I'll keep this short ....
There isn't one.
You do not have a 'right' to health care ... it is not the government's JOB to provide health care. I will grant you that legislating that a doctor or hospital can not deny health care based on race or religious beliefs would be reasonable, but I believe that is already covered under existing laws.
Why isn't there a 'right' to health care ... because it is an individual responsibility. You are responsible for your own health care. For there to be a 'right' to health care then you as an individual (or us as a collective group) would have to have the ability to claim a 'right' to a portion of someone else's life. You (or we) would have to be able to say to a doctor 'you must spend your time to treat me.'
Time is the ultimate resource ... that is to say it is completely irreplaceable. If you claim a right to that doctor's time, you are claiming a right to a resource that they absolutely can not replace, ever. True ... you may only use a half hour this month, and another half hour a few more months later ... but you see ... if YOU have a 'right' to his time, so does everyone else. And ultimately that means that everyone has a 'right' to his time except the doctor.
The flip side is ... if the government has the power to claim the time of one person or profession (health care providers) then they have the power to claim the time of all people. That means a right to Electricians, Plumbers, Salespeople, and you.
'It can not be considered a right if someone else has to pay for it.' - Ayn Rand
One of the reasons that health care costs are so high, and also the reason that many emergency rooms are struggling lately is the cost of caring for those that don't have insurance and can't pay for the services. This causes two things to happen ... first, the hospital has to charge the other patients a higher price to cover the patients that can't pay (of course this has the ripple effect of causing more people to be unable to pay); and secondly, the hospital needs to get funds from the government to make up the difference.
Medical care is not free folks ... like any other business they have expenses. When you go see your doctor you are paying his salary, the nurses salary, the receptionist's salary, the electric bill, phone bill, water bill, office supply costs, equipment costs, etc. Admittedly you're only paying a percentage, but that is what you're paying for ... and remember that those salaries there are to reimburse those people for the TIME that they spend on the job. By claiming a 'right' to health care you are saying that you own that time and shouldn't have to pay for it ... it is your right.
There is no 'right to health care' listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights ... heck originally health care was taken care of completely by individuals ... then at some point, businesses competing for employees came up with the idea of including health care insurance as part of the benefits of the job as a means of attracting more and better employees (and/or paying employees less due to the money saved by coving their health care.) ... so what happened?
Those people that didn't get the jobs with the benifits ... who didn't want to take less money or who just didn't want to work harder to achieve that level of value to an employer cried 'foul' and eventually someone in government said 'hey ... you know ... I can get a lot of votes if I say that I'll make these big companies give their employees health benifits.' And sure enough ... they did ... and they passed a law saying that companies larger than X had to provide health coverage to all full time employees ... and then eventually the expanded on that ... and expanded on it again.
Until now ... you have a large portion of the population that believe that it is the employer's responsibility to GIVE them health coverage ... it's not their responsibility at all; it is something that is supposed to be given to them. And since it's something that should be given to everyone, why shouldn't it be the government that does the giving?
No ... in fact if government had stayed OUT of the equation all together we would probably have a lot better health system than we do already.....
Medicare and Medicaid ... the current government run health systems ... is that REALLY what you want in health care? Can anyone name one thing that the government does efficiently? All studies show that private market solutions with minimal or no governmental regulations produce cheaper, more efficient solutions ... and yet the people of this country seem more than happy to just throw more money at the government so they can get free health care....
On the one hand I want it to happen so that when it does go to hell I can sit back and say 'I told you' ... on the other hand I don't want to be here to deal with it....
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
The bipartisan 'change' in DC
Okay, I said before that I'm not going to get into a breakdown of Obama's 100 days. I did, however, run across a couple of articles that I felt were worth mentioning. First was the NY Post's 100 days, 100 mistakes
and the second was CNN's Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days.
The first is a long article, but worth a read, the second has a few clips in it that I want to make a few points about.
