There is really nothing I hate more than people saying shit that they know is just not accurate, but they say it anyway because they figure they can get away with it. Enter the Republican party during this health care debate, a group whose behavior has been nothing short of despicable. Its aggrivating how dishonest they have been about the whole thing, but they have correctly calculated that Americans are mostly stupid enough, and easy enough to scare, so that they have mostly gotten away with it.
Obamas bill is not a radical one. Its actually a very moderate, cautious bill. But what do we hear about it from Republicans?
Death panels. In actuality, discussing end of life care for sick patients is extremely important from a patient perspective. It is also important from a financial one, so we don't spend thousands of dollars trying to prolong life a few days because the patient isn't conscious to tell the docs to let them go.
Government takeover of health care? Maybe if there was a public option, which there isn't.
Other republicans run commercials where they, in the same thirty seconds, present themselves as saving America from government-run healthcare and the defenders of medicare. This is so disingenuous, you would only expect to find this kind of hypocrisy / irony in an onion article, not a US Congressional campaign.
Now there is this "controversy" about reconciliation. The founders intended the senate to run by majority rule. Hence the need for the president of the senate, aka the vice president, as a tie breaker. Reconciliation is a way to get an actual vote, its a way to get around the ridiculous filibuster that has been abused by democrats and now republicans increasingly for the last decade.
There may be good honest arguments against Obamacare, but if there are, Republicans are not making them. I hope the Democrats win this fight, if for no other reason than to send a message that this shameless, disingenuous obstructionism is not rewarded.
*** Update ***
Here is an actual GOP campaign advertisement.
Harry Reid’s big government health care plan will raise taxes, put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, weaken Medicare, kill jobs, push us further into debt. I’m Sue Lowden and I approve this message because government run health care is wrong.
If I had read this in isolation, I would have thought for sure it was satire from The Onion or maybe SNL.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
"Not as tough as what our troops are up against."
I've posted before on the global warming issue, but let me summarize my position. It is ridiculous to believe that human activity is not going to influence the planet, but I think that anyone who claims to know what is going to happen 100 years from now is a buffoon. Thus, while I don't believe that man-made global warming is going to end the world anytime soon, it is a potential threat and one that would be relatively easy to "insure" against by incorporating relatively cheap carbon-reduction measures.
One thing that I unequivocally have always supported as a gas tax. A gas tax will reduce consumption of gasoline, and hence reduce CO2 emissions. In Europe they tax gasoline far more than in the United States; so when we went on an SUV binge here in the states, the Europeans were buying really really small cars. They're in a much better position today because of that (and they also rely more on public transit).
A gas tax does more than reduce production of CO2, however. It also would decrease our demand for oil, reduce our oil imports, and thus cause a fall in the world-wide price of oil. Who does that hurt? Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Iran is no doubt funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, and potentially the Taliban. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are bankrolling both sides of the war on terror.
Anyway, here is a fantastic commercial that drives this point home.
There is no reason, absolutely no reason, that we should not be passing a bill that discourages the use of gasoline. It is a winning issue for everyone. And yet, it hasn't happened, and that is a travesty.
One thing that I unequivocally have always supported as a gas tax. A gas tax will reduce consumption of gasoline, and hence reduce CO2 emissions. In Europe they tax gasoline far more than in the United States; so when we went on an SUV binge here in the states, the Europeans were buying really really small cars. They're in a much better position today because of that (and they also rely more on public transit).
A gas tax does more than reduce production of CO2, however. It also would decrease our demand for oil, reduce our oil imports, and thus cause a fall in the world-wide price of oil. Who does that hurt? Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Iran is no doubt funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgents, and potentially the Taliban. It is not an exaggeration to say that we are bankrolling both sides of the war on terror.
Anyway, here is a fantastic commercial that drives this point home.
There is no reason, absolutely no reason, that we should not be passing a bill that discourages the use of gasoline. It is a winning issue for everyone. And yet, it hasn't happened, and that is a travesty.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Don't talk to the cops
A defense attorney explains why you should always take the fifth. Its an interesting, entertaining 25 minute you-tube video. Here is a summary of the major themes to the video:
1. The fifth amendment was designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Don't feel bad about invoking your fifth amendment rights.
2. Talking to the police when you are a suspect can never help your case, but can hurt it. In other words, declarations of innocence can never get a person off of the hook. Statements can, however, be used against you.
3. Even the truthful statements of an innocent person can incidentally make a conviction more probable. It is best to say nothing.
1. The fifth amendment was designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty. Don't feel bad about invoking your fifth amendment rights.
2. Talking to the police when you are a suspect can never help your case, but can hurt it. In other words, declarations of innocence can never get a person off of the hook. Statements can, however, be used against you.
3. Even the truthful statements of an innocent person can incidentally make a conviction more probable. It is best to say nothing.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Evan Bayh
British historian Simon Schama calls him a "contemptible coward" on today's Fareed Zakaria GPS program. Its hard to say exactly why Bayh is quitting the senate. That being said, I am starting to get the impression that Bayh's voting record is going to be a lot more liberal than it would have been had he decided to run for re-election...which would lend more credence to Schama's words.
