What I Wish For The New Year:
1. That Causers, regardless of their cause, no longer equate the volume with which they make their argument with the value of the argument they make.
2. That Global Warmers realize that they make themselves look foolish to hold onto their original Chicken Little premise without considering new information.
3. That those that deny the factual base of Global Warming realize that conservation of energy is just a rational idea when denuded of the hype.
4. To find a way of getting through to people who start their arguments with ”I feel” to rather begin them with “I think”, so that I do not automatically dismiss what follows as poorly reasoned.
5. That both parties put forth nominees that are relevant to the challenges that face our country not to the challenges that face us individually.
6. To continue to see race hustlers and bigots be further marginalized as their idiocy is uncovered.
7. That the people that use the term racist to get a dictionary and realize that most times prejudiced is the correct term.
8. To have both extremes of political thought be marginalized so that they do not control the agenda of the real conversations we need as a country.
9. To have teachers stop using the classroom to justify their personal beliefs and instead present all of the thought on a subject so that their students can learn to shape their own.
11. For people to find time in their daily lives to give back time instead of just dollars to those that need help and guidance.
12. To have parents realize that a computer is not a substitute for parenting and that pharmaceuticals do not fix problems but rather change the timeline for when they manifest.
13. To be less tolerant of the intolerant, more patient with the poorly informed and realize that many in life are trying to dig their well with a pointy stick….they just do not have the right tools.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Math is Good:
I just read that Candidate Edwards has gotten all the other Democratic Candidates to agree to a $9.50 minimum wage by 2012. I am dumbstruck by the disconnect that they have with the causal nature this will have with another of their war chants of jobs being sent overseas.
Point 1: If the minimum wage is raised so will the baseline index of what is required to qualify for public assistance. The average person working 40 hours per week will have an income of $19,780 per annum. In 2006, according to US Census definition, a family of 4 was considered to be living in poverty if they had household income of $20,614 and this is with a minimum wage of $6.75. So using simple extrapolation a 40-hour workweek in 2006 generated $14,040 or 68% of what was needed to reach the baseline of poverty. So if the relationship holds in 2012, poverty baseline will be $29,088. If public assistance is meant to meet the shortfall between earnings and the poverty baseline then that will mean a real dollar increase from 2006’s $6,574 to 2012’s $9308 for a family of four.
Point 2: If US companies cannot compete globally at current wage rates how will they expect to do so with wage hike pressure. The relationship of minimum wage and incentivised wages is real. A person who has been with a company for a period of time has a rational expectation for the employer to value their work at a rate greater that of a minimum wage. So the introduction of a higher minimum wage is inflationary on all wages from middle management down and will result in a cascade of solutions that are not favorable to general employment.
Point 3: Businesses will have to hire less people or raise prices, as fewer people are employed more will require public assistance, as more people are on public assistance taxes will have to be raised making businesses less profitable and so on and so on.
Point 4: As costs rise due to inflation, businesses will be forced accelerate the search for the low cost providers and more jobs will go overseas. Less employment in the US means fewer contributions to Social Security and Income Tax. Less Income Tax and no way to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund for unfunded benefits.
Not a single member in the MM has brought this up to my knowledge. Be careful of gift horses, especially this one……it has hoof and mouth disease.
Point 1: If the minimum wage is raised so will the baseline index of what is required to qualify for public assistance. The average person working 40 hours per week will have an income of $19,780 per annum. In 2006, according to US Census definition, a family of 4 was considered to be living in poverty if they had household income of $20,614 and this is with a minimum wage of $6.75. So using simple extrapolation a 40-hour workweek in 2006 generated $14,040 or 68% of what was needed to reach the baseline of poverty. So if the relationship holds in 2012, poverty baseline will be $29,088. If public assistance is meant to meet the shortfall between earnings and the poverty baseline then that will mean a real dollar increase from 2006’s $6,574 to 2012’s $9308 for a family of four.
Point 2: If US companies cannot compete globally at current wage rates how will they expect to do so with wage hike pressure. The relationship of minimum wage and incentivised wages is real. A person who has been with a company for a period of time has a rational expectation for the employer to value their work at a rate greater that of a minimum wage. So the introduction of a higher minimum wage is inflationary on all wages from middle management down and will result in a cascade of solutions that are not favorable to general employment.
Point 3: Businesses will have to hire less people or raise prices, as fewer people are employed more will require public assistance, as more people are on public assistance taxes will have to be raised making businesses less profitable and so on and so on.
Point 4: As costs rise due to inflation, businesses will be forced accelerate the search for the low cost providers and more jobs will go overseas. Less employment in the US means fewer contributions to Social Security and Income Tax. Less Income Tax and no way to pay back the Social Security Trust Fund for unfunded benefits.
Not a single member in the MM has brought this up to my knowledge. Be careful of gift horses, especially this one……it has hoof and mouth disease.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Philosophers Row
Sir Karl Popper was born in 1902 and died in 1994. For those of you who have never had the opportunity to try and wrap your melon around Sir Karl, you have missed a truly disconcerting journey.
Sir Karl was the father of modern debate and forwarded the idea of falsification as the only true measure of scientific discovery. In other words it is only possible to know what is false not what is true. In his premise multiple positive outcomes in an experiment cannot conclude something to be true yet one negative result can be decisive. He believes that observation is not scientific but rather anecdotal to furthering knowledge and that general knowledge progresses incrementally over time down a path with no definitive conclusion ever. Over time one can increasingly confirm different theories likelihood of being correct but here can never be a declaratory positive. If we look at what we observe about the material word around us and see how what we believe now in the fields of physics from where we were 50 years ago it is easy to see his philosophy in action. As an example let us use the premise that based on our observations that all fish live in water, until 50 years ago that held true but then it was found that some fish also bury themselves in mud and even climb trees in South America. So while the statement that all fish live in the water is practically true it is also partially false. It is these qualified truths that Popper found so objectionable in the declarative sense of Empiricism, in other words what is observed to be true is only true as far as it is observed. Another example of this is the theorem that all ducks have beaks but how can one know that with certainty unless every duck is observed and how can one know when that is the case.
In general I agree with Sir Karl, as I have seen in my lifetime certainties being disproved. So beware the person who speaks with idea that what he believes is true, it maybe more accurate to say that what he believes to be true is so based on is incomplete knowledge.
A turkey is fed everyday for 100 days, based on the turkeys observations life is good and he knows that he will be fed everyday. The turkey’s knowledge was accurate yet imperfect.
Sir Karl was the father of modern debate and forwarded the idea of falsification as the only true measure of scientific discovery. In other words it is only possible to know what is false not what is true. In his premise multiple positive outcomes in an experiment cannot conclude something to be true yet one negative result can be decisive. He believes that observation is not scientific but rather anecdotal to furthering knowledge and that general knowledge progresses incrementally over time down a path with no definitive conclusion ever. Over time one can increasingly confirm different theories likelihood of being correct but here can never be a declaratory positive. If we look at what we observe about the material word around us and see how what we believe now in the fields of physics from where we were 50 years ago it is easy to see his philosophy in action. As an example let us use the premise that based on our observations that all fish live in water, until 50 years ago that held true but then it was found that some fish also bury themselves in mud and even climb trees in South America. So while the statement that all fish live in the water is practically true it is also partially false. It is these qualified truths that Popper found so objectionable in the declarative sense of Empiricism, in other words what is observed to be true is only true as far as it is observed. Another example of this is the theorem that all ducks have beaks but how can one know that with certainty unless every duck is observed and how can one know when that is the case.
In general I agree with Sir Karl, as I have seen in my lifetime certainties being disproved. So beware the person who speaks with idea that what he believes is true, it maybe more accurate to say that what he believes to be true is so based on is incomplete knowledge.
A turkey is fed everyday for 100 days, based on the turkeys observations life is good and he knows that he will be fed everyday. The turkey’s knowledge was accurate yet imperfect.
Walking to school in the snow, uphill both ways:
I used to hear this and other gems from my Father and Grandfather; when I was your age I used to have to get up before I went to bed to go to work, for Christmas all I got was a stick and a rock and I was glad to have them etc, etc.
Like all kids I would roll my eyes when they would opine on the value of character, hard work, respecting your elders etc. When I got out of line, smarted off or misbehaved my parents believed in a mechanism of direct feedback, my Mom had a paddle and Dad had his belt. We would have occasional conversations about my shortcomings and at the end of them I could always tell how strongly they felt, my only consolation is that they never took joy out of interaction and in truth felt that in it having to come to that they had failed me some how. It must be understood that my parents were both highly educated people but that they understood that boundaries were important for kids as was the understanding that decisions had consequences both good and bad.
In an article in USA Today on what has gone wrong today in our “everybody gets a trophy society” where promoting children’s self esteem has become more important than preparing them for the real and true world. They seemed shocked that definitive measures are used to judge contribution once they leave the protection of the perpetual societal nannies that protect them until they leave school.
What the Dr. Feelgoods do not realize or comprehend is that real life is Dodgeball and if you do not prepare children for failure and conflict early they have no mechanism to deal with it once they leave the protective cocoon. What we have seen happen in Omaha, Colorado etc. is in my opinion a direct result of that failure. We have all heard the corporal punishment is that it teaches violence, or that violence is a mechanism to resolve conflict. For the most part I say that is bull puckey, what I believe is that disciplining your child and holding them to expectations and standards has become to burdensome to most parents. I think it is a rationalization for those who don’t wish to be parents but rather be pals or friends. When I see parents demanding that their children play video games where saving lives is the pathway to success rather than taking them I will pay some credence to what they have to say.
We have become general supporters of the path of least resistance; teachers, coaches, parents etc. find it easier to instill a false sense of accomplishment rather than provide direction and feedback to children that utilizes their person tool-boxes. We should not tell a child that their accomplishments are meaningful unless they are, in doing so we create two distinct problems. Firstly, we allow a child to believe that they may be better suited than they actually are for area of accomplishment for them only to find that their dreams were misplaced. Secondly, we deny them the opportunity to seek out at a young age those things that they can excel at that create real and sustainable self-esteem.
