Today's rant is brought to you by the story of a young 13 year old girl who, upon arriving at her school after going to the hospital the day before for a knee injury had the school nurse take her crutches away.
This story is completely insane ... and one of the rare instances where I feel that a lawsuit is justified. This is a serious case of a school nurse who simply didn't think about what she was doing or what the consequences of her actions might be. As a result this young girl has had to have knee surgery and as with any such operation there is a chance that she may not recover 100%. (She's young so she likely has pretty good odds on the recovery but at best it's going to be a while before she gets back to playing sports, if ever.)
The school nurse, at best, showed poor judgement. There was no official policy to back her actions ... there was an email from the Supervisor of School Health that had said that students must 'produce a doctor's note to use crutches or a wheelchair' which, of course, implies that if a student doesn't have a doctor's note then the crutches or wheelchair must be taken away ... of course it could also mean that without it the student would not be allowed to attend classes which would mean that the school nurse should have sent the girl home.
And there in lies the whole issue ... the email, apparently, said that students 'must' have a note ... but doesn't actually create a policy ... it implies one ... but, technically a policy should define the actions to be taken in the case of something outside the policy. I mean, lets look at the options here ... 1-hold the student in the nurse's office until a doctor's note is provided, 2-send the student home as a 'un excused' absence until a doctor's note is received, 3-contact the parent (the nurse did this and was told by the mother that the crutches were prescribed, but when the note was not faxed she took the crutches from the girl) and tell them that a note would be needed tomorrow or choice 1 or 2 would occur and then let the student go to class, or 4-take the crutches (or wheelchair ... yeah THAT will fly). ALL of these possibilities would potentially satisfy the 'policy' of the email.
Number 4 is the absolute worst of the options because any injury that requires crutches is likely to be worsened if they are removed. This girl was wearing a knee brace for crying out loud ... it's not like she had an Ace bandage wrapped around her knee ... if she's faking it she's going through a lot of friggin trouble to do it.
It was mentioned that the school is concerned about the injury of other students due to students using crutches (and wheelchairs) ... the answer to that is simple ... kids (with a doctor's or parent's note) using crutches (or wheelchairs) either 1) leave class early (to get to their next class before the halls fill up) or 2) leave class late (and get to their next class late) so that the halls have emptied before they are moving through them.
Claims have also been made that crutches can be used as weapons .... oh give me a flippin break. If you're going to use that excuse for taking them from the girl then you'd best be making sure that students aren't carrying book bags with books in them, pens, pencils, protractors, rulers, or anything made of wood, plastic, or metal .... better take all shoe strings, necklaces, and don't forget to remove the forks, knives, and probably spoons from the lunch room ... and make sure that the tables and chairs are bolted to the floor. Almost ANY item can fit the description of a weapon so let's save ourselves a headache and not go down that road.
In other words, none of these are compelling reasons to take the crutches from the girl ... or ANY student for that matter. The supposed email could be blamed but it's fault is that it is too vague ... it doesn't account for the sheer idiocy of many of the people employed within the governmental school systems ... the way I see it things break down like this ... 1) the nurse is at fault for her judgement in interpreting the email 'policy', 2) the Supervisor of School Health is at fault for not clearly defining the intention of the email and or making a full official policy before sending that particular email, 3) the school board/district because the fact of the matter is that what most people like to forget is the fact that ultimately a boss or employer is responsible for the actions and behavior of anyone under them.
But then again ... this is a governmental program we're talking about ... expecting logic, reason, common sense, responsibility or any level of professionalism is something beyond delusional. I'm sure I had some other points to make ... but I've lost my train of thought at this point so I'll let you figure 'em out.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Wandering Minds...
... Okay ... I'm a putz. I had a nice long ramble typed out and went to copy it so that I could run it through the spell checker and ... I erased it completely. Turns out that had I thought about it at the time I could have used ctrl+z and recovered it ... but well we're back to that 'I'm a putz' thing. Ah well I'm sure it was needlessly boring and wordy anyway probably better that the random whims of the Internet have spared you all the torture of reading it....
And so I'll have to rewrite it all and as a result you'll get the shortened version ... maybe...
Taxes suck ... 'nuff said. Pass ... Fair ... Tax ... NOW!
Actually I didn't talk about taxes in the original ... but I haven't hit you all with a 'Pass the Fair Tax now.' in a while so I figured now ... as we approach tax month ... was as good a time as any.
In listening to news talk radio on Friday morning, I heard a caller call in that had been doing some research about the deficit and the Clinton and Bush administrations.(keep in mind that I don't have the research and am too lazy to look it up ... as such any numbers are from memory from the caller and should be taken with a grain of salt and researched for accuracy) His question in particular was about the last 3 years of the Clinton administration ... the administration (and media) had reported budget surpluses all three years, however, despite this fact the federal deficit grew during those three years by between 1 and 2 trillion dollars; how could that be?
The answer seems to be that the amount of the surplus did not cover the interest due on the already existing deficit. This, however, would seem to indicate a fundamental flaw in the federal budgeting process ... namely that they aren't budgeting to pay the interest on their existing debt. Gee ... wish I could do that and get away with it....
But then again that is completely in matching the thinking of congress and the government in general ... wait long enough and it will be someone else's problem. If a private citizen or business tried to get by without accounting for the interest on the debt that they had they'd soon go bankrupt and/or out of business completely. The government, however, just keeps on trucking ... just roll that interest into the debt ... and someone else will have to deal with that note later.
I bring this up because I am sick of hearing people parroting that Clinton paid down the deficit ... no ... he slowed it's growth but he didn't pay down a dime.
Not to say that "W" hasn't been bad or even worse than Clinton in that respect ... he's nearly doubled the 5.4 Trillion dollar deficit he inherited in his 8 years (iirc at last report the deficit was just under 10 trillion at this point ... much of which is accumulated interest) and as a result the annual interest on that debt is just shy of 500 billion a year ... even in terms of the federal budget that's not an amount to sneeze at.
