insurance market.
Allow Insurance companies to compete across state lines. (Although this may be a function of state regulations, not federal),
Limit malpractice awards.
Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the Affordable Health Care Act, the evolution of health care in this country is not complete until costs are controlled. On that point both parties agree and the solution is not in what we had before the Affordable Health Care Act nor does it lay in abandoning the good things in the Affordable Health Care Act.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Republican Congressman Asks Iraq to Pay for War
I wrote this last June and somehow it never made it out of Drafts
"Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California, suggested during a trip to Baghdad with fellow lawmakers Friday that once Iraq becomes a rich and prosperous country, it could repay the U.S."
I have to admit that I would like this idea except there is no modern precedent for a country to invade another country and then ask for them to pay for it. The last time this was asked of a country was after WWI when Germany was supposed to pay for starting the war and this ended up giving Hitler his chance to lead Germany. So I guess it would go back to the middle age's feudal societies for precedent where the conquerer got all the spoils and turned the locals into serfs. Not likely to happen voluntarily.
Talk about chutzpah! or maybe it was simply a lack of forethought, something other prominent politicians have a problem with.
"Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California, suggested during a trip to Baghdad with fellow lawmakers Friday that once Iraq becomes a rich and prosperous country, it could repay the U.S."
I have to admit that I would like this idea except there is no modern precedent for a country to invade another country and then ask for them to pay for it. The last time this was asked of a country was after WWI when Germany was supposed to pay for starting the war and this ended up giving Hitler his chance to lead Germany. So I guess it would go back to the middle age's feudal societies for precedent where the conquerer got all the spoils and turned the locals into serfs. Not likely to happen voluntarily.
Talk about chutzpah! or maybe it was simply a lack of forethought, something other prominent politicians have a problem with.
The Sunday Paper was Great Today
Philosophy, Science, Well Thought Through Opinions, Sports.
First, alma mater Union is off to the Frozen Four proving that Thomas Bonner and Ned Harkness were correct when they thought Union could be competitive in D1 hockey.
The 1st article that I thought worthy of commenting on is Frank Bruni's rethinking religion which is a personal story of Frank and a college acquaintance reconnecting. The "friend" was very religious and thought gays needed pyscho-analysis in college. Over time, his thinking evolved through life experiences and he is now a Dr who does perform abortions on occasion. He is regularly protested and one woman was a particularly strident protester. One day she comes to him for an abortion which is provided. She came to him because she trusted him. Yet, a week later she is back protesting against abortion.
Link to this story
The 2nd was Thomas Friedman's column on the need to rethink our Middle East Policy, including Afghanistan. Friedman has been reporting on the Middle East for 30 years and has always been an honest observer. His best paragraph is: "In Afghanistan, I laugh out loud whenever I hear Obama administration officials explaining that we just need to train more Afghan soldiers to fight and then we can leave. Is there anything funnier? Afghan men need to be trained to fight? The defeated the British and the Soviets!" Neither political party is ready to do this, but this reinforces my belief that it is time to bring the troops home.
Link to this story
The third article was an observation on one issue created by the response to the Great Recession that I had not thought of. Remember that the financial crisis was caused by a failure to regulate properly. While regulation has been enhanced, there was much antipathy towards the rescue of the financial system and both parties want "Too Big to Fail" to not be a policy. So despite the long recognized harm caused by bank runs (the reason the Fed is the lender of last resort), now banks that fail will be wound down in an 'orderly" manner. The article points out that if big banks are going to fail, there will be nothing orderly about it and bank runs are again likely to happen. This will not be a positive outcome and the reason I always have maintained that the focus should be on good sound regulation.
The Book Review section was rich in thoughtful material.
Two books on science, one maintaining that Quantum Mechanics explains everything, and one maintaining that science cannot explain everything. To explain anything, it must be simple and after reading the book review, I can still not explain to anyone or myself what Quantum Mechanics are, let alone what they can explain. The 2nd book analyzes the communication gap between science and religious believers, and really comes down hard on the militant atheists by pointing out the futility of their reaching their objective of eliminating religion on the basis of science.
