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.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
People
... make me crazy sometimes ... okay ... most of the time.
The weather here has been .... dreary, to put it nicely. And yesterday it was a gray foggy drive into work ... and that was at one in the afternoon. And yet, with crappy visibility, wet roads, and poor driving conditions half of the idiots on the road didn't take basic safety precautions.
Look, I'm no angel behind the wheel. I generally speed slightly and there are times that I follow closer than I should. I don't always stop completely at a stop sign, and I have pulled through a red light (after sitting at it for 5 minutes with no other traffic visible). BUT visibility is everything. Half of these people didn't have their headlights on.
It was 1 in the afternoon, why should they use their headlights? They could see just as well without them.
Yes they could ... having them on or off made no difference in how well I could see. I know, however, that it made a HUGE difference in how well others could see me ... because I know how much difference it made in how well I could see a car that had their lights on verses how well I could see one with them off.
Drives me nuts ....
While it wasn't an issue yesterday ... people that drive in the fog at night, early morning or evening, and use their high beams also drive me nuts. Heck as it is I drive at night on a dark road with no street lights going home at around 11pm and even on a clear night I almost never use my brights, but I swear that there is a large portion of the driving population that believes that they have to have their high beams on all the time or they can't drive.
Ah well ... this was really a pointless rant ... just needed to vent a bit ... I think that the gray weather and dull nights at work are starting to turn my brain to mush.....
The weather here has been .... dreary, to put it nicely. And yesterday it was a gray foggy drive into work ... and that was at one in the afternoon. And yet, with crappy visibility, wet roads, and poor driving conditions half of the idiots on the road didn't take basic safety precautions.
Look, I'm no angel behind the wheel. I generally speed slightly and there are times that I follow closer than I should. I don't always stop completely at a stop sign, and I have pulled through a red light (after sitting at it for 5 minutes with no other traffic visible). BUT visibility is everything. Half of these people didn't have their headlights on.
It was 1 in the afternoon, why should they use their headlights? They could see just as well without them.
Yes they could ... having them on or off made no difference in how well I could see. I know, however, that it made a HUGE difference in how well others could see me ... because I know how much difference it made in how well I could see a car that had their lights on verses how well I could see one with them off.
Drives me nuts ....
While it wasn't an issue yesterday ... people that drive in the fog at night, early morning or evening, and use their high beams also drive me nuts. Heck as it is I drive at night on a dark road with no street lights going home at around 11pm and even on a clear night I almost never use my brights, but I swear that there is a large portion of the driving population that believes that they have to have their high beams on all the time or they can't drive.
Ah well ... this was really a pointless rant ... just needed to vent a bit ... I think that the gray weather and dull nights at work are starting to turn my brain to mush.....
Thursday, December 11, 2008
I'm back....
... again.
Wow ... this year has really blown by and it's December already. I have some more normal rambling to do, but for now I just wanted to catch up on the last several months.
September saw the launch of WAR a fantasy based MMO set in the Games Workshop Warhammer setting. As a long time player of MMOs, Painter of GW models, player of Warhammer Fantasy RPG (back in the day) and player of the GW tabletop games in general I was a natural to be interested. As this isn't really a game based blog I'm not going to go into a full review, but I was pleased over all, Mythic did a really good job (in my opinion) of capturing the feel of the Warhammer universe and creating a game that was fun to play.
During this time the wife and I also dove back into working on our art at Grimscale Studios and have even made prints available of our newer pieces. While I'd LIKE to say that this has led to a windfall of print sales and requests from major museums to display our pieces, it has not. But really we are just doing it because we enjoy the creative process and creating something that is visually interesting is our main reward.
Speaking of the Creative Process ... we also participated in the 10th Anniversary of NaNoWriMo. It was as frantic and exciting as ever with work being a major hassle. However, my biggest hurdle was my own dissatisfaction with how the novel was dragging. I went from being caught up and even a little ahead to falling way behind to the point that going into the final (thankfully long) weekend I still needed over 20,000 words. Thanks to some well timed 'motivation' from my wife I managed to finish at 51,309 words before midnight November 30th.
Which pretty much brings us to now ... I may have mentioned it here a couple of years ago, but a game that my wife and I have enjoyed is starting a new Tale this weekend. The game is an MMO but is unlike any other MMO I've ever played, and that is part of what keeps drawing us back. The game in question is A Tale in the Desert which will launch its fourth telling on Saturday the 13th of December 2008.
Part of what sets A Tale in the Desert apart is that it is a crafting/socialization based game rather than the normal combat focus of most games in that genre. My plan is to start up a new blog with more of a focus on games/art/music so I'll save detailed info on ATitD for there, but I'll post a link to that once I get it set up.
I plan to get back to writing here on a more regular basis again and I'm stocking up some rants and rambles to take the Path of Bones into a new year. "Change" is in the air now and 2009 promises to be an 'interesting' year ...
Wow ... this year has really blown by and it's December already. I have some more normal rambling to do, but for now I just wanted to catch up on the last several months.
September saw the launch of WAR a fantasy based MMO set in the Games Workshop Warhammer setting. As a long time player of MMOs, Painter of GW models, player of Warhammer Fantasy RPG (back in the day) and player of the GW tabletop games in general I was a natural to be interested. As this isn't really a game based blog I'm not going to go into a full review, but I was pleased over all, Mythic did a really good job (in my opinion) of capturing the feel of the Warhammer universe and creating a game that was fun to play.
During this time the wife and I also dove back into working on our art at Grimscale Studios and have even made prints available of our newer pieces. While I'd LIKE to say that this has led to a windfall of print sales and requests from major museums to display our pieces, it has not. But really we are just doing it because we enjoy the creative process and creating something that is visually interesting is our main reward.
Speaking of the Creative Process ... we also participated in the 10th Anniversary of NaNoWriMo. It was as frantic and exciting as ever with work being a major hassle. However, my biggest hurdle was my own dissatisfaction with how the novel was dragging. I went from being caught up and even a little ahead to falling way behind to the point that going into the final (thankfully long) weekend I still needed over 20,000 words. Thanks to some well timed 'motivation' from my wife I managed to finish at 51,309 words before midnight November 30th.
Which pretty much brings us to now ... I may have mentioned it here a couple of years ago, but a game that my wife and I have enjoyed is starting a new Tale this weekend. The game is an MMO but is unlike any other MMO I've ever played, and that is part of what keeps drawing us back. The game in question is A Tale in the Desert which will launch its fourth telling on Saturday the 13th of December 2008.
Part of what sets A Tale in the Desert apart is that it is a crafting/socialization based game rather than the normal combat focus of most games in that genre. My plan is to start up a new blog with more of a focus on games/art/music so I'll save detailed info on ATitD for there, but I'll post a link to that once I get it set up.
I plan to get back to writing here on a more regular basis again and I'm stocking up some rants and rambles to take the Path of Bones into a new year. "Change" is in the air now and 2009 promises to be an 'interesting' year ...
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
The Palin Choice
McCain followed Obama's acceptance speech by announcing his Vice Presidential pick the next day ... I'm sure everyone has heard the name by now - Sarah Palin. Well ... I think that's a decision that took everyone by surprise, but I think it's a good thing and made for the right reasons.
Let's step back and take a look at this for a minute - John McCain turned the election on its proverbial ear with this announcement ... completely stealing Obama's spotlight less than 24 hours after he had accepted the appointment. It is an announcement that the democratic candidate still has not recovered from, and Palin is an opponent that Obama (and his camp) was completely unprepared for.
We'll start with some of her negatives -
She's young - Actually not a negative in a Vice President in my opinion, but people have called it a negative ... the Democrats, however, can't really do much with this as their Presidential candidate is only a couple of years older. Personally I don't necessarily consider Obama's youth a negative either except for....
Inexperience - Okay ... she is, in fact, inexperienced in the job of Vice President and in certain areas of federal politics ... again, in my opinion this is not a problem in a VP. Democrats are saying that it negates Obama's inexperience ... Ah ... not so fast there sparky ... experience is more important to the man in charge than it is for his second in command. The VP can learn from working with the President and as the VP has considerably less direct responsibility it is a job that lends itself to someone with less experience.
The Democrats keep saying that Obama has more experience from managing his campaign than she does from being governor ... well then what does Obama's campaign manager get paid for ... is Obama going to handle a President Manager to manage the office of the President if he gets elected?
She didn't write her acceptance speech - Well DUH! Reagan didn't write his speeches, Clinton didn't write his (or hers depending on which Clinton you're talking about) ... and guess what ... Obama didn't write his either. Political speech writers write political speeches ... the candidates (or elected official in question) may edit them a bit, add some of their own personal touches and personality to them, but the bulk of the speech is written by someone that got paid to do it.