I repeat - tax unhealthy food!
In a cool experiment, it was demonstrated that taxing unhealthy food is more effective at encouraging healthy shopping than subsidizing healthy food.
Of course in the real world, we basically do what could be inferred from this experiment as being the worst of all worlds. That is, we not only do not tax unhealthy food, but we actually make it cheaper via subsidies. Because meat, dairy, corn, etc get more government subsidies than fruits and vegetables, we are making unhealthy food cheaper relative to healthy choices.
The logic of the cigarette tax is that smoking costs society. The smoker is someday going to be treated for smoking-related diseases from the medicare fund, and that is going to be an enormous financial burden on society. If smokers are going to cost more, they should pay more. The exact same argument applies to taxing unhealthy food.
Support of food taxes will beget the label of a big-government socialist or a paternalist. Case in point, this commercial that is against the soft drink tax. My rebuttal is simple. If your family is so scrapped for cash that they cannot afford a soft drink tax, don't buy soft drinks!
Of course in the real world, we basically do what could be inferred from this experiment as being the worst of all worlds. That is, we not only do not tax unhealthy food, but we actually make it cheaper via subsidies. Because meat, dairy, corn, etc get more government subsidies than fruits and vegetables, we are making unhealthy food cheaper relative to healthy choices.
The logic of the cigarette tax is that smoking costs society. The smoker is someday going to be treated for smoking-related diseases from the medicare fund, and that is going to be an enormous financial burden on society. If smokers are going to cost more, they should pay more. The exact same argument applies to taxing unhealthy food.
Support of food taxes will beget the label of a big-government socialist or a paternalist. Case in point, this commercial that is against the soft drink tax. My rebuttal is simple. If your family is so scrapped for cash that they cannot afford a soft drink tax, don't buy soft drinks!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Condoms and the Pope
In preparation for the 2010 World Cup, the host nation (South Africa) is stocking up on condoms.
"There's going to be a large number of people who will be descending onto the country," said Victor Ramathesele, general medical officer for South Africa's 2010 organizing committee. "There's going to be a spirit of festivity and there could be a more than usual demand for measures such as condoms. So there are measures in place to ensure that the condom supply is going to be ramped up during this tournament."
About 5.7 million of the 50 million people in South Africa are HIV positive, a little over 10% of the population.
Does Pope Benedict think this is a good idea? After all, the Pope is on record saying that condoms in Africa make the AIDs epidemic worse. I am curious if His Holiness is going to stand by his previous statement and condemn these public health efforts by the South African government.
"There's going to be a large number of people who will be descending onto the country," said Victor Ramathesele, general medical officer for South Africa's 2010 organizing committee. "There's going to be a spirit of festivity and there could be a more than usual demand for measures such as condoms. So there are measures in place to ensure that the condom supply is going to be ramped up during this tournament."
About 5.7 million of the 50 million people in South Africa are HIV positive, a little over 10% of the population.
Does Pope Benedict think this is a good idea? After all, the Pope is on record saying that condoms in Africa make the AIDs epidemic worse. I am curious if His Holiness is going to stand by his previous statement and condemn these public health efforts by the South African government.
Democrats cave on Patriot Act
The Senate Democrats were trying to reform the Patriot Act before extending the law for another few years, however they were stopped by a Republican filibuster. Therefore, the Democrats gave up and passed an extension for the bill as is.
I'm so confused. Why not just refuse to pass an extension until the GOP allows the desired changes, and blame the Republicans for making America less safe by filibustering the Patriot Act reforms? Did Democrats just not think of that, or are they just that spineless?
I wish we were allowed to vote against both parties in the 2010 midterms.
I'm so confused. Why not just refuse to pass an extension until the GOP allows the desired changes, and blame the Republicans for making America less safe by filibustering the Patriot Act reforms? Did Democrats just not think of that, or are they just that spineless?
I wish we were allowed to vote against both parties in the 2010 midterms.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Does this make me a cyborg?
If this works, an email I sent from my blackberry will update my blog, and feed that update to my twitter account.
Technology ftw.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Friday, February 19, 2010
"President Obama is making us less safe."
A man flies an airplane into a government building in Texas, killing himself and a few others. Cable news would be running wild with the story. Americans would be panicking. Dick Cheney would be on Fox News talking about how President Obama is making us less safe. Karl Rove would reiterate that Obama is failing in the war on terrorism. Sean Hannity would be advocating that we round up all the Muslims and water board them to find out who the other terrorists are.
Except for one thing. The crazed man's name wasn't Muhammad; it was Joseph. He wasn't a Muslim. It is remarkable how the simple difference of a man's name can completely change this nation's perception of the attack. Here is the one question that keeps repeating in my mind over and over again:
Isn't this great?
Isn't it great how well we are responding to this tragedy as a nation? Nobody is pointing fingers. Nobody is blaming Barack Obama, George W. Bush, homosexuals, Jews, or anyone else for this attack. Americans recognize that this man was deeply troubled, and committed a horrible crime that could not have been prevented. It is fantastic how maturely we are handling this situation.