The deficit is one of, if not THE biggest drag on the American economy ... and speaking of the economy the government just needs to butt the heck out and let it correct. The only thing that they are doing in propping up and bailing out these businesses and investment firms that made high risk choices and are now paying the price of those choices is 1-rewarding bad behavior and decision making, and 2-prolonging the situation giving us farther to fall once it does ...
The economy itself is not in terrible shape ... the market is unstable ... yes ... largely due to several factors resolving around the uncertainty in a couple of markets due to bad investment and loan choices by some very big players. This (combined with constant reporting on how bad the market and economy are doing) has the effect of making both lenders and borrowers very leery of things as they stand and employers and small businesses get antsy about increasing their expenditures in such times (meaning a slowing of growth, lack of raises, lowered spending on the business front) ... which directly translates to a lowering of consumer confidence and spending.
Other factors in the economy are, on the other hand, showing good numbers. Un-employment (while much hyped as being a 'horrible' 5%) is actually not bad, and though it did go up that % is actually considered pretty good by a lot of economists. There is a point of 'minimum unemployment' (and that may not be the correct term it's been a long time since my basic econ classes) ... the point at which an economy will start to suffer from unemployment being too low, and this is, if I recall correctly, in the 3-5% unemployment range. The reason being that once an economy starts to get much below that it becomes significantly more difficult for employers to find qualified employees that are not already employed (leading to wage inflation which stifles expansion and growth of businesses).
So basically it would likely be a lot better in the long run for us to just go ahead and let this correction happen and get it behind us rather than trying to keep it at bay only to have it hit us harder down the road.
Of course the fact that we are in a Presidential election cycle doesn't help the uncertainty in the economy. The fact of the matter is that investors, both domestic and foreign, get twitchy during Presidential elections due to the uncertainty of the future leadership and direction of the country. This year's election is likely worse than normal as a result of the fact that we do not have an incumbent President or Vice-President running for the office .... essentially we don't have a 'devil you know' candidate...
Okay you could argue that Hillary is a 'devil you know' candidate ... but then again, at this point it is still far from certain who will get the Democratic nomination ... or a Vice Presidential offer from Obama if he should manage to get the 'nod'. In fact I'd say the democratic nomination uncertainty in general is probably adding a whole new layer of waves and unease to the market....
And since it's a quarter to one in the morning ... I'll leave it at that for now....
And so I'll have to rewrite it all and as a result you'll get the shortened version ... maybe...
Taxes suck ... 'nuff said. Pass ... Fair ... Tax ... NOW!
Actually I didn't talk about taxes in the original ... but I haven't hit you all with a 'Pass the Fair Tax now.' in a while so I figured now ... as we approach tax month ... was as good a time as any.
In listening to news talk radio on Friday morning, I heard a caller call in that had been doing some research about the deficit and the Clinton and Bush administrations.(keep in mind that I don't have the research and am too lazy to look it up ... as such any numbers are from memory from the caller and should be taken with a grain of salt and researched for accuracy) His question in particular was about the last 3 years of the Clinton administration ... the administration (and media) had reported budget surpluses all three years, however, despite this fact the federal deficit grew during those three years by between 1 and 2 trillion dollars; how could that be?
The answer seems to be that the amount of the surplus did not cover the interest due on the already existing deficit. This, however, would seem to indicate a fundamental flaw in the federal budgeting process ... namely that they aren't budgeting to pay the interest on their existing debt. Gee ... wish I could do that and get away with it....
But then again that is completely in matching the thinking of congress and the government in general ... wait long enough and it will be someone else's problem. If a private citizen or business tried to get by without accounting for the interest on the debt that they had they'd soon go bankrupt and/or out of business completely. The government, however, just keeps on trucking ... just roll that interest into the debt ... and someone else will have to deal with that note later.
I bring this up because I am sick of hearing people parroting that Clinton paid down the deficit ... no ... he slowed it's growth but he didn't pay down a dime.
Not to say that "W" hasn't been bad or even worse than Clinton in that respect ... he's nearly doubled the 5.4 Trillion dollar deficit he inherited in his 8 years (iirc at last report the deficit was just under 10 trillion at this point ... much of which is accumulated interest) and as a result the annual interest on that debt is just shy of 500 billion a year ... even in terms of the federal budget that's not an amount to sneeze at.
The deficit is one of, if not THE biggest drag on the American economy ... and speaking of the economy the government just needs to butt the heck out and let it correct. The only thing that they are doing in propping up and bailing out these businesses and investment firms that made high risk choices and are now paying the price of those choices is 1-rewarding bad behavior and decision making, and 2-prolonging the situation giving us farther to fall once it does ...
The economy itself is not in terrible shape ... the market is unstable ... yes ... largely due to several factors resolving around the uncertainty in a couple of markets due to bad investment and loan choices by some very big players. This (combined with constant reporting on how bad the market and economy are doing) has the effect of making both lenders and borrowers very leery of things as they stand and employers and small businesses get antsy about increasing their expenditures in such times (meaning a slowing of growth, lack of raises, lowered spending on the business front) ... which directly translates to a lowering of consumer confidence and spending.
Other factors in the economy are, on the other hand, showing good numbers. Un-employment (while much hyped as being a 'horrible' 5%) is actually not bad, and though it did go up that % is actually considered pretty good by a lot of economists. There is a point of 'minimum unemployment' (and that may not be the correct term it's been a long time since my basic econ classes) ... the point at which an economy will start to suffer from unemployment being too low, and this is, if I recall correctly, in the 3-5% unemployment range. The reason being that once an economy starts to get much below that it becomes significantly more difficult for employers to find qualified employees that are not already employed (leading to wage inflation which stifles expansion and growth of businesses).
So basically it would likely be a lot better in the long run for us to just go ahead and let this correction happen and get it behind us rather than trying to keep it at bay only to have it hit us harder down the road.
Of course the fact that we are in a Presidential election cycle doesn't help the uncertainty in the economy. The fact of the matter is that investors, both domestic and foreign, get twitchy during Presidential elections due to the uncertainty of the future leadership and direction of the country. This year's election is likely worse than normal as a result of the fact that we do not have an incumbent President or Vice-President running for the office .... essentially we don't have a 'devil you know' candidate...