She accepted federal earmarks that she claims to be against - This one has gotten a lot of play over the last couple of days with even Obama himself accusing the Governor of 'trying to re-invent herself' (hel-LO ... pot, meet kettle) ... the thing is, it's not an issue. First she has no control over the federal budget, and once allocated the money belongs to the state ... she couldn't exactly give it back. Secondly states should fight to get federal dollars for projects (more on this in another rant) so I don't feel that getting it is a problem ... it is up to the Senate and President to stop earmarks .... not the States.
If you want to look at her views on government budget you have to look at what she's done as governor of Alaska ... and that is cut the budget ... cutting $237 million, the second largest cuts in the state's history.
She should put her family first - Okay ... this one about killed me. The democratic party ... the party of women's rights ... of 'you can have a career and a family too' ... saying that a woman should basically stay home to take care of her family .... I feel like I'm suddenly in bizzaro world. Do they really think that people are that stupid? Do they think that the voters that they need to win over in order to win the election are going to be swayed by THAT? How about a discussion about the issues? Oh ... wait ... they can't talk about those people might become informed, and THEN they'd be screwed.
Is Sarah Palin perfect? No, I disagree with several of her overly conservative social views, but I'm less worried about that in a Vice President than I am about economic issues where I largely agree with her. She is, however, a fresh face in the race, someone not corrupted by Washington ... she brings a fresh view and a drive for cutting budgets and a strong record on ethics issues ... an area that I feel that Washington could use some shaking up on. She has certainly had the political fortitude to stand up against her own party when she felt it was what was best.
What do I think McCain's next steps should be ... he needs to link Obama to the last two years in Congress where the democratic majority has blatantly played party politics and refused to do anything on the issues; preferring instead to 'make sure that President Bush is seen as nothing but a failure' (I'm sure that's not the exact quote from democratic leaders in congress but that was the basic premise) ... all of which has lead to Congress' lowest approval rating on record.
McCain needs to point out the glaring holes (and recent reversals) in Obama's economic policies, while at the same time making the case, in 'layman' terms about his own policies. One of the key tactics of the democrats in every election is to play on people's emotion, fears and desires ... they do this very effectively ... the play on the fact that most Americans don't understand economics in the least and that any attempt to explain it will likely be considered 'boring' or simply incomprehensible.
McCain/Palin have a solid hold on the conservative vote ... but that isn't going to win them the election (just as the liberal vote will not win the election for Obama) ... the undecided voter and/or the moderate liberals (the so called Regan Democrats) are where McCain needs to focus ... show support for small businesses and show how the McCain policies will help protect them, or how the Obama policies will hurt them or leave them vulnerable ... point out that high corporate tax rates are hurting the American workers and consumers ... show how Ireland, by lowering its corporate taxes has attracted businesses, jobs, and how its economy is booming as a result. Show the increase in layoffs directly following the recent increase in minimum wage .... link Obama to the earmarks that he contributed to ....
Of course the challenge is going to be getting the media to cover such stories and prying people away from Hollywood Reporter long enough to actually get any of this through to them.
Let's step back and take a look at this for a minute - John McCain turned the election on its proverbial ear with this announcement ... completely stealing Obama's spotlight less than 24 hours after he had accepted the appointment. It is an announcement that the democratic candidate still has not recovered from, and Palin is an opponent that Obama (and his camp) was completely unprepared for.
We'll start with some of her negatives -
She's young - Actually not a negative in a Vice President in my opinion, but people have called it a negative ... the Democrats, however, can't really do much with this as their Presidential candidate is only a couple of years older. Personally I don't necessarily consider Obama's youth a negative either except for....
Inexperience - Okay ... she is, in fact, inexperienced in the job of Vice President and in certain areas of federal politics ... again, in my opinion this is not a problem in a VP. Democrats are saying that it negates Obama's inexperience ... Ah ... not so fast there sparky ... experience is more important to the man in charge than it is for his second in command. The VP can learn from working with the President and as the VP has considerably less direct responsibility it is a job that lends itself to someone with less experience.
The Democrats keep saying that Obama has more experience from managing his campaign than she does from being governor ... well then what does Obama's campaign manager get paid for ... is Obama going to handle a President Manager to manage the office of the President if he gets elected?
She didn't write her acceptance speech - Well DUH! Reagan didn't write his speeches, Clinton didn't write his (or hers depending on which Clinton you're talking about) ... and guess what ... Obama didn't write his either. Political speech writers write political speeches ... the candidates (or elected official in question) may edit them a bit, add some of their own personal touches and personality to them, but the bulk of the speech is written by someone that got paid to do it.
She accepted federal earmarks that she claims to be against - This one has gotten a lot of play over the last couple of days with even Obama himself accusing the Governor of 'trying to re-invent herself' (hel-LO ... pot, meet kettle) ... the thing is, it's not an issue. First she has no control over the federal budget, and once allocated the money belongs to the state ... she couldn't exactly give it back. Secondly states should fight to get federal dollars for projects (more on this in another rant) so I don't feel that getting it is a problem ... it is up to the Senate and President to stop earmarks .... not the States.
If you want to look at her views on government budget you have to look at what she's done as governor of Alaska ... and that is cut the budget ... cutting $237 million, the second largest cuts in the state's history.
She should put her family first - Okay ... this one about killed me. The democratic party ... the party of women's rights ... of 'you can have a career and a family too' ... saying that a woman should basically stay home to take care of her family .... I feel like I'm suddenly in bizzaro world. Do they really think that people are that stupid? Do they think that the voters that they need to win over in order to win the election are going to be swayed by THAT? How about a discussion about the issues? Oh ... wait ... they can't talk about those people might become informed, and THEN they'd be screwed.
Is Sarah Palin perfect? No, I disagree with several of her overly conservative social views, but I'm less worried about that in a Vice President than I am about economic issues where I largely agree with her. She is, however, a fresh face in the race, someone not corrupted by Washington ... she brings a fresh view and a drive for cutting budgets and a strong record on ethics issues ... an area that I feel that Washington could use some shaking up on. She has certainly had the political fortitude to stand up against her own party when she felt it was what was best.
What do I think McCain's next steps should be ... he needs to link Obama to the last two years in Congress where the democratic majority has blatantly played party politics and refused to do anything on the issues; preferring instead to 'make sure that President Bush is seen as nothing but a failure' (I'm sure that's not the exact quote from democratic leaders in congress but that was the basic premise) ... all of which has lead to Congress' lowest approval rating on record.
McCain needs to point out the glaring holes (and recent reversals) in Obama's economic policies, while at the same time making the case, in 'layman' terms about his own policies. One of the key tactics of the democrats in every election is to play on people's emotion, fears and desires ... they do this very effectively ... the play on the fact that most Americans don't understand economics in the least and that any attempt to explain it will likely be considered 'boring' or simply incomprehensible.
McCain/Palin have a solid hold on the conservative vote ... but that isn't going to win them the election (just as the liberal vote will not win the election for Obama) ... the undecided voter and/or the moderate liberals (the so called Regan Democrats) are where McCain needs to focus ... show support for small businesses and show how the McCain policies will help protect them, or how the Obama policies will hurt them or leave them vulnerable ... point out that high corporate tax rates are hurting the American workers and consumers ... show how Ireland, by lowering its corporate taxes has attracted businesses, jobs, and how its economy is booming as a result. Show the increase in layoffs directly following the recent increase in minimum wage .... link Obama to the earmarks that he contributed to ....
Of course the challenge is going to be getting the media to cover such stories and prying people away from Hollywood Reporter long enough to actually get any of this through to them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
On Conventions and Campaigns
Well it seems that we're in the political convention phase of the election. Where all the Democrats gather together for a big pep rally behind their candidate for a week and then all the Republicans gather to do the same thing for their candidate. In theory this is where the candidates leave the generalities behind and get down to the meat of their plans for this country.
Right now the Democrats are getting ready to crown their king and hoist their war banners to carry their 'change' to the White House in November. They are, however, still a house divided with Obama and Clinton supporters sniping at each other as they point their fingers at McCain and sneer 'rich man' while watching images of Ted Kennedy on his yacht. (Not taking a shot at Kennedy here ... but the hypocrisy is so thick that it's blinding them.)
