My Terrorism definition:
"Any attack made by a non-state, non-uniformed entity against a state's property and/or citizens based upon ideological or other identity motivations."
A state, or its uniformed agents, cannot commit terrorism. They can oppress, commit war crimes, break national or international laws and treaties, but they can't be terrorists. Saddam's soldiers, when in uniform, could rape, pillage, and burn his own people or even commit genocide, but I wouldn't call it terrorism. I would call it war crimes, atrocities, crimes against humanity, etc.
Terrorism, to me, is a specific label that addresses the violent actions of individuals with ideologies. PETA if it bombs a butcher's shop; Greenpeace if it rams an oil tanker.
Is Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, a terrorist? Yes, because he wasn't operating as a soldier of the US Army or as an American; instead, he was operating under his identity as a muslim jihadist, supporting the ideology of killing the infidels and oppressors of muslims.
It does not matter that the facts disprove his rationale. It doesn't matter that Iraqis are more free and safe now than ever before. All that matters is that he didn't want to support the Great Satan with his service, and did want to kill Americans.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
From an educational speech by Obama, almost a year ago today:
OBAMA: “But that’s not the leadership we’ve been getting from Washington. For decades, folks in Washington have been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform. There’s partisanship and there’s bickering, but there’s no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we’ll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need. And we’ve fallen further and further behind as a result.”
Oh, I could have quoted from the whole speech, but this paragraph alone is enough. Where to begin?
1) Educational policy coming from Washington is part of the problem. Education worked when it was local; every time a layer of bureacracy has been added, it gets worse. Districts, states, federal, everything conspires to politicize what used to work for us in the country... and, I hate to say it, the Teachers' Unions have only aggravated the problem (unlike others, I can't lay the blame on them).
2) This line just did it for me: "It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform."
a) Firstly, get the order right.
Democrat vs. Republican
Status Quo vs. Vouchers
More Money vs, More Reform
Democrats are NOT the party of school vouchers.
b) Obama unwittingly makes my point for me, by saying that more money does NOT equal more reform. At the very least they aren't synonyms; at the worst, they're opposites.
Does anybody understand that the schools are broken, like everything else government-run is broken, because it's the government? Vouchers = control of tax money = an issue directly connected to government!!!
Here's a meme for you:
Universal Health Care is where the government controls your tax money to provide the medical care they deem appropriate.
The Educational System is where the government controls your tax money to provide the primary education they deem appropriate.
With medicine WE want to control the medicine we get (via private companies, private insurance, etc). With education, we should (and are) striving for the EXACT SAME THING: controling or education via controlling the money the government takes from us to provide it. Vouchers are a way of us taking some of that control back; why do you think the government, and the teachers who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are so opposed to them?
Take it a step further. Look at how little education our kids get these days, even as spending hits record highs. As we pander to the unions and prop up a government-run system of education, are we not seeing RATIONING of education itself? Larger classrooms, less challenging content, less for the exceptional students, less vocational instruction for those who are not destined for college...
Why is it that in many classrooms, 'honors' and 'gifted' more often than not means 'more' homework, not 'harder' or 'better' homework? Only when you get to classes like AP classes, where objective testing and private markets still apply, do you get a class and a standard that still means something.
The parallels between universal health care and our current school system are eerie. The failure of one can predict the failure of the other, for I would argue that inasmuch as the education system is government-run, it is a government failure. Take the government out of the equation, and I guarantee things would improve.
OBAMA: “But that’s not the leadership we’ve been getting from Washington. For decades, folks in Washington have been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform. There’s partisanship and there’s bickering, but there’s no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we’ll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need. And we’ve fallen further and further behind as a result.”
Oh, I could have quoted from the whole speech, but this paragraph alone is enough. Where to begin?
1) Educational policy coming from Washington is part of the problem. Education worked when it was local; every time a layer of bureacracy has been added, it gets worse. Districts, states, federal, everything conspires to politicize what used to work for us in the country... and, I hate to say it, the Teachers' Unions have only aggravated the problem (unlike others, I can't lay the blame on them).
2) This line just did it for me: "It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform."
a) Firstly, get the order right.
Democrat vs. Republican
Status Quo vs. Vouchers
More Money vs, More Reform
Democrats are NOT the party of school vouchers.
b) Obama unwittingly makes my point for me, by saying that more money does NOT equal more reform. At the very least they aren't synonyms; at the worst, they're opposites.
Does anybody understand that the schools are broken, like everything else government-run is broken, because it's the government? Vouchers = control of tax money = an issue directly connected to government!!!
Here's a meme for you:
Universal Health Care is where the government controls your tax money to provide the medical care they deem appropriate.
The Educational System is where the government controls your tax money to provide the primary education they deem appropriate.
With medicine WE want to control the medicine we get (via private companies, private insurance, etc). With education, we should (and are) striving for the EXACT SAME THING: controling or education via controlling the money the government takes from us to provide it. Vouchers are a way of us taking some of that control back; why do you think the government, and the teachers who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are so opposed to them?
Take it a step further. Look at how little education our kids get these days, even as spending hits record highs. As we pander to the unions and prop up a government-run system of education, are we not seeing RATIONING of education itself? Larger classrooms, less challenging content, less for the exceptional students, less vocational instruction for those who are not destined for college...