Specifically that Obama and his 'unity would overtake partisanship' have done next to nothing to make that happen. During the campaign and in his inaugural speech Obama repeatedly stated that he would reach across the proverbial aisle ... and yet the 'stimulus' package that was passed by the House completely rejected any and all Republican ideas with House Speaker Pelosi refusing to even hear or debate most of them.
In fact, at every turn on every bill they have simply used the Democratic majority to steamroll through things exactly as they want them, ignoring any opposition or suggested compromise entirely.
And now ... as they set their sights on Health Care Reform they have invoked a new tool ... lets call it the 'Budget Reconciliation Gag.'
Basically President Obama included a line item in his budget for 'health care reform' .... so the Senate can pass a health care reform bill by a simple majority and ... here's the best part ... it can't be filibustered!
That's right boys and girls ... they can pass socialized medicine with a simple party line vote. They can completely gag the minority and do whatever they want ... and if they get it done before the 2010 elections there is NOTHING you can do to stop them.
That reason alone has 'lit a fire' under the Democrats to get a lot of the big things passed quickly and UHC and Pelosi's beloved Climate Change bills are the next things in the barrel to be pushed onto the American people regardless of if they are wanted or needed ... or for that matter if they are good for the country or not.
This is why the founding fathers of the country were suspicious of big government ... why they felt and why they wrote that government should be handled primarily at the state and local level. Because what is going on in DC most definitely effects me, my family, and probably many future generations ... but it will be decided almost entirely by people that I have no say in electing.
In the Senate I have access and some form of control to 2 votes .... 2 out of 100 ... in the House I have access to 1 ... of over 200 votes (I don't remember exactly how many seats are currently in the House of Representatives) .....
We need to take control of this country back people ... if we want our voices heard we are going to have to stand up and stand together like we haven't done in a long time ... the Tea parties were a start, but they have to be that ... a START .... we have to keep up the pressure ... we have to let them know that we're fed up with the spending (yes it started under Bush ... yes, Obama 'inherited' the situation (just as Bush inherited a recession from Clinton though people like to forget that) but doubling the spending in 4 months is NOT the answer to the spending problem ... it's the anti-answer.
We have to make our voices heard ... and the harder that they try to push us aside or gag us, the louder we need to shout. Because if we don't then the country we grew up in is going to disappear ... vanish into a world of mediocrity and government control, and in the end everyone will finally have the same thing .... nothing.
and the second was CNN's Bipartisanship didn't last long in Obama's first 100 days.
The first is a long article, but worth a read, the second has a few clips in it that I want to make a few points about.
Specifically that Obama and his 'unity would overtake partisanship' have done next to nothing to make that happen. During the campaign and in his inaugural speech Obama repeatedly stated that he would reach across the proverbial aisle ... and yet the 'stimulus' package that was passed by the House completely rejected any and all Republican ideas with House Speaker Pelosi refusing to even hear or debate most of them.
In fact, at every turn on every bill they have simply used the Democratic majority to steamroll through things exactly as they want them, ignoring any opposition or suggested compromise entirely.
And now ... as they set their sights on Health Care Reform they have invoked a new tool ... lets call it the 'Budget Reconciliation Gag.'
Basically President Obama included a line item in his budget for 'health care reform' .... so the Senate can pass a health care reform bill by a simple majority and ... here's the best part ... it can't be filibustered!
That's right boys and girls ... they can pass socialized medicine with a simple party line vote. They can completely gag the minority and do whatever they want ... and if they get it done before the 2010 elections there is NOTHING you can do to stop them.
That reason alone has 'lit a fire' under the Democrats to get a lot of the big things passed quickly and UHC and Pelosi's beloved Climate Change bills are the next things in the barrel to be pushed onto the American people regardless of if they are wanted or needed ... or for that matter if they are good for the country or not.
This is why the founding fathers of the country were suspicious of big government ... why they felt and why they wrote that government should be handled primarily at the state and local level. Because what is going on in DC most definitely effects me, my family, and probably many future generations ... but it will be decided almost entirely by people that I have no say in electing.