And Joe Biden for VP? Obama is trying to grasp on to his experience while he previously said that you did not need experience. Biden on the other hand is well known for saying that the office of the President was not one that you could learn on the job. Biden, like Obama is known to be a elegant speaker, but also like Obama he is known to not do well 'off the cuff' ... he is also known for being a left wing 'politics as usual' type of politician rather than an agent of 'change'.
Obama wants to let the generally called 'Bush' tax cuts expire, he has said that he wants to raise corporate taxes, he opposes new drilling, nuclear energy, and coal use, and he wants to increase spending on foreign aid and social programs (such as national health care and 'assistance' programs). The expiration of the tax cuts, and increase in corporate taxes, however, will not cover the costs of the programs that he supports, and when questioned about it had no answers as to where the additional money would come from.
When an interviewer mentioned the historical fact that every increase in taxes has resulted in lower federal taxes collected and a general slowdown in the economy and asked why Obama supported increasing taxes, Obama could only come up with 'to be more fair.'
Yes, it will be more fair .... more minimum wage employees will loose their jobs, unemployed people will have a harder time finding jobs. Yeah ... it will be fair, all right, as prices go up across the board to cover the increased corporate taxes, more companies will move out of the US in favor of countries like Ireland where the tax rate is already 20% lower than the US corporate rate as it stands. More foreign companies will be buying US companies (such as the sale of Anheuser-Busch in July to foreign InBev) and replacing management personnel with their own.
Certainly I don't claim that the Republicans have all the answers, Bush certainly allowed congress to dig this country deeper into debt.* They failed to effectively use their leverage in the first six years of "W"s Presidency to advance energy independence issues as well as Social Security and Tax reform. In part this was due to some of the dirty politics employed by the Democrats, but in general it was simply a lack of backbone on the part of the Republicans trying to 'reach across the aisle' to a party that wasn't reaching back.
McCain, however, has expressed a desire to lower the corporate tax rates, make the 'Bush' tax cuts permanent, and cut 'pork' out of the budget. All of which would be very good things, not just for the 'rich' but for pretty much every American in terms of better economic growth and jobs. Can he deliver on these if elected? I think he has as much chance as Obama does for a lot of it, and since cutting 'pork' can be achieved through Presidential Veto that is, at least, something he can control directly without having to have it passed through congress first.
So why are so many Americans bouncing up and down waving Obama posters? Basically, ignorance. Ignorance of economics, ignorance of capitalist free market, ignorance of history and general social ignorance. No ... I'm not an expert on any of those factors myself, but I recognize that and look for more information to learn something about them. Most Americans, however, do not.
Lets take Health Care for example ... most people, through lack of understanding, and emotion, have come to believe that the only way to fix the system is through government. They see the fact that most people cannot afford health care (or insurance) and they believe that the government should come in and 'fix' the problem.
Now ... aside from the fact that it's not the government's job to make sure people have health care ... and aside from the fact that there are several ways to 'fix' the system that actually involve LESS government instead of more ... let me just ask you one question: Name one thing that the government has done more efficiently than the private sector.
Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say how efficient or helpful a government office was? When was the last time you heard about a government project coming in on time and under budget? Now how often do you hear about government waste and inefficiency? And people think that the government can manage Health care effectively? Most of these people will complain about the clerks at the tag office, or that the DOT doesn't know what the heck it's doing, but national health care ... THAT will be different.
No, no it won't, it will cost the tax payers of this country much much more than it will be worth and the quality of care provided will be less than we have now. It doesn't matter how many facts or how much logic or evidence you give to these people it won't make a bit of difference, because they have come to see it as their right ... they are entitled to health care dammit and the government should give it to them.
Well ... I got a bit sidetracked on this rant ... but I think that the general point is still there. Sadly I think that the entitlement mentality of this country has just about reached the point where national health care is pretty much inevitable, unfortunately once it gets established ... like any other government program ... we'll be unable to get rid of it.
*-I have been gathering info on an article about the national debt over the years and while "W" certain made things a lot worse it wasn't as rosy under Clinton as some people would have you believe.
Right now the Democrats are getting ready to crown their king and hoist their war banners to carry their 'change' to the White House in November. They are, however, still a house divided with Obama and Clinton supporters sniping at each other as they point their fingers at McCain and sneer 'rich man' while watching images of Ted Kennedy on his yacht. (Not taking a shot at Kennedy here ... but the hypocrisy is so thick that it's blinding them.)
And Joe Biden for VP? Obama is trying to grasp on to his experience while he previously said that you did not need experience. Biden on the other hand is well known for saying that the office of the President was not one that you could learn on the job. Biden, like Obama is known to be a elegant speaker, but also like Obama he is known to not do well 'off the cuff' ... he is also known for being a left wing 'politics as usual' type of politician rather than an agent of 'change'.
Obama wants to let the generally called 'Bush' tax cuts expire, he has said that he wants to raise corporate taxes, he opposes new drilling, nuclear energy, and coal use, and he wants to increase spending on foreign aid and social programs (such as national health care and 'assistance' programs). The expiration of the tax cuts, and increase in corporate taxes, however, will not cover the costs of the programs that he supports, and when questioned about it had no answers as to where the additional money would come from.
When an interviewer mentioned the historical fact that every increase in taxes has resulted in lower federal taxes collected and a general slowdown in the economy and asked why Obama supported increasing taxes, Obama could only come up with 'to be more fair.'
Yes, it will be more fair .... more minimum wage employees will loose their jobs, unemployed people will have a harder time finding jobs. Yeah ... it will be fair, all right, as prices go up across the board to cover the increased corporate taxes, more companies will move out of the US in favor of countries like Ireland where the tax rate is already 20% lower than the US corporate rate as it stands. More foreign companies will be buying US companies (such as the sale of Anheuser-Busch in July to foreign InBev) and replacing management personnel with their own.
Certainly I don't claim that the Republicans have all the answers, Bush certainly allowed congress to dig this country deeper into debt.* They failed to effectively use their leverage in the first six years of "W"s Presidency to advance energy independence issues as well as Social Security and Tax reform. In part this was due to some of the dirty politics employed by the Democrats, but in general it was simply a lack of backbone on the part of the Republicans trying to 'reach across the aisle' to a party that wasn't reaching back.
McCain, however, has expressed a desire to lower the corporate tax rates, make the 'Bush' tax cuts permanent, and cut 'pork' out of the budget. All of which would be very good things, not just for the 'rich' but for pretty much every American in terms of better economic growth and jobs. Can he deliver on these if elected? I think he has as much chance as Obama does for a lot of it, and since cutting 'pork' can be achieved through Presidential Veto that is, at least, something he can control directly without having to have it passed through congress first.
So why are so many Americans bouncing up and down waving Obama posters? Basically, ignorance. Ignorance of economics, ignorance of capitalist free market, ignorance of history and general social ignorance. No ... I'm not an expert on any of those factors myself, but I recognize that and look for more information to learn something about them. Most Americans, however, do not.
Lets take Health Care for example ... most people, through lack of understanding, and emotion, have come to believe that the only way to fix the system is through government. They see the fact that most people cannot afford health care (or insurance) and they believe that the government should come in and 'fix' the problem.
Now ... aside from the fact that it's not the government's job to make sure people have health care ... and aside from the fact that there are several ways to 'fix' the system that actually involve LESS government instead of more ... let me just ask you one question: Name one thing that the government has done more efficiently than the private sector.
Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say how efficient or helpful a government office was? When was the last time you heard about a government project coming in on time and under budget? Now how often do you hear about government waste and inefficiency? And people think that the government can manage Health care effectively? Most of these people will complain about the clerks at the tag office, or that the DOT doesn't know what the heck it's doing, but national health care ... THAT will be different.
No, no it won't, it will cost the tax payers of this country much much more than it will be worth and the quality of care provided will be less than we have now. It doesn't matter how many facts or how much logic or evidence you give to these people it won't make a bit of difference, because they have come to see it as their right ... they are entitled to health care dammit and the government should give it to them.
Well ... I got a bit sidetracked on this rant ... but I think that the general point is still there. Sadly I think that the entitlement mentality of this country has just about reached the point where national health care is pretty much inevitable, unfortunately once it gets established ... like any other government program ... we'll be unable to get rid of it.
*-I have been gathering info on an article about the national debt over the years and while "W" certain made things a lot worse it wasn't as rosy under Clinton as some people would have you believe.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
In our own hands
Okay ... a friend recently linked an article to me from CNN about a man in Texas that shot two people that had apparently broken into his neighbor's house. (CNN Story)
The article mentions at one point that activists were upset that the shooter "took the law into his own hands" .... Well ... for those of you that may have forgotten, the power of law comes from the citizens. It is both our right and our responsibility as citizens to uphold the law as well as to protect ourselves. Some of you might want to look over that last sentence again ... paying particular attention to the last two words 'protect ourselves'.