Okay you could argue that Hillary is a 'devil you know' candidate ... but then again, at this point it is still far from certain who will get the Democratic nomination ... or a Vice Presidential offer from Obama if he should manage to get the 'nod'. In fact I'd say the democratic nomination uncertainty in general is probably adding a whole new layer of waves and unease to the market....
And since it's a quarter to one in the morning ... I'll leave it at that for now....
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
New Toys!
Okay I'm taking a short break from the political ranting and ravings of my normal madness and instead taking a bit of time to unwind and revel in my new toy, and as such this will be my first posting from my brand shiny new laptop.
Admitedly it's not a screaming new gaming system .... but it should certainly be able to handle what I got it for - writing. The goal being that I can more easily keep my writing together and not end up with 10 versions on my system at home and 15 or so on my PC at the office. Now I'll just do all my writing here on the laptop.
I've also started using a new 'novel' writing program: yWriter 4 ... no it doesn't write the novel for me ... what would be the fun in that. But it does help me break down my scenes, establish goals, track characters, locations and items, along with help keep my notes organized. It's also designed so that scenes and chapters can easily be moved and rearranged in the editing process. For NaNoWriMo writers it also has an 'export as Nanowrimo obfusicated text' ... not that I ever bothered going through all that trouble, but I understand that some people are paranoid about the issue. I also found it hard to argue with the price ... free is hard to beat.
On top of this the wife and I are considering doing an extended novelling project next month ... would be from April 1 - May 31st with a goal of 80,000 words. While on the one hand this should, technically, be easier than a 30 day NoWriMo (50,000 words in 30 days is 1667 words a day, while 80,000 in 61 days is only 1312 words a day) I suspect that managing an 80k word work may well be a challenge in itself .... also 61 days of that kind of writing while keeping the internal editor locked in the closet will certainly be a test.
Also, a while back I got my wife a new drum kit ... her first ... a nice Simmons SD7K electric drum kit. (I think we would both have prefered an accustic set, but those take space we don't have) and she's been learning fast. So I also just got us both a bunch of sheet music so that we can practice playing songs together ... we've played together a bit with her playing the drum lines from some of my bass lessons and we've had a lot of fun with it.
Given our first amature attempts at one of the songs, don't be expecting to hear audio files of us jamming on the blog any time in the near future .... unless we're recording us playing Rock Band ..... audio only of course. ;)
Admitedly it's not a screaming new gaming system .... but it should certainly be able to handle what I got it for - writing. The goal being that I can more easily keep my writing together and not end up with 10 versions on my system at home and 15 or so on my PC at the office. Now I'll just do all my writing here on the laptop.
I've also started using a new 'novel' writing program: yWriter 4 ... no it doesn't write the novel for me ... what would be the fun in that. But it does help me break down my scenes, establish goals, track characters, locations and items, along with help keep my notes organized. It's also designed so that scenes and chapters can easily be moved and rearranged in the editing process. For NaNoWriMo writers it also has an 'export as Nanowrimo obfusicated text' ... not that I ever bothered going through all that trouble, but I understand that some people are paranoid about the issue. I also found it hard to argue with the price ... free is hard to beat.
On top of this the wife and I are considering doing an extended novelling project next month ... would be from April 1 - May 31st with a goal of 80,000 words. While on the one hand this should, technically, be easier than a 30 day NoWriMo (50,000 words in 30 days is 1667 words a day, while 80,000 in 61 days is only 1312 words a day) I suspect that managing an 80k word work may well be a challenge in itself .... also 61 days of that kind of writing while keeping the internal editor locked in the closet will certainly be a test.
Also, a while back I got my wife a new drum kit ... her first ... a nice Simmons SD7K electric drum kit. (I think we would both have prefered an accustic set, but those take space we don't have) and she's been learning fast. So I also just got us both a bunch of sheet music so that we can practice playing songs together ... we've played together a bit with her playing the drum lines from some of my bass lessons and we've had a lot of fun with it.
Given our first amature attempts at one of the songs, don't be expecting to hear audio files of us jamming on the blog any time in the near future .... unless we're recording us playing Rock Band ..... audio only of course. ;)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tax Cuts and the Economy
Lately both Clinton and Obama have charged up their campaigns by attacking the 'rich' and the dreaded 'evil' corporations. Playing on the economic ignorance and class divisionisim in this country (and by and large a product of the governmental school system). One of their main targets have been the Bush tax cuts which they claim were 'only a benifit to the rich'.
How in the heck are they defining 'rich'? I saw a benifit from the tax cuts and I am far from any reasonable definition of the word 'rich.' I would say that I'm firmly within the Middle Class ... but that begs the question 'what is the middle class' ... and so I found this report to the the Congress which places the Median annual household income at $46,326 and defines a narrow middle class as $36,000 to $57,000 with a broader 'middle class' as $19,100 to $91,700 ... all of which confirms my belief that I'm in the middle class but not what could be considered 'upper middle class'.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid ... they know that these tax cuts have helped many middle class Americans. They are playing on the economic ignorance of the majority of the American people ... on the fact that most of them don't know what they paid in taxes THIS year, much less what they paid last year and what the difference was due to the tax cuts....
The repeal of these cuts within the context of the current economy, however, is asking for another round of middle class bankrupcies and foreclosures ... with the extra added benifit of taxes being non-dischargeable in bankrupcy. In addition to raising taxes on many middle class households it will (of course) raise taxes on small business (the largest 'employer' in the contry as something like 70% of all jobs in this country come from 'small' businesses rather than large corperations). This would, in turn, lower the funds available to those businesses to expand, hire new employees, or even give raises to exsisting employees.
I believe that it was Abraham Lincon that said "You cannot help the poor by hurting the rich." Meaning that by taxing the rich ... by punishing the drive to improve you don't help the poor ... you lessen the available jobs, the available pay, and ... ultimately ... their drive to better themselves.
This does not help them ... it hurts them. It changes nothing .... at best the government can, by re-disributing what they take from the 'rich', bring the 'poor' back up to where they would have been had the taxes not been levied against the rich to start with.