In the Senate I have access and some form of control to 2 votes .... 2 out of 100 ... in the House I have access to 1 ... of over 200 votes (I don't remember exactly how many seats are currently in the House of Representatives) .....
We need to take control of this country back people ... if we want our voices heard we are going to have to stand up and stand together like we haven't done in a long time ... the Tea parties were a start, but they have to be that ... a START .... we have to keep up the pressure ... we have to let them know that we're fed up with the spending (yes it started under Bush ... yes, Obama 'inherited' the situation (just as Bush inherited a recession from Clinton though people like to forget that) but doubling the spending in 4 months is NOT the answer to the spending problem ... it's the anti-answer.
We have to make our voices heard ... and the harder that they try to push us aside or gag us, the louder we need to shout. Because if we don't then the country we grew up in is going to disappear ... vanish into a world of mediocrity and government control, and in the end everyone will finally have the same thing .... nothing.
100 days
Actually I'm not going to write anything about President Obama's first 100 days in office .... if you want that there are going to be plenty of news stories and analysis columns out there with out me throwing in my 2 cents worth. I think most of you can probably figure out my opinion of how the present administration is going without me having to specifically spell it out.
What I am going to ramble on about for a bit is Janet Napolitano, the current Head of the Department of Homeland Security (or whatever the actual title is). Where in the hell did President Obama dig her up? I mean she starts off by issuing a report (that was first bounced but she decided to go ahead and make it public anyway) that in very broad sweeping terms called anyone who believed in secure boarders, owned weapons, and were white Americans 'right wing extremists' that needed to be watched as potential terrorists. Compounding that the report claimed that such organizations were increasing their activity and military personnel were at risk of being recruited into such organizations (and thus also needed to be watched).
Seriously? Yeah, the report is so broad with its definition of 'right wing extremists' that I could basically be considered a domestic terrorist. Isn't this FUN? I wonder if they've started the wiretaps yet.
Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that there are no groups in the US that are right wing extremists and I dare say that there are a few that are probably deserving of the term 'terrorist' and should be monitored closely by authorities, but when you make your definition and profile so broad that a good 50% or so of the nations population fit the criteria, it becomes meaningless and nothing more than a political attack on people who have an opposing viewpoint.
But Janet Napolitano wasn't done there ... no no no. She had to drag her office down even further with the following gem:
"(in reference to illegal aliens) ... when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."
Civil? WRONG.
Crossing the boarder illegally is .... dun dun DA ... ILLEGAL and thus it is a crime. In fact the first offense is a misdemeanor, the second is a FELONY. If they did not immigrate into this country through legal channels then they broke the law, and every day that they continue to stay in this country they continue to break it. They may obey every other law perfectly (though many do not) but they are still willingly breaking the law every day and are, thus, CRIMINALS.
They may be perfectly nice people, but if they do not have a basic respect for the laws of this country then they do not have any respect for what this country stands for and they do not belong here. I don't care what the Head of Homeland Security says.
What I am going to ramble on about for a bit is Janet Napolitano, the current Head of the Department of Homeland Security (or whatever the actual title is). Where in the hell did President Obama dig her up? I mean she starts off by issuing a report (that was first bounced but she decided to go ahead and make it public anyway) that in very broad sweeping terms called anyone who believed in secure boarders, owned weapons, and were white Americans 'right wing extremists' that needed to be watched as potential terrorists. Compounding that the report claimed that such organizations were increasing their activity and military personnel were at risk of being recruited into such organizations (and thus also needed to be watched).
Seriously? Yeah, the report is so broad with its definition of 'right wing extremists' that I could basically be considered a domestic terrorist. Isn't this FUN? I wonder if they've started the wiretaps yet.
Don't get me wrong ... I'm not saying that there are no groups in the US that are right wing extremists and I dare say that there are a few that are probably deserving of the term 'terrorist' and should be monitored closely by authorities, but when you make your definition and profile so broad that a good 50% or so of the nations population fit the criteria, it becomes meaningless and nothing more than a political attack on people who have an opposing viewpoint.