Now ... I'll admit that the article does raise some questions as to whether the shooter was really protecting himself (or his neighbor's property) given that it says that he shot both men in the back. But I have to assume in some regard that despite the apparent lean of the article the man did in fact act in self defence, or was at least able to convince a Texas grand jury that he was.
You'll hear that phrase 'took the law into their own hand' in any situation in which someone uses force (particularly deadly force) to protect themselves (or their property) or someone else. The truth is, however, that self defense is not taking the law into our own hands ... it's not just our RIGHT to do it ... it is our responsibility to do it.
Some people seem to believe that we're just supposed to let criminals break the law and then get the police to go after them. Bearing in mind that the police are, by nature of the law, unable to get involved until AFTER a law is broken. These people seem to essentially believe that it is the responsibility of Government to protect us in all situations .... well I hope you never find yourself staring down the barrel of a home invader's handgun waiting for the Government to come protect you.
The better armed and self defended the population is ... the lower the crime rate. This can be seen in several studies done over the last 10-20 years ... areas in which the laws are more lenient on gun ownership and self defense generally have less crime than areas that regulate these things more strictly.
Every citizen of this country has a hand in enforcing the law ... if less people chose to surrender that right to the government this country would likely be a much safer place to live.
The article mentions at one point that activists were upset that the shooter "took the law into his own hands" .... Well ... for those of you that may have forgotten, the power of law comes from the citizens. It is both our right and our responsibility as citizens to uphold the law as well as to protect ourselves. Some of you might want to look over that last sentence again ... paying particular attention to the last two words 'protect ourselves'.
Now ... I'll admit that the article does raise some questions as to whether the shooter was really protecting himself (or his neighbor's property) given that it says that he shot both men in the back. But I have to assume in some regard that despite the apparent lean of the article the man did in fact act in self defence, or was at least able to convince a Texas grand jury that he was.
You'll hear that phrase 'took the law into their own hand' in any situation in which someone uses force (particularly deadly force) to protect themselves (or their property) or someone else. The truth is, however, that self defense is not taking the law into our own hands ... it's not just our RIGHT to do it ... it is our responsibility to do it.
Some people seem to believe that we're just supposed to let criminals break the law and then get the police to go after them. Bearing in mind that the police are, by nature of the law, unable to get involved until AFTER a law is broken. These people seem to essentially believe that it is the responsibility of Government to protect us in all situations .... well I hope you never find yourself staring down the barrel of a home invader's handgun waiting for the Government to come protect you.
The better armed and self defended the population is ... the lower the crime rate. This can be seen in several studies done over the last 10-20 years ... areas in which the laws are more lenient on gun ownership and self defense generally have less crime than areas that regulate these things more strictly.
Every citizen of this country has a hand in enforcing the law ... if less people chose to surrender that right to the government this country would likely be a much safer place to live.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Political Smoke
Okay ... it's an election year, so as can be expected in my line of work I've been seeing a lot of political garbage. We do a lot of post production work for various political candidates around the country in our little facility, and I get to work on most of them. As I've said before this has made me a tad bit jaded as can be expected ... it also helps me see a little more of the political smoke that these candidates blow in our face hoping to obscure our vision as election time approaches.
I bring this up because I just worked on a job for a candidate (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) last week that was all upset because his opponent (the incumbent) had voted against an increase in taxes to fix a bridge, and instead proposed allowing a private firm to fix the bridge and charge a toll to recoup the cost of the repairs over 5-10 years.
OMG ... we can't allow private companies to do things, people might get the idea that they are responsible and ... gasp ... can do things better than the government.
His statement that 'working people shouldn't have to pay a toll to go to work' will probably play well ... but it's just smoke. His plan, for example, is to add a 'temporary' 1% increase to the state sales tax to pay for the repairs over the next 5 years ...
Now I want to take a quick poll ... when was the last time that you heard of such a 'temporary' measure ending? I can tell you here in GA there was a big stink not long ago when ... after 5 years ... the temporary tax increase that was supposed to retire wasn't. Why? because the State government (much like the federal government) can't cut spending to save their own mother's life. They aren't going to lower taxes (particularly a sales tax) and loose that revenue stream ... they just come up with a new project to spend the money on .... like repaving sections of SR211 that they just completely resurfaced 2 years ago and that don't so much as have a crack in them.
In short ... under his plan the repairs will be finished in 5 years ... after which point they'll come up with some other justification for keeping the additional 1% tax. Chances are that the work done by the state crews will be inferior to the work that would have been done by the private firm ... will likely cost more ... and take longer to get finished (snarling up traffic longer).
Why do I say that? Simple ... Government has zero motivation to do things quickly or efficiently ... or correctly for that matter. In fact ... most government motivation comes from adding more jobs to the government payroll and, thus, increasing their own loyal army of government workers .... what government worker is going to vote for someone that wants to cut spending, cut government employment, or otherwise actually do the things that need to be done to actually get the government back under control?
Now ... could a toll on the bridge go longer than the set time? Not if the government does it's job in the matter. There is the matter that the people paying for the bridge repair would be the people using the bridge as well ... not some family on the other side of the state that may never even be in the city, much less drive across the bridge.
This goes back to the intended role of government ... and the fact that we've lost sight of that roll. The people that should be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge are, indeed, those people whose lives are impacted by the bridge. We've gotten so used to the fact that we pay for anything and everything in this country in some way, shape, or form, that we just accept that the government is going to take our money and use it to do things that we may not agree with in a completely different state, that we don't think a thing about the state taking our money to use in a different city ...
Likewise people feel that they are entitled to have their lives 'enriched' through the money of others in this country .... a lot of things that should be handled on a state or local level have been passed up to the federal government .... so instead of paying the State tax for the things that the State needs to do ... you pay a little to State and a lot to the Federal so that the Federal money can be fought over and divided up and then sent to the State ... causing, by the nature of such things, additional waste through additional payroll and time loss.
Why has it come to this? Simple ... this way we can pretend that our little city isn't paying for the 5 million dollars in road work ... we're only paying a portion of it and the Federal government is paying the rest of the bill ... of course in reality we're probably paying more than we would be if we paid for the whole thing ourselves.
I bring this up because I just worked on a job for a candidate (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) last week that was all upset because his opponent (the incumbent) had voted against an increase in taxes to fix a bridge, and instead proposed allowing a private firm to fix the bridge and charge a toll to recoup the cost of the repairs over 5-10 years.
OMG ... we can't allow private companies to do things, people might get the idea that they are responsible and ... gasp ... can do things better than the government.
His statement that 'working people shouldn't have to pay a toll to go to work' will probably play well ... but it's just smoke. His plan, for example, is to add a 'temporary' 1% increase to the state sales tax to pay for the repairs over the next 5 years ...
Now I want to take a quick poll ... when was the last time that you heard of such a 'temporary' measure ending? I can tell you here in GA there was a big stink not long ago when ... after 5 years ... the temporary tax increase that was supposed to retire wasn't. Why? because the State government (much like the federal government) can't cut spending to save their own mother's life. They aren't going to lower taxes (particularly a sales tax) and loose that revenue stream ... they just come up with a new project to spend the money on .... like repaving sections of SR211 that they just completely resurfaced 2 years ago and that don't so much as have a crack in them.
In short ... under his plan the repairs will be finished in 5 years ... after which point they'll come up with some other justification for keeping the additional 1% tax. Chances are that the work done by the state crews will be inferior to the work that would have been done by the private firm ... will likely cost more ... and take longer to get finished (snarling up traffic longer).
Why do I say that? Simple ... Government has zero motivation to do things quickly or efficiently ... or correctly for that matter. In fact ... most government motivation comes from adding more jobs to the government payroll and, thus, increasing their own loyal army of government workers .... what government worker is going to vote for someone that wants to cut spending, cut government employment, or otherwise actually do the things that need to be done to actually get the government back under control?
Now ... could a toll on the bridge go longer than the set time? Not if the government does it's job in the matter. There is the matter that the people paying for the bridge repair would be the people using the bridge as well ... not some family on the other side of the state that may never even be in the city, much less drive across the bridge.
This goes back to the intended role of government ... and the fact that we've lost sight of that roll. The people that should be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge are, indeed, those people whose lives are impacted by the bridge. We've gotten so used to the fact that we pay for anything and everything in this country in some way, shape, or form, that we just accept that the government is going to take our money and use it to do things that we may not agree with in a completely different state, that we don't think a thing about the state taking our money to use in a different city ...