In general people rise to the level of expectation made of them. It little Timmy has always been told that his paintings are great by adults, how do we not expect him to feel lied to and disappointed when he finds out they were moderate at best. Maybe if Timmy had been told the truth he would have applied himself to the task of becoming great or known that intrinsically painting was not his gift.
False self-esteem is more insidious than the truth but requires less effort to impart. By shielding children from disappointment we deny them one of the most important parts of their development, coping skills. I am not saying that we must be a perpetual buzz-kill but by not being truthful with children we do them no service and teach them to doubt everything once the first misrepresentation is discovered.
There is no way to legislate physical and mental parity in children and wanting it to be so does not make it such. Every child has potential for something but that pathway to discovery requires direction by those entrusted in raising children. There is right and wrong, good and bad and hard work creates opportunity.
Those that look at recent occurrences and say that guns are the problem miss the larger point. It was the inclination by the shooters that is at the root of these travesties. That inclination was borne out of the sense of rejection they felt, they had been promised that everyone gets what they want, that everything was possible but no one told them not probable.
People will try and point to the failures of others as casual in these events instead of looking at the environment in general that created them. Until we are honest with children about their world ahead they will continue to remind us of our failures in the most horrific ways possible.
Like all kids I would roll my eyes when they would opine on the value of character, hard work, respecting your elders etc. When I got out of line, smarted off or misbehaved my parents believed in a mechanism of direct feedback, my Mom had a paddle and Dad had his belt. We would have occasional conversations about my shortcomings and at the end of them I could always tell how strongly they felt, my only consolation is that they never took joy out of interaction and in truth felt that in it having to come to that they had failed me some how. It must be understood that my parents were both highly educated people but that they understood that boundaries were important for kids as was the understanding that decisions had consequences both good and bad.
In an article in USA Today on what has gone wrong today in our “everybody gets a trophy society” where promoting children’s self esteem has become more important than preparing them for the real and true world. They seemed shocked that definitive measures are used to judge contribution once they leave the protection of the perpetual societal nannies that protect them until they leave school.
What the Dr. Feelgoods do not realize or comprehend is that real life is Dodgeball and if you do not prepare children for failure and conflict early they have no mechanism to deal with it once they leave the protective cocoon. What we have seen happen in Omaha, Colorado etc. is in my opinion a direct result of that failure. We have all heard the corporal punishment is that it teaches violence, or that violence is a mechanism to resolve conflict. For the most part I say that is bull puckey, what I believe is that disciplining your child and holding them to expectations and standards has become to burdensome to most parents. I think it is a rationalization for those who don’t wish to be parents but rather be pals or friends. When I see parents demanding that their children play video games where saving lives is the pathway to success rather than taking them I will pay some credence to what they have to say.
We have become general supporters of the path of least resistance; teachers, coaches, parents etc. find it easier to instill a false sense of accomplishment rather than provide direction and feedback to children that utilizes their person tool-boxes. We should not tell a child that their accomplishments are meaningful unless they are, in doing so we create two distinct problems. Firstly, we allow a child to believe that they may be better suited than they actually are for area of accomplishment for them only to find that their dreams were misplaced. Secondly, we deny them the opportunity to seek out at a young age those things that they can excel at that create real and sustainable self-esteem.
In general people rise to the level of expectation made of them. It little Timmy has always been told that his paintings are great by adults, how do we not expect him to feel lied to and disappointed when he finds out they were moderate at best. Maybe if Timmy had been told the truth he would have applied himself to the task of becoming great or known that intrinsically painting was not his gift.
False self-esteem is more insidious than the truth but requires less effort to impart. By shielding children from disappointment we deny them one of the most important parts of their development, coping skills. I am not saying that we must be a perpetual buzz-kill but by not being truthful with children we do them no service and teach them to doubt everything once the first misrepresentation is discovered.
There is no way to legislate physical and mental parity in children and wanting it to be so does not make it such. Every child has potential for something but that pathway to discovery requires direction by those entrusted in raising children. There is right and wrong, good and bad and hard work creates opportunity.
Those that look at recent occurrences and say that guns are the problem miss the larger point. It was the inclination by the shooters that is at the root of these travesties. That inclination was borne out of the sense of rejection they felt, they had been promised that everyone gets what they want, that everything was possible but no one told them not probable.
People will try and point to the failures of others as casual in these events instead of looking at the environment in general that created them. Until we are honest with children about their world ahead they will continue to remind us of our failures in the most horrific ways possible.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Zero Sum World
First allow me to stipulate for the crowd that I believe that 100% is 100%, not 110%, 120% just the plain ole 100%. If we can all accept that we can move forward.
When I hear people take positions that are counter-intuitive to me it chafes a bit, when I hear people take moral stands that are conflictive it rubs me raw. The following is going to examine what I think are some of the major disconnects argued under the veil of morality that in fact are preposterous positions.
Capitalism is wrong and the United States uses to much of the worlds natural resources: To that I say, huh? The average life expectancy of a human being in 1900 was estimated at 36.2 years. By 2005 it was 65.4 and is expected to be 72.5 years by 2025 or double. I would say if one where to review the fount of that increased life expectancy, the United States, an argument can be made that maybe we used too little resources. The causes of the increased worldwide life expectancy are directly linked to improvement in sanitation, food production, medical technology, improved medicine and fewer wars. An honest look at research and development on all of those fronts lands right back to the United States, sure other countries have improved or contributed but, the overwhelming majority saw their genesis driven by the capitalistic tendencies of US citizens and the research facilities funded by the taxes collected from them. Canada and Mexico sell cheap drugs not because they are munificent but because they benefit from the R and D costs incurred by US pharmaceutical companies but do not contribute to them. The yield of crops in fields around the world are triple what they were at the beginning of the 20th century through crop research and improvements developed by US companies and universities and no royalties are paid for the general intellectual forwarding that benefits all. The first practical portable computers developed were for the Iowa Class Battleships to take into account the Coriolis effect so that the shells from their 16 inch guns could land on the Axis Powers. As an aside that is where the term “Bug in the Computer” came from, early computers were a series of relays. One day the computer would not work and upon inspection a moth was found between two contact points. The overall point of this? The world is a better place for all because of the resources spent in the United States and the entrepreneurial nature and productivity of the system that gave it birth. Until those that comment in an unenlightened manner are brought to task for their “the US is a pig” diatribes ignorance will prevail. Of course the US can do better in preserving resources but overall I would say they have been invested wisely not spent.
Abortion is a lifestyle choice, the Death Penalty is wrong: Ok, on a moral level maybe there is no absolute, just personal belief left to each of us to make. On the practical level of resource allocation however there are clear arguments to be made, remember earlier we stipulated that 100% is 100%. In most cases those that support abortion rights also are against the death penalty and the converse is also true. There is no clear cost per annum to keep an inmate on death row but for the purpose of this conversation we will use $100,000 per year. Know I posit that the decision we are making is much more practical, do you continue to invest limited resources in keeping someone on death row when you know what their contribution to society already is or do you take that same $100,000 and invest in a HeadStart program to help educate children whose potential is yet untapped? Before you start the bellowing that that is an unfair proposition I remind you of the opening statement of the article, there is no great big magical checkbook in the sky. Additionally, check your pocket, if there is any money in it at all it could have been sent somewhere in the world to purchase food or medicine and saved someone’s life today. So in truth those against the Death Penalty are only against the Death Penalty by commission, not omission.
I want what I want, facts be damned: There is a growing segment of the American populace who want to feel, not think. They also want you to feel the way that they do and will berate any attempt to reason or weigh decisions on issues to make the best choice in a sea of conflicting choices. PETA cares little for the fate of rats and they see no conflict if they kill misplaced pets because they rationalize their moral authority as enlightened. Those against the use of carbon based fuel are also against nuclear energy; those for renewable energy are against it where they can see it off of their vacation homes on Martha’s Vineyard. Women’s rights organizations fight for equality in the US but care little for the plight of women being stoned and lashed in the Middle East. Situational ethics have become so prevalent in US cause hustlers that it is hard to take any of them seriously. On one side you have those that rail against global warming and the production of CO2 and on the other you have those that say that logging is murder and they sit at the same table sipping wine as they watch forest fires on TV caused by the lack of resource management.
All in all, think. Until people start having real discussions with the understanding that choices are required the society in which we live will continue to fracture. Please oh please do not be nice to idiots, it just emboldens them. There is seldom an absolute right and wrong but there are definitely righter and wronger.
When I hear people take positions that are counter-intuitive to me it chafes a bit, when I hear people take moral stands that are conflictive it rubs me raw. The following is going to examine what I think are some of the major disconnects argued under the veil of morality that in fact are preposterous positions.
Capitalism is wrong and the United States uses to much of the worlds natural resources: To that I say, huh? The average life expectancy of a human being in 1900 was estimated at 36.2 years. By 2005 it was 65.4 and is expected to be 72.5 years by 2025 or double. I would say if one where to review the fount of that increased life expectancy, the United States, an argument can be made that maybe we used too little resources. The causes of the increased worldwide life expectancy are directly linked to improvement in sanitation, food production, medical technology, improved medicine and fewer wars. An honest look at research and development on all of those fronts lands right back to the United States, sure other countries have improved or contributed but, the overwhelming majority saw their genesis driven by the capitalistic tendencies of US citizens and the research facilities funded by the taxes collected from them. Canada and Mexico sell cheap drugs not because they are munificent but because they benefit from the R and D costs incurred by US pharmaceutical companies but do not contribute to them. The yield of crops in fields around the world are triple what they were at the beginning of the 20th century through crop research and improvements developed by US companies and universities and no royalties are paid for the general intellectual forwarding that benefits all. The first practical portable computers developed were for the Iowa Class Battleships to take into account the Coriolis effect so that the shells from their 16 inch guns could land on the Axis Powers. As an aside that is where the term “Bug in the Computer” came from, early computers were a series of relays. One day the computer would not work and upon inspection a moth was found between two contact points. The overall point of this? The world is a better place for all because of the resources spent in the United States and the entrepreneurial nature and productivity of the system that gave it birth. Until those that comment in an unenlightened manner are brought to task for their “the US is a pig” diatribes ignorance will prevail. Of course the US can do better in preserving resources but overall I would say they have been invested wisely not spent.