Realistically I've been over that point before, but it again underscores some of the economic ignorance in this country. People seem to fail to realize that 'stuff flows down hill' ... even if you only tax the 'rich' that tax ... that draw of funds ... is going to effect everyone down the economic structure even though the 'rich' (or corporations) are the only ones technically being taxed.
Pure socialisim as a whole fails for ultimately the same reason ... there is no incentive to work harder to achieve more because it is all collected by the government and distributed equally ... why am I going to work 10 hours when in the end I'm going to get the same as the guy in the next office that cut out after 8? Oh ... that's right ... for the good of the country that's it ... yeah ... right. The human animal doesn't work that way ... we ... and all animals really ... are programmed to do the minimum possible to achieve our goals; if working harder isn't going to get me more return then the additional energy is wasted effort. In the end any such enthusiasim will quickly errode and cease until finally everyone is doing the minimum allowed by law to collect their pay ... we already see this in a majority of welfare recipients in this country ... meanwhile supply will slow down to a minimum, but demand will continue to rise ...
But then Obama has been attending a church for the last 20 years that centers itself on 'economic parity' ... that's a fancy way of saying everyone is supposed to have the same amount of 'stuff'. (This is seperate from this issue from the racially divisive and anti-american statements that his mentor and pastor Rev. Wright has been saying in the pulpit ... but I think that has been covered fairly well by other sources.) Clinton has fairly much been open in her socialist views and goals with regard to leading this country ... so should we really be surprised that either of them want to increase the income re-distribution program in this country.... taking more from those who earn it in order to give it to those too lazy to earn it themselves.
Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican and the author of the famous 'square deal' had this to say when asked about his 'square deal':
"When I say I believe in a square deal, I do not mean ... to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall be no crookedness in the dealing."
Clinton and Obama, however, want to try to appeal to the masses by offering them, not 'no crookedness in the dealing', but rather 'to give every man the best hand' ... or at least ... the same hand.
How in the heck are they defining 'rich'? I saw a benifit from the tax cuts and I am far from any reasonable definition of the word 'rich.' I would say that I'm firmly within the Middle Class ... but that begs the question 'what is the middle class' ... and so I found this report to the the Congress which places the Median annual household income at $46,326 and defines a narrow middle class as $36,000 to $57,000 with a broader 'middle class' as $19,100 to $91,700 ... all of which confirms my belief that I'm in the middle class but not what could be considered 'upper middle class'.
Neither Obama nor Clinton are stupid ... they know that these tax cuts have helped many middle class Americans. They are playing on the economic ignorance of the majority of the American people ... on the fact that most of them don't know what they paid in taxes THIS year, much less what they paid last year and what the difference was due to the tax cuts....
The repeal of these cuts within the context of the current economy, however, is asking for another round of middle class bankrupcies and foreclosures ... with the extra added benifit of taxes being non-dischargeable in bankrupcy. In addition to raising taxes on many middle class households it will (of course) raise taxes on small business (the largest 'employer' in the contry as something like 70% of all jobs in this country come from 'small' businesses rather than large corperations). This would, in turn, lower the funds available to those businesses to expand, hire new employees, or even give raises to exsisting employees.
I believe that it was Abraham Lincon that said "You cannot help the poor by hurting the rich." Meaning that by taxing the rich ... by punishing the drive to improve you don't help the poor ... you lessen the available jobs, the available pay, and ... ultimately ... their drive to better themselves.
This does not help them ... it hurts them. It changes nothing .... at best the government can, by re-disributing what they take from the 'rich', bring the 'poor' back up to where they would have been had the taxes not been levied against the rich to start with.
Realistically I've been over that point before, but it again underscores some of the economic ignorance in this country. People seem to fail to realize that 'stuff flows down hill' ... even if you only tax the 'rich' that tax ... that draw of funds ... is going to effect everyone down the economic structure even though the 'rich' (or corporations) are the only ones technically being taxed.
Pure socialisim as a whole fails for ultimately the same reason ... there is no incentive to work harder to achieve more because it is all collected by the government and distributed equally ... why am I going to work 10 hours when in the end I'm going to get the same as the guy in the next office that cut out after 8? Oh ... that's right ... for the good of the country that's it ... yeah ... right. The human animal doesn't work that way ... we ... and all animals really ... are programmed to do the minimum possible to achieve our goals; if working harder isn't going to get me more return then the additional energy is wasted effort. In the end any such enthusiasim will quickly errode and cease until finally everyone is doing the minimum allowed by law to collect their pay ... we already see this in a majority of welfare recipients in this country ... meanwhile supply will slow down to a minimum, but demand will continue to rise ...
But then Obama has been attending a church for the last 20 years that centers itself on 'economic parity' ... that's a fancy way of saying everyone is supposed to have the same amount of 'stuff'. (This is seperate from this issue from the racially divisive and anti-american statements that his mentor and pastor Rev. Wright has been saying in the pulpit ... but I think that has been covered fairly well by other sources.) Clinton has fairly much been open in her socialist views and goals with regard to leading this country ... so should we really be surprised that either of them want to increase the income re-distribution program in this country.... taking more from those who earn it in order to give it to those too lazy to earn it themselves.
Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican and the author of the famous 'square deal' had this to say when asked about his 'square deal':
"When I say I believe in a square deal, I do not mean ... to give every man the best hand. If the cards do not come to any man, or if they do come, and he has not got the power to play them, that is his affair. All I mean is that there shall be no crookedness in the dealing."
Clinton and Obama, however, want to try to appeal to the masses by offering them, not 'no crookedness in the dealing', but rather 'to give every man the best hand' ... or at least ... the same hand.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Can't
I have several issues that I intend to ramble about we'll see what actually comes pouring out through my fingers to the keyboard. But we're going to start with the word can't ... or cannot to be grammatically correct. People often missuse this poor word to mean won't or will not ... they will say that they 'can't' do something even though there is nothing actually preventing them from doing so ... or that the only thing preventing them from doing it is their own laziness or lack of desire to do it.
This brings me to our former First Lady, New York Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, and her statements that Iraq is a war that we "cannot win".