Likewise people feel that they are entitled to have their lives 'enriched' through the money of others in this country .... a lot of things that should be handled on a state or local level have been passed up to the federal government .... so instead of paying the State tax for the things that the State needs to do ... you pay a little to State and a lot to the Federal so that the Federal money can be fought over and divided up and then sent to the State ... causing, by the nature of such things, additional waste through additional payroll and time loss.
Why has it come to this? Simple ... this way we can pretend that our little city isn't paying for the 5 million dollars in road work ... we're only paying a portion of it and the Federal government is paying the rest of the bill ... of course in reality we're probably paying more than we would be if we paid for the whole thing ourselves.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Rules
Okay ... recently I stopped by a McDonald's to get out of the heat while I waited for someone to come pick me up after my car broke down. While I was waiting I saw the rules posted on the playground area for the kids, and I just had to wonder where this country's discipline has gone. The rules (from memory here so may not be exact) were:
- Please do not run in the playground.
- Please do not wear shoes on or in the playground area
- Please wear socks at all times
- Please do not climb on the outside of the playground equipment
Please? PLEASE?? Are these rules, suggestions, or requests? The sign was labeled as 'Playground Rules' so I would assume that they are, in fact, supposed to be rules and that not following them can get you removed from the playground area. I understand that it is nice to be polite ... but those aren't 'rules' ... they are requests.
"No running in or around the playground" is a rule ... "Please do not run in or around the playground" is a request, not a rule. We wonder why our kids have no sense of discipline or responsibility, why they seem to think that they can do anything that they want ... it's because we keep giving them requests instead of rules.
I've heard it in stores as well 'Timmy, please stop running around and come here.' .... the mother in question asked him 5 times ... he never complied, and she never elevated her request or did anything to stop or prevent him. What has Timmy learned? That there is no consequence for ignoring mommy.
Seriously people ... if someone can't handle being told that their child is not allowed to run in the playground doesn't need to have their kids loose in a public place. I mean, come on ... this is McDonald's property if your child is going to use it they need to learn that when they are there (or anywhere else for that matter) there are RULES that have to be obeyed and these rules usually involve limiting the things that they are allowed to do.
But "No" has been ostracized as a word for being too negative. It has been declared harmful to children because it imposes limits or somehow harms their self worth. You can't give them a bad grade because it might damage their personal perception of themselves. (god forbid they try to work harder and get better .... if they did that it might make another student feel bad, or worse encourage them to do better too.) Children must be coddled and protected and made to believe that they are the center of the universe ... eventually that view will have to be crushed in some form or another but by then they'll be adults and can pay therapists thousands of dollars per hour to figure out how their lives got so screwed up.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
It's just a flag
I came across this article while skimming through Neal's Nuze (boortz.com) for today. For those of you that don't want to follow the link to read the article I'll give you a quick summery:
A California high school Principal has announced that the school will be canceling the school paper next year after the paper ran a picture of a burning American flag, along with an pro-flag burning editorial piece. He said 'the latest issue of the student-run Volcano newspaper was embarrassing' and that 'the paper is finished' and the faculty advisor called it 'bad journalism'.
The faculty advisor also said that they put the image and article at the last minute which implies that she wouldn't have let them run the article had they submitted it. This would be a different issue as it would amount to a government employee telling people what they could and could not say in the student publication.
This is a complex issue in that the school pays for the publication of the student paper, and in that respect should have some control over content, on the other hand the school is government funded so is technically paid for by the students parents. (and to some degree the students themselves if they have part-time jobs). So who should really be controlling the content of the paper?
However, the question of should the paper be discontinued over this issue is an easy 'no'. First off it is essentially the school Principal saying 'they are expressing opinions that I disagree with so I'm going to shut it down so that I don't have to worry about that in the future.'
The article does say that the school had previously been considering shutting the paper down because money was tight, but given his statements about the article being 'embarrassing' it seems pretty clear why the choice was made, regardless of previous considerations.
But then again ... that fits in with the mission of the government schools in general ... 'we don't want them to think or have opinions, we want them to be good little workers that think as little as possible and do what they're told.'
Now ... the issue of flag burning is one of those 'on again off again' hot topics ... it makes the rounds every now and again. Personally I find burning the flag to be abhorrent and reprehensible, but I don't believe that it should be illegal either.
Does it offend me, yes. But that doesn't mean that I believe that people should not be able to express themselves in that way. If they feel strongly about something and feel that the best way to express that anger/frustration/dissatisfaction is to burn the flag, then they should be allowed to do that. Provided, of course, that they do not do so in a way that damages someone else's property or otherwise infringes on someone elses personal rights. (This would, of course, mean that it would have to be a flag that they bought and own, not one that they took from someone elses flagpole ... and burning a flag in someone else's yard without their permission would infringe on their property rights and potentially harm their property.)
Every now and again the government (state or federal) tries to pass laws making the burning of the American flag illegal. That should never, ever, happen. It is a very tricky thing because it would first require a very specific and legal definition of what constituted a flag ... if I draw an image of the American flag and burn that (for example) would it be violating the law that bans flag burning? ... Of course it also opens the door for other restrictions on what can and can't be used as a symbol of expression ... In the end it comes down to one thing - where do you draw the line?
The government ... ALL governments have shown that once they've been granted a power they are reluctant to release that power. Rather they become hungry for more such powers. Like the old saying goes, 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile.' I'm not willing to risk freedom in order to prevent someone from doing something that I find offensive.
I once heard a radio talkshow host (I'm sorry I don't remember who it was) say 'Freedom means that some people are going to do things that I don't like, and that's okay.' I found that statement to match almost exactly my feelings on a lot of matters .... there are a lot of people out there, and we're all different (if we weren't the world would be a pretty boring place) ... I'm not going to agree with everyone, and not everyone is going to agree with me ... we've got to learn that just because we don't like or agree with something does NOT give us the right to say that someone else can't do it.
A California high school Principal has announced that the school will be canceling the school paper next year after the paper ran a picture of a burning American flag, along with an pro-flag burning editorial piece. He said 'the latest issue of the student-run Volcano newspaper was embarrassing' and that 'the paper is finished' and the faculty advisor called it 'bad journalism'.
The faculty advisor also said that they put the image and article at the last minute which implies that she wouldn't have let them run the article had they submitted it. This would be a different issue as it would amount to a government employee telling people what they could and could not say in the student publication.
This is a complex issue in that the school pays for the publication of the student paper, and in that respect should have some control over content, on the other hand the school is government funded so is technically paid for by the students parents. (and to some degree the students themselves if they have part-time jobs). So who should really be controlling the content of the paper?
However, the question of should the paper be discontinued over this issue is an easy 'no'. First off it is essentially the school Principal saying 'they are expressing opinions that I disagree with so I'm going to shut it down so that I don't have to worry about that in the future.'
The article does say that the school had previously been considering shutting the paper down because money was tight, but given his statements about the article being 'embarrassing' it seems pretty clear why the choice was made, regardless of previous considerations.
But then again ... that fits in with the mission of the government schools in general ... 'we don't want them to think or have opinions, we want them to be good little workers that think as little as possible and do what they're told.'
Now ... the issue of flag burning is one of those 'on again off again' hot topics ... it makes the rounds every now and again. Personally I find burning the flag to be abhorrent and reprehensible, but I don't believe that it should be illegal either.
Does it offend me, yes. But that doesn't mean that I believe that people should not be able to express themselves in that way. If they feel strongly about something and feel that the best way to express that anger/frustration/dissatisfaction is to burn the flag, then they should be allowed to do that. Provided, of course, that they do not do so in a way that damages someone else's property or otherwise infringes on someone elses personal rights. (This would, of course, mean that it would have to be a flag that they bought and own, not one that they took from someone elses flagpole ... and burning a flag in someone else's yard without their permission would infringe on their property rights and potentially harm their property.)
Every now and again the government (state or federal) tries to pass laws making the burning of the American flag illegal. That should never, ever, happen. It is a very tricky thing because it would first require a very specific and legal definition of what constituted a flag ... if I draw an image of the American flag and burn that (for example) would it be violating the law that bans flag burning? ... Of course it also opens the door for other restrictions on what can and can't be used as a symbol of expression ... In the end it comes down to one thing - where do you draw the line?
The government ... ALL governments have shown that once they've been granted a power they are reluctant to release that power. Rather they become hungry for more such powers. Like the old saying goes, 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile.' I'm not willing to risk freedom in order to prevent someone from doing something that I find offensive.