Abortion is a lifestyle choice, the Death Penalty is wrong: Ok, on a moral level maybe there is no absolute, just personal belief left to each of us to make. On the practical level of resource allocation however there are clear arguments to be made, remember earlier we stipulated that 100% is 100%. In most cases those that support abortion rights also are against the death penalty and the converse is also true. There is no clear cost per annum to keep an inmate on death row but for the purpose of this conversation we will use $100,000 per year. Know I posit that the decision we are making is much more practical, do you continue to invest limited resources in keeping someone on death row when you know what their contribution to society already is or do you take that same $100,000 and invest in a HeadStart program to help educate children whose potential is yet untapped? Before you start the bellowing that that is an unfair proposition I remind you of the opening statement of the article, there is no great big magical checkbook in the sky. Additionally, check your pocket, if there is any money in it at all it could have been sent somewhere in the world to purchase food or medicine and saved someone’s life today. So in truth those against the Death Penalty are only against the Death Penalty by commission, not omission.
I want what I want, facts be damned: There is a growing segment of the American populace who want to feel, not think. They also want you to feel the way that they do and will berate any attempt to reason or weigh decisions on issues to make the best choice in a sea of conflicting choices. PETA cares little for the fate of rats and they see no conflict if they kill misplaced pets because they rationalize their moral authority as enlightened. Those against the use of carbon based fuel are also against nuclear energy; those for renewable energy are against it where they can see it off of their vacation homes on Martha’s Vineyard. Women’s rights organizations fight for equality in the US but care little for the plight of women being stoned and lashed in the Middle East. Situational ethics have become so prevalent in US cause hustlers that it is hard to take any of them seriously. On one side you have those that rail against global warming and the production of CO2 and on the other you have those that say that logging is murder and they sit at the same table sipping wine as they watch forest fires on TV caused by the lack of resource management.
All in all, think. Until people start having real discussions with the understanding that choices are required the society in which we live will continue to fracture. Please oh please do not be nice to idiots, it just emboldens them. There is seldom an absolute right and wrong but there are definitely righter and wronger.
Monday, December 3, 2007
What Ever Happened
To public service? I continually hear people talk about what is needed in this country and I wonder. How many people that proclaim the solutions to society’s ills actually engage and give of their time and personal effort to alleviate the needs of others?
Every time I see a celebrity or politician spout off about what needs to take place for the world to become a better place I look for a camera and then try and take into account what they say and how they live.
As little as 30 years ago neighbors took care of neighbors, but that was when we knew ot neighbors. We have become so ensconced in our own lives that few of us even know our neighbors let alone live in neighborhoods. What we do is live in a cluster of homes or apartments of close proximity; we mind our own business and expect those that live around us to do the same.
I listen to proponents of global warming living in mansions, to those that say more taxes need to be paid for important programs and see that they have accountants that create tax shelters, read what others say about the quality of our soldiers knowing they have never had one in their family or circle of friends. It has become hollow, all these what you need to do talkers, with the real understanding that what they want is change without personal sacrifice.
Can you imagine the change we would see if every person would allot 4 hours per month to provide help to a person based on what they believe they need, not what you think they need? It would be the cumulative manifestation of the barn raisings of old, when an entire community came together to make substantive change in one persons life with the assurance that their neighbors would return the favor when needed. You gave without expectations knowing you where paying into a karmic insurance fund that would pay off when you found yourself in need and hoping never having to collect.
When the Sean Penns of the world begin to proselytize my need to change while standing in front of their one bedroom apartment, leaning on their second hand car with $500 in their bank account, I will cede them the right to make judgment on the decisions of others.
The kicker is that the time spent doing for others actually does for you. A few less hours in front of the computer or television and a few more hours interacting with other human beings. In the end those hours spent are selfishly repaid ten-fold in the image you see in the mirror.
Every time I see a celebrity or politician spout off about what needs to take place for the world to become a better place I look for a camera and then try and take into account what they say and how they live.
As little as 30 years ago neighbors took care of neighbors, but that was when we knew ot neighbors. We have become so ensconced in our own lives that few of us even know our neighbors let alone live in neighborhoods. What we do is live in a cluster of homes or apartments of close proximity; we mind our own business and expect those that live around us to do the same.
I listen to proponents of global warming living in mansions, to those that say more taxes need to be paid for important programs and see that they have accountants that create tax shelters, read what others say about the quality of our soldiers knowing they have never had one in their family or circle of friends. It has become hollow, all these what you need to do talkers, with the real understanding that what they want is change without personal sacrifice.
Can you imagine the change we would see if every person would allot 4 hours per month to provide help to a person based on what they believe they need, not what you think they need? It would be the cumulative manifestation of the barn raisings of old, when an entire community came together to make substantive change in one persons life with the assurance that their neighbors would return the favor when needed. You gave without expectations knowing you where paying into a karmic insurance fund that would pay off when you found yourself in need and hoping never having to collect.
When the Sean Penns of the world begin to proselytize my need to change while standing in front of their one bedroom apartment, leaning on their second hand car with $500 in their bank account, I will cede them the right to make judgment on the decisions of others.
The kicker is that the time spent doing for others actually does for you. A few less hours in front of the computer or television and a few more hours interacting with other human beings. In the end those hours spent are selfishly repaid ten-fold in the image you see in the mirror.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Necessity of Immigration:
It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. I can’t say that is absolutely accurate until some explains the spork, but I will admit it is a major impetus. What is missed most often is even truer in my estimation, that greed is the evil step-mother of all innovation.
Cheap labor is a vagabond that moves to the area of most acceptance. It has created economies where only subsistence existed before and because the populace in place saw it as better than what they had. You can track the shifting sands of manufacturing and labor intensive value added business geographically throughout the world’s history based on that premise. A case in point is the Oriental rug, all the rage at the beginning of the 20th century as there was a perceived value to the quality in the Western World and the makers of those rugs in Persia, Turkey et al found the compensation received acceptable. As they became the rage, market forces created an increasing value as limited supply struggled against increasing demand. Those who purchased the rugs in the Middle East had to compete against other exporters for the limited supply, increasing the amount paid to the villages and small cooperatives that made them. Changing the expectations of those villages and cooperatives for the value of their work and permanently shifting upward until the price/value relationship neutralized. Well Joe the rug guy looked at this opportunity and shifted his looms to making rugs that resembled Oriental rugs in style and could be made at a much lower price. The marketplace then had options, if one deemed the handmade nature to have primacy then the price was paid, if however, it was the style of the rug that was most important to the purchaser they would buy one of Joe’s lesser made facsimiles.
These shifts happen everyday, the cause and effect of supply and demand. If Californians did not have access to cheap labor to care for their landscaping would not the nature of their landscaping change to meet their Oriental rug tastes? The argument that is made that we need illegal immigrants because there are jobs that Americans in general will not do. I say that the argument is circular and that if we did not have people willing to work at sub-standard wage, because they produce outside the system, the needs would change to fit the available labor. If Frank the lettuce farmer had to produce without the use of inexpensive labor, then the marketplace would innovate in order make mechanization viable. If new construction was made more expensive because of labor cost, then old homes would become more valuable and we would not see the shifts from older neighborhoods and the blight that follows.
I am for immigration but legal immigration, if the process needs to be streamlined then let’s do it. The idea that we are changing the very make-up of the society as a work around for those that are here illegally is…….I am searching for a word…..stupid. It may be the most cynical thing that I have ever seen manifesting, the idea of creating a permanent sub-class by allowing those that are in this country illegally to not have to learn the language of that country. Secondly, by allowing immigrants to have no sense of ownership, no right of passage to become a US Citizen they are in course diluting the very society that they deemed attractive to begin with. It is a descending spiral to which pandering politicians and racists hang their hats of tolerance. The United States made no such allowances for Italians, Chinese, Russians and all other groups of immigrants. So why are we now saying that those that come here from Central America are less valuable, less viable, because they do lawn work? Many of those that did manual labor that came from Western Europe and Asia assimilated, saved and then brought their families. Those that are coming from Central America and Mexico are allowed to do it differently, they sneak across the border, then create a family and use technicalities to claim the rights of citizenship.
It is time for Americans to not adopt the failings of other countries as our original sin. If Mexico cannot care for its citizenry and provide opportunity and care how did it become our problem? The Inter-American Development Bank sponsored a poll that came out in August that estimated that 11.4 billion dollars was remitted back to Mexico in the first half of 2007 from Illegal Immigrants. They also stated that was a slowed amount due to new banking restrictions. Extrapolated out to represent the total year 2007, that would be some 22 billion dollars, if we then assume conservatively that figure represents 20% of their total income generated and a 15% tax rate, we see some 16.5 billion dollars in taxes not collected that could have gone to healthcare and schools in support. It must be understood that this is an estimate of Illegal Immigrants that are sending money home, many are not.
The United States needs immigrants but it needs them as citizens, what it does not need is to subsidize the guy that grows a lawn he won’t mow. The general public is paying for the fruit pickers, landscapers and carpenters every day, just in a convoluted way. It may save us a nickel on an Orange but cost a dime in social services for that savings.
No amnesty. We need to put up the fence and stop the flow first and then develop a way to integrate and assimilate those that are here. They need a cost of entry, a hurdle to ownership of the society to which they came for opportunity. Does a person appreciate more a car given to them or a car they have purchased through there own efforts? If they don’t understand what made this country the land of opportunity how can we expect them help pass on those principles to their children or our children.