In addition, there was a third book review on the topic of religion. This one pointing out many similar things that I spoke of in my earlier blog "Why All Religions Should Be Respected". Namely, belief in God is part and parcel of human evolution. This book focused on liberals and conservatives and how this issue - belief in reason and science vs belief in faith - is the crux of the failure of the left and right to communicate. The book is hard on liberals for their lack of tolerance for other points of view and inability to recognize that conservative prioritization of care of more local groups/issues vs national solutions is in sync with human evolution. The Left hinders advancing their positions by not acknowledging the need for personal responsibility in many issues. A direct benefit of doing so would be when you get to an issue that truly needs a national solution like health care, you would be able to point out the differences between this national issue and the other issues which have been left more local. I imagine the book is more thorough, but I will have to read it to find out.
Book 1 on Quantum Machanics
Book 2 on how science does not have all the answers
Book 3 Why Everyone Should Respect everyone and how to get there
First, alma mater Union is off to the Frozen Four proving that Thomas Bonner and Ned Harkness were correct when they thought Union could be competitive in D1 hockey.
The 1st article that I thought worthy of commenting on is Frank Bruni's rethinking religion which is a personal story of Frank and a college acquaintance reconnecting. The "friend" was very religious and thought gays needed pyscho-analysis in college. Over time, his thinking evolved through life experiences and he is now a Dr who does perform abortions on occasion. He is regularly protested and one woman was a particularly strident protester. One day she comes to him for an abortion which is provided. She came to him because she trusted him. Yet, a week later she is back protesting against abortion.
Link to this story
The 2nd was Thomas Friedman's column on the need to rethink our Middle East Policy, including Afghanistan. Friedman has been reporting on the Middle East for 30 years and has always been an honest observer. His best paragraph is: "In Afghanistan, I laugh out loud whenever I hear Obama administration officials explaining that we just need to train more Afghan soldiers to fight and then we can leave. Is there anything funnier? Afghan men need to be trained to fight? The defeated the British and the Soviets!" Neither political party is ready to do this, but this reinforces my belief that it is time to bring the troops home.
Link to this story
The third article was an observation on one issue created by the response to the Great Recession that I had not thought of. Remember that the financial crisis was caused by a failure to regulate properly. While regulation has been enhanced, there was much antipathy towards the rescue of the financial system and both parties want "Too Big to Fail" to not be a policy. So despite the long recognized harm caused by bank runs (the reason the Fed is the lender of last resort), now banks that fail will be wound down in an 'orderly" manner. The article points out that if big banks are going to fail, there will be nothing orderly about it and bank runs are again likely to happen. This will not be a positive outcome and the reason I always have maintained that the focus should be on good sound regulation.
The Book Review section was rich in thoughtful material.
Two books on science, one maintaining that Quantum Mechanics explains everything, and one maintaining that science cannot explain everything. To explain anything, it must be simple and after reading the book review, I can still not explain to anyone or myself what Quantum Mechanics are, let alone what they can explain. The 2nd book analyzes the communication gap between science and religious believers, and really comes down hard on the militant atheists by pointing out the futility of their reaching their objective of eliminating religion on the basis of science.
In addition, there was a third book review on the topic of religion. This one pointing out many similar things that I spoke of in my earlier blog "Why All Religions Should Be Respected". Namely, belief in God is part and parcel of human evolution. This book focused on liberals and conservatives and how this issue - belief in reason and science vs belief in faith - is the crux of the failure of the left and right to communicate. The book is hard on liberals for their lack of tolerance for other points of view and inability to recognize that conservative prioritization of care of more local groups/issues vs national solutions is in sync with human evolution. The Left hinders advancing their positions by not acknowledging the need for personal responsibility in many issues. A direct benefit of doing so would be when you get to an issue that truly needs a national solution like health care, you would be able to point out the differences between this national issue and the other issues which have been left more local. I imagine the book is more thorough, but I will have to read it to find out.
Book 1 on Quantum Machanics
Book 2 on how science does not have all the answers
Book 3 Why Everyone Should Respect everyone and how to get there
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thursday Musings
Football is tough enough on the physical health of the players. Deliberate harm is unforgivable. The Saints should not get any relief on their punishments.
Nicholas Kristof's column this a.m. was fascinating. I am not a conservative because I do not have a blind respect for authority and I fail any test on sanctity. But I do understand the latter at least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The NYT listed all the religious athletes who have thrived in NY. What was noteworthy is none of them promoted it the way Tim Tebow does, which is what turns me off so much about him. I don't understand why he cannot publicly acknowledge that his athletic ability is the luck of the genetic pool and his success the result of hard work. Celebrate religion in your personal life out of the public eye. As for the Jets, this is why I am first of all a Giants fan and root for the Jets because I live here and watch their games. My prediction, three years from now either Mark Sanchez will be a big success or both Jets QB's will be gone and they will be starting over.