I once heard a radio talkshow host (I'm sorry I don't remember who it was) say 'Freedom means that some people are going to do things that I don't like, and that's okay.' I found that statement to match almost exactly my feelings on a lot of matters .... there are a lot of people out there, and we're all different (if we weren't the world would be a pretty boring place) ... I'm not going to agree with everyone, and not everyone is going to agree with me ... we've got to learn that just because we don't like or agree with something does NOT give us the right to say that someone else can't do it.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Change
Okay ... The Democrats have chosen their candidate (barring a sudden shift in the super-delegates before or at the convention) and so now we can go forward into the general election as Obama vs McCain.
The democrats have rallied behind the champion of 'Change' and yet most of them don't know what 'change' he represents. They will say (have already said in fact) that McCain will simply be a 'continuation of Bush's failed policies' largely because he supports continuing the Bush Tax cuts and maintaining our forces in Iraq. Those two issues, however, are two that I happen to believe were both good policies and should be continued, if not expanded upon.
What needs to 'change' is government spending, something that John McCain has at least made statements to with his vow to 'freeze' federal spending at current levels for a year while 'evaluating' government programs to eliminate waste. Obama, on the other hand, has not discussed federal spending at all, but has proposed a slew of new Federal Aid programs aimed at helping low to middle class Americans get back on their feet. This increased spending would, of course, be funded by allowing the Bush Tax Cut's to expire as well as raising taxes in other areas.
This plan of increasing the tax burden in order to increase federal spending is somehow supposed to stimulate the economy ... despite the fact that historical evidence shows that it is almost exactly what the Government tried to do at the beginning of the great depression and is the main factors that economists believe caused the depth and length of the great depression to be much worse than they would have without governmental interference.
Historical data indicates that every increase in tax has resulted in lower federal revenue and a much larger decrease in economic growth, while lowering taxes and (this is where Bush failed) decreasing federal spending causes dramatic economic growth and build up of private sector wealth across ALL income levels.
Apparently a majority of Europe and the Middle East favor Obama being elected, but these people also want a weaker United States and most of them dislike us largely due to our success. There is a reason that the 'poor' in this country have a better standard of living than ANY other country in the world ... but every year it seems that we loose sight of that reason more and more. The question is, is it too late for our eyes to turn back to the light that made this country great and away from the bottomless abyss of government?
The democrats have rallied behind the champion of 'Change' and yet most of them don't know what 'change' he represents. They will say (have already said in fact) that McCain will simply be a 'continuation of Bush's failed policies' largely because he supports continuing the Bush Tax cuts and maintaining our forces in Iraq. Those two issues, however, are two that I happen to believe were both good policies and should be continued, if not expanded upon.
What needs to 'change' is government spending, something that John McCain has at least made statements to with his vow to 'freeze' federal spending at current levels for a year while 'evaluating' government programs to eliminate waste. Obama, on the other hand, has not discussed federal spending at all, but has proposed a slew of new Federal Aid programs aimed at helping low to middle class Americans get back on their feet. This increased spending would, of course, be funded by allowing the Bush Tax Cut's to expire as well as raising taxes in other areas.
This plan of increasing the tax burden in order to increase federal spending is somehow supposed to stimulate the economy ... despite the fact that historical evidence shows that it is almost exactly what the Government tried to do at the beginning of the great depression and is the main factors that economists believe caused the depth and length of the great depression to be much worse than they would have without governmental interference.
Historical data indicates that every increase in tax has resulted in lower federal revenue and a much larger decrease in economic growth, while lowering taxes and (this is where Bush failed) decreasing federal spending causes dramatic economic growth and build up of private sector wealth across ALL income levels.
Apparently a majority of Europe and the Middle East favor Obama being elected, but these people also want a weaker United States and most of them dislike us largely due to our success. There is a reason that the 'poor' in this country have a better standard of living than ANY other country in the world ... but every year it seems that we loose sight of that reason more and more. The question is, is it too late for our eyes to turn back to the light that made this country great and away from the bottomless abyss of government?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
A new month
Well ... it's been nearly two months since I last rambled here. I'd like to say that I made my two month 80,000 words in 61 days goal, but the fact is I didn't even make 40,000. This is even more sad because of the fact that I was at 35,000 at the end of April ... a little behind the target, but close enough to easily make it up in May.
I'd like to say that it was work, or that I got really sick, or that aliens came and took me to another galaxy and I didn't have any way to write, but it wouldn't be right. The fact of the matter is, ultimately I gave up ... I stopped writing. Work did factor in as I got shifted to an early morning shift to work on a feature film, but really it shouldn't have stopped me from writing because I shouldn't have let it. In part I'd say it was what I had feared ... to a degree I burned out ... I enjoy writing, but I also enjoy practicing on my bass, and playing video games and it was starting to feel as though I was forcing myself to write at the expense of the other things I enjoy doing.
The other thing that I'm starting to come to the realization of is that Summer is a bad time for me (us actually as my wife has been having the same problem) to write. This is the third summer I've attempted a personal challenge and all of them have resulted in failure. My wife and I were talking about it the other day and she expressed the opinion that it may be because we feel that there's so much to be done, yard work, home improvement, and the like, that essentially we just can't focus on just writing like we can in the winter (Both of my successful NaNoWriMos were in November (of course) and my one successful personal challenge was in Jan).
I'm still planning on finishing this story ... I think I've got a good one going and it has potential of possibly being something I can refine and maybe submit. (Actually my last two NaNo's fall into this as well but still need to be finished off and then start the editing process.) To that end I'm going to start setting aside a scheduled writing time once I'm back on a 'normal' schedule. I'm still looking forward to NaNoWriMo again in November, but I think that if I try a challenge again next spring/summer I'm probably going to lighten it up more and try to be more 'casual' about writing for it.
For now I'm going to crawl back out from under my rock and return to the world of rambles and rants. I've already written more here this year than I did last year, I'm going to try and keep increasing that over the rest of the year. Up to this point I've ranted primarily about political issues and my writing, I'm likely going to expand that with discussions of my modeling hobby and video game hobbies and role-playing games ... and probably anything else that crosses my mind while I'm sitting at a keyboard and blogging.
Hopefully soon I'll also be making an announcement that we are offering some prints of some of the artwork that we presently have up over at Grimscale Studios as well as adding some new work that my wife has been working on.
For now, however, I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know how my writing went and where things are going for me.
I'd like to say that it was work, or that I got really sick, or that aliens came and took me to another galaxy and I didn't have any way to write, but it wouldn't be right. The fact of the matter is, ultimately I gave up ... I stopped writing. Work did factor in as I got shifted to an early morning shift to work on a feature film, but really it shouldn't have stopped me from writing because I shouldn't have let it. In part I'd say it was what I had feared ... to a degree I burned out ... I enjoy writing, but I also enjoy practicing on my bass, and playing video games and it was starting to feel as though I was forcing myself to write at the expense of the other things I enjoy doing.
The other thing that I'm starting to come to the realization of is that Summer is a bad time for me (us actually as my wife has been having the same problem) to write. This is the third summer I've attempted a personal challenge and all of them have resulted in failure. My wife and I were talking about it the other day and she expressed the opinion that it may be because we feel that there's so much to be done, yard work, home improvement, and the like, that essentially we just can't focus on just writing like we can in the winter (Both of my successful NaNoWriMos were in November (of course) and my one successful personal challenge was in Jan).
I'm still planning on finishing this story ... I think I've got a good one going and it has potential of possibly being something I can refine and maybe submit. (Actually my last two NaNo's fall into this as well but still need to be finished off and then start the editing process.) To that end I'm going to start setting aside a scheduled writing time once I'm back on a 'normal' schedule. I'm still looking forward to NaNoWriMo again in November, but I think that if I try a challenge again next spring/summer I'm probably going to lighten it up more and try to be more 'casual' about writing for it.
For now I'm going to crawl back out from under my rock and return to the world of rambles and rants. I've already written more here this year than I did last year, I'm going to try and keep increasing that over the rest of the year. Up to this point I've ranted primarily about political issues and my writing, I'm likely going to expand that with discussions of my modeling hobby and video game hobbies and role-playing games ... and probably anything else that crosses my mind while I'm sitting at a keyboard and blogging.
Hopefully soon I'll also be making an announcement that we are offering some prints of some of the artwork that we presently have up over at Grimscale Studios as well as adding some new work that my wife has been working on.
For now, however, I just wanted to take a moment and let everyone know how my writing went and where things are going for me.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Masters and Serfs
[NOTE - the numbers and amounts in this article are not official numbers and are used strictly for sake of argument.]