Now I will say that in some ways, she is right, but not in the way that she means. She means of course that we won't win because she (and many in this country) don't have the will to do what is needed to win. We CAN succeed in Iraq (and in the middle east as a whole) if we are willing to and have the desire to ... if we have a commander that is willing to accept what must be done and do it regardless of the political landscape ... saddly I don't see one of those lining up for the job.
How is she right? Well for one, we can't win because we already did. The 'war' in Iraq is over and has been for years ... we are currently in a police and reconstruction effort not a war. Does that mean that the fighting is over? No, not at all. The people we are fighting now, however, are not the Iraqi government ... and in many cases are not even Iraqi people, but rather insurgents and radicals from other middle eastern countries inciting various radical elements against the fledgeling Iraqi government.
Secondly ... in regard to the 'War on Terror' again ... we can't win and in that she is also correct; but this isn't how she meant her remarks. We can't win a war against terror because we can never 'defeat' an amorphous opponent that can dissappear for 5, 10 or 20 years until we lower our guard and then return just as unfathomable, insane, and dangerous as ever.
Over the weekend I listened to an Audio Drama of the book World War Z (Great story, very well done and the voice acting was outstanding) in which humanity is faced with annihilation by zombies (see the democrats really do take over!) and is essentially faced with the same situation - a single surviving zombie, or even a fresh outbreak unrelated to the original infection, can start the whole thing over ... they can never be positive that it's really over for good.
So, yes, in some ways we "can't" win the war. That does not mean, however, that we need to give up, that we need to withdraw our troops or our support in the region. We are no longer 'invaders' over there, but rather there at the request of the young Iraqi Government. If we withdraw now what message are we sending to those people ... what message are we sending to the terrorists ... to the world?
I've also came across a comment on another site to the effect of 'America needs to return to the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' attitude' and yet I'd be willing to bet that the person that made it is also in favor of drastic reductions in military spending, and has no concept of what that phrase means in global politics.
First off the 'big stick' in question would be the strongest most capable military on the planet. A military capable of striking a decisive blow anywhere in the world at a moments notice in order to protect american interests. And I don't mean air strikes and missles ... I'm talking conventional assault and invasion to isolate and eleminate the threat.
Some people seem to think that the phrase is some sort of isolationist ideal ... that we shouldn't meddle with other countries ... but look at it again. That's not what it's about ... it's about diplomacy and specifically how diplomacy is best applied ... speak softly (try diplomacy first) but carry a big stick (but be prepared to kick some tail if and when diplomacy fails.)
The key thing in diplomacy is, of course, that you not only have to have a 'big stick' ... you've also got to have the will to use it. It doesn't matter if you've got the biggest stick in the world; if you don't swing it at the dog rushing you you're still going to get bitten. We're no longer dealing with a world in which it takes our enemies weeks or even months to strike at us. With easy world wide travel and communications (phone, video, internet) we can not rely on having any warning or indication that a strike is coming ... in such a world if you wait for the dog to start charging you you may find that you've been bitten long before you could swing your stick.
Of course I'm not saying that we should run out and attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with us, but a known enemy who has weapons of mass destruction (and Iraq had them and had used them in the past, and had provided no proof that he had destroyed them as mandated by the UN treaty), who had gassed their own people, supported (verbally and monitarily) terrorist organizations, defied international (UN) mandates and threatened international peace can be deemed a rabid dog that can, for the sake of safety and peace, be put down.
The fact is that we can argue until the end of time about 'should we have gone in' and 'was it the 'right' thing' ... it's one of the great things about this country that we can have such discussions and arguments ... At this point, however, we are there and we need to do everything in our power to see that the new government in Iraq flourishes and becomes a strong ally in the region; free to make it's own decisions and mistakes, whose people are free to live their lives with their own rights, privledges and the responsibilities that freedom affords.
There were some other issues I had wanted to cover in regards to the economy that I had planned on covering as well, but I think that this article has rambled on longer than is good for it so I'll leave the other stuff for an entry later tonight, or maybe tomorrow.
This brings me to our former First Lady, New York Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, and her statements that Iraq is a war that we "cannot win".
Now I will say that in some ways, she is right, but not in the way that she means. She means of course that we won't win because she (and many in this country) don't have the will to do what is needed to win. We CAN succeed in Iraq (and in the middle east as a whole) if we are willing to and have the desire to ... if we have a commander that is willing to accept what must be done and do it regardless of the political landscape ... saddly I don't see one of those lining up for the job.
How is she right? Well for one, we can't win because we already did. The 'war' in Iraq is over and has been for years ... we are currently in a police and reconstruction effort not a war. Does that mean that the fighting is over? No, not at all. The people we are fighting now, however, are not the Iraqi government ... and in many cases are not even Iraqi people, but rather insurgents and radicals from other middle eastern countries inciting various radical elements against the fledgeling Iraqi government.
Secondly ... in regard to the 'War on Terror' again ... we can't win and in that she is also correct; but this isn't how she meant her remarks. We can't win a war against terror because we can never 'defeat' an amorphous opponent that can dissappear for 5, 10 or 20 years until we lower our guard and then return just as unfathomable, insane, and dangerous as ever.
Over the weekend I listened to an Audio Drama of the book World War Z (Great story, very well done and the voice acting was outstanding) in which humanity is faced with annihilation by zombies (see the democrats really do take over!) and is essentially faced with the same situation - a single surviving zombie, or even a fresh outbreak unrelated to the original infection, can start the whole thing over ... they can never be positive that it's really over for good.
So, yes, in some ways we "can't" win the war. That does not mean, however, that we need to give up, that we need to withdraw our troops or our support in the region. We are no longer 'invaders' over there, but rather there at the request of the young Iraqi Government. If we withdraw now what message are we sending to those people ... what message are we sending to the terrorists ... to the world?
I've also came across a comment on another site to the effect of 'America needs to return to the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' attitude' and yet I'd be willing to bet that the person that made it is also in favor of drastic reductions in military spending, and has no concept of what that phrase means in global politics.
First off the 'big stick' in question would be the strongest most capable military on the planet. A military capable of striking a decisive blow anywhere in the world at a moments notice in order to protect american interests. And I don't mean air strikes and missles ... I'm talking conventional assault and invasion to isolate and eleminate the threat.