Which Mitt Romney is running for President? The Governor or the Primary Campaigner. The Etch a Sketch comment is an all too true comment that no one knows what Mr. Romney really stands for. Makes it very difficult for someone in the middle to consider voting for him (and yes RedStateVT I do on occasion vote for moderate Republicans, the last being Governor Douglas.)
The French Assassin: Terrorism, anarchy, wanton murder, anger born out of frustration. Horrible things happen all the time. That is why we have police and militaries. None of this started with Osama bin Ladan, he just became a modern personification of it. Is the French Assassin any different from the Columbine shooters, the Oklahoma City bomber, the letter bomber, or any other mass murderer. You cannot protect an entire population from wanton murder. SH*T happens, and while it is horrible for the victims, you have to rely on the process for retribution and removing the criminal from society.
That is why there is an uproar in Florida over George Zimmerman's killing of a skittles caring black youth wearing a hoodie on a cold Florida night. No arrest. People need retribution to believe in the system.
If you do not have retribution, you increase cynicism and the potential to turn others into alienated people. That is also why it is important to give the underclass hope of an improved life. Crime went down when there was success on this point and right now America is going in the other direction. Some of that is the normal economic cycle but some of it is a failure to have a balanced political discussion in Washington's creation of policy.
Nicholas Kristof's column this a.m. was fascinating. I am not a conservative because I do not have a blind respect for authority and I fail any test on sanctity. But I do understand the latter at least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The NYT listed all the religious athletes who have thrived in NY. What was noteworthy is none of them promoted it the way Tim Tebow does, which is what turns me off so much about him. I don't understand why he cannot publicly acknowledge that his athletic ability is the luck of the genetic pool and his success the result of hard work. Celebrate religion in your personal life out of the public eye. As for the Jets, this is why I am first of all a Giants fan and root for the Jets because I live here and watch their games. My prediction, three years from now either Mark Sanchez will be a big success or both Jets QB's will be gone and they will be starting over.
Which Mitt Romney is running for President? The Governor or the Primary Campaigner. The Etch a Sketch comment is an all too true comment that no one knows what Mr. Romney really stands for. Makes it very difficult for someone in the middle to consider voting for him (and yes RedStateVT I do on occasion vote for moderate Republicans, the last being Governor Douglas.)
The French Assassin: Terrorism, anarchy, wanton murder, anger born out of frustration. Horrible things happen all the time. That is why we have police and militaries. None of this started with Osama bin Ladan, he just became a modern personification of it. Is the French Assassin any different from the Columbine shooters, the Oklahoma City bomber, the letter bomber, or any other mass murderer. You cannot protect an entire population from wanton murder. SH*T happens, and while it is horrible for the victims, you have to rely on the process for retribution and removing the criminal from society.
That is why there is an uproar in Florida over George Zimmerman's killing of a skittles caring black youth wearing a hoodie on a cold Florida night. No arrest. People need retribution to believe in the system.
If you do not have retribution, you increase cynicism and the potential to turn others into alienated people. That is also why it is important to give the underclass hope of an improved life. Crime went down when there was success on this point and right now America is going in the other direction. Some of that is the normal economic cycle but some of it is a failure to have a balanced political discussion in Washington's creation of policy.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
In Case You Were Wondering what the Difference is
between the Republicans and the Democrats, there was an excellent column in the Washington Post today by Matt Miller.
He met with Paul Ryan and had a discussion about what percentage of GDP the Federal Government should be spending and by implication what percentage of GDP should be raised in revenues.
For reference purposes, please remember that Ronald Reagan ran the government at 22% of GDP and over time it descended to 20% of GDP until the recession of 2008 hit. Now that 20% includes the borrowed War on Terror for which I have repeatedly made the point that wars should be paid for with revenues dedicated to that purpose.
Since the recession hit, fiscal stimulus pushed the spending to 24% of GDP while revenues declined to 15% of GDP.
Ryan wants to reduce the Government spending to 20% of GDP and raise revenues to 19% of GDP. He thinks economic growth will get us to 19% but many others doubt that. However, he is ignoring that the baby boom is retiring and by definition government spending as a % of GDP is going to rise. Ryan's basic blue print is to pay for Social Security (I thought that was already paid for), Medicare and defense. Everything else will go to ZERO (I am not sure where the Congress, the Courts, the Treasury, FBI etc fit in). I guess we will have no more census's.