Okay ... an opinion piece in the local paper happened to catch my eye today and I just can't let slide. The letter was in responce to a writter who had asked (as a responce to another writer) that people take the time to learn about the facts of the Fair Tax bill before trying to write articles or letters against it. The writer of the letter in today's paper said:
"...its (the Fair Tax) core is a consummate cut of any obligatory federal taxes. That leaves the wealthiest in our country with no federal taxes to compensate the U.S. for the gifts showered upon them or to keep the wealth gap at a reasonable level." (bolding added for emphasis)
Excuse me? GIFTS? Most of the 'wealthiest' people in the U.S. have worked hard for their income ... it is not 'given' to them and thus it is not a 'gift' .... I suppose you might consider it a 'gift' if you believe that you are giving Walmart a 'gift' every time that you buy something there ....
The writter is technically correct in saying that it does remove 'obligatory' federal taxes .... the Fair Tax, however, does NOT leave anyone with "No federal taxes" it gives everyone the same tax ... the sales tax on the items that they buy.
Now ... lets look at something for a moment ... lets say I make 100,000 a year (Upper middle class by some definitions) ... and lets say that of that 100,000 after bills I have 50,000 (50%) that is disposable income ... and I save 20% of that ... leaving 40,000 that I spend on items ranging from food to TVs. Taxed at 23% (the estimated federal sales tax under the Fair Tax) I'll pay something like 9200 in taxes. (Less actually given the 'pre-bate' to compensate for the tax on normal living expenses ... but let's keep it simple here and ignore that for now.)
Let's take those percents and apply them to higher income levels ... 250,000 (the income level that the majority of american's consider 'wealty') .. that's 125,000 after bills ... 100,000 spent and 23,000 in taxes ... 2.5 times the income = 2.5 times the tax ... now ... lets consider the fact that the average 'wealthy' family generally has more disposable income (meaning a smaller % of their income is tied up in their monthly bills) meaning that the 250,000 household likely has more than 100,000 that is spent on items ... and more of it is likely to be on luxeries.
If we throw the 'pre-bate' into the equation ... lets say everyone gets 3000 a year (250/month) from the government to compensate for taxes on normal 'living expenses' (we're assuming here that both families have the same make up and thereby get the same amount as a pre-bate ... we'll say 2 adults no children. That brings the 100,000 a year family down to 6200 in taxes and the 250,000 family to 20,000 in tax paid ... and now the 250,000 family is making 2.5 times the income of the other family but paying just shy of 3.25 times the taxes....
[EDIT - I'm dropping a clarification here as upon re-reading this I wasn't quite clear on the assumption with the pre-bate. Under the Fair Tax each household is given a fixed amount monthly based on the number of people in the household. So in my above example where I said 'everyone gets 3000 a year' what I meant was that for the example lets say both households recieved 3000 a year. Since we're assuming that these are 2 adult no child households then that would be 1500 a year per adult ... and again, I do not know what the estimated pre-bate is actually going to be, this number is used solely as an example.]
Now let's take a 50,000 a year house (again 2 adults no children) ... thier disposable income is 25,000 (actually it's probably less) of which they save 5,000 leaving 20,000 spent ... so 4600 in tax ... BUT, when you account for the pre-bate they'll only pay 1600 in tax ... so they have half the income of the 100,000 house, but pay a quarter of the taxes ....
Oh, but rich people will just save more of their money and thus get even more money from the interest ... that's a guess and there is no research to back that up ... but lets play that game ... the rich save more (read 'invest') putting more money into the growth of business and the economy ... leading to more jobs, and better pay. But lets face it ... do you REALLY think that the 'rich' are just going to stop spending? That they'll stop buying their expensive sports or luxury cars (which will be taxed) or houses, or entertainment centers, movies, music, concerts, sporting events ... yeah ... they're just going to stop doing any of that so that they can pay less in taxes ... Riiiiiiight.
The fact of the matter is ... that the 'poor' and 'middle-class' WILL be more likely to save or invest more than they currently do because they will have more of the income that they earn to do so with.
Another writter did bring up the point that many retirees that have already paid a lot of tax on their IRAs and other after tax retirement money will then get taxed on that money when they spend it in their retirement (where they are not taxed on the 'income' of recieving it in retirement currently) ... however, it's no different than the fact that I'll get taxed on spending the money that I've already saved over the years and it's no different than the argument against private social security accounts ... I don't like it because it might hurt me a little bit ... never mind that it might greatly help my kids or grandkids ... who cares about them having it better it's all about ME ME ME MEMEMEMEMEME! Don't solve the problems that the country has, let my kids deal with it later!
Generally this kind of thinking is both shallow and selfish and it is this kind of short sighted foolishness that allows and even encourages politicians to continue to do nothing on major issues. If we can't get over such pettiness then this country is going straight to the toilet because as the tax code (along with governmental regulations) becomes more and more of a burden on the corporations in this country this economy is going to wither and die ......
Okay ... an opinion piece in the local paper happened to catch my eye today and I just can't let slide. The letter was in responce to a writter who had asked (as a responce to another writer) that people take the time to learn about the facts of the Fair Tax bill before trying to write articles or letters against it. The writer of the letter in today's paper said:
"...its (the Fair Tax) core is a consummate cut of any obligatory federal taxes. That leaves the wealthiest in our country with no federal taxes to compensate the U.S. for the gifts showered upon them or to keep the wealth gap at a reasonable level." (bolding added for emphasis)
Excuse me? GIFTS? Most of the 'wealthiest' people in the U.S. have worked hard for their income ... it is not 'given' to them and thus it is not a 'gift' .... I suppose you might consider it a 'gift' if you believe that you are giving Walmart a 'gift' every time that you buy something there ....
The writter is technically correct in saying that it does remove 'obligatory' federal taxes .... the Fair Tax, however, does NOT leave anyone with "No federal taxes" it gives everyone the same tax ... the sales tax on the items that they buy.
Now ... lets look at something for a moment ... lets say I make 100,000 a year (Upper middle class by some definitions) ... and lets say that of that 100,000 after bills I have 50,000 (50%) that is disposable income ... and I save 20% of that ... leaving 40,000 that I spend on items ranging from food to TVs. Taxed at 23% (the estimated federal sales tax under the Fair Tax) I'll pay something like 9200 in taxes. (Less actually given the 'pre-bate' to compensate for the tax on normal living expenses ... but let's keep it simple here and ignore that for now.)
Let's take those percents and apply them to higher income levels ... 250,000 (the income level that the majority of american's consider 'wealty') .. that's 125,000 after bills ... 100,000 spent and 23,000 in taxes ... 2.5 times the income = 2.5 times the tax ... now ... lets consider the fact that the average 'wealthy' family generally has more disposable income (meaning a smaller % of their income is tied up in their monthly bills) meaning that the 250,000 household likely has more than 100,000 that is spent on items ... and more of it is likely to be on luxeries.
If we throw the 'pre-bate' into the equation ... lets say everyone gets 3000 a year (250/month) from the government to compensate for taxes on normal 'living expenses' (we're assuming here that both families have the same make up and thereby get the same amount as a pre-bate ... we'll say 2 adults no children. That brings the 100,000 a year family down to 6200 in taxes and the 250,000 family to 20,000 in tax paid ... and now the 250,000 family is making 2.5 times the income of the other family but paying just shy of 3.25 times the taxes....
[EDIT - I'm dropping a clarification here as upon re-reading this I wasn't quite clear on the assumption with the pre-bate. Under the Fair Tax each household is given a fixed amount monthly based on the number of people in the household. So in my above example where I said 'everyone gets 3000 a year' what I meant was that for the example lets say both households recieved 3000 a year. Since we're assuming that these are 2 adult no child households then that would be 1500 a year per adult ... and again, I do not know what the estimated pre-bate is actually going to be, this number is used solely as an example.]
Now let's take a 50,000 a year house (again 2 adults no children) ... thier disposable income is 25,000 (actually it's probably less) of which they save 5,000 leaving 20,000 spent ... so 4600 in tax ... BUT, when you account for the pre-bate they'll only pay 1600 in tax ... so they have half the income of the 100,000 house, but pay a quarter of the taxes ....
Oh, but rich people will just save more of their money and thus get even more money from the interest ... that's a guess and there is no research to back that up ... but lets play that game ... the rich save more (read 'invest') putting more money into the growth of business and the economy ... leading to more jobs, and better pay. But lets face it ... do you REALLY think that the 'rich' are just going to stop spending? That they'll stop buying their expensive sports or luxury cars (which will be taxed) or houses, or entertainment centers, movies, music, concerts, sporting events ... yeah ... they're just going to stop doing any of that so that they can pay less in taxes ... Riiiiiiight.