Cheap labor is a vagabond that moves to the area of most acceptance. It has created economies where only subsistence existed before and because the populace in place saw it as better than what they had. You can track the shifting sands of manufacturing and labor intensive value added business geographically throughout the world’s history based on that premise. A case in point is the Oriental rug, all the rage at the beginning of the 20th century as there was a perceived value to the quality in the Western World and the makers of those rugs in Persia, Turkey et al found the compensation received acceptable. As they became the rage, market forces created an increasing value as limited supply struggled against increasing demand. Those who purchased the rugs in the Middle East had to compete against other exporters for the limited supply, increasing the amount paid to the villages and small cooperatives that made them. Changing the expectations of those villages and cooperatives for the value of their work and permanently shifting upward until the price/value relationship neutralized. Well Joe the rug guy looked at this opportunity and shifted his looms to making rugs that resembled Oriental rugs in style and could be made at a much lower price. The marketplace then had options, if one deemed the handmade nature to have primacy then the price was paid, if however, it was the style of the rug that was most important to the purchaser they would buy one of Joe’s lesser made facsimiles.
These shifts happen everyday, the cause and effect of supply and demand. If Californians did not have access to cheap labor to care for their landscaping would not the nature of their landscaping change to meet their Oriental rug tastes? The argument that is made that we need illegal immigrants because there are jobs that Americans in general will not do. I say that the argument is circular and that if we did not have people willing to work at sub-standard wage, because they produce outside the system, the needs would change to fit the available labor. If Frank the lettuce farmer had to produce without the use of inexpensive labor, then the marketplace would innovate in order make mechanization viable. If new construction was made more expensive because of labor cost, then old homes would become more valuable and we would not see the shifts from older neighborhoods and the blight that follows.
I am for immigration but legal immigration, if the process needs to be streamlined then let’s do it. The idea that we are changing the very make-up of the society as a work around for those that are here illegally is…….I am searching for a word…..stupid. It may be the most cynical thing that I have ever seen manifesting, the idea of creating a permanent sub-class by allowing those that are in this country illegally to not have to learn the language of that country. Secondly, by allowing immigrants to have no sense of ownership, no right of passage to become a US Citizen they are in course diluting the very society that they deemed attractive to begin with. It is a descending spiral to which pandering politicians and racists hang their hats of tolerance. The United States made no such allowances for Italians, Chinese, Russians and all other groups of immigrants. So why are we now saying that those that come here from Central America are less valuable, less viable, because they do lawn work? Many of those that did manual labor that came from Western Europe and Asia assimilated, saved and then brought their families. Those that are coming from Central America and Mexico are allowed to do it differently, they sneak across the border, then create a family and use technicalities to claim the rights of citizenship.
It is time for Americans to not adopt the failings of other countries as our original sin. If Mexico cannot care for its citizenry and provide opportunity and care how did it become our problem? The Inter-American Development Bank sponsored a poll that came out in August that estimated that 11.4 billion dollars was remitted back to Mexico in the first half of 2007 from Illegal Immigrants. They also stated that was a slowed amount due to new banking restrictions. Extrapolated out to represent the total year 2007, that would be some 22 billion dollars, if we then assume conservatively that figure represents 20% of their total income generated and a 15% tax rate, we see some 16.5 billion dollars in taxes not collected that could have gone to healthcare and schools in support. It must be understood that this is an estimate of Illegal Immigrants that are sending money home, many are not.
The United States needs immigrants but it needs them as citizens, what it does not need is to subsidize the guy that grows a lawn he won’t mow. The general public is paying for the fruit pickers, landscapers and carpenters every day, just in a convoluted way. It may save us a nickel on an Orange but cost a dime in social services for that savings.
No amnesty. We need to put up the fence and stop the flow first and then develop a way to integrate and assimilate those that are here. They need a cost of entry, a hurdle to ownership of the society to which they came for opportunity. Does a person appreciate more a car given to them or a car they have purchased through there own efforts? If they don’t understand what made this country the land of opportunity how can we expect them help pass on those principles to their children or our children.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Global Warming
Throwing Baby out with the Bathwater or Fear as a Tool for Social Engineering, Fun and Profit:
Let me state to begin that I believe the world may indeed be warmer today than it was a few decades ago, I just can’t figure out why and am becoming increasingly confident no one else knows either. I listen to proponents of man-made global warming causes tell me that we humans are to blame, while a growing chorus of others say that we are insignificant in the mix of things.
Current estimates, using the rather rudimentary records and measuring techniques of 100 years ago as a baseline, show a .06 Celsius or 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature over that time period. Ok I get that, but what I don’t get is the premise that the temperature of the earth does not vacillate naturally. If you YouTube, take a look at a show broadcast by the BBC called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and get even more confused.
When I see an issue so politicized with the leaders of the cause spending their time telling others how they should live while not doing it themselves I am skeptical. When I see academics writing ridiculous numbers of grants and looking for new funding I am extremely skeptical. When I read the much heralded Kyoto Treaty and see exemptions made for compliance for countries such as China, India and much of the developing world I understand the motivation. Then further read the draconian measures that are put in place for the US and much of the Western World and that this was mainly authored by the UN I become horribly skeptical. China which is more polluted than the US and well on track to outpace the US on CO2 emissions, has no target other than to try, yet the US is chartered with reducing CO2 by 66% of the worldwide Kyoto target.
“Greenhouse Gases” or those gases in the atmosphere that help hold heat in the atmosphere are comprised of 95% water vapor. The largest other contributor is CO2, that is 3.6% of the total, of which 96.8% is natural in occurrence. So the debate, regulations and controversy we are dealing with represents .117% or 2 /10ths of one percent of all Greenhouse Gases.
Now rather than using fear as a motivator to push Chicken Little agendas, why could we not have just succumbed to common sense? If someone said: “We are not sure of the effect but does it not make sense to preserve natural resources, create less waste and develop renewable energy”, I would say yes. So I say “Save the Drama for your Mama”, I am going to support those things that make sense, walk more, drive less and spend more time thinking about the difference between things I want and things I need. Regardless of what Hollywood and its minions preach from its private jet, everyone knows that the real danger is from nocturnal robots that move my keys after I go to bed.
Let me state to begin that I believe the world may indeed be warmer today than it was a few decades ago, I just can’t figure out why and am becoming increasingly confident no one else knows either. I listen to proponents of man-made global warming causes tell me that we humans are to blame, while a growing chorus of others say that we are insignificant in the mix of things.
Current estimates, using the rather rudimentary records and measuring techniques of 100 years ago as a baseline, show a .06 Celsius or 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature over that time period. Ok I get that, but what I don’t get is the premise that the temperature of the earth does not vacillate naturally. If you YouTube, take a look at a show broadcast by the BBC called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and get even more confused.
When I see an issue so politicized with the leaders of the cause spending their time telling others how they should live while not doing it themselves I am skeptical. When I see academics writing ridiculous numbers of grants and looking for new funding I am extremely skeptical. When I read the much heralded Kyoto Treaty and see exemptions made for compliance for countries such as China, India and much of the developing world I understand the motivation. Then further read the draconian measures that are put in place for the US and much of the Western World and that this was mainly authored by the UN I become horribly skeptical. China which is more polluted than the US and well on track to outpace the US on CO2 emissions, has no target other than to try, yet the US is chartered with reducing CO2 by 66% of the worldwide Kyoto target.
“Greenhouse Gases” or those gases in the atmosphere that help hold heat in the atmosphere are comprised of 95% water vapor. The largest other contributor is CO2, that is 3.6% of the total, of which 96.8% is natural in occurrence. So the debate, regulations and controversy we are dealing with represents .117% or 2 /10ths of one percent of all Greenhouse Gases.
Now rather than using fear as a motivator to push Chicken Little agendas, why could we not have just succumbed to common sense? If someone said: “We are not sure of the effect but does it not make sense to preserve natural resources, create less waste and develop renewable energy”, I would say yes. So I say “Save the Drama for your Mama”, I am going to support those things that make sense, walk more, drive less and spend more time thinking about the difference between things I want and things I need. Regardless of what Hollywood and its minions preach from its private jet, everyone knows that the real danger is from nocturnal robots that move my keys after I go to bed.
A Life of Snippets
I often wonder about wondering. Little snippets of information that challenge the idea, take from me the idea, of our world being explainable to the certainty that it cannot be. The best conclusion I have come to distrust anyone or anything that is provided to me as definitive, conclusive or unassailable.
The earth to our current knowledge is one of a kind in our Universe; life may exist in ways we do not readily understand in other parts of our Universe, but life like we know it? It was once stated as follows: Molecules capable of self-reproduction developed from a chance combination of compounds. Based on mathematical calculations, this is highly unlikely. Some organic compounds, such as sugars and amino acids, are fairly easy to create in laboratory conditions. But the question is, how easily could these compounds reproduce themselves? Even one RNA molecule would need to have hundreds of amino acids. The possibility of this occurring is extremely tiny. It is the equivalent of a hurricane passing through a collection of spare parts and creating a Boeing 767. Ok, is this proof of God’s hand? It is sometimes referred to in statistics as the Black Swan Problem first put forward by the Scottish Philosopher David Hume. The idea is basically put that if one has only ever seen white swans it cannot be concluded that black swans do not exist. The only way to prove that there are only white swans is to have seen all swans and how does one know when that is the case?
One cannot know the unknowable. We put faith in science that we disallow in religion because it provides us comfort and a sense of control. Did not God create us in his own image? In doing so did he not mean for us to use the intellect created to challenge, discover and understand? Then we get back to one of those pesky snippets, water is the only liquid that expands when it freezes due to the reorganization of its molecules to crystalline form as it reaches the freezing point. If water did not expand upon freezing it would be denser, sink to the bottom of oceans or lakes, which would freeze from the bottom up and make life on earth impossible as we know it. So the one thing, unique and most abundant and so necessary to life behaves differently than any other liquid. We are now exiting our hurricane made 767 with everyone in alphabetical order, possible yes, probable well…….
As we advance in our understanding of science and medicine we further understand the complex nature or the world we live in. We will also continue to pick the lowest hanging fruit as we work our way around the tree of knowledge and avoid those things that stymie us, for above all else we are human. We will skip around unable to cure the common cold but making an artificial heart or avoiding the question of why man evolved past existence and subsistence in contravention to every other organism we understand but tell you that early man liked bark and berries for breakfast.