Some people seem to think that the phrase is some sort of isolationist ideal ... that we shouldn't meddle with other countries ... but look at it again. That's not what it's about ... it's about diplomacy and specifically how diplomacy is best applied ... speak softly (try diplomacy first) but carry a big stick (but be prepared to kick some tail if and when diplomacy fails.)
The key thing in diplomacy is, of course, that you not only have to have a 'big stick' ... you've also got to have the will to use it. It doesn't matter if you've got the biggest stick in the world; if you don't swing it at the dog rushing you you're still going to get bitten. We're no longer dealing with a world in which it takes our enemies weeks or even months to strike at us. With easy world wide travel and communications (phone, video, internet) we can not rely on having any warning or indication that a strike is coming ... in such a world if you wait for the dog to start charging you you may find that you've been bitten long before you could swing your stick.
Of course I'm not saying that we should run out and attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with us, but a known enemy who has weapons of mass destruction (and Iraq had them and had used them in the past, and had provided no proof that he had destroyed them as mandated by the UN treaty), who had gassed their own people, supported (verbally and monitarily) terrorist organizations, defied international (UN) mandates and threatened international peace can be deemed a rabid dog that can, for the sake of safety and peace, be put down.
The fact is that we can argue until the end of time about 'should we have gone in' and 'was it the 'right' thing' ... it's one of the great things about this country that we can have such discussions and arguments ... At this point, however, we are there and we need to do everything in our power to see that the new government in Iraq flourishes and becomes a strong ally in the region; free to make it's own decisions and mistakes, whose people are free to live their lives with their own rights, privledges and the responsibilities that freedom affords.
There were some other issues I had wanted to cover in regards to the economy that I had planned on covering as well, but I think that this article has rambled on longer than is good for it so I'll leave the other stuff for an entry later tonight, or maybe tomorrow.
Friday, March 07, 2008
What we need
A primary to the primaries ... that's it ... we need to draw this whole mess out about another year to a year and a half longer. We should have the candidates to be candidates in the primaries start running in early 2005 for the 2008 election season ... THAT would make this system perfect. Wait ... maybe it would be better if we had primaries to get into the primary primaries ... oh hell let's just start with every registered voter on a ballot for their state ... top 1000 in each party go into a run off ... then the top 100 of those run and then we take the top 5 of those and they run for their state ... then we take those 50 and they run a national capaign ... and we take the top 5 of those and hold the primaries ... taking the top of those 5 to give the party nomination to.
For those that have failied to recognize my subtle writting styles that would all ... in fact ... have been sarcasim.
What we REALLY need is for these idiots that want to be President (the desire for which should pretty much disqualify them and grounds of mental instability) to stop posturing and running popularity contests and define their stances on the issues and tell us what ... EXACTLY ... they plan to do. (Or at least what they plan to attempt to do.)
Screw the primaries ... just let Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Paul ... let the lot of 'em conduct a National campaign for the Presidency ... do away with the national party nomination (in fact I'd say do away with the national parties completely) and let each of the state parties choose a delegate to back durring the course of the race ... that way the Florida Democrat party can back ... say ... Hillary ... while the Vermont Democrat party backs Obama, the Georgia Republican party can choose to give their support to Huckabee while the Texas party gives the support to McCain ... only one rule ... no backing out ... if you're in ... you're in until November.
No primaries ... no party delegates ... just a straight up bar brawl for the office of the President ... let's really see who can capture, hold, and lead the American people without thinning the field. Let them each choose a Vice President to run with (if 2 candidates want the same person as a running mate then they have to convince to run with them or find someone else.) stake their positions on the issues and go....
Individuals, of course, could still choose thier own candidate to back and vote for, let them all go at each other ... regardless of party affiliation ... and see who is still standing when the smoke and mud clears.
The National parties, of course, would never go for that ... it takes away a good bit of their power and their 'cohesive' party line and breaks it up into smaller state party lines ...
As it stands now it looks like the Democratic primary may well go till the bitter end ... which is, if I'm reading this list right, early June. This means that we're not likely to get any meaningful discussion of issues between the candidates until late June or early July .... less than 6 months before we vote. Sounds like a lot ... but in a reality where it can take 2-3 weeks to schedule, plan, and have a single debate it means that we aren't really going to have that many opportunites to see the candidates and even see them on their own ... there's not as much chance for things to move in the world so that we can potentially hear how THEY would handle a situation if they were in the office.
The job of the President is ... in the end ... not to make law ... the President is simply the final 'check' in that check and balance ... but to maintain the security of the nation and handle international relations ... and that's what we need to see them react to is real world international situations.
To be certain we need to know where they would 'direct' us internally ... while the President can't make law, they can propose it and use their influence to direct Congress to address certain issues. They can also appoint Supreme Court Justices, and that's not a power to be given lightly ... since one can assume that they will seek to appoint like minded people to the bench.
And now I've forgotten where I was going with all of this ... so I'll just say that ... as others have said before me, politics is a race to define yourself before your opponent can define you. To that end I think that John McCain has a great opportunity here to select his VP and get out there and define this campaign and their postions on the issues ... show some leadership and set the groundwork for how this Presidential campaign is going to go. However, I agree with most of the analists that say that he'll likely hold off on that, raise money, get some photo ops to stay in the news here and there, and wait for the Democrats to choose thier runner so he can pick the VP most likely to help him against that specific opponent. In other words he's telling all of America that it's politics as normal.
For those that have failied to recognize my subtle writting styles that would all ... in fact ... have been sarcasim.
What we REALLY need is for these idiots that want to be President (the desire for which should pretty much disqualify them and grounds of mental instability) to stop posturing and running popularity contests and define their stances on the issues and tell us what ... EXACTLY ... they plan to do. (Or at least what they plan to attempt to do.)
Screw the primaries ... just let Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Paul ... let the lot of 'em conduct a National campaign for the Presidency ... do away with the national party nomination (in fact I'd say do away with the national parties completely) and let each of the state parties choose a delegate to back durring the course of the race ... that way the Florida Democrat party can back ... say ... Hillary ... while the Vermont Democrat party backs Obama, the Georgia Republican party can choose to give their support to Huckabee while the Texas party gives the support to McCain ... only one rule ... no backing out ... if you're in ... you're in until November.