In any case, even Ryan does not want to balance the budget, which is something I do want to do when economic activity normalizes. And he wants to pay for the War on Terror by cutting the social safety net. I do not consider this a Conservative Program.
So assuming that fiscal stimulus and the War on Terror run off in the normal course of events, government spending should stabilize around 22% of GDP. If Ryan wants revenue equal to 19% of GDP and Reagan managed to have reasonable tax rates for 22% of GDP, then the Democrats are where Ronald Reagan was 30 years ago and are the true bearers of his mantle today. The Republicans are somewhere in Elizabethan Times and trying to make the government non-functional with a far reduced safety net so they are a modern version of Scrooge.
He met with Paul Ryan and had a discussion about what percentage of GDP the Federal Government should be spending and by implication what percentage of GDP should be raised in revenues.
For reference purposes, please remember that Ronald Reagan ran the government at 22% of GDP and over time it descended to 20% of GDP until the recession of 2008 hit. Now that 20% includes the borrowed War on Terror for which I have repeatedly made the point that wars should be paid for with revenues dedicated to that purpose.
Since the recession hit, fiscal stimulus pushed the spending to 24% of GDP while revenues declined to 15% of GDP.
Ryan wants to reduce the Government spending to 20% of GDP and raise revenues to 19% of GDP. He thinks economic growth will get us to 19% but many others doubt that. However, he is ignoring that the baby boom is retiring and by definition government spending as a % of GDP is going to rise. Ryan's basic blue print is to pay for Social Security (I thought that was already paid for), Medicare and defense. Everything else will go to ZERO (I am not sure where the Congress, the Courts, the Treasury, FBI etc fit in). I guess we will have no more census's.
In any case, even Ryan does not want to balance the budget, which is something I do want to do when economic activity normalizes. And he wants to pay for the War on Terror by cutting the social safety net. I do not consider this a Conservative Program.
So assuming that fiscal stimulus and the War on Terror run off in the normal course of events, government spending should stabilize around 22% of GDP. If Ryan wants revenue equal to 19% of GDP and Reagan managed to have reasonable tax rates for 22% of GDP, then the Democrats are where Ronald Reagan was 30 years ago and are the true bearers of his mantle today. The Republicans are somewhere in Elizabethan Times and trying to make the government non-functional with a far reduced safety net so they are a modern version of Scrooge.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Why are Russia, India & Pakistan doing barter deals with Iran?
Do they really want a nuclear Iran? are they that completely anti-Israel? Do they trust the Iranians to not give nuclear material to terrorists that might use it in either Russia or India? Why does the U.S. continue to give aid to Pakistan when they are working against us in Iran?
At least I can understand Pakistan since they gave Iran the technology and are desperate for any economic aid for themselves. But I do not understand why India would do it since they do not trust Pakistan who has the most to gain from this, as the only other nuclear Islamic country. I wonder how coordinated Russia's stance is since I cannot imaging that every aspect of that country would agree with helping Iran on this point. Once nuclear material crosses the border, the next stop will be Moscow.
At least I can understand Pakistan since they gave Iran the technology and are desperate for any economic aid for themselves. But I do not understand why India would do it since they do not trust Pakistan who has the most to gain from this, as the only other nuclear Islamic country. I wonder how coordinated Russia's stance is since I cannot imaging that every aspect of that country would agree with helping Iran on this point. Once nuclear material crosses the border, the next stop will be Moscow.
What I Learned on the Golf Course about the Current State of Politics
Golfing yesterday, one of my partners was a retired NYC detective. When he heard I was from VT on the 14th hole, he went into a rant about how could I live in such a liberal state and what a !@#$%^& mess the country was in because of President Obama. I pointed out to him that he lived in NY and that many conservative Democrats believe in both a balanced budget and a social safety net that he enjoyed as a retired individual. He kept howling about what a liberal state VT was and I teed off pulling my drive to the hard left for only about 75 yards because I was not focused. After that, he didn't speak to me the last 4 holes.
After sleeping on it, I think this is indicative of the problem a lack of compromise is having on political discourse in the U.S. People seem to only want to hang with people who believe similar things. Yet, if you don't talk about the differences, you cannot understand the other side and where compromise might be found. RedStateVT, as well as my other conservative friends and I disagree about much, but we do keep it civil and do find things we agree on. I wish there was more of that.