But Janet Napolitano wasn't done there ... no no no. She had to drag her office down even further with the following gem:
"(in reference to illegal aliens) ... when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."
Civil? WRONG.
Crossing the boarder illegally is .... dun dun DA ... ILLEGAL and thus it is a crime. In fact the first offense is a misdemeanor, the second is a FELONY. If they did not immigrate into this country through legal channels then they broke the law, and every day that they continue to stay in this country they continue to break it. They may obey every other law perfectly (though many do not) but they are still willingly breaking the law every day and are, thus, CRIMINALS.
They may be perfectly nice people, but if they do not have a basic respect for the laws of this country then they do not have any respect for what this country stands for and they do not belong here. I don't care what the Head of Homeland Security says.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The day after
Well ... tax day is come and gone again. Hope everyone enjoyed their chance to write out a check and pay the government for their continued incompetence. Yesterday's rant was perhaps a bit cut short, but a power outage at the office really cut into my day, so I didn't get a chance to cover some of the things I wanted to. We're going to move forward though and discuss some of the comments I've heard this morning regarding the TEA parties yesterday.
"It's anti-government ... promoted by the right wing conservative Network Fox News ..." - CNN reporter Susan Roesgen
Now, I'd be willing to bet that had it been a Liberal anti-war protests then it would have been a 'gathering of concerned citizens protesting the atrocities of our military.' without any mention of 'liberal' or 'left wing' labels. But since it is a group of American citizens protesting the taxes that our government places on them then they are 'anti-government' and the protests are organized by the 'right wing conservative network.'
Where in protesting taxes is anyone saying that there shouldn't be a government? Yes, many are saying that there is 'too much government' sure, but that doesn't mean that we are 'anti-government' ... there is a vast world of difference between those two points of view.
Also, yes, there are a large majority of the protesters that are conservative in their views, but not all are 'right wing' and most of them would not realistically be considered 'extremists' by a long shot. Many are Libertarian or 'centralist' in their views and simply believe that they should be allowed to keep what they work hard to earn without fear of the government stepping in to take from them in order to give to someone else.
And no, she's not the only reporter that did this or will do it today, she just happens to be the one that I heard a sound bite of this morning on the way to work. ACORN (the far left 'community' organization that was under investigation for registering dead people to vote) said on the 14th that 'these protests are organized by a small group of fringe radicals dedicated to saying no.' And I'd be willing to bet that I can find similar quotes in the NY Times, LA Times, AJC, and probably on most of the national news networks.
Now, however, I want to move on to a bigger figure in this country and some of his statements yesterday. Specifically President Obama and his statement that "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top..."
Wait a sec ... he didn't really say 'give' there did he?
I work for my paycheck .... and let me tell you it is a rare week that I only work 40 hours. And last time I looked at my paycheck the government hadn't given me any part of it ... in fact they had taken a pretty good chunk OUT of it. And you know what ... that's the same for everyone that works here ... including the 'rich' business owner.
I don't want the government creating jobs .... I want private industry creating jobs ... I don't want the government to take my bosses wealth to give to me (or anyone else) because if I want to earn more and succeed and I am successful I don't want them taking MY income to spread it around either.
I don't want the government to make everyone 'equal' by tearing down those at the top to make everyone equally poor ... I want the government to stay out of the way and let the achievers achieve and succeed and prosper so that the people that they employ and support through their success prosper with them.
I am not fortunate ... I did not come by anything I have from an unexpected source ... I've worked for every dime, every game, every TV in my house. I've made some mistakes, certainly, but I learned from them and made the adjustments that I needed to make myself more financially sound and secure. I work for what I make, and I make what I earn ... I want the government to get it's mits out of my wallet and let ME spend MY money as I see fit and on the things that I feel need to be supported.
It has been shown repeatedly that private charity can do more with less than the government .... and yet the government seems to feel that it is somehow their job to take that responsibility from us. Charitable donations are down DRASTICALLY since Obama took office ... why? Because he has lowered the tax deduct ability of those donations AND raised the tax rates ... so ... as a result ... government expects to have to step in and help cover that difference by expanding government assistance programs.