No primaries ... no party delegates ... just a straight up bar brawl for the office of the President ... let's really see who can capture, hold, and lead the American people without thinning the field. Let them each choose a Vice President to run with (if 2 candidates want the same person as a running mate then they have to convince to run with them or find someone else.) stake their positions on the issues and go....
Individuals, of course, could still choose thier own candidate to back and vote for, let them all go at each other ... regardless of party affiliation ... and see who is still standing when the smoke and mud clears.
The National parties, of course, would never go for that ... it takes away a good bit of their power and their 'cohesive' party line and breaks it up into smaller state party lines ...
As it stands now it looks like the Democratic primary may well go till the bitter end ... which is, if I'm reading this list right, early June. This means that we're not likely to get any meaningful discussion of issues between the candidates until late June or early July .... less than 6 months before we vote. Sounds like a lot ... but in a reality where it can take 2-3 weeks to schedule, plan, and have a single debate it means that we aren't really going to have that many opportunites to see the candidates and even see them on their own ... there's not as much chance for things to move in the world so that we can potentially hear how THEY would handle a situation if they were in the office.
The job of the President is ... in the end ... not to make law ... the President is simply the final 'check' in that check and balance ... but to maintain the security of the nation and handle international relations ... and that's what we need to see them react to is real world international situations.
To be certain we need to know where they would 'direct' us internally ... while the President can't make law, they can propose it and use their influence to direct Congress to address certain issues. They can also appoint Supreme Court Justices, and that's not a power to be given lightly ... since one can assume that they will seek to appoint like minded people to the bench.
And now I've forgotten where I was going with all of this ... so I'll just say that ... as others have said before me, politics is a race to define yourself before your opponent can define you. To that end I think that John McCain has a great opportunity here to select his VP and get out there and define this campaign and their postions on the issues ... show some leadership and set the groundwork for how this Presidential campaign is going to go. However, I agree with most of the analists that say that he'll likely hold off on that, raise money, get some photo ops to stay in the news here and there, and wait for the Democrats to choose thier runner so he can pick the VP most likely to help him against that specific opponent. In other words he's telling all of America that it's politics as normal.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
It's the Economy
No ... it's not as bad as some people would have you believe ... but we do have a correction due and it's going to be a biggie, and I doubt that who we put in office is going to do much to help.
As a country we have, for the last 9 or more years, spent more than we make. I myself can attest to that to some degree.
According to one report, since 1990 the number of people who held credit cards grew 75% (from 82 million in 1990 to 144 million in '03) while the amount charged to those cards more than trippled from 338 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars over the same time period. This means that people have charged more and more on their credit cards ... and while Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that aggregate U.S. personal income in that timeframe did increase roughly 188 percent that doesn't nearly cover the additional spending.
In fact the report shows that the average carried ballance rose from $2550 in 1990 to $7520 in 2003 approximately a 200 percent increase. (Keep in mind, however, that this is average carried balance so anyone that paid off thier credit card bill every month was not accounted for in this figure.)
That figure, of course, is an average ... meaning that a few people on the extreme ends can really skew the numbers. What isn't skewed, however, is that of those that carried more than $10,000 in debt, 36% of them made less than $50,000 a year ... and 13% of them made less than $30,000 a year.
All of this is, of course, on top of car loans, home mortgages, and home equity loans. The average debt in this country has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Sooner or later the books are going to have to balance out ... at some point all that debt must be repaid ... and when you have people sitting on debt equal to 20 percent or more of the annual income sitting in high interest credit card accounts ... well it's not going to be a pretty sight.
Bankrupcies have hit record numbers the last two years at least ... and the number is expected to keep rising ... foreclosures are at an all time high ... more and more people have borrowed a lot more than they can afford to pay back ...
So what needs to be done? People need to get back to basics ... learn to live within what they can afford. Learn to spend money on what they NEED and to save money again. No ... we don't need the government to step in and 'fix' the situation either to protect the consumer or the banks ... either method is only going to prolong the issue rather than fix anything.
To an extent people NEED to have thier spending habits snap back and slap them down hard, and the banks and credit companies need to take those losses and learn to better manage thier risk. Who is to blame when someone making less than $30,000 a year is carrying a credit card ballance of over $10,000? Both the person buying items that they can't afford to pay for ... and the bank that gave him a credit line of over 33% of his annual income ... and yes I think that blame falls in equal measure.
Credit card companies and banks have a solid idea of an individuals debt to income ratio .... and yet they consistantly choose to continue to extend credit well beyond the 'safe' ratio in the pursuit of the potiential revenue that can be generated before the individual collapses under the weight of bills ... hoping that they can collect enough in interest and fees before the individual folds and is forced into bankrupcy.
And the American consumer thrives on it all ... buying expensive cars and houses well beyond their 'need' in order to appear wealthier than they are. Buying luxury goods and services beyond their means not out of any 'need' but out of a desire for something 'more' than they have now ... until the time comes to pay the piper.
Out of control governmental spending ... however ... is a topic for another time.
As a country we have, for the last 9 or more years, spent more than we make. I myself can attest to that to some degree.
According to one report, since 1990 the number of people who held credit cards grew 75% (from 82 million in 1990 to 144 million in '03) while the amount charged to those cards more than trippled from 338 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars over the same time period. This means that people have charged more and more on their credit cards ... and while Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that aggregate U.S. personal income in that timeframe did increase roughly 188 percent that doesn't nearly cover the additional spending.
In fact the report shows that the average carried ballance rose from $2550 in 1990 to $7520 in 2003 approximately a 200 percent increase. (Keep in mind, however, that this is average carried balance so anyone that paid off thier credit card bill every month was not accounted for in this figure.)
That figure, of course, is an average ... meaning that a few people on the extreme ends can really skew the numbers. What isn't skewed, however, is that of those that carried more than $10,000 in debt, 36% of them made less than $50,000 a year ... and 13% of them made less than $30,000 a year.
