I figure I should pull this out of another posting and shout it from the roof top.
In an editorial on another topic ( and I did pull it out of context, but the statement stands on its own),
the Saturday 2/19 Wall Street Journal Editorial page contained the following line written by the Editorial Board.
"We're all for studying the climate and doing what can be done within economic reason to cope with temperature changes."
For the record, The WSJ Editorial Board generally supports everything the GOP stands for today. They appear to be changing their minds about this topic.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
The Keystone Pipeline Decision
It is better to pay Canada for the oil rather then pay anyone else for the oil because they do not spend the money on helping America's enemies (like the Middle East exporters) and they do not cozy up to our enemies like Venezuela does.
Another pipeline is not going to prevent any development of alternative energy. That will develop or not develop based upon its own economics and this pipeline will only replace other oil that would have been imported from somewhere else.
The pipeline will be no more polluting than any other pipeline, of which there are thousands of miles already in place through out the nation. We don't have an economy without these pipelines. We don't have gas heat, hot water or stoves without these pipelines.
This part of the midwest needs a pipeline to bring the oil down from North Dakota as well as Alberta.
Mr. Obama should approve the Keystone Pipeline.
Another pipeline is not going to prevent any development of alternative energy. That will develop or not develop based upon its own economics and this pipeline will only replace other oil that would have been imported from somewhere else.
The pipeline will be no more polluting than any other pipeline, of which there are thousands of miles already in place through out the nation. We don't have an economy without these pipelines. We don't have gas heat, hot water or stoves without these pipelines.
This part of the midwest needs a pipeline to bring the oil down from North Dakota as well as Alberta.
Mr. Obama should approve the Keystone Pipeline.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Evidence that the Old GOP was Balanced
The NY Times book review section reviewed 3 GOP Presidential biographies today.
Richard Nixon supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and was a personal friend of both Martin Luther King and Jackie Robinson. Nixon also argued that the GOP should remain the party of Lincoln on civil rights. Interestingly, Eisenhower disagreed with that.
And back to political philosophy. From a book review of another book on Lincoln. "Principle without compromise is empty; compromise without principle is blind."
And I will add one other point of my own. Science and statistical research used to be believed by all politicians. There is hard evidence that the earth was created billions of years ago. There is widespread evidence that our infrastructure is crumbling and moving beyond its designed years of use. There is statistical evidence that preschool makes a difference. And there is broad scientific evidence that higher levels of CO2 cause the air to warm and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with that last point. From Saturday 2/16/13 Editorial.
"We're all for studying the climate and doing what can be done within economic reason to cope with temperature changes."
Richard Nixon supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and was a personal friend of both Martin Luther King and Jackie Robinson. Nixon also argued that the GOP should remain the party of Lincoln on civil rights. Interestingly, Eisenhower disagreed with that.
And back to political philosophy. From a book review of another book on Lincoln. "Principle without compromise is empty; compromise without principle is blind."
And I will add one other point of my own. Science and statistical research used to be believed by all politicians. There is hard evidence that the earth was created billions of years ago. There is widespread evidence that our infrastructure is crumbling and moving beyond its designed years of use. There is statistical evidence that preschool makes a difference. And there is broad scientific evidence that higher levels of CO2 cause the air to warm and that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen.
Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with that last point. From Saturday 2/16/13 Editorial.
"We're all for studying the climate and doing what can be done within economic reason to cope with temperature changes."
Saturday, February 16, 2013
GOP Needs a Coherent Plan to Govern
My friend RedStateVT thinks I have become an inveterate liberal because I no longer find anyone in the GOP worth voting for. But that is the case because I do not trust the GOP to govern well. And that is a shame because the country needs a vibrant 2 party system.