Joseph Stack was furious at the government and the IRS, and he snapped. Crazy people will find crazy reasons to justify doing terrible things. Teenagers bring guns to school because of perceived slights, and kill their classmates. A man walked into an LA Fitness a few months ago and opened fire on a bunch of women because he couldn't ever get a date. A major in the military responded to a perceived slight to his religion and opened fire on his comrades. These things happen, and there isn't much we can do to stop them, other than to keep things in perspective and look for other troubled souls who are in need of psychological help or counseling.
There is one more lesson to take away from this situation. That Joseph Stack was on an anti-tax rampage is a potential embarrassment for the anti-tax Tea Party movement that has formed in the last few months. Therefore, it is in the interest of conservatives/GOP/Teabaggers that this incident not be hyped up, called a terrorist attack, plastered all over the news, or anything else that usually happens when a Muslim tries to kill Americans. And so it is not being hyped up, because the people who would usually hype it up have nothing to gain from doing so this time around.
Just remember this the next time there is an incident perpetrated by some crazy person and that person happens to be named Muhammad. When the hype inevitably comes, watch who it comes from, because I can promise you the people that it comes from in this future scenario will be the very people who are playing it down now. And by playing it down, I mean joking about it at the CPAC conference.
Except for one thing. The crazed man's name wasn't Muhammad; it was Joseph. He wasn't a Muslim. It is remarkable how the simple difference of a man's name can completely change this nation's perception of the attack. Here is the one question that keeps repeating in my mind over and over again:
Isn't this great?
Isn't it great how well we are responding to this tragedy as a nation? Nobody is pointing fingers. Nobody is blaming Barack Obama, George W. Bush, homosexuals, Jews, or anyone else for this attack. Americans recognize that this man was deeply troubled, and committed a horrible crime that could not have been prevented. It is fantastic how maturely we are handling this situation.
Joseph Stack was furious at the government and the IRS, and he snapped. Crazy people will find crazy reasons to justify doing terrible things. Teenagers bring guns to school because of perceived slights, and kill their classmates. A man walked into an LA Fitness a few months ago and opened fire on a bunch of women because he couldn't ever get a date. A major in the military responded to a perceived slight to his religion and opened fire on his comrades. These things happen, and there isn't much we can do to stop them, other than to keep things in perspective and look for other troubled souls who are in need of psychological help or counseling.
There is one more lesson to take away from this situation. That Joseph Stack was on an anti-tax rampage is a potential embarrassment for the anti-tax Tea Party movement that has formed in the last few months. Therefore, it is in the interest of conservatives/GOP/Teabaggers that this incident not be hyped up, called a terrorist attack, plastered all over the news, or anything else that usually happens when a Muslim tries to kill Americans. And so it is not being hyped up, because the people who would usually hype it up have nothing to gain from doing so this time around.
Just remember this the next time there is an incident perpetrated by some crazy person and that person happens to be named Muhammad. When the hype inevitably comes, watch who it comes from, because I can promise you the people that it comes from in this future scenario will be the very people who are playing it down now. And by playing it down, I mean joking about it at the CPAC conference.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The former VP is a war criminal
"I was a big supporter of waterboarding." - Former Vice President Dick Cheney
When the Gestapo did it, it was torture.
When the Japanese did it to US servicemen, it was torture.
When the Khmer Rouge did it, it was torture.
When a sheriff in Texas did it in 1983, during the Reagan administration, it was torture. The sheriff got 4 years in prison.
Glad to see the VP pleads guilty on this one.
When the Gestapo did it, it was torture.
When the Japanese did it to US servicemen, it was torture.
When the Khmer Rouge did it, it was torture.
When a sheriff in Texas did it in 1983, during the Reagan administration, it was torture. The sheriff got 4 years in prison.
Glad to see the VP pleads guilty on this one.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Polygamy
Fareed Zakaria hosts my favorite news show Sundays on CNN, Global Public Square (GPS). I would highly recommend the show for anyone interested in current events; it is the best show on television for that in my opinion. Zakaria always has great conversations about relevant issues with incredibly smart people, and somehow always manages to land phenomenal interviews with major world leaders. Anyway, on this Sunday's show Fareed was interviewing South African President Jacob Zuma, and he asked a question about Zuma's polygamy. Zuma has three wives, and Fareed framed the question as such that it implied an assumption that polygamy is unfair to women. This is an assumption that I would like to challenge. I will look at the case of historical Europe as the proximal example for Western society in general.
Polygamy was banned hundreds of years ago, and the push to ban the practice came from the Christian church. And yet, the predominant assumption today is that the ban on polygamy protects the rights of women. Do these facts not contradict each other? What history books are full of examples of ancient European men or the church for that matter concerning themselves with the rights of women? Women were treated as slaves for the most part in middle ages, but we're to believe that somehow in this one instance men and the church had a feminist urge and advanced women's rights by banning polygamy? With that deed done, it would be another thousand years before giving women the right to vote? Please!