All of this is, of course, on top of car loans, home mortgages, and home equity loans. The average debt in this country has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Sooner or later the books are going to have to balance out ... at some point all that debt must be repaid ... and when you have people sitting on debt equal to 20 percent or more of the annual income sitting in high interest credit card accounts ... well it's not going to be a pretty sight.
Bankrupcies have hit record numbers the last two years at least ... and the number is expected to keep rising ... foreclosures are at an all time high ... more and more people have borrowed a lot more than they can afford to pay back ...
So what needs to be done? People need to get back to basics ... learn to live within what they can afford. Learn to spend money on what they NEED and to save money again. No ... we don't need the government to step in and 'fix' the situation either to protect the consumer or the banks ... either method is only going to prolong the issue rather than fix anything.
To an extent people NEED to have thier spending habits snap back and slap them down hard, and the banks and credit companies need to take those losses and learn to better manage thier risk. Who is to blame when someone making less than $30,000 a year is carrying a credit card ballance of over $10,000? Both the person buying items that they can't afford to pay for ... and the bank that gave him a credit line of over 33% of his annual income ... and yes I think that blame falls in equal measure.
Credit card companies and banks have a solid idea of an individuals debt to income ratio .... and yet they consistantly choose to continue to extend credit well beyond the 'safe' ratio in the pursuit of the potiential revenue that can be generated before the individual collapses under the weight of bills ... hoping that they can collect enough in interest and fees before the individual folds and is forced into bankrupcy.
And the American consumer thrives on it all ... buying expensive cars and houses well beyond their 'need' in order to appear wealthier than they are. Buying luxury goods and services beyond their means not out of any 'need' but out of a desire for something 'more' than they have now ... until the time comes to pay the piper.
Out of control governmental spending ... however ... is a topic for another time.
The Politics of Education
When I spoke last about how 'boring' politics was little did I realize the perfect example was sitting in my own backyard. (well ... okay ... really it's across town in a completely different county, but geographically speaking.....)
Clayton country is in danger of loosing the accreditation of its public schools. 'But what does that have to do with politics being boring?' Everything.
Because this is not the beginning of the issue, but it's conclusion ... the school system has been in danger for over 5 years. Either under direct threat of loosing the accreditation or in a probationary status with the accreditation board. In all that time there has been no outrage or public attempts like the one that the angered parents and students put forth last night when 2500 or so of them rallied to call for the resignation of the school board members.
Where was has this public involvement been over the last 5 years ... or even before that?
It was being blissfully entertained and therefore either completely ignorant of the situation, or too bored about politics to care.
Don't get me wrong ... I am sure that there are those members of Clayton County that have been trying to get this taken care of in the last 5 years ... some maybe even before that. And those people that have been trying to do something deserve some recognition for being aware of the issue and trying to correct it. Saddly so few people in any community get involved or pay attention to such issues even when they can directly effect them.
Because this issue effects every single resident of Clayton county ... not just the over 52,000 students whose future diplomas may be worth less than the paper they are printed on.
Certainly those students stand to loose a lot ... their shot at any scholarship, and their ability to attend many universities in general ... their eligibility for student loans and potentially their ability to get jobs. But the school system loosing its accreditation has effects beyond the students ... property values are likely to be greatly affected as a result of the local schools loosing accreditation, the area would also become less attractive to business and potential employees that may be considering relocating to the area.
There are, of course, more issues than just the blatant disinterest in politics involved here ... ethics issues relating to the members of the school board, parents not being as directly involved in their children's educations as they should, government school ineptitude in general, and the underlying need for a comprehensive voucher system available to everyone; but the fact of the matter is that, ultimately, most of those issues boil down to the same underlying cause ... politics.
Politics effects everyone ... and local politics often has the greatest impact on our lives, but is often the most neglected. I know I'm guilty of this myself ... I know very little of my local political situation as I tend to focus more on the national arena ... loosing the trees in the forest, so to speak ... but that doesn't mean that I can't see the valuable lesson to be learned in this story: what you don't know CAN affect you, and failing to understand politics and its potential impacts on your life will not save you from the harm it can cause.
Clayton country is in danger of loosing the accreditation of its public schools. 'But what does that have to do with politics being boring?' Everything.
Because this is not the beginning of the issue, but it's conclusion ... the school system has been in danger for over 5 years. Either under direct threat of loosing the accreditation or in a probationary status with the accreditation board. In all that time there has been no outrage or public attempts like the one that the angered parents and students put forth last night when 2500 or so of them rallied to call for the resignation of the school board members.
Where was has this public involvement been over the last 5 years ... or even before that?
It was being blissfully entertained and therefore either completely ignorant of the situation, or too bored about politics to care.
Don't get me wrong ... I am sure that there are those members of Clayton County that have been trying to get this taken care of in the last 5 years ... some maybe even before that. And those people that have been trying to do something deserve some recognition for being aware of the issue and trying to correct it. Saddly so few people in any community get involved or pay attention to such issues even when they can directly effect them.
Because this issue effects every single resident of Clayton county ... not just the over 52,000 students whose future diplomas may be worth less than the paper they are printed on.
Certainly those students stand to loose a lot ... their shot at any scholarship, and their ability to attend many universities in general ... their eligibility for student loans and potentially their ability to get jobs. But the school system loosing its accreditation has effects beyond the students ... property values are likely to be greatly affected as a result of the local schools loosing accreditation, the area would also become less attractive to business and potential employees that may be considering relocating to the area.
There are, of course, more issues than just the blatant disinterest in politics involved here ... ethics issues relating to the members of the school board, parents not being as directly involved in their children's educations as they should, government school ineptitude in general, and the underlying need for a comprehensive voucher system available to everyone; but the fact of the matter is that, ultimately, most of those issues boil down to the same underlying cause ... politics.
Politics effects everyone ... and local politics often has the greatest impact on our lives, but is often the most neglected. I know I'm guilty of this myself ... I know very little of my local political situation as I tend to focus more on the national arena ... loosing the trees in the forest, so to speak ... but that doesn't mean that I can't see the valuable lesson to be learned in this story: what you don't know CAN affect you, and failing to understand politics and its potential impacts on your life will not save you from the harm it can cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