The fact of the matter is ... that the 'poor' and 'middle-class' WILL be more likely to save or invest more than they currently do because they will have more of the income that they earn to do so with.
Another writter did bring up the point that many retirees that have already paid a lot of tax on their IRAs and other after tax retirement money will then get taxed on that money when they spend it in their retirement (where they are not taxed on the 'income' of recieving it in retirement currently) ... however, it's no different than the fact that I'll get taxed on spending the money that I've already saved over the years and it's no different than the argument against private social security accounts ... I don't like it because it might hurt me a little bit ... never mind that it might greatly help my kids or grandkids ... who cares about them having it better it's all about ME ME ME MEMEMEMEMEME! Don't solve the problems that the country has, let my kids deal with it later!
Generally this kind of thinking is both shallow and selfish and it is this kind of short sighted foolishness that allows and even encourages politicians to continue to do nothing on major issues. If we can't get over such pettiness then this country is going straight to the toilet because as the tax code (along with governmental regulations) becomes more and more of a burden on the corporations in this country this economy is going to wither and die ......
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Boycott Exxon
The cry goes up around the country in break rooms and email in boxes everywhere ... boycott Exxon and they'll be forced to lower their prices and that will make the other stations lower their prices to stay competitive. Sounds great, let's everybody jump on the bandwagon and start buying our gas someplace else. I mean they'll have to lower their gas prices right?
WRONG.
First off ... you would have to get a large % of gas purchasers who currently use Exxon to stop using them for a couple months for them to even notice that's not a likely situation to start with, but let's say you manage to get over 50% of their regular customers to switch to other brands ... that will lower prices, right?
Wrong again. But why not you ask ... simple economics. If you're buying gas somewhere else you're increasing demand for their product ... so Exxon's demand falls by 50% demand across the board is unchanged and other stations see an increase in market share ... they have higher demand and therefore no motivation to lower prices ... in fact if the demand increased substantially they're more likely to INCREASE their price, not lower it ... as a result Exxon has no strong motivation to lower the price and even if they do lower it slightly to try to pick up a bit in sales, unless people come back (driving their demand up and thus making it more likely that they'll just bring their price back in line with other retailers, not the other way around.) there's no motivation for the other retailers to match the drop.
The other thing is ... the only people you're going to hurt at all with this is the local retailer ... not Exxon. Exxon will just sell their gas unbranded to non-affiliated stores, just as they do currently. The Exxon retailers ... who have already PAID for the gas in the tanks (and have to be able to afford to fill the tanks again) are the only ones that are going to potentially take a loss in the situation.
If you want to lower gas prices ... boycotting any SINGLE oil company won't work ... you will have to lower consumption (and thus demand) DRASTICALLY across the board to all companies. And when you're talking about lowering consumption you're going to have to get the big fleets to do it, not just Joe Average American. You're also going to have to get people to use less heating oil and/or any other oil product that is refined from crude oil ... and to cause any drastic change in the cost of gas you're really going to need to do this all on a global scale.
If you want to do it faster ... get Congress and Local and State governments to repeal the various taxes rolled into the costs. Exxon, for example, paid more last year in taxes than it made in profits .... yes that'd right, the government made more off of Exxon's gas than Exxon did. (I've seen the exact numbers for that, but I can't find them at the moment ... if I do find them I'll add them as an edit to the article later.)
Add to that the cost of compliance with various governmental regulations (all of which gets passed on to the consumer) and all of the various different blends required by different states meaning that they have to split production and try to match their demand as closely as possible running 10 or so different batches ... increasing their production costs through waste if nothing else.
Which brings me to the California nutcases that are trying to further increase their fuel and automotive standards even further beyond the current federal regulations (increasing production costs further) ... personally I think that fuel and automotive manufacturers should give California the one finger salute and say 'if you want to require that fine ... we just won't sell in California' ... see how Cali likes not having gas for their cars ... or any new cars for that matter.....
Anyway ... I've got work and writting to get back to ... until my next ramble ... be alert! The world needs more lerts. (nope, not original ... but hey that's life. :p)
WRONG.
First off ... you would have to get a large % of gas purchasers who currently use Exxon to stop using them for a couple months for them to even notice that's not a likely situation to start with, but let's say you manage to get over 50% of their regular customers to switch to other brands ... that will lower prices, right?
Wrong again. But why not you ask ... simple economics. If you're buying gas somewhere else you're increasing demand for their product ... so Exxon's demand falls by 50% demand across the board is unchanged and other stations see an increase in market share ... they have higher demand and therefore no motivation to lower prices ... in fact if the demand increased substantially they're more likely to INCREASE their price, not lower it ... as a result Exxon has no strong motivation to lower the price and even if they do lower it slightly to try to pick up a bit in sales, unless people come back (driving their demand up and thus making it more likely that they'll just bring their price back in line with other retailers, not the other way around.) there's no motivation for the other retailers to match the drop.
The other thing is ... the only people you're going to hurt at all with this is the local retailer ... not Exxon. Exxon will just sell their gas unbranded to non-affiliated stores, just as they do currently. The Exxon retailers ... who have already PAID for the gas in the tanks (and have to be able to afford to fill the tanks again) are the only ones that are going to potentially take a loss in the situation.
If you want to lower gas prices ... boycotting any SINGLE oil company won't work ... you will have to lower consumption (and thus demand) DRASTICALLY across the board to all companies. And when you're talking about lowering consumption you're going to have to get the big fleets to do it, not just Joe Average American. You're also going to have to get people to use less heating oil and/or any other oil product that is refined from crude oil ... and to cause any drastic change in the cost of gas you're really going to need to do this all on a global scale.
If you want to do it faster ... get Congress and Local and State governments to repeal the various taxes rolled into the costs. Exxon, for example, paid more last year in taxes than it made in profits .... yes that'd right, the government made more off of Exxon's gas than Exxon did. (I've seen the exact numbers for that, but I can't find them at the moment ... if I do find them I'll add them as an edit to the article later.)
Add to that the cost of compliance with various governmental regulations (all of which gets passed on to the consumer) and all of the various different blends required by different states meaning that they have to split production and try to match their demand as closely as possible running 10 or so different batches ... increasing their production costs through waste if nothing else.
Which brings me to the California nutcases that are trying to further increase their fuel and automotive standards even further beyond the current federal regulations (increasing production costs further) ... personally I think that fuel and automotive manufacturers should give California the one finger salute and say 'if you want to require that fine ... we just won't sell in California' ... see how Cali likes not having gas for their cars ... or any new cars for that matter.....
Anyway ... I've got work and writting to get back to ... until my next ramble ... be alert! The world needs more lerts. (nope, not original ... but hey that's life. :p)
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
April FOOLS!
The post title comes from the writing 'event' in April is officially titled 'April Fools' not because this post is an April Fools day joke or hoax.....
*BANG* goes the gun and off the wife and I go into another writing adventure of epic proportions.... okay maybe not but we are off and writing again. This will be my first attempt at a project in this new 'novel' software and we'll see how things go with that ... On the one hand I'm hoping that it will help keep me organized and on task by tracking my word goals and keeping my plans organized and outlined. On the other I'm wondering if it's organization will hamper my writting and flow....
I'm actually going back and making a second attempt at last summers failed novel ... starting from scratch of course (well ... I have my notes and I am looking those over for character info as well as story flow ... but I had most of that in place before we started last summer's failed project). Wish us both luck as we dive into the insanity of writing once more....
I had some other things I was going to ramble on about ... but at the moment I can't think of them and I've got a word count goal to shoot for, so I'll either post again later or catch up later in the week....
*BANG* goes the gun and off the wife and I go into another writing adventure of epic proportions.... okay maybe not but we are off and writing again. This will be my first attempt at a project in this new 'novel' software and we'll see how things go with that ... On the one hand I'm hoping that it will help keep me organized and on task by tracking my word goals and keeping my plans organized and outlined. On the other I'm wondering if it's organization will hamper my writting and flow....
I'm actually going back and making a second attempt at last summers failed novel ... starting from scratch of course (well ... I have my notes and I am looking those over for character info as well as story flow ... but I had most of that in place before we started last summer's failed project). Wish us both luck as we dive into the insanity of writing once more....
I had some other things I was going to ramble on about ... but at the moment I can't think of them and I've got a word count goal to shoot for, so I'll either post again later or catch up later in the week....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