If a ban on polygamy is not to benefit women, then who is it to benefit? Men, of course. Monogamy benefits men, because it ensures that every man has a wife. The ban on polygamy is the most ancient workers movement. Before social security, communists, or labor unions, there was the ban on polygamy. It was a redistribution of wealth (women, as they were a form of wealth in those days) away from the rich elite and to the common working man. I emailed a friend who has experience with polygamist cultures in Africa; here is what she had to say:
"In rural Tanzania in Masaai land polygamy is common and it works not only does it work but I would argue in Tanzanian society it works better than monogamy. First of all there are more family members to contribute to income, childcare, breastfeeding and animal husbandry but more importantly there tends to be less physical and sexual abuse for women. The very fact that the more wives that a man has results in greater respect and higher societal standing encourages men to keep as many wives as he can and in order to do that he has to keep them all happy, which means their own house, food, animals, children etc. Women love it because they don't have to do all the work. Men love it because well why wouldn't they."
Inherent in her email to me is the reality of polygamy - there is increased competition among men for females. While in our system, the losers of the competition still end up getting married, in societies practicing polygamy, that is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, a man who mistreats his wife may lose her to another man who treats his well. Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine you have two men; one is hard working, kind, and attractive. The other man is lazy, potentially abusive, and unattractive. Now take two women and give them the following option. They can either flip a coin and randomly assort one per man, or they can both agree to marry the more desirable one. This makes it easy to imagine the benefits for women of a polygamistic system. And anyway, at least if the women do decide to assort one per man, if one abuses his wife it is easier for her to leave him.
The idea of polygamy might seem repulsive, especially for women who were brought up in such a strongly monogamist society, one which idealizes the romantic connection between two people. The prospect of homosexual relations is similarly repulsive for many heterosexual men (it doesn't sound especially good to me) in our society. Yet, we know that in ancient Greece, it was common and expected for homosexual relations to take place between heterosexual men. Cultural norms may be strong enough to generate feelings of revulsion for the abnormal, but those things may still yet be relative to our culture.
Polygamy was banned hundreds of years ago, and the push to ban the practice came from the Christian church. And yet, the predominant assumption today is that the ban on polygamy protects the rights of women. Do these facts not contradict each other? What history books are full of examples of ancient European men or the church for that matter concerning themselves with the rights of women? Women were treated as slaves for the most part in middle ages, but we're to believe that somehow in this one instance men and the church had a feminist urge and advanced women's rights by banning polygamy? With that deed done, it would be another thousand years before giving women the right to vote? Please!
If a ban on polygamy is not to benefit women, then who is it to benefit? Men, of course. Monogamy benefits men, because it ensures that every man has a wife. The ban on polygamy is the most ancient workers movement. Before social security, communists, or labor unions, there was the ban on polygamy. It was a redistribution of wealth (women, as they were a form of wealth in those days) away from the rich elite and to the common working man. I emailed a friend who has experience with polygamist cultures in Africa; here is what she had to say:
"In rural Tanzania in Masaai land polygamy is common and it works not only does it work but I would argue in Tanzanian society it works better than monogamy. First of all there are more family members to contribute to income, childcare, breastfeeding and animal husbandry but more importantly there tends to be less physical and sexual abuse for women. The very fact that the more wives that a man has results in greater respect and higher societal standing encourages men to keep as many wives as he can and in order to do that he has to keep them all happy, which means their own house, food, animals, children etc. Women love it because they don't have to do all the work. Men love it because well why wouldn't they."
Inherent in her email to me is the reality of polygamy - there is increased competition among men for females. While in our system, the losers of the competition still end up getting married, in societies practicing polygamy, that is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, a man who mistreats his wife may lose her to another man who treats his well. Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine you have two men; one is hard working, kind, and attractive. The other man is lazy, potentially abusive, and unattractive. Now take two women and give them the following option. They can either flip a coin and randomly assort one per man, or they can both agree to marry the more desirable one. This makes it easy to imagine the benefits for women of a polygamistic system. And anyway, at least if the women do decide to assort one per man, if one abuses his wife it is easier for her to leave him.
The idea of polygamy might seem repulsive, especially for women who were brought up in such a strongly monogamist society, one which idealizes the romantic connection between two people. The prospect of homosexual relations is similarly repulsive for many heterosexual men (it doesn't sound especially good to me) in our society. Yet, we know that in ancient Greece, it was common and expected for homosexual relations to take place between heterosexual men. Cultural norms may be strong enough to generate feelings of revulsion for the abnormal, but those things may still yet be relative to our culture.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Congratulations Saints!
The Saints were my favorite team in the NFL other than the Colts. They played exceptionally well in the Super Bowl, and they definitely had more heart than the Colts. Congratulations to them and to the city of New Orleans.
Anyway, I still feel like karma had it out for the Colts. Throwing away a chance at a perfect season for no reason isn't something the New Orleans Saints ever would have contemplated. For the record, I also don't think Peyton Manning's interception was what lost us the game. Even if we had scored a TD there, the Saints would have gotten the ball back with 2-3 minutes and 3 time outs, and the Colts defense had not even slowed the Saints offense all game. The Saints would have scored again. The defense didn't play well tonight, and I think that was a bigger factor than Peyton Manning's interception.