So you can choose to see God in science or science as God but do so with little arrogance. I can’t prove to you the existence of the metaphorical black swan but neither can it be proven that the black swan does not exist. So snippets be damned, I will continue to collect them with the knowledge that the more of them that I put in my pocket the bigger my pocket will become.
The earth to our current knowledge is one of a kind in our Universe; life may exist in ways we do not readily understand in other parts of our Universe, but life like we know it? It was once stated as follows: Molecules capable of self-reproduction developed from a chance combination of compounds. Based on mathematical calculations, this is highly unlikely. Some organic compounds, such as sugars and amino acids, are fairly easy to create in laboratory conditions. But the question is, how easily could these compounds reproduce themselves? Even one RNA molecule would need to have hundreds of amino acids. The possibility of this occurring is extremely tiny. It is the equivalent of a hurricane passing through a collection of spare parts and creating a Boeing 767. Ok, is this proof of God’s hand? It is sometimes referred to in statistics as the Black Swan Problem first put forward by the Scottish Philosopher David Hume. The idea is basically put that if one has only ever seen white swans it cannot be concluded that black swans do not exist. The only way to prove that there are only white swans is to have seen all swans and how does one know when that is the case?
One cannot know the unknowable. We put faith in science that we disallow in religion because it provides us comfort and a sense of control. Did not God create us in his own image? In doing so did he not mean for us to use the intellect created to challenge, discover and understand? Then we get back to one of those pesky snippets, water is the only liquid that expands when it freezes due to the reorganization of its molecules to crystalline form as it reaches the freezing point. If water did not expand upon freezing it would be denser, sink to the bottom of oceans or lakes, which would freeze from the bottom up and make life on earth impossible as we know it. So the one thing, unique and most abundant and so necessary to life behaves differently than any other liquid. We are now exiting our hurricane made 767 with everyone in alphabetical order, possible yes, probable well…….
As we advance in our understanding of science and medicine we further understand the complex nature or the world we live in. We will also continue to pick the lowest hanging fruit as we work our way around the tree of knowledge and avoid those things that stymie us, for above all else we are human. We will skip around unable to cure the common cold but making an artificial heart or avoiding the question of why man evolved past existence and subsistence in contravention to every other organism we understand but tell you that early man liked bark and berries for breakfast.
So you can choose to see God in science or science as God but do so with little arrogance. I can’t prove to you the existence of the metaphorical black swan but neither can it be proven that the black swan does not exist. So snippets be damned, I will continue to collect them with the knowledge that the more of them that I put in my pocket the bigger my pocket will become.
War is Bad
It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s…..thank you Captain Obvious. Many of you need to stop reading now…no I am serious you are not going to enjoy this.
I warn you once again, if you have ever said or thought that the US is not the Worlds Policeman you should stop this is not going to be any fun for you. If you have ever lamented that the “World” hates America, this is going to be like having a loop of a dentists drill on your MP3 player.
Yes war is bad but some things are worse. If our news outlets had an embedded reporter on the Bataan Death March there would be a lot more Japanese speakers in the world today. Live TV coverage of the D-Day invasion and you would be choosing your after dinner schnapps and strudel. We have become a nation run by polls, platitudes and the principles of hope as a strategy. Do you honestly believe that had the Civil War been fought with this day and age’s sensibilities that it would have ended the same?
Many Americans believe today that the freedoms we enjoy came as a free general admission ticket for everyone, with people just jockeying for the best seat in the house.
Our predecessors made sacrifices few of us can ever understand to provide us those rights, they were earned, not given. A few weeks ago I helped with a community project to paint a mans house. Upon speaking with the gentleman I learned that he, a black man, had gone in during the D-Day invasion with a segregated unit to fight for a country that still judged him inferior due to his skin color. That is real sacrifice, not having to take Sweet and Low with your Cappuccino because they are out of Nutrasweet. If you really want to support our troops today support their dedication to an ideal that many of us have forgotten. That those rights we enjoy are meant for all, not just those lucky enough to have won the birthplace lotto.
As far as America being the Worlds Policeman, the World has enjoyed the longest uninterrupted general peace since America took on that role after WWII. The Marshal Plan actually gave the vanquished better infrastructure, factories and nutrition in Japan and Germany than what was enjoyed generally in the US after the war. General Marshall understood that the hungry care little of political nuance and those without hope for better focus on grievance, not their future. Many forget the root causes of WWII, it was economics. Japan needed raw materials that it did not possess plus they were just a little megalomaniacal. Germany was being crushed economically by the demanded repayment of reparations for WWI given in the Treaty of Versailles. There are famous photographs of Germans with wheelbarrows of German Marks that were needed to buy loaves of bread during the rampant inflation and depression following WWI. While certain parts of the treaty were slowly watered down by the thirties, the damage was already done. Germany was motivated by grievance, and the restoration of national honor and Hitler played directly to those emotions. Our desire to avoid war led to another hope as a strategy moment in World History and eventually led to 60 million deaths of which 40 million were civilian.
So if you don’t want the United States to be the World’s Policeman, I ask you who instead, Russia, China, France, the United Nations? I can tell you for certain that none of those aforementioned countries want to do it and that the UN can’t even refrain its peacekeepers from raping civilians at refugee camps. As an aside, can you image in the uproar if US soldiers behaved as the UN Peacekeepers have…….24 hour a day bashing yet nary a word when the UN does it.
All the previous leads to this, I defy that the politically correct “the Muslim religion is a religion of peace”. There are many peaceful Muslims, more than the unmerciful but their religion, like all, is made up of people and is not an entity of its own. The zealots have hijacked the religion for power and political gain and the many moderate Muslims have succumbed to the fear of the litmus test of how a Islamist defines what a true Muslim believes. Before you get too satisfied, the Christian/Catholic religion has gone through similar periods.
For those of you now foaming at the mouth that did not take to heart my initial approbation you are going to love the next editorial. It will make the point that if you truly believe in peace you have to support our efforts in Iraq. Now before any of you think me a zealot I agree that mistakes have been made however, I bet you make mistakes when you balance your checkbook and this is a little more complicated than that and dare I say, just as important.
I warn you once again, if you have ever said or thought that the US is not the Worlds Policeman you should stop this is not going to be any fun for you. If you have ever lamented that the “World” hates America, this is going to be like having a loop of a dentists drill on your MP3 player.
Yes war is bad but some things are worse. If our news outlets had an embedded reporter on the Bataan Death March there would be a lot more Japanese speakers in the world today. Live TV coverage of the D-Day invasion and you would be choosing your after dinner schnapps and strudel. We have become a nation run by polls, platitudes and the principles of hope as a strategy. Do you honestly believe that had the Civil War been fought with this day and age’s sensibilities that it would have ended the same?
Many Americans believe today that the freedoms we enjoy came as a free general admission ticket for everyone, with people just jockeying for the best seat in the house.
Our predecessors made sacrifices few of us can ever understand to provide us those rights, they were earned, not given. A few weeks ago I helped with a community project to paint a mans house. Upon speaking with the gentleman I learned that he, a black man, had gone in during the D-Day invasion with a segregated unit to fight for a country that still judged him inferior due to his skin color. That is real sacrifice, not having to take Sweet and Low with your Cappuccino because they are out of Nutrasweet. If you really want to support our troops today support their dedication to an ideal that many of us have forgotten. That those rights we enjoy are meant for all, not just those lucky enough to have won the birthplace lotto.
As far as America being the Worlds Policeman, the World has enjoyed the longest uninterrupted general peace since America took on that role after WWII. The Marshal Plan actually gave the vanquished better infrastructure, factories and nutrition in Japan and Germany than what was enjoyed generally in the US after the war. General Marshall understood that the hungry care little of political nuance and those without hope for better focus on grievance, not their future. Many forget the root causes of WWII, it was economics. Japan needed raw materials that it did not possess plus they were just a little megalomaniacal. Germany was being crushed economically by the demanded repayment of reparations for WWI given in the Treaty of Versailles. There are famous photographs of Germans with wheelbarrows of German Marks that were needed to buy loaves of bread during the rampant inflation and depression following WWI. While certain parts of the treaty were slowly watered down by the thirties, the damage was already done. Germany was motivated by grievance, and the restoration of national honor and Hitler played directly to those emotions. Our desire to avoid war led to another hope as a strategy moment in World History and eventually led to 60 million deaths of which 40 million were civilian.
So if you don’t want the United States to be the World’s Policeman, I ask you who instead, Russia, China, France, the United Nations? I can tell you for certain that none of those aforementioned countries want to do it and that the UN can’t even refrain its peacekeepers from raping civilians at refugee camps. As an aside, can you image in the uproar if US soldiers behaved as the UN Peacekeepers have…….24 hour a day bashing yet nary a word when the UN does it.
All the previous leads to this, I defy that the politically correct “the Muslim religion is a religion of peace”. There are many peaceful Muslims, more than the unmerciful but their religion, like all, is made up of people and is not an entity of its own. The zealots have hijacked the religion for power and political gain and the many moderate Muslims have succumbed to the fear of the litmus test of how a Islamist defines what a true Muslim believes. Before you get too satisfied, the Christian/Catholic religion has gone through similar periods.
For those of you now foaming at the mouth that did not take to heart my initial approbation you are going to love the next editorial. It will make the point that if you truly believe in peace you have to support our efforts in Iraq. Now before any of you think me a zealot I agree that mistakes have been made however, I bet you make mistakes when you balance your checkbook and this is a little more complicated than that and dare I say, just as important.
Elections Smelections
I look at our field of candidates for the next Presidential Election and am horribly underwhelmed. There used to be two distinct view points there was the “give a man a fish” party and the “teach a man to fish” party, the Democrats and Republicans respectively. They have morphed into the “whatever you are for I am against” or collectively the “No fish for you” parties.
For the most part would say that both political parties have become toxic, caring more about their team winning than the constituency they serve. The last national politician, Senator Lieberman, to stand his ground on what he believed ended up out of both parties and still got re-elected by his constituents. I hope we all remember that when we view those running for elected office in the future, elect the person on the principles that they hold above the polls and you get consistency, elect a person based on what they believe you want to hear and get a four-wheeled tricycle.