The only sector in this economy that is growing is Government ... but government doesn't produce anything all it does is spend money.
"It's anti-government ... promoted by the right wing conservative Network Fox News ..." - CNN reporter Susan Roesgen
Now, I'd be willing to bet that had it been a Liberal anti-war protests then it would have been a 'gathering of concerned citizens protesting the atrocities of our military.' without any mention of 'liberal' or 'left wing' labels. But since it is a group of American citizens protesting the taxes that our government places on them then they are 'anti-government' and the protests are organized by the 'right wing conservative network.'
Where in protesting taxes is anyone saying that there shouldn't be a government? Yes, many are saying that there is 'too much government' sure, but that doesn't mean that we are 'anti-government' ... there is a vast world of difference between those two points of view.
Also, yes, there are a large majority of the protesters that are conservative in their views, but not all are 'right wing' and most of them would not realistically be considered 'extremists' by a long shot. Many are Libertarian or 'centralist' in their views and simply believe that they should be allowed to keep what they work hard to earn without fear of the government stepping in to take from them in order to give to someone else.
And no, she's not the only reporter that did this or will do it today, she just happens to be the one that I heard a sound bite of this morning on the way to work. ACORN (the far left 'community' organization that was under investigation for registering dead people to vote) said on the 14th that 'these protests are organized by a small group of fringe radicals dedicated to saying no.' And I'd be willing to bet that I can find similar quotes in the NY Times, LA Times, AJC, and probably on most of the national news networks.
Now, however, I want to move on to a bigger figure in this country and some of his statements yesterday. Specifically President Obama and his statement that "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top..."
Wait a sec ... he didn't really say 'give' there did he?
I work for my paycheck .... and let me tell you it is a rare week that I only work 40 hours. And last time I looked at my paycheck the government hadn't given me any part of it ... in fact they had taken a pretty good chunk OUT of it. And you know what ... that's the same for everyone that works here ... including the 'rich' business owner.
I don't want the government creating jobs .... I want private industry creating jobs ... I don't want the government to take my bosses wealth to give to me (or anyone else) because if I want to earn more and succeed and I am successful I don't want them taking MY income to spread it around either.
I don't want the government to make everyone 'equal' by tearing down those at the top to make everyone equally poor ... I want the government to stay out of the way and let the achievers achieve and succeed and prosper so that the people that they employ and support through their success prosper with them.
I am not fortunate ... I did not come by anything I have from an unexpected source ... I've worked for every dime, every game, every TV in my house. I've made some mistakes, certainly, but I learned from them and made the adjustments that I needed to make myself more financially sound and secure. I work for what I make, and I make what I earn ... I want the government to get it's mits out of my wallet and let ME spend MY money as I see fit and on the things that I feel need to be supported.
It has been shown repeatedly that private charity can do more with less than the government .... and yet the government seems to feel that it is somehow their job to take that responsibility from us. Charitable donations are down DRASTICALLY since Obama took office ... why? Because he has lowered the tax deduct ability of those donations AND raised the tax rates ... so ... as a result ... government expects to have to step in and help cover that difference by expanding government assistance programs.
The only sector in this economy that is growing is Government ... but government doesn't produce anything all it does is spend money.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Happy Tax Day
Things are a little crazy at the office today so my time to ramble is a bit limited, but I didn't want to let today go by without saying something about the tax system in this country.
The fact that this system ever got passed is a testament to the shortsightedness of people.
'Well lets get a tax system that punishes success with harsher punishment for greater success. Even better lets take the money directly out of their paychecks so that they don't even get to have the money in the first place. Then, we'll have them spend hours and weeks of time to get their information together and file paperwork to make sure that we withheld the right amount so that we can give those that overpaid their change, and collect from those that underpaid.'