I would also like to mention one more thing. Sean Payton has some serious guts. Going for that onside kick at the start of the 2nd half was incredibly risky. If it wouldn't have worked, the Colts might have gone up 17-6 and the game suddenly starts to look a whole lot different. Especially following the 4th and 2 call on the goal line, Sean Payton would have been crucified for that decision had the Saints ultimately lost.
Thats one of the interesting things about the NFL. Statisticians have shown convincingly that coaches should punt far less often than they do, and that teams should go for a touchdown instead of a field goal more often than they do. One of the reasons I think that we don't see this is because the outcome for the coach himself is not proportional to the decisions. Going for it on 4th down, passing up a field goal, or attempting an unexpected onside kick has some benefit for the coach when it pays off. "Oh, that was gutsy and a great call". But when it doesn't work out, you have half of a city clamoring for the coach's job.
Look at Bill Belichick. He went for it against the Colts on 4th and 2 and statisticians pretty much unanimously agree that it was a great call. But it didn't work out that time, and people in New England were calling for his head. When making unorthodox calls, the cost-benefit comparison is much worse for the coach than the actual call is for the outcome of the game.
Anyway, I still feel like karma had it out for the Colts. Throwing away a chance at a perfect season for no reason isn't something the New Orleans Saints ever would have contemplated. For the record, I also don't think Peyton Manning's interception was what lost us the game. Even if we had scored a TD there, the Saints would have gotten the ball back with 2-3 minutes and 3 time outs, and the Colts defense had not even slowed the Saints offense all game. The Saints would have scored again. The defense didn't play well tonight, and I think that was a bigger factor than Peyton Manning's interception.
I would also like to mention one more thing. Sean Payton has some serious guts. Going for that onside kick at the start of the 2nd half was incredibly risky. If it wouldn't have worked, the Colts might have gone up 17-6 and the game suddenly starts to look a whole lot different. Especially following the 4th and 2 call on the goal line, Sean Payton would have been crucified for that decision had the Saints ultimately lost.
Thats one of the interesting things about the NFL. Statisticians have shown convincingly that coaches should punt far less often than they do, and that teams should go for a touchdown instead of a field goal more often than they do. One of the reasons I think that we don't see this is because the outcome for the coach himself is not proportional to the decisions. Going for it on 4th down, passing up a field goal, or attempting an unexpected onside kick has some benefit for the coach when it pays off. "Oh, that was gutsy and a great call". But when it doesn't work out, you have half of a city clamoring for the coach's job.
Look at Bill Belichick. He went for it against the Colts on 4th and 2 and statisticians pretty much unanimously agree that it was a great call. But it didn't work out that time, and people in New England were calling for his head. When making unorthodox calls, the cost-benefit comparison is much worse for the coach than the actual call is for the outcome of the game.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Obama and Republicans
Just watch it.
This sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore in America today, where politicians stand face to face and debate each other on camera. No scripts, no talking points, just argument and reason. The founding fathers knew this was central to our democracy, and so did many of the founders of the modern conservative movement. People like William Buckley, and Ayn Rand. These are people who didn't seem to believe that you should build a political base by appealing to the lowest common denominator in American society. The main protagonist in Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is John Galt, a man who has infinitely more in common with Barack Obama than he does with populists like Sarah Palin.
I hope this sort of thing continues to happen. My speculation is that it won't. I imagine the Republicans will realize that their political fortunes are better served by issuing cheap talking points than by challenging a demonstrably more adept mind than apparently the sum of their own.
**** Update ****
After watching the video of Obama talking with House Republicans, view this one minute clip from Fox News and ask yourself whether they are doing their job, which is to keep the American people informed.
This sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore in America today, where politicians stand face to face and debate each other on camera. No scripts, no talking points, just argument and reason. The founding fathers knew this was central to our democracy, and so did many of the founders of the modern conservative movement. People like William Buckley, and Ayn Rand. These are people who didn't seem to believe that you should build a political base by appealing to the lowest common denominator in American society. The main protagonist in Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is John Galt, a man who has infinitely more in common with Barack Obama than he does with populists like Sarah Palin.
I hope this sort of thing continues to happen. My speculation is that it won't. I imagine the Republicans will realize that their political fortunes are better served by issuing cheap talking points than by challenging a demonstrably more adept mind than apparently the sum of their own.
**** Update ****
After watching the video of Obama talking with House Republicans, view this one minute clip from Fox News and ask yourself whether they are doing their job, which is to keep the American people informed.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Spending freeze?
I like the renewed focus on the deficit. But I have two major points:
1. 250 billion over ten years is almost nothing.
2. We're still in a recession. Whether or not we should do a second stimulus, at least we can agree that a spending freeze is the opposite of economic stimulus.
If Obama really wants to fix the deficit, I have three major proposals:
1. Pull out of Afghanistan.
2. Reform medicaid reimbursement and benefits.
3. Raise social security age to 70.
THOSE would take political courage.
1. 250 billion over ten years is almost nothing.
2. We're still in a recession. Whether or not we should do a second stimulus, at least we can agree that a spending freeze is the opposite of economic stimulus.