At the root of this issue is the lack of honesty in political leadership. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't discuss the reality that revenues must be raised to pay for the War on Terror or, if you don't, what the reality is for the Social Safety net. Now these revenues can come from eliminating tax deductions/exemptions, but that doesn't seem to be on the table either. The President talks about Simpson-Bowles but then doesn't send it to the Congress so that it can be explicitly discussed and used to educate the vast amount of the population that is deluded by one thing or the other.
The country is in a fiscal crisis and you need both spending controls and increased revenues. But all we get is anger and no progress.
After sleeping on it, I think this is indicative of the problem a lack of compromise is having on political discourse in the U.S. People seem to only want to hang with people who believe similar things. Yet, if you don't talk about the differences, you cannot understand the other side and where compromise might be found. RedStateVT, as well as my other conservative friends and I disagree about much, but we do keep it civil and do find things we agree on. I wish there was more of that.
At the root of this issue is the lack of honesty in political leadership. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't discuss the reality that revenues must be raised to pay for the War on Terror or, if you don't, what the reality is for the Social Safety net. Now these revenues can come from eliminating tax deductions/exemptions, but that doesn't seem to be on the table either. The President talks about Simpson-Bowles but then doesn't send it to the Congress so that it can be explicitly discussed and used to educate the vast amount of the population that is deluded by one thing or the other.
The country is in a fiscal crisis and you need both spending controls and increased revenues. But all we get is anger and no progress.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Porn King Supports Romney
htmlhttp://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/porn-titans-not-worried-rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html
I am shocked! Wonder what RedStateVT thinks?
I am shocked! Wonder what RedStateVT thinks?
Soldiers Gone Wild (Now we know who he is)
Why is a brave soul who has lost part of his foot (no matter what his ability to walk/hike miles with his backpack) doing being redeployed to a combat zone?
My Answer: We don't have enough troops to deploy keep active service troops home no matter how many times they have been deployed nor the injuries that they suffered.
Either start a draft or declare victory (Osama bin Ladan is dead) and bring the troops home.
My Answer: We don't have enough troops to deploy keep active service troops home no matter how many times they have been deployed nor the injuries that they suffered.
Either start a draft or declare victory (Osama bin Ladan is dead) and bring the troops home.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
IRAN will be cut off from the SWIFT Network on Saturday
This means that the only way they can be paid for their oil or pay for imports is with cash or gold. Either way, this will hamper their efforts significantly.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Soldiers Going Wild Defeating our Purpose
It is sad that all the sacrifices that have been made by our brave troops can be undone by the actions of just a few burned out, mentally unbalanced, perhaps ignorant few. First the burning of the Koran's, now the purposeful murder of innocent women and children.
You cannot win the hearts and minds of the people which is what it takes to defeat the Taliban or any other terrorist group which is harbored by the people they live among.
We defeated Al Qaeda, we will not defeat the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home and let them rest.
You cannot win the hearts and minds of the people which is what it takes to defeat the Taliban or any other terrorist group which is harbored by the people they live among.
We defeated Al Qaeda, we will not defeat the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home and let them rest.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Why All Religions Deserve Equal Respect (Reposted)
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.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Last Observation of the Week
I am heading to Vermont to ski this week as it finally snowed enough to cover up the rocks on the double diamond trails I enjoy challenging myself on, but before I go I would like to observe the inconsistency of the Tea Party.
They claim that they are seekers of Constitutional purism, such as "Live Free or Die"and "Don't Tread on Me". Yet, they want to end the separation of church and state. 28% of voters, which is the approximate level of the population that self identifies with the Tea Party, want to end the separation of church and state, which is the very first Bill of Rights. The U.S. was founded on the premise that there would be no state religion and that the state would have no influence on any religion. Implicit in that is that no religion can use the government to promote their beliefs. That means every religion is free to do what they want. The proponents of ending the separation of church and state want to create an Evangelical Protestant "Islamic like" state. As a member of the Hebrew tribe I find that as objectionable as I do any pure Islamic state. And I am sure my acquaintances of other non-evangelical religions do too. Don't tread on our rights.
Now where is the inconsistency. The Tea Party is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they feel are inalienable. They claim that they believe in limited government and that is somewhere in the Constitution. Well certain limitations are in the Constitution and have been clarified by the Judicial Branch over the last 230 years. But taxes are not unconstitutional. Otherwise, why would the marginal income tax rate in the 1950's have been 90% (now I will state that is a confiscatory level that I do not believe in) and it was politics that put it there and lowered it from there.