It is incredible to me that we continue to buy into this Ponzi scheme that there is a great big checkbook in the sky where free money comes from. I want a politician to tell me that we have to make choices, hard choices, a “wait till your father gets home” politician that tells me that there is a comeuppance for my behavior. We need leaders that give us a plan that takes into account the good, the bad and the ugly. What we are getting are politicians that act like they are running for class president by telling us they will expand the lunch hour and recess without the countervailing truth that we will be stupider because of it.
Look for the politician in this mess that tells you things that you don’t want to hear, politicians that aren’t running on the more free lunch platform. Most of this current crop of underachievers have never even driven by the neighborhood where principle over polling lives. Take a chance on someone who has a plan that does not promise Christmas all year round, someone who is for something but against something else to pay for what they are for.
Remember you are not just voting for yourself but for all of those that come after you. This is about stewardship of a country greater for all is faults than all of those that have existed or will exist. Someone much more prosaic than I once said;” Democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms.” If you don’t have that basic understanding of history then I hope you enjoy your extended recess.
For the most part would say that both political parties have become toxic, caring more about their team winning than the constituency they serve. The last national politician, Senator Lieberman, to stand his ground on what he believed ended up out of both parties and still got re-elected by his constituents. I hope we all remember that when we view those running for elected office in the future, elect the person on the principles that they hold above the polls and you get consistency, elect a person based on what they believe you want to hear and get a four-wheeled tricycle.
It is incredible to me that we continue to buy into this Ponzi scheme that there is a great big checkbook in the sky where free money comes from. I want a politician to tell me that we have to make choices, hard choices, a “wait till your father gets home” politician that tells me that there is a comeuppance for my behavior. We need leaders that give us a plan that takes into account the good, the bad and the ugly. What we are getting are politicians that act like they are running for class president by telling us they will expand the lunch hour and recess without the countervailing truth that we will be stupider because of it.
Look for the politician in this mess that tells you things that you don’t want to hear, politicians that aren’t running on the more free lunch platform. Most of this current crop of underachievers have never even driven by the neighborhood where principle over polling lives. Take a chance on someone who has a plan that does not promise Christmas all year round, someone who is for something but against something else to pay for what they are for.
Remember you are not just voting for yourself but for all of those that come after you. This is about stewardship of a country greater for all is faults than all of those that have existed or will exist. Someone much more prosaic than I once said;” Democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms.” If you don’t have that basic understanding of history then I hope you enjoy your extended recess.
The Healthcare Conundrum
This is something that I sent to Fred Thompson:
The conversation on healthcare in the United States is overly simplistic. I think that intrinsically all Americans wish healthcare to be available to all of its citizenry but they are also cognizant of what the true cost would be and what that would mean in order to fund such an inclusive Government run program.
So how to we execute the premise of all-inclusive healthcare, at the current level of quality without punitive taxation? As baby-boomers age and life expectancy continues to rise there will be greater units of healthcare production required, with fewer taxpayers and inflationary pressure. The problem with Americans is that we have already developed our level of expectation and will not accept the level and type of care often mentioned as available in Canada and the UK. It is similar quandary as evidenced by the introduction of prohibition; if it was never available the miss is whimsical, if you take away something that was there before the miss is tangible. More simply put, everyone wants to go to heaven with this issue but no one wants to die.
The only hope is to introduce efficiency and that means introducing incentives for those Doctors who practice it and exorcizing intermediate profit centers. It is a complex pathway but it is doable if policymakers are prepared to make several difficult choices. The major hurdles are as follows:
Malpractice Insurance: Driven by the lottery of litigation, these costs have become prohibitive and exponential. An insurance company is only marginally incentivized to fight much of the litigation those it insures are subjected to. It can pass through increased costs to those it insures in the next premium period. Additionally, corporations look to margin on revenue as a true measure of performance. If a premium is $100 and they seek a 15% profit margin, that means that $115 must be spread over a Doctors generated revenue. If the premium is raised to $200 the margin in dollars tracks so that what was a $15 profit margin now increases to $30 in tandem. Stemming this cost of doing business has to general areas of focus, increasing the barrier to entry for litigation and creating a type of mutual company for malpractice insurance in a way similar to Federal Flood Insurance.
Capricious Litigation: We have to create a cost for frivolity while not blocking consumers from a course of action. The first step would be to establish a boards of review that would have the right of recommendation in each state. This board should consist of Doctors, Lawyers and healthcare administration that could approach each case presented in a systemic fashion. Their portfolio would be to review the facts of the case as presented by both the complainant and defendant and do one of three things. Recommend the case to trial, reject the case for trial or using a table of injury, find reason to award. Companies offering disability and life insurance have for year’s allocated specific awards for specific injury; the loss of a leg is worth x, the loss of an arm y.
A litigant may still file against a defendant contrary to the boards recommendation but there would be consequences. Firstly, the report of the board could be evidenced in any subsequent trial. Secondly, if a litigant loses the case, which they contrarily file, they would have to pay the legal expenses of the defendant. While this system deals with frivolous or nuisance suits it does not yet deal with Doctors or providers who are serially incompetent.
Mistakes or Incompetence: There are true cases of malfeasance that need to be adjudicated. The AMA has been reluctant to single these sources out because of a general “circle the wagons” mentality against trial lawyers. The easiest way to address this is to make it costly to the group at large to tolerate Doctors or institutions that increase their cost of doing business. The “Federal Malpractice Insurance Mutual Fund” could exclude members that are found to not meet professional standards. Those Doctors or institutions excluded could seek private malpractice insurance and file for re-admittance after plans of corrections are instituted successfully.
The Ancillary Effect: There are two other factors that are not spoken to with any regularity. Because of the culture of fear that Doctors and institutions operate under they very, very often order rafts of tests and decline to make specific patient recommendations. They have become more like risk management executives and less like physicians and healthcare providers. Institutions and Doctors receive a direct economic benefit from this paranoia…..they raise the average healthcare ticket per patient which pays for the malpractice insurance that is bemoaned…..it is an ascending spiral.
Market Efficiency:
If the above reforms where instituted and the siege mentality lifted the next part of this problem could be addressed, the overall cost of medicine. There is currently no mechanism in place to reward those Doctors or institutions that provide quality care efficiently. We have tried the top down approach of HMO’s, Medicare and Medicaid, it does not work. More time is spent on trying to work the systems to get paid than on the true quality of patient care. We need to take a bottom up approach that develops a mean for care classification and financially rewards those Doctors or institutions that provide the best care for the lowest cost. The process is self-regulating due to the malpractice system above. The Doctors that provide the best care have lower premiums, the Doctors or institutions that provide the best most care receive a lower cost of doing business and an opportunity to receive a bonus for their efficiency.
There is more detail but this is the start.
The conversation on healthcare in the United States is overly simplistic. I think that intrinsically all Americans wish healthcare to be available to all of its citizenry but they are also cognizant of what the true cost would be and what that would mean in order to fund such an inclusive Government run program.
So how to we execute the premise of all-inclusive healthcare, at the current level of quality without punitive taxation? As baby-boomers age and life expectancy continues to rise there will be greater units of healthcare production required, with fewer taxpayers and inflationary pressure. The problem with Americans is that we have already developed our level of expectation and will not accept the level and type of care often mentioned as available in Canada and the UK. It is similar quandary as evidenced by the introduction of prohibition; if it was never available the miss is whimsical, if you take away something that was there before the miss is tangible. More simply put, everyone wants to go to heaven with this issue but no one wants to die.
The only hope is to introduce efficiency and that means introducing incentives for those Doctors who practice it and exorcizing intermediate profit centers. It is a complex pathway but it is doable if policymakers are prepared to make several difficult choices. The major hurdles are as follows:
Malpractice Insurance: Driven by the lottery of litigation, these costs have become prohibitive and exponential. An insurance company is only marginally incentivized to fight much of the litigation those it insures are subjected to. It can pass through increased costs to those it insures in the next premium period. Additionally, corporations look to margin on revenue as a true measure of performance. If a premium is $100 and they seek a 15% profit margin, that means that $115 must be spread over a Doctors generated revenue. If the premium is raised to $200 the margin in dollars tracks so that what was a $15 profit margin now increases to $30 in tandem. Stemming this cost of doing business has to general areas of focus, increasing the barrier to entry for litigation and creating a type of mutual company for malpractice insurance in a way similar to Federal Flood Insurance.
Capricious Litigation: We have to create a cost for frivolity while not blocking consumers from a course of action. The first step would be to establish a boards of review that would have the right of recommendation in each state. This board should consist of Doctors, Lawyers and healthcare administration that could approach each case presented in a systemic fashion. Their portfolio would be to review the facts of the case as presented by both the complainant and defendant and do one of three things. Recommend the case to trial, reject the case for trial or using a table of injury, find reason to award. Companies offering disability and life insurance have for year’s allocated specific awards for specific injury; the loss of a leg is worth x, the loss of an arm y.
A litigant may still file against a defendant contrary to the boards recommendation but there would be consequences. Firstly, the report of the board could be evidenced in any subsequent trial. Secondly, if a litigant loses the case, which they contrarily file, they would have to pay the legal expenses of the defendant. While this system deals with frivolous or nuisance suits it does not yet deal with Doctors or providers who are serially incompetent.
Mistakes or Incompetence: There are true cases of malfeasance that need to be adjudicated. The AMA has been reluctant to single these sources out because of a general “circle the wagons” mentality against trial lawyers. The easiest way to address this is to make it costly to the group at large to tolerate Doctors or institutions that increase their cost of doing business. The “Federal Malpractice Insurance Mutual Fund” could exclude members that are found to not meet professional standards. Those Doctors or institutions excluded could seek private malpractice insurance and file for re-admittance after plans of corrections are instituted successfully.
The Ancillary Effect: There are two other factors that are not spoken to with any regularity. Because of the culture of fear that Doctors and institutions operate under they very, very often order rafts of tests and decline to make specific patient recommendations. They have become more like risk management executives and less like physicians and healthcare providers. Institutions and Doctors receive a direct economic benefit from this paranoia…..they raise the average healthcare ticket per patient which pays for the malpractice insurance that is bemoaned…..it is an ascending spiral.