If Obama really wants to fix the deficit, I have three major proposals:
1. Pull out of Afghanistan.
2. Reform medicaid reimbursement and benefits.
3. Raise social security age to 70.
THOSE would take political courage.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
RIP Democrat Supermajority
Here are my thoughts on the looming defeat of the Democrat agenda. If the democrats are so incompetent that they cannot pass legislation while controlling the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate with a veto-proof majority, then why on earth would I assume they are competent enough to write a good health care bill?
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Should we invade Yemen?
Its interesting that, among all the discussion about the "new front" in the War on Terror that is apparently Yemen, military solutions are the only ones being discovered.
Everyone pretty much agrees that Afghanistan got to where it did in September 2001 because of what happened after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Namely, a failed state in a perpetual civil war which allowed radicals to take over and attack the United States.
If we could build a time machine and go back to 1990, what advice would you give President Bush (senior) about Afghanistan? Certainly the advice would not be "invade". Rather it would be something along the lines of, negotiate peace between warring factions, provide aid to build infrastructure and for education, encourage economic growth.
Yemen right now has a functioning government, which means it is in much better shape than Afghanistan was in 1990 (or is now, for that matter). There is some civil unrest going on, however, and that unrest seems like it could become more civil war-ish. Meanwhile, the country is as economically stagnant as anywhere in the world and is only going to get worse as oil exports out of Yemen plummet (and perhaps cease by 2017). The population is exploding with one of the highest growth rates in the world.
So here is an opportunity to prevent a rough, tribal Muslim country from becoming Afghanistan. If we brought diplomatic and economic forces to bear, we could really have a positive impact over the next couple of decades in Yemen. But pretty much all we hear on TV is whether we should be bombing or invading Yemen.
Everyone pretty much agrees that Afghanistan got to where it did in September 2001 because of what happened after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Namely, a failed state in a perpetual civil war which allowed radicals to take over and attack the United States.
If we could build a time machine and go back to 1990, what advice would you give President Bush (senior) about Afghanistan? Certainly the advice would not be "invade". Rather it would be something along the lines of, negotiate peace between warring factions, provide aid to build infrastructure and for education, encourage economic growth.
Yemen right now has a functioning government, which means it is in much better shape than Afghanistan was in 1990 (or is now, for that matter). There is some civil unrest going on, however, and that unrest seems like it could become more civil war-ish. Meanwhile, the country is as economically stagnant as anywhere in the world and is only going to get worse as oil exports out of Yemen plummet (and perhaps cease by 2017). The population is exploding with one of the highest growth rates in the world.
So here is an opportunity to prevent a rough, tribal Muslim country from becoming Afghanistan. If we brought diplomatic and economic forces to bear, we could really have a positive impact over the next couple of decades in Yemen. But pretty much all we hear on TV is whether we should be bombing or invading Yemen.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
The GOP solution to fighting terrorism
Is, paradoxically, to enable terrorism.
New York Rep. Peter King on Good Morning America:
"You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopolous said to King.
"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
The whole idea behind terrorism is that its really not an effective means to "change the way we live" by force. Rather, terrorism gets us to change things by ourselves. It tempts us into over reacting to every incident by starting a war, or bombing someone, or having a terrorism alert meter, or suddenly thinking its OK to torture people. So this whole emphasis on a "war on terrorism" and opening a new front in the war on terrorism in Yemen is quite literally empowering the enemy. The more we inflate them, the more we enable their only real means to affect us - fear, and thus the more tempting terrorism becomes because we have made it more effective. Its a positive feedback loop that starts with idiotic government officials and the mainstream news cycle.
The truth is, all of the terrorist incidents against Americans over the last several years could have been prevented had we just not allowed guys to get on airplanes with knives or bombs. That's it. The Europeans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, and others have a different set of problems than we do here in the states. Our terrorism problem is far easier to manage because very little of it is actually home grown. And furthermore, if we really wanted to save American lives, we'd declare a War on McDonalds, not a War on Terrorism.
New York Rep. Peter King on Good Morning America:
"You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this," host George Stephanopolous said to King.
"I think one main thing would be to -- just himself to use the word terrorism more often," said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
The whole idea behind terrorism is that its really not an effective means to "change the way we live" by force. Rather, terrorism gets us to change things by ourselves. It tempts us into over reacting to every incident by starting a war, or bombing someone, or having a terrorism alert meter, or suddenly thinking its OK to torture people. So this whole emphasis on a "war on terrorism" and opening a new front in the war on terrorism in Yemen is quite literally empowering the enemy. The more we inflate them, the more we enable their only real means to affect us - fear, and thus the more tempting terrorism becomes because we have made it more effective. Its a positive feedback loop that starts with idiotic government officials and the mainstream news cycle.