'To process this mountain of otherwise unnecessary paperwork we'll form a new bureaucracy and give them the power to call any citizen in to defend their tax paperwork with the assumption that they are guilty unless they can provide evidence that they are not; and if they can't then we'll hit them with massive additional fees and penalties.'
Come on ... does anyone think that this sounds like a good idea? Now admittedly it wasn't presented in exactly those words, but they were the effect.
We have GOT to do something about this absurd system of taxation in this country. At the very least the level of taxation needs to be dealt with before the country implodes. We are chasing jobs, and productive people out of this country like mad.
Wake up people and get active ....
The fact that this system ever got passed is a testament to the shortsightedness of people.
'Well lets get a tax system that punishes success with harsher punishment for greater success. Even better lets take the money directly out of their paychecks so that they don't even get to have the money in the first place. Then, we'll have them spend hours and weeks of time to get their information together and file paperwork to make sure that we withheld the right amount so that we can give those that overpaid their change, and collect from those that underpaid.'
'To process this mountain of otherwise unnecessary paperwork we'll form a new bureaucracy and give them the power to call any citizen in to defend their tax paperwork with the assumption that they are guilty unless they can provide evidence that they are not; and if they can't then we'll hit them with massive additional fees and penalties.'
Come on ... does anyone think that this sounds like a good idea? Now admittedly it wasn't presented in exactly those words, but they were the effect.
We have GOT to do something about this absurd system of taxation in this country. At the very least the level of taxation needs to be dealt with before the country implodes. We are chasing jobs, and productive people out of this country like mad.
Wake up people and get active ....
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Deep Six the Pirates
As I'm sure by now most of you have already heard, pirates have boarded a US ship, taken a crew of US citizens captive, and subsequently been thrown off the ship by the same US crew. Presently they are holding the captive of the ship hostage on a life boat that is out of fuel, floating on the sea.
The US has a navy ship in the area watching the situation and waiting.
The ship itself is now out of the area and headed to a safe port under escort. But what is the US response to this going to be? What should it be?
First, you have the company that owns the ship, Maersk Line Ltd., has asked that no military action be taken, and stated that they are willing to pay up to 10 million US dollars in ransom for the safe return of the captain.
I think that it is very admirable that they are willing to pay that for the safety of their employee, don't get me wrong. But do they realize that, at the same time, they are further endangering future shipping in the area, particularly ships of their line? This is not the first such attack where these pirates have seized commercial ships and held them for ransom recently .... it is, however, the first US ship and US crew that has been attacked. If the ransom is payed, it will not be the last.
Likewise there is the fact that these pirates have already gone back on one deal to release the captain. The crew of the ship agreed to release a pirate they had captured in exchange for the captain; when they released the pirate safely, however, the pirates refused to release the captain as agreed. So what assurance do we really have that the pirates in anyway intend to release the captain at all?
So ... let's weigh the options:
1 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and the captain is released safely.
But, as above, we have encouraged the behavior by giving the pirates what they want, virtually ensuring that they (or another group who sees that it worked this time) will hijack another ship.
2 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and once the captain is safely released we hit the pirates, killing or 'arresting' them.
Since the ransom is not likely to be delivered to a lifeboat off the coast of Africa, however, you are most likely going to end up with a situation where the leader gets away with the cash and you catch the thugs he uses for muscle. Since those are relatively easy to replace (lets face it ... this isn't exactly highly technical 'skilled' labor we're talking about) you end up with all the disadvantages of #1 above, as well a having to deal with any captured pirates. With this administration these would likely be well treated and tried in US courts with full constitutional protections (including a tax payer funded defense), turned over to a local government that won't do anything, or turned over to the UN with the same results.
3 - Military strike/rescue - Use any and all means necessary to take out the pirates with extreme prejudice while attempting to rescue the captain.
A tough option that puts the poor captain in grave danger, no doubt about it. But as I've said in previous posts actions have consequences and you need to look beyond this one captain. I know it sounds cold and heartless, but if they get away with this you can expect more ... and sooner or later they will kill someone, possibly an entire crew.