Market Efficiency:
If the above reforms where instituted and the siege mentality lifted the next part of this problem could be addressed, the overall cost of medicine. There is currently no mechanism in place to reward those Doctors or institutions that provide quality care efficiently. We have tried the top down approach of HMO’s, Medicare and Medicaid, it does not work. More time is spent on trying to work the systems to get paid than on the true quality of patient care. We need to take a bottom up approach that develops a mean for care classification and financially rewards those Doctors or institutions that provide the best care for the lowest cost. The process is self-regulating due to the malpractice system above. The Doctors that provide the best care have lower premiums, the Doctors or institutions that provide the best most care receive a lower cost of doing business and an opportunity to receive a bonus for their efficiency.
There is more detail but this is the start.
Why So Angry
There is a sense that our country has become more violent. I don’t trust statistics because we do not have a good baseline. Unreported crimes, a time before computers and the pervasive nature of media today mask a true comparison with our past so we are left with a feeling, a darkness.
Now I am not sure that we should feel that way but should has very little to do with feelings. The fact is that if you feel that way, it is real regardless of any factual basis that might disabuse you of the notion. Much of it may be tracked to the exposure that violence receives in our press and television news, violence sells, fear motivates you to follow-up, to tune in.
I do believe that regardless of whether or not violence has increased it has definitely changed. In the past there was a bit of stupid honor to a bar fight, fist-fist, knife-knife, gun-gun, one on one, now there seems to be a code in altercations that is predicated on the idea that violence on others should be without risk. How often do you read about a number of people attacking an individual, a gunshot for the slightest slight, some referred disrespect. In the past this behavior would have labeled you as a punk but this moniker is generational and there no longer seems to be a stigma attached, we have become results oriented, process unimportant. Maybe there was never true honor in settling conflict with violence, even so there is definitely none in making the decision to be violent against another with little personal risk.
There are alot of theories on the root cause in the change of violence that we perceive but I think all for the most part are lacking. Mankind has a history of violence but I believe in the last 50 years it has become impersonal and distant without direct cause and effect. Media is blamed today as it was blamed during the time of Plato who wanted poets banned from his ideal republic because he believed they promoted and introduced others to immoral behavior. In Plato’s time violence was close, the city-states were in constant turmoil and siege, life expectancy was short and you were front-seat for the cause and effect of conflict. There was a moral certainty, there was no such a thing as victory without honor, the hero was one that stood against many. Even as late as our Revolutionary War the British announced their approach with fife and drum and stood in front of their enemy rank and file. It was a large British complaint that the Colonists were savages and fought and fired from cover removing honor from the battlefield. Media very seldom makes distinctions any longer about the character of violence; they refrain from the editorialization of the cause of conflict and in doing so allow rationalization where none is deserved.
Media and current society play another role in the type of violence that seems to be growing, if only tangentially. Bias in the news is truly not about what is reported as much as it is about what is not reported. It is how the resources are allocated and that is the result of the personal prejudice, it would be counter-intuitive to believe that one does not root and make oneself more knowledgeable about the home-team of ones personal beliefs. Based on a 6/25/07 MSNBC report it was found that news reporters and editors gave in 2004 until the present to liberal causes and candidates at a rate of 9 to 1. Now I do not delineate this for the purpose of politics but rather life outlook. Liberals are more likely to denounce moral certainties as right reducers, are more likely to hold in disdain the idea of personal responsibility and look to societal ills and believe that the government is best suited to create the most just and fair society. Again, I am not going to comment on the veracity of those beliefs but just say that whether consciously or sub-consciously that bias appears in how they report and what they report on.
According to Jenkins Group Publishing, 80% of US Families neither bought nor read a book in the last year and that 70% of adults had not been in a bookstore in the last 5 years. Additionally, 33% of high school graduates had not read another book since their graduation nor had 42% of college graduates. This is meaningful in several ways, people now develop their opinions through transitional sources, predigested, through TV, magazines, the internet and newspapers. Much of this can be attributed to information overload, bias, unvetted facts and a daily life much more complex. How does this effect violence? In several ways, a loss of control of ones own opinions, the ease of finding a rationalization for ones personal shortcomings as fault of others and a general sense of entitlement that, when denied, creates resentment.
In the not to recent past people developed their opinions reflectively as they read books or engaged in conversations. Taking each morsel of information, applying it to personal experience and either absorbing it into their opinion or rejecting it. Regardless of the outcome of the process, opinions were built more from the bottom up that they are today, and you had an understanding of how you had arrived at a particular point of view. Many today have gotten their opinions or the tendency to accept a point of view either somewhere in the middle or nearer the top. It may be based on the access they take to information, the coolness factor of someone who they admire and that person’s point of view or what they would like to be true. Media’s sole purpose today is to sustain itself and to do so it must find an audience that advertisers are willing to pay for. When they sit in their boardrooms in a self-congratulatory circle they might like to pretend differently but even they don’t really believe it. There is no other way to explain the coverage of celebrities giving opinions on world events when their experiential and educational background belies there validity in doing so. Or the confrontational blow-hards that act like deaf gladiators spewing their talking points without any true discourse with the opposing view holder. To this end when people find themselves in a conversation on a subject for which they feel strongly, against someone who has created their position through the toil of research, anger is generated. Not because the latter is correct but because the top-down opinion holder cannot peel the onion in point/counterpoint and soon subconsciously realizes that they do not know why they believe what they believe in its essence. It is this frustration and the desire for what they believe to be true as true that voices become raised, personal attacks are made and faces become red.
The other issue that has changed the look of violence has been created by the “wish it were truer’s”, sociologists and psychologists. In their efforts to shield the young of our country from every possible disappointment, they are creating new generations that have no ability to deal with disappointment or conflict once they leave the controlled “everyone gets a trophy” environment. They miss the fundamental premise that life is Dodgeball and wishing it were not so is not either responsible or helpful. A school district in Great Britain recently banned red correction pens because they felt it was too brutal on the psyche of the young. We are denying children the tools needed for conflict resolution and the emotional growth needed to deal with rejection. When they are faced with the reality of life, the first no when looking to date, the first job interview that ends in vain or any of life’s other disappointments they lack coping skills. So without the necessary experience the young in many cases turn to the resolution that they know from video games, television and the news, things they might not even consider if they had dealt with failure beforehand.
We have politicians and the media telling us the world is going to end in a week to 10 days because of terrorism, global warming or the avian flu and wonder why people are stressed. Many of us harbor opinions not based on reality or facts but on the selective feeding we have received in the media and wonder why people are frustrated. Young people have been ill-prepared and mislead about the world they will find and the tool they will need to succeed and we wonder why they walk into schools with guns ablaze.
If only we could remember that sometimes it is your fault, success almost always has failure as its seed and that screaming something does not increase its level of accuracy or truth. However, we must also remember that this is the world where a man sued a dry cleaner for 54 million for a pair of pants and he was a judge and that being served hot coffee which you then proceed to spill on yourself, while driving, is the fault of the restaurant.
Now I am not sure that we should feel that way but should has very little to do with feelings. The fact is that if you feel that way, it is real regardless of any factual basis that might disabuse you of the notion. Much of it may be tracked to the exposure that violence receives in our press and television news, violence sells, fear motivates you to follow-up, to tune in.
I do believe that regardless of whether or not violence has increased it has definitely changed. In the past there was a bit of stupid honor to a bar fight, fist-fist, knife-knife, gun-gun, one on one, now there seems to be a code in altercations that is predicated on the idea that violence on others should be without risk. How often do you read about a number of people attacking an individual, a gunshot for the slightest slight, some referred disrespect. In the past this behavior would have labeled you as a punk but this moniker is generational and there no longer seems to be a stigma attached, we have become results oriented, process unimportant. Maybe there was never true honor in settling conflict with violence, even so there is definitely none in making the decision to be violent against another with little personal risk.
There are alot of theories on the root cause in the change of violence that we perceive but I think all for the most part are lacking. Mankind has a history of violence but I believe in the last 50 years it has become impersonal and distant without direct cause and effect. Media is blamed today as it was blamed during the time of Plato who wanted poets banned from his ideal republic because he believed they promoted and introduced others to immoral behavior. In Plato’s time violence was close, the city-states were in constant turmoil and siege, life expectancy was short and you were front-seat for the cause and effect of conflict. There was a moral certainty, there was no such a thing as victory without honor, the hero was one that stood against many. Even as late as our Revolutionary War the British announced their approach with fife and drum and stood in front of their enemy rank and file. It was a large British complaint that the Colonists were savages and fought and fired from cover removing honor from the battlefield. Media very seldom makes distinctions any longer about the character of violence; they refrain from the editorialization of the cause of conflict and in doing so allow rationalization where none is deserved.
Media and current society play another role in the type of violence that seems to be growing, if only tangentially. Bias in the news is truly not about what is reported as much as it is about what is not reported. It is how the resources are allocated and that is the result of the personal prejudice, it would be counter-intuitive to believe that one does not root and make oneself more knowledgeable about the home-team of ones personal beliefs. Based on a 6/25/07 MSNBC report it was found that news reporters and editors gave in 2004 until the present to liberal causes and candidates at a rate of 9 to 1. Now I do not delineate this for the purpose of politics but rather life outlook. Liberals are more likely to denounce moral certainties as right reducers, are more likely to hold in disdain the idea of personal responsibility and look to societal ills and believe that the government is best suited to create the most just and fair society. Again, I am not going to comment on the veracity of those beliefs but just say that whether consciously or sub-consciously that bias appears in how they report and what they report on.
According to Jenkins Group Publishing, 80% of US Families neither bought nor read a book in the last year and that 70% of adults had not been in a bookstore in the last 5 years. Additionally, 33% of high school graduates had not read another book since their graduation nor had 42% of college graduates. This is meaningful in several ways, people now develop their opinions through transitional sources, predigested, through TV, magazines, the internet and newspapers. Much of this can be attributed to information overload, bias, unvetted facts and a daily life much more complex. How does this effect violence? In several ways, a loss of control of ones own opinions, the ease of finding a rationalization for ones personal shortcomings as fault of others and a general sense of entitlement that, when denied, creates resentment.