The truth is, all of the terrorist incidents against Americans over the last several years could have been prevented had we just not allowed guys to get on airplanes with knives or bombs. That's it. The Europeans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, and others have a different set of problems than we do here in the states. Our terrorism problem is far easier to manage because very little of it is actually home grown. And furthermore, if we really wanted to save American lives, we'd declare a War on McDonalds, not a War on Terrorism.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Ugh, here we go again
Charles Krauthammer:
It [Yemen] is not a place we want to go and invade. It is like Afghanistan. It is a wild place. It’s like the northwest territories of Pakistan. It’s never had a strong central government. It’s got secessionist in the south, Houthis in the north who are Arabian clients. It is so complicated it’s almost incomprehensible.
All we can do is have our weaponry in place, like the predators, gather intelligence, give intelligence, and work with the unreliable central government. It is not a place where you want to start a war.
But remember, the Saudis and Jordanians are in that area and they are on our side. I would rather have the locals involved in a war than a direct involvement of the United States.
I'm not really sure why this argument doesn't apply to Afghanistan. I mean, the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were partially trained in Afghanistan is incidental. They could have just as easily have been trained in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, or Europe for that matter. Or in the United States, as they partially *were* trained, but we're not calling the USA an accomplice to Al Qaeda.
The lesson here seems to be that maybe nation building in really wild, lawless, difficult places isn't a great idea. So we shouldn't invade Yemen; great. But that argument applies to Afghanistan, too. Hence, I think we're wasting our time there.
The fact that the recent attempted airline bomber was trained in Yemen and Nigeria illustrates my point. Even if we take away Afghanistan, there are other safe havens. Even if we take away Yemen, there are other safe havens. Even if we take away Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, there are OTHER safe havens. Al Qaeda is going to plot from somewhere. The solution isn't to occupy the world. The solution, rather, is to prevent those operatives from getting to US soil or getting on US-bound airplanes.
And also, we need to keep things in perspective. We had one failed terrorist attempt in years, and we're suddenly asking whether we need to invade a country on the Arabian Peninsula; one which can't be located more than a few dozen miles away from Mecca itself. That is the utter definition of NOT keeping things in perspective. If we really wanted to save American lives, we'd declare a war on McDonalds or a war on Obesity, not a war on Terror.
It [Yemen] is not a place we want to go and invade. It is like Afghanistan. It is a wild place. It’s like the northwest territories of Pakistan. It’s never had a strong central government. It’s got secessionist in the south, Houthis in the north who are Arabian clients. It is so complicated it’s almost incomprehensible.
All we can do is have our weaponry in place, like the predators, gather intelligence, give intelligence, and work with the unreliable central government. It is not a place where you want to start a war.
But remember, the Saudis and Jordanians are in that area and they are on our side. I would rather have the locals involved in a war than a direct involvement of the United States.
I'm not really sure why this argument doesn't apply to Afghanistan. I mean, the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were partially trained in Afghanistan is incidental. They could have just as easily have been trained in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, or Europe for that matter. Or in the United States, as they partially *were* trained, but we're not calling the USA an accomplice to Al Qaeda.
The lesson here seems to be that maybe nation building in really wild, lawless, difficult places isn't a great idea. So we shouldn't invade Yemen; great. But that argument applies to Afghanistan, too. Hence, I think we're wasting our time there.
The fact that the recent attempted airline bomber was trained in Yemen and Nigeria illustrates my point. Even if we take away Afghanistan, there are other safe havens. Even if we take away Yemen, there are other safe havens. Even if we take away Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, there are OTHER safe havens. Al Qaeda is going to plot from somewhere. The solution isn't to occupy the world. The solution, rather, is to prevent those operatives from getting to US soil or getting on US-bound airplanes.
And also, we need to keep things in perspective. We had one failed terrorist attempt in years, and we're suddenly asking whether we need to invade a country on the Arabian Peninsula; one which can't be located more than a few dozen miles away from Mecca itself. That is the utter definition of NOT keeping things in perspective. If we really wanted to save American lives, we'd declare a war on McDonalds or a war on Obesity, not a war on Terror.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Clearing my name
One of my ex-favorite bloggers is Glenn Reynolds, the author of the Republican blog "Instapundit", one of the oldest on the net. I had him pegged as an independent-libertarian voice during the Bush years; boy was I wrong about that. As soon as Obama got elected, Reynolds was revealed to be an epic partisan hack. I swear, after reading his blog you'd think Barack Obama is responsible for bad weather. Anyway, if you search for my name ["Nicholas Klemen"] on google, you'll find a bunch of results for several people but the top one is my name on an instapundit post. This was an email I sent to Glenn Reynolds, which he posted on his blog. Since his site gets a ton of traffic, that is the top search result you see on google for my name.
Reynolds was one of the driving forces behind the tea party movement. Presumably to diffuse claims of racism at tea parties, Glenn wrote this post, which includes pictures of 4 black people and some commentary (including my attached email at the bottom). This was Reynolds' attempt to disprove the notion that racist sentiment was a driving force behind the tea parties. Which, incidentally, a great deal of it obviously was. You just can't generate this kind of emotion and fear in people without a hefty dose of xenophobia and/or racism to supplement whatever else you're selling. The tea parties are a direct continuation of Sarah Palin rallies held in the 2008 election, with the same mob mentality, hysteria, and irrationality. This is still going on, with the "birther" crowd that is convinced that Obama isn't a citizen. Xenophobia and racism go hand in hand, but the former has less social taboo so it is the preferred anger outlet for PR-concerned tea partiers who don't want people to perceive them as racist. But I digress. So Glenn Reynolds puts my email on his blog:
Lefty reader Nicholas Klemen writes: "You found photos of 6 black people at tea parties! Thats proof that there isn’t any racism going on at the protests. Take that Dems! Keep up the good work."