I'm sorry, I don't believe in playing patty cakes with people that will threaten the lives of American citizens. Hit them hard, and don't let any walk (or swim) away. Find their base ship and put it to the bottom, if it goes into a port demand that the local government seize and surrender the ship and crew and make it clear that if they do not that we WILL take action if they do not. When they do not, hit the ship and send it to the bottom where it sits in port.
Send the message that messing with any ship flying the US flag is a very very BAD idea.
Thomas Jefferson dealt with a similar situation with the Barbary pirates early in his Presidency ... you know what his ultimate answer was to their demands to pay ransom in order to use the shipping lanes? He sent the navy over and bombarded Tripoli and lo and behold the shipping lanes cleared up ... not just for the US, but for France and Britain (both of whom had previously been paying the ransom) as well.
There is a time for diplomacy ... when someone is threatening you is not the time to appear weak.
The US has a navy ship in the area watching the situation and waiting.
The ship itself is now out of the area and headed to a safe port under escort. But what is the US response to this going to be? What should it be?
First, you have the company that owns the ship, Maersk Line Ltd., has asked that no military action be taken, and stated that they are willing to pay up to 10 million US dollars in ransom for the safe return of the captain.
I think that it is very admirable that they are willing to pay that for the safety of their employee, don't get me wrong. But do they realize that, at the same time, they are further endangering future shipping in the area, particularly ships of their line? This is not the first such attack where these pirates have seized commercial ships and held them for ransom recently .... it is, however, the first US ship and US crew that has been attacked. If the ransom is payed, it will not be the last.
Likewise there is the fact that these pirates have already gone back on one deal to release the captain. The crew of the ship agreed to release a pirate they had captured in exchange for the captain; when they released the pirate safely, however, the pirates refused to release the captain as agreed. So what assurance do we really have that the pirates in anyway intend to release the captain at all?
So ... let's weigh the options:
1 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and the captain is released safely.
But, as above, we have encouraged the behavior by giving the pirates what they want, virtually ensuring that they (or another group who sees that it worked this time) will hijack another ship.
2 - We (or Maersk Line Ltd.) pays the ransom and once the captain is safely released we hit the pirates, killing or 'arresting' them.
Since the ransom is not likely to be delivered to a lifeboat off the coast of Africa, however, you are most likely going to end up with a situation where the leader gets away with the cash and you catch the thugs he uses for muscle. Since those are relatively easy to replace (lets face it ... this isn't exactly highly technical 'skilled' labor we're talking about) you end up with all the disadvantages of #1 above, as well a having to deal with any captured pirates. With this administration these would likely be well treated and tried in US courts with full constitutional protections (including a tax payer funded defense), turned over to a local government that won't do anything, or turned over to the UN with the same results.
3 - Military strike/rescue - Use any and all means necessary to take out the pirates with extreme prejudice while attempting to rescue the captain.
A tough option that puts the poor captain in grave danger, no doubt about it. But as I've said in previous posts actions have consequences and you need to look beyond this one captain. I know it sounds cold and heartless, but if they get away with this you can expect more ... and sooner or later they will kill someone, possibly an entire crew.
I'm sorry, I don't believe in playing patty cakes with people that will threaten the lives of American citizens. Hit them hard, and don't let any walk (or swim) away. Find their base ship and put it to the bottom, if it goes into a port demand that the local government seize and surrender the ship and crew and make it clear that if they do not that we WILL take action if they do not. When they do not, hit the ship and send it to the bottom where it sits in port.
Send the message that messing with any ship flying the US flag is a very very BAD idea.
Thomas Jefferson dealt with a similar situation with the Barbary pirates early in his Presidency ... you know what his ultimate answer was to their demands to pay ransom in order to use the shipping lanes? He sent the navy over and bombarded Tripoli and lo and behold the shipping lanes cleared up ... not just for the US, but for France and Britain (both of whom had previously been paying the ransom) as well.