In the not to recent past people developed their opinions reflectively as they read books or engaged in conversations. Taking each morsel of information, applying it to personal experience and either absorbing it into their opinion or rejecting it. Regardless of the outcome of the process, opinions were built more from the bottom up that they are today, and you had an understanding of how you had arrived at a particular point of view. Many today have gotten their opinions or the tendency to accept a point of view either somewhere in the middle or nearer the top. It may be based on the access they take to information, the coolness factor of someone who they admire and that person’s point of view or what they would like to be true. Media’s sole purpose today is to sustain itself and to do so it must find an audience that advertisers are willing to pay for. When they sit in their boardrooms in a self-congratulatory circle they might like to pretend differently but even they don’t really believe it. There is no other way to explain the coverage of celebrities giving opinions on world events when their experiential and educational background belies there validity in doing so. Or the confrontational blow-hards that act like deaf gladiators spewing their talking points without any true discourse with the opposing view holder. To this end when people find themselves in a conversation on a subject for which they feel strongly, against someone who has created their position through the toil of research, anger is generated. Not because the latter is correct but because the top-down opinion holder cannot peel the onion in point/counterpoint and soon subconsciously realizes that they do not know why they believe what they believe in its essence. It is this frustration and the desire for what they believe to be true as true that voices become raised, personal attacks are made and faces become red.
The other issue that has changed the look of violence has been created by the “wish it were truer’s”, sociologists and psychologists. In their efforts to shield the young of our country from every possible disappointment, they are creating new generations that have no ability to deal with disappointment or conflict once they leave the controlled “everyone gets a trophy” environment. They miss the fundamental premise that life is Dodgeball and wishing it were not so is not either responsible or helpful. A school district in Great Britain recently banned red correction pens because they felt it was too brutal on the psyche of the young. We are denying children the tools needed for conflict resolution and the emotional growth needed to deal with rejection. When they are faced with the reality of life, the first no when looking to date, the first job interview that ends in vain or any of life’s other disappointments they lack coping skills. So without the necessary experience the young in many cases turn to the resolution that they know from video games, television and the news, things they might not even consider if they had dealt with failure beforehand.
We have politicians and the media telling us the world is going to end in a week to 10 days because of terrorism, global warming or the avian flu and wonder why people are stressed. Many of us harbor opinions not based on reality or facts but on the selective feeding we have received in the media and wonder why people are frustrated. Young people have been ill-prepared and mislead about the world they will find and the tool they will need to succeed and we wonder why they walk into schools with guns ablaze.
If only we could remember that sometimes it is your fault, success almost always has failure as its seed and that screaming something does not increase its level of accuracy or truth. However, we must also remember that this is the world where a man sued a dry cleaner for 54 million for a pair of pants and he was a judge and that being served hot coffee which you then proceed to spill on yourself, while driving, is the fault of the restaurant.
What If?
9/11 has come and gone, the United States does not engage Afghanistan and Iraq, other than with diplomacy, and things have been quiet for a while.
Quiet but not still, the Islamists have found our weakness, our aversion to direct action, the importance that we put on being liked more than doing what is hard to make us safe. They have been emboldened, gained confidence; sure they have had to sacrifice a few cells to make the West believe that progress is being made but none of real importance. Alliances have been made with unlikely partners and collaborators, all with their own agendas, some economic, some religious but all about gaining power and diminishing the United States.
U.N. sanctions continue to be hollow and unenforced, the saber rattling of the West unconvincing. We see the strategy of hope becoming desperate, trying to convince ourselves that we are not in danger. The talking heads on our televisions lambaste President Bush for his weakness, why did he not do something? Why could he not foresee that by trying to negotiate with terrorists has never worked, attacks continue, human rights continue to be violated throughout the Middle East, more countries are secretly funding attacks on Israel because they do not believe that the United States has the will to intervene.
It happens on a Sunday in the fall, chosen because it will mean the greatest amount of people around the televisions of America,it could be the Mall of America is blown up or a refinery in Houston blows-up and spreads toxic gas and rains fire over a city or maybe a dirty bomb goes of in the harbor of NYC before it even reaches the customs dock. Tens of thousands are killed, many more wounded and then it begins……..
Americans are tired of being scared, they have lived in fear for years, and they demand that their politicians do something, somebody has to be punished. Nuance and reason are set aside for speed of reprisals, innocent law abiding Muslims are arrested throughout the United States, we demand that a price be extracted for the film we see nightly of the flames, the death, the radioactive debris. The origin of the explosives, the ship, the terrorists and even the fanatics claiming responsibility are gleaned.
The conflagration begins we extract a toll, Russia uses this as an excuse to wipe out Chechnian rebels, Israel projects force against all those who have been supplying those who attack at its borders, France detains and begins deportation of Algerian immigrants who have rioted. It continues, there is no easy stopping point, China and North Korea use the conflict as an opportunity to sell arms to Arab Countries in exchange for oil, the West boycotts Chinese goods and the Chinese use the opportunity to attack Taiwan while the West is engaged and North Korea attacks South Korea. The West freezes Middle Eastern bank accounts and holdings and threatens to sink any ships carrying oil to China.
Pipelines are blown, Africans are starving because aid has been cut off, farmers cannot afford the oil to run their machinery.
Wouldn’t have happened that way you say? Prove it. Not easy is it, the reason being that you cannot prove a negative. Just like you cannot prove what our engagement in the Middle East has prevented. We know that we have not had an attack on our soil since, that we have focused the Islamists area of operation to Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost brave men and women in this fight but we tend to focus on the lives lost from our bravest and not the lives that they have saved by doing so.
If you truly take the time to understand the history of the world that we inhabit you support the idea of what we are trying to do in the Middle East. The only way to stabilize the Middle East for the future of all is to establish the rights of all and to create a Middle Class with something to loose. Democracy in a Muslim Country can work; Turkey is a perfect example of that. Most think Democracy is easy and forget that the United States Constitution was not written until 1787 and not ratified until a year later, a full 12 years after the Declaration of Independence. We enjoy the longest standing form of government in the World and yet we expect an EZ Bake Oven solution to the problems that we face in a week to 10 days.
I may not have the perfect answer for what ails our world but I definitively know what the answers are not. Educate your opinion, don’t take your foreign policy leads from singers and actors that, while good at their craft, have little to offer in informed opinion or the taking heads that pander to them in hopes of sitting at the cool table.
Quiet but not still, the Islamists have found our weakness, our aversion to direct action, the importance that we put on being liked more than doing what is hard to make us safe. They have been emboldened, gained confidence; sure they have had to sacrifice a few cells to make the West believe that progress is being made but none of real importance. Alliances have been made with unlikely partners and collaborators, all with their own agendas, some economic, some religious but all about gaining power and diminishing the United States.
U.N. sanctions continue to be hollow and unenforced, the saber rattling of the West unconvincing. We see the strategy of hope becoming desperate, trying to convince ourselves that we are not in danger. The talking heads on our televisions lambaste President Bush for his weakness, why did he not do something? Why could he not foresee that by trying to negotiate with terrorists has never worked, attacks continue, human rights continue to be violated throughout the Middle East, more countries are secretly funding attacks on Israel because they do not believe that the United States has the will to intervene.
It happens on a Sunday in the fall, chosen because it will mean the greatest amount of people around the televisions of America,it could be the Mall of America is blown up or a refinery in Houston blows-up and spreads toxic gas and rains fire over a city or maybe a dirty bomb goes of in the harbor of NYC before it even reaches the customs dock. Tens of thousands are killed, many more wounded and then it begins……..
Americans are tired of being scared, they have lived in fear for years, and they demand that their politicians do something, somebody has to be punished. Nuance and reason are set aside for speed of reprisals, innocent law abiding Muslims are arrested throughout the United States, we demand that a price be extracted for the film we see nightly of the flames, the death, the radioactive debris. The origin of the explosives, the ship, the terrorists and even the fanatics claiming responsibility are gleaned.
The conflagration begins we extract a toll, Russia uses this as an excuse to wipe out Chechnian rebels, Israel projects force against all those who have been supplying those who attack at its borders, France detains and begins deportation of Algerian immigrants who have rioted. It continues, there is no easy stopping point, China and North Korea use the conflict as an opportunity to sell arms to Arab Countries in exchange for oil, the West boycotts Chinese goods and the Chinese use the opportunity to attack Taiwan while the West is engaged and North Korea attacks South Korea. The West freezes Middle Eastern bank accounts and holdings and threatens to sink any ships carrying oil to China.
Pipelines are blown, Africans are starving because aid has been cut off, farmers cannot afford the oil to run their machinery.
Wouldn’t have happened that way you say? Prove it. Not easy is it, the reason being that you cannot prove a negative. Just like you cannot prove what our engagement in the Middle East has prevented. We know that we have not had an attack on our soil since, that we have focused the Islamists area of operation to Iraq and Afghanistan. We have lost brave men and women in this fight but we tend to focus on the lives lost from our bravest and not the lives that they have saved by doing so.
If you truly take the time to understand the history of the world that we inhabit you support the idea of what we are trying to do in the Middle East. The only way to stabilize the Middle East for the future of all is to establish the rights of all and to create a Middle Class with something to loose. Democracy in a Muslim Country can work; Turkey is a perfect example of that. Most think Democracy is easy and forget that the United States Constitution was not written until 1787 and not ratified until a year later, a full 12 years after the Declaration of Independence. We enjoy the longest standing form of government in the World and yet we expect an EZ Bake Oven solution to the problems that we face in a week to 10 days.
I may not have the perfect answer for what ails our world but I definitively know what the answers are not. Educate your opinion, don’t take your foreign policy leads from singers and actors that, while good at their craft, have little to offer in informed opinion or the taking heads that pander to them in hopes of sitting at the cool table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