Why do I not trust the GOP? Because they have subscribed to the political philosophy of John C Calhoun: political nullification. This is a theory of minority-interest democracy whereby the will of the majority is subordinated to the beliefs of the minority. In other words, destroy the ability of the government to govern. This policy was put into place by Bush II in an incoherent manner because it did not include any revenues to pay for the borrowed War on Terror while he cynically cut taxes and instituted an unfunded Medicare pharmaceutical benefit. In addition, following his belief that the private sector could be trusted to manage itself, he cut regulatory budgets by failing to fill open positions and let the mortgage sector run amok creating a systemic economic disaster devastating the lives of millions of baby boomers. Now the GOP advocates returning to that system by balancing the budget and paying for the limited government (even the hard right wants a strong national defense with effective border enforcement) by cutting spending for entitlements that we have all paid into and counted on for our retirement.
Now I know these entitlements need adjusting, but while some in the GOP know they need more revenues to be fair, the party is a prisoner of its Tea Party wing that believes in political nullification. They are not unique in following this. This is how Prohibition came to be and this is how the NRA has taken over the legislative process. And lest we forget. John Calhoun was a Congressman from South Carolina who led the desire for the new Western States to be slave states and, while he died in 1850, this path led to the Civil War whereby the South sought to continue slavery.
So, rightly or wrongly, in my mind a philosophy of political nullification has a direct link to support of slavery. It is also bad government
Obama and Boehner had the Grand Bargain agreed to. But Boehner could not deliver the votes because the nullifiers would not agree to it. Now we have had an election and there is a need for more compromise. The budget is not balanced and we need a plan to balance it. My belief is that should be 2/3's spending cuts and 1/3 revenues, but I would be prepared to negotiate the exact levels if I was involved in such a negotiation. But the nullifiers are preventing such a negotiation. They would not even agree to a 90% cuts 10% revenue package before the election which they lost; so the majority spoke that they wanted more balance.
Nullification is ineffective government because we are a government of the majority and the majority believes in such government. That is what elections are all about.
Nullification is also ugly. Witness Ted Cruz resorting to McCarthy like innuendos to stir up his base without even a shred of evidence that such accusations had a base in reality.
How can a moderate fiscal person with a conscience vote for a Party that is not serious about the business of governing?
I thank The New Republic for educating me on Nullification. The new New Republic is well worth subscribing to. RSL loves the back end where the arts are reviewed and I like the front end which generally looks at political issues in a factual manner.
Why do I not trust the GOP? Because they have subscribed to the political philosophy of John C Calhoun: political nullification. This is a theory of minority-interest democracy whereby the will of the majority is subordinated to the beliefs of the minority. In other words, destroy the ability of the government to govern. This policy was put into place by Bush II in an incoherent manner because it did not include any revenues to pay for the borrowed War on Terror while he cynically cut taxes and instituted an unfunded Medicare pharmaceutical benefit. In addition, following his belief that the private sector could be trusted to manage itself, he cut regulatory budgets by failing to fill open positions and let the mortgage sector run amok creating a systemic economic disaster devastating the lives of millions of baby boomers. Now the GOP advocates returning to that system by balancing the budget and paying for the limited government (even the hard right wants a strong national defense with effective border enforcement) by cutting spending for entitlements that we have all paid into and counted on for our retirement.
Now I know these entitlements need adjusting, but while some in the GOP know they need more revenues to be fair, the party is a prisoner of its Tea Party wing that believes in political nullification. They are not unique in following this. This is how Prohibition came to be and this is how the NRA has taken over the legislative process. And lest we forget. John Calhoun was a Congressman from South Carolina who led the desire for the new Western States to be slave states and, while he died in 1850, this path led to the Civil War whereby the South sought to continue slavery.
So, rightly or wrongly, in my mind a philosophy of political nullification has a direct link to support of slavery. It is also bad government
Obama and Boehner had the Grand Bargain agreed to. But Boehner could not deliver the votes because the nullifiers would not agree to it. Now we have had an election and there is a need for more compromise. The budget is not balanced and we need a plan to balance it. My belief is that should be 2/3's spending cuts and 1/3 revenues, but I would be prepared to negotiate the exact levels if I was involved in such a negotiation. But the nullifiers are preventing such a negotiation. They would not even agree to a 90% cuts 10% revenue package before the election which they lost; so the majority spoke that they wanted more balance.
Nullification is ineffective government because we are a government of the majority and the majority believes in such government. That is what elections are all about.