Separation of church and state is in the Constitution, but the Tea Party is saying that the Constitution is an endorsement of the Christianity and allows them to use the government to promote their views. That is flat out wrong and is not limited government. The Tea Party is being self serving hypocritical when they say they believe in limited government in one place and not another. They are being very radical in demanding that their views be implemented in the Constitution. Now that is their political right to try and bring about through a Constitutional Amendment, but they should not claim that the founders endorsed it. There is no evidence that the founders endorsed any specific religion and in fact many of them appear to have been agnostic.
The Constitution allows each individual to practice what they want to in compliance with the laws of the United States of America. It also demands that every one respect what each other wants to do, whether it be one of the many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu or Atheism.
They claim that they are seekers of Constitutional purism, such as "Live Free or Die"and "Don't Tread on Me". Yet, they want to end the separation of church and state. 28% of voters, which is the approximate level of the population that self identifies with the Tea Party, want to end the separation of church and state, which is the very first Bill of Rights. The U.S. was founded on the premise that there would be no state religion and that the state would have no influence on any religion. Implicit in that is that no religion can use the government to promote their beliefs. That means every religion is free to do what they want. The proponents of ending the separation of church and state want to create an Evangelical Protestant "Islamic like" state. As a member of the Hebrew tribe I find that as objectionable as I do any pure Islamic state. And I am sure my acquaintances of other non-evangelical religions do too. Don't tread on our rights.
Now where is the inconsistency. The Tea Party is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they feel are inalienable. They claim that they believe in limited government and that is somewhere in the Constitution. Well certain limitations are in the Constitution and have been clarified by the Judicial Branch over the last 230 years. But taxes are not unconstitutional. Otherwise, why would the marginal income tax rate in the 1950's have been 90% (now I will state that is a confiscatory level that I do not believe in) and it was politics that put it there and lowered it from there.
Separation of church and state is in the Constitution, but the Tea Party is saying that the Constitution is an endorsement of the Christianity and allows them to use the government to promote their views. That is flat out wrong and is not limited government. The Tea Party is being self serving hypocritical when they say they believe in limited government in one place and not another. They are being very radical in demanding that their views be implemented in the Constitution. Now that is their political right to try and bring about through a Constitutional Amendment, but they should not claim that the founders endorsed it. There is no evidence that the founders endorsed any specific religion and in fact many of them appear to have been agnostic.
The Constitution allows each individual to practice what they want to in compliance with the laws of the United States of America. It also demands that every one respect what each other wants to do, whether it be one of the many forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu or Atheism.
Friday, March 2, 2012
In Case You Were Wondering Why Politics Have Become Partisan
Let me recount some of the history of how the Republicans have shot a cannon through Democratic willingness to compromise and left me with no choice but to vote for only Democrats.
We must start with the programs that Bush II put in place to combat the potential depression. It was Bush II and his Secretary of the Treasury that designed TARP - which I agreed with - to provide a safety net for the financial system; without which the economy would have had a precipitous fall the likes of which I cannot imagine. It was also Bush II that started to provide some support for the auto industry but left the final decision to the incoming President Obama who implemented the full support wiping out the equity holders of GM and Chrysler in the process; as they would have been in a bankruptcy. The reason the auto companies could not go through a normal bankruptcy is that their finance companies required liquidity to make car loans and the banking system did not have the liquidity to provide DIP financing. So this was in essence an extension of TARP for a sector that employees a lot of people and has the biggest job multiplier after the construction industry.
President Obama designed his fiscal stimulus with Republican input - that is why there was such a high % of tax cuts vs fiscal spending, which would have been more effective - and then the Republicans didn't vote for it saying the tax cuts were not big enough. Ditto with the Affordable Health Care Act. Republicans were against a Public Option so there is not a Public Option. Instead we have Health Insurance Exchanges - which I am willing to give a chance to - as designed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This design was first implemented in Massachusetts by the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and is working well with reasonably a reasonably satisfied population. Yet, the Republicans did not vote for the Affordable Health Care act and run against it without suggesting what they would propose instead. The aggregate cost of health care is our most pressing problem and one of its primary causes in the cost of medical treatment for the uninsured. The only thing on this issue out of the mouths of Republicans is we want to ruin the Presidency of Mr. Obama and make him a one term President. This from the Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who should be looking for ways in which to make things better, not worse. I wish I could make him a one termer but I don't live in Kentucky.