Here was Glenns response:
"Well, there wasn’t any sign of racism at the Tea Party I attended, nor have I seen any reports from anywhere else. All I’ve seen are bogus claims of racism from apparatchik lefties who are — as Bob McManus predicted a month ago — hitting this note for lack of anything else to say, and because it’s their tired response to anything threatening. That’s not the moral high ground you’re standing on, Nicholas. It’s just a big ol’ pile of crap."
Keeping in mind that Glenn Reynolds is a law professor, notice that there is serious disconnect between my jab and Reynolds' response. Glenn spends his entire rebuttal to my email by arguing that there is not racism at the tea parties: he didn't personally see any racism, the left is making bogus claims, and Bob McManus had the foresight to cover their asses a month in advance. And hence, the disconnect - my email didn't claim that there was racism at the tea parties. I was just mocking his attempt to try to disprove such claims by posting pictures of minorities. If Joseph Goebbels had taken a few pictures of Jewish people at the Nuremburg Rally, does that somehow alleviate the Nazis from accusations of racism?
Anyway, it turns out that this is the guy who runs teaparty.org:
Awesome. Palin 2012! Anyway, I am not certain that the guy in this photo is a racist. He certainly may be, but it's not like this sign is proof. However, what can be clearly deduced from this photo is that the guy is exceptionally stupid. First of all, he didn't spell the racial slur right. Although to be fair, phonetically it does look right, which is what we would expect in the case of a person used to hearing the word but who has never actually read it. Second, he thought that it would be OK for him to bring something like this out in public. Third, he didn't realize that this sign jeopardizes his political cause. A smart racist is going to recognize that the tea party movement will be taken more seriously if they are able to conceal the fact that it is racist. Clearly, this guy just didn't get the memo. He needs to read more Instapundit.
Reynolds was one of the driving forces behind the tea party movement. Presumably to diffuse claims of racism at tea parties, Glenn wrote this post, which includes pictures of 4 black people and some commentary (including my attached email at the bottom). This was Reynolds' attempt to disprove the notion that racist sentiment was a driving force behind the tea parties. Which, incidentally, a great deal of it obviously was. You just can't generate this kind of emotion and fear in people without a hefty dose of xenophobia and/or racism to supplement whatever else you're selling. The tea parties are a direct continuation of Sarah Palin rallies held in the 2008 election, with the same mob mentality, hysteria, and irrationality. This is still going on, with the "birther" crowd that is convinced that Obama isn't a citizen. Xenophobia and racism go hand in hand, but the former has less social taboo so it is the preferred anger outlet for PR-concerned tea partiers who don't want people to perceive them as racist. But I digress. So Glenn Reynolds puts my email on his blog:
Lefty reader Nicholas Klemen writes: "You found photos of 6 black people at tea parties! Thats proof that there isn’t any racism going on at the protests. Take that Dems! Keep up the good work."
Here was Glenns response:
"Well, there wasn’t any sign of racism at the Tea Party I attended, nor have I seen any reports from anywhere else. All I’ve seen are bogus claims of racism from apparatchik lefties who are — as Bob McManus predicted a month ago — hitting this note for lack of anything else to say, and because it’s their tired response to anything threatening. That’s not the moral high ground you’re standing on, Nicholas. It’s just a big ol’ pile of crap."
Keeping in mind that Glenn Reynolds is a law professor, notice that there is serious disconnect between my jab and Reynolds' response. Glenn spends his entire rebuttal to my email by arguing that there is not racism at the tea parties: he didn't personally see any racism, the left is making bogus claims, and Bob McManus had the foresight to cover their asses a month in advance. And hence, the disconnect - my email didn't claim that there was racism at the tea parties. I was just mocking his attempt to try to disprove such claims by posting pictures of minorities. If Joseph Goebbels had taken a few pictures of Jewish people at the Nuremburg Rally, does that somehow alleviate the Nazis from accusations of racism?
Anyway, it turns out that this is the guy who runs teaparty.org:
Awesome. Palin 2012! Anyway, I am not certain that the guy in this photo is a racist. He certainly may be, but it's not like this sign is proof. However, what can be clearly deduced from this photo is that the guy is exceptionally stupid. First of all, he didn't spell the racial slur right. Although to be fair, phonetically it does look right, which is what we would expect in the case of a person used to hearing the word but who has never actually read it. Second, he thought that it would be OK for him to bring something like this out in public. Third, he didn't realize that this sign jeopardizes his political cause. A smart racist is going to recognize that the tea party movement will be taken more seriously if they are able to conceal the fact that it is racist. Clearly, this guy just didn't get the memo. He needs to read more Instapundit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)