Nullification is also ugly. Witness Ted Cruz resorting to McCarthy like innuendos to stir up his base without even a shred of evidence that such accusations had a base in reality.
How can a moderate fiscal person with a conscience vote for a Party that is not serious about the business of governing?
I thank The New Republic for educating me on Nullification. The new New Republic is well worth subscribing to. RSL loves the back end where the arts are reviewed and I like the front end which generally looks at political issues in a factual manner.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Evangelical Rigidity
Last week I made a mental note of an article about a Newtown, CT pastor of a Lutheran Evangelical Church who was made to apologize to his National Organization for taking part in an interfaith service honoring the dead students and teachers.
Why did he have to apologize for taking part in an interfaith service? Because by doing so, he acknowledged that the other Pastors/Rabbai's/Priests/... have validity and religious souls. His brand of Religion believes and preaches that they are the only valid religion and all other religions are invalid.
My 1st reaction was to ask myself what happened the the world of my youth when everybody went about their practice of religion in private; and, in public, pretty much acknowledged that every religion was valid and you should respect the right of people to practice their faith in whatever manner they chose. Now, there is a strain of Evangelical Lutheran's that publicly believes any other religion is false.
My 2nd reaction was my father was a traditional Lutheran in the Scandinavian model and it was most definitely not Evangelical, and apparently, there is more than one type of Evangelical Lutherans so this one strain believes the other Lutheran churches are not valid. This all pretty much sounds crazy to me. If you believe in God, how could you believe that he would disavow anybody who follows another religion as opposed to your religion? How could you believe that your sect of Lutheran is the only valid one when you evolved out of the religion created by Martin Luther back in Germany during the Middle Ages and the other sects did likewise?
My 3rd reaction was this is part and parcel of our political stalemate. If Evangelicals are so rigid in something so private, this is why they are so rigid in their politics. They are the only ones who are correct and everyone else's views are invalid so there is no need to compromise.
I wish we could go back to the attitudes of the 1950's and 60's where all religious beliefs were respected. When one could be conservative in matters of personal responsibility, but open minded on issues of common good and the role of government. That is still where I am and I like to think of myself a modern person.
Why did he have to apologize for taking part in an interfaith service? Because by doing so, he acknowledged that the other Pastors/Rabbai's/Priests/... have validity and religious souls. His brand of Religion believes and preaches that they are the only valid religion and all other religions are invalid.
My 1st reaction was to ask myself what happened the the world of my youth when everybody went about their practice of religion in private; and, in public, pretty much acknowledged that every religion was valid and you should respect the right of people to practice their faith in whatever manner they chose. Now, there is a strain of Evangelical Lutheran's that publicly believes any other religion is false.
My 2nd reaction was my father was a traditional Lutheran in the Scandinavian model and it was most definitely not Evangelical, and apparently, there is more than one type of Evangelical Lutherans so this one strain believes the other Lutheran churches are not valid. This all pretty much sounds crazy to me. If you believe in God, how could you believe that he would disavow anybody who follows another religion as opposed to your religion? How could you believe that your sect of Lutheran is the only valid one when you evolved out of the religion created by Martin Luther back in Germany during the Middle Ages and the other sects did likewise?
My 3rd reaction was this is part and parcel of our political stalemate. If Evangelicals are so rigid in something so private, this is why they are so rigid in their politics. They are the only ones who are correct and everyone else's views are invalid so there is no need to compromise.
I wish we could go back to the attitudes of the 1950's and 60's where all religious beliefs were respected. When one could be conservative in matters of personal responsibility, but open minded on issues of common good and the role of government. That is still where I am and I like to think of myself a modern person.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Amazing, but Sad
This is a real life quote from a member of the House GOP.
"evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory — all of that is lies straight from the pit of hell.”
And this guy is a medical Doctor!
I would be more supportive of vouchers for private schools if I knew for sure that schools were not teaching drivel like this. I'm beginning to believe that the U.S. is falling behind other countries in science and math, not because of underperforming schools in the inner city, but rather because of what is being taught in schools where curriculum is dominated by politics and religion rather than education.