Of course, throughout all this we have the birthers doubting whether the President is a citizen despite all evidence that he is. This unfortunately is still alive on Yahoo as that bigoted Sheriff in Arizona, who wants to evict every Hispanic from Arizona, is now a document expert claiming that parts of the birth certificate were forged. How he can tell that out of a photo and why would a birth recorder in Honolulu forge something 50 years ago for a 5 day old baby?
Then we have the continuation of the Republican legislator's "anti-the-president" continuing in the Presidential primaries. There is not one Republican who can even give the President full credit for conducting the War on Terror in a sound fashion, rather they focus on Iran and suggest that we should start another war when such a war would wreck havoc on the global economy and US jobs which they claim to be issue #1. Now military action may become necessary, but talk is cheap and I doubt that Mitt Romney would send bombers into Iranian airspace on Day 2 of his presidency as he has firmly stated he would do during his campaign. YAP YAP YAP
Now we have a conspiracy theory that somehow Andrew Breitbart's death was caused by something other than a heart attack. I guess "24" has somehow made it into this White House and a 43 year old with a history of heart problems is the 1st victim rather than someone more obvious like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Bashar al-Assad.
I don't know what any Republican stands for anymore except tax cuts, military actions and conspiracy theories. You bet I have become partisan because I am in the middle and there is no home for me except in the Democratic Party. The thought of Republicans being rewarded for such coarse behavior leaves me frigid.
We must start with the programs that Bush II put in place to combat the potential depression. It was Bush II and his Secretary of the Treasury that designed TARP - which I agreed with - to provide a safety net for the financial system; without which the economy would have had a precipitous fall the likes of which I cannot imagine. It was also Bush II that started to provide some support for the auto industry but left the final decision to the incoming President Obama who implemented the full support wiping out the equity holders of GM and Chrysler in the process; as they would have been in a bankruptcy. The reason the auto companies could not go through a normal bankruptcy is that their finance companies required liquidity to make car loans and the banking system did not have the liquidity to provide DIP financing. So this was in essence an extension of TARP for a sector that employees a lot of people and has the biggest job multiplier after the construction industry.
President Obama designed his fiscal stimulus with Republican input - that is why there was such a high % of tax cuts vs fiscal spending, which would have been more effective - and then the Republicans didn't vote for it saying the tax cuts were not big enough. Ditto with the Affordable Health Care Act. Republicans were against a Public Option so there is not a Public Option. Instead we have Health Insurance Exchanges - which I am willing to give a chance to - as designed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This design was first implemented in Massachusetts by the Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and is working well with reasonably a reasonably satisfied population. Yet, the Republicans did not vote for the Affordable Health Care act and run against it without suggesting what they would propose instead. The aggregate cost of health care is our most pressing problem and one of its primary causes in the cost of medical treatment for the uninsured. The only thing on this issue out of the mouths of Republicans is we want to ruin the Presidency of Mr. Obama and make him a one term President. This from the Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who should be looking for ways in which to make things better, not worse. I wish I could make him a one termer but I don't live in Kentucky.
Of course, throughout all this we have the birthers doubting whether the President is a citizen despite all evidence that he is. This unfortunately is still alive on Yahoo as that bigoted Sheriff in Arizona, who wants to evict every Hispanic from Arizona, is now a document expert claiming that parts of the birth certificate were forged. How he can tell that out of a photo and why would a birth recorder in Honolulu forge something 50 years ago for a 5 day old baby?
Then we have the continuation of the Republican legislator's "anti-the-president" continuing in the Presidential primaries. There is not one Republican who can even give the President full credit for conducting the War on Terror in a sound fashion, rather they focus on Iran and suggest that we should start another war when such a war would wreck havoc on the global economy and US jobs which they claim to be issue #1. Now military action may become necessary, but talk is cheap and I doubt that Mitt Romney would send bombers into Iranian airspace on Day 2 of his presidency as he has firmly stated he would do during his campaign. YAP YAP YAP
Now we have a conspiracy theory that somehow Andrew Breitbart's death was caused by something other than a heart attack. I guess "24" has somehow made it into this White House and a 43 year old with a history of heart problems is the 1st victim rather than someone more obvious like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Bashar al-Assad.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)