There is a time for diplomacy ... when someone is threatening you is not the time to appear weak.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Still alive and other random thoughts
Man ... I can't believe it's been this long since I last blogged. I'm not going to try and make excuses; I've had plenty of opportunity over the last 4 months to post, I just haven't felt particularly bloggy. Not that I've really been doing anything particularly productive in that time .... just letting myself slide back into my old lazy habits.
Likewise I'm not going to say that I'm going to get back to blogging regularly, though I do plan to try.
Well ... what can I say. President Obama is doing about as well as I expected. He is poised to grow the government more in 1 year than it has grown under Carter, Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. combined. He is setting up to push us forward into 'universal health care' and is slowly seizing the financial sector of this country. He is doing in 2009/2010 what, less than 30 years ago we would have run people out of the country for even suggesting.
Seriously, what previous administration would have had the gall to ask Congress for the power to 'seize control of troubled financial institutions whose failure could harm the economic situation' without oversight or approval by any other branch?
Here again we see the government grossly overstepping its bounds and trying to protect us from any and all forms of failure. Look sometimes we NEED to fall on our backsides and pick ourselves back up, it's how we learn and improve. This whole 'we need to bail out industry 'x' so they don't go bankrupt and harm the economy. The problem is, of course, that the bailout itself harms the economy ... and at some point those companies are, more than likely, going to fail anyway. Because eventually the government is going to go broke and it won't be able to bail them out and they will fail; and it will probably be a lot worse for everyone than if we just let them fail now and let a newer, stronger, company fill their shoes.
But that would be the Free Market solution to the problem ... and it seems that more and more people don't like that whole 'free' word and would like it replaced with 'government controlled'. Move to a 'government controlled' market and you don't have to worry about anything because the 'government' will have everything under 'control' and you can go to work happy every day in your government job with your government provided meals, and health care, and housing.
You won't have to worry about your house payment, the government will provide you the living space they believe that you need. No need to worry about your raise this year, the government will make sure you have what you need. Won't life be grand when all we have to do is let the government tell us what we want to be happy?
Wake UP people. This pipe dream has NEVER worked because it runs against the grain of human nature.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. - Margret Thatcher.
A government big enough to give you what you want, is also big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson.
Likewise I'm not going to say that I'm going to get back to blogging regularly, though I do plan to try.
Well ... what can I say. President Obama is doing about as well as I expected. He is poised to grow the government more in 1 year than it has grown under Carter, Regan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. combined. He is setting up to push us forward into 'universal health care' and is slowly seizing the financial sector of this country. He is doing in 2009/2010 what, less than 30 years ago we would have run people out of the country for even suggesting.
Seriously, what previous administration would have had the gall to ask Congress for the power to 'seize control of troubled financial institutions whose failure could harm the economic situation' without oversight or approval by any other branch?
Here again we see the government grossly overstepping its bounds and trying to protect us from any and all forms of failure. Look sometimes we NEED to fall on our backsides and pick ourselves back up, it's how we learn and improve. This whole 'we need to bail out industry 'x' so they don't go bankrupt and harm the economy. The problem is, of course, that the bailout itself harms the economy ... and at some point those companies are, more than likely, going to fail anyway. Because eventually the government is going to go broke and it won't be able to bail them out and they will fail; and it will probably be a lot worse for everyone than if we just let them fail now and let a newer, stronger, company fill their shoes.
But that would be the Free Market solution to the problem ... and it seems that more and more people don't like that whole 'free' word and would like it replaced with 'government controlled'. Move to a 'government controlled' market and you don't have to worry about anything because the 'government' will have everything under 'control' and you can go to work happy every day in your government job with your government provided meals, and health care, and housing.
You won't have to worry about your house payment, the government will provide you the living space they believe that you need. No need to worry about your raise this year, the government will make sure you have what you need. Won't life be grand when all we have to do is let the government tell us what we want to be happy?
Wake UP people. This pipe dream has NEVER worked because it runs against the grain of human nature.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. - Margret Thatcher.
A government big enough to give you what you want, is also big enough to take everything you have. - Thomas Jefferson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