And then there is this observation from someone I don't know, but can certainly agree with his aggravation. I hate taking my leather soled shoes off at the airport.
"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and we all take our shoes off at the airport. Thirty one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our gun regulations."
Sunday, February 3, 2013
3 Ways to Bend the Health Care Cost Curve
My sister in-law, a Doctor with a career in public health is visiting and we had a discussion today about what it would take to bend the health care cost curve to prevent it from bankrupting the country. She has a unique view on this having spent her career in public health in Appalachia, but living in city with high quality medical care.
1. Educate people about end of life care so intelligent decisions are made. Everyone should have a living will so desires are clear and people don't get thrown into the fee for service system when they are unable to make decisions and worthless care is provided because it will be reimbursed. Such service also keeps the hysterical daughter happy, so she doesn't sue, when Momma dies. There is also a culture of "do whatever it takes" to keep someone alive even when the odds of doing anything beyond extending a low quality life for a few days, weeks or months are the only possible outcome before death. That needs to change. For anyone interested in how to do this better, read The Best Care Possible by Ira Byock.
2. Educate poor people that when something is needed, go get it taken care of . Don't let it fester and become something worse and more expensive. There is a culture in the less wealthy reaches of the country that the Health Care system will fix me up when I need it. They don't get it taken care of when it might be simple and less expensive, they wait until it has to be taken care of. This might be because they don't have health insurance, or they cannot afford the co-pay, or they just simply cannot be bothered. More wealthy people know you get things taken care of early.
3. Work to reduce teen pregnancy. This is a problem of poverty which pervades the 1st two points. Teen pregnancy perpetuates poverty and added $11 billion to the taxpayer funded medical cost in 2008.
Each teen pregnancy funded by the public health care system costs the taxpayers between $25,000 and $30,000 depending upon the states.
Note: Nothing the GOP proposes in terms of introducing competition into Health Insurance addresses any of these issues. The For-Profit Health Insurance System created the Fee For Service system and does not work for anyone who does not get Health Insurance through employment. Obama Care puts in place programs that address all 3 of these issues, but much education will be needed to change the culture. You also need to address medical malpractice which stands behind Dr. acquiescence to hysterical poor daughters who would love to get rich off a malpractice suit for letting diabetic 250 lb Momma die.
1. Educate people about end of life care so intelligent decisions are made. Everyone should have a living will so desires are clear and people don't get thrown into the fee for service system when they are unable to make decisions and worthless care is provided because it will be reimbursed. Such service also keeps the hysterical daughter happy, so she doesn't sue, when Momma dies. There is also a culture of "do whatever it takes" to keep someone alive even when the odds of doing anything beyond extending a low quality life for a few days, weeks or months are the only possible outcome before death. That needs to change. For anyone interested in how to do this better, read The Best Care Possible by Ira Byock.
2. Educate poor people that when something is needed, go get it taken care of . Don't let it fester and become something worse and more expensive. There is a culture in the less wealthy reaches of the country that the Health Care system will fix me up when I need it. They don't get it taken care of when it might be simple and less expensive, they wait until it has to be taken care of. This might be because they don't have health insurance, or they cannot afford the co-pay, or they just simply cannot be bothered. More wealthy people know you get things taken care of early.
3. Work to reduce teen pregnancy. This is a problem of poverty which pervades the 1st two points. Teen pregnancy perpetuates poverty and added $11 billion to the taxpayer funded medical cost in 2008.
Each teen pregnancy funded by the public health care system costs the taxpayers between $25,000 and $30,000 depending upon the states.
Note: Nothing the GOP proposes in terms of introducing competition into Health Insurance addresses any of these issues. The For-Profit Health Insurance System created the Fee For Service system and does not work for anyone who does not get Health Insurance through employment. Obama Care puts in place programs that address all 3 of these issues, but much education will be needed to change the culture. You also need to address medical malpractice which stands behind Dr. acquiescence to hysterical poor daughters who would love to get rich off a malpractice suit for letting diabetic 250 lb Momma die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)