Why is it that in many classrooms, 'honors' and 'gifted' more often than not means 'more' homework, not 'harder' or 'better' homework? Only when you get to classes like AP classes, where objective testing and private markets still apply, do you get a class and a standard that still means something.
The parallels between universal health care and our current school system are eerie. The failure of one can predict the failure of the other, for I would argue that inasmuch as the education system is government-run, it is a government failure. Take the government out of the equation, and I guarantee things would improve.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Universal Health Care is a bad idea
There are more things we haven't heard discussed regarding health care. People continually conflate several issues on this topic, and then wonder why everybody is completely unable to agree/see the wisdom in their own points. Let me seperate these out a bit:
Medical Treatment availability and cost
Medical Insurance availability and cost
When you think about them, the difference between them should be obvious. Medical Insurance is INSURANCE - a form of paying for the probability of needing money if certain conditions are met. With the exception of certain tax ramifications, the need for insurance goes up as your personal income goes down, as theoretically, if you have enough money saved, you don't need insurance, whether it's health or life or auto. So for many people, it's a hedge against an uncertain future. So in summary, medical insurance is an INVESTMENT OF MONEY.
Medical Treatment is a SERVICE. It has become horribly complicated, regulated, and legislated, but at the bottom, it is about you paying a professional (doctor) cash for a service (setting a bone, delivering a baby, etc). Like any private company, this service should be available without blatant discrimination. Whether you walk into a Wal-Mart or a Hospital, if you plunk down cash for a $10.00 gizmo, you should be able to walk out of the store with the gizmo regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This is an issue of AVAILABILITY.
* * *
Those are the preliminaries. Now for the real arguments.
Many people support Obama's Medical Plan because they believe that many people can't get, or can't afford, medical care otherwise. This, again, is two very different options conflated. Let's break it out:
1) I support OMP because many people can't get medical care.
Not true (or it should not be). If you have the proper form and amount of payment, there is (or should be) very little reason why you can't get served whatever treatment you are seeking.
Realistically, with the amount of legislation and legalese involved in medicine, it is a wonder that any healing is done at all. There are countless abuses on all sides of the equation - from abusive nurses to incompetent doctors to stifling red tape to inflated insurance costs to bogus hospital fees - the list goes on. There is no transparancy in either medical legislation, or in medical costs.
2) I support OMP because people can't afford medical care.
This is a criticism of either exorbitant medical costs, health insurance costs, or a lamentation of how poor people are. Medical costs are a real problem, as seen in the corruption mentioned previously. health insurance costs are also an issue, but more from a legislative and legal standpoint; abusive or incomprehensible insurance policies, a bias against cash by hospitals, and convoluted or blatantly anti-capitalistic laws surrounding the industry are much of what is at fault.
There is a humanitarian aspect to #2 as well. Many people argue that health care is a right, that everybody from the president down to an illegal alien bum deserve health care provided to them, regardless of whether they can pay.
My response, however, is "Why?" Our constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; in spirit and in practice, this is meant to mean, "Do your own thing, so long as you don't interfere with anybody elses' right to do the same", which almost parallels the Wiccan creed of "An it harm none, do as you will".
The Constitution guarantees you the right to work as you see fit - to earn money and spend it as you choose, minus a tax for essential services (government infrastructure). You have the right to save for college or a wedding, to put money away for retirement, or to blow it on hookers and dope. It's up to you to decide to strive for lots of cash and fame, or to take a steady, safe, 30k/year job and not have as many options. How much MONEY you EARN is totally up to you, limited only by your ambition, your capability, and (to a much lesser extent) to luck.
Most people earn as much money as they deserve. Before you jump on me for that, think about it. We all know what it takes to make more money in our given profession. We either choose, or don't choose, to pursue that option because of the cost involved. If I want more money as an accountant, I can either pursue a management track or go into business for myself. Both of those options require more time, money, and risk than I'm currently willing to spend, so I stay where I am.
The same goes for most other people. With the exception of people who truly have had misfortune visit them (unforseen rare brain tumor, car accident where insurance illegally won't pay out, etc) we are where we choose to be in life - financially, socially, and spiritually. Growing in any of these three categories is hard - most people shy away from such hard growth. But that option is possible in America, more than it has ever been in ANY OTHER nation that has ever EXISTED in the history of the human race. We have more options to rise and fail on our own merits in the USA than anybody has ever known.
So why the push for Universal Health Care now? Not by government - we all know why the pols want it: power and money, corruption and greed. No, why do the individuals want UHC?
Two reasons: Justice and Greed.
Justice, because the health care and insurance systems ARE broken. In many cases you CAN'T get a realistically priced medical service, or can't get insurance, or laws prohibit you, or what not. Medicine is NOT sold like drapes at a Wal-Mart. Until it is, we DO need more efforts made towards making the system more just. But this could be done by less regulation, not more; just more transparency, less red tape, and less special interest. And a lot of this could come about by treating citizens as adults; letting them choose what is right for them with informed consent, instead of using legislation to 'protect' them from their own decisions.
The second reason why UHC is desired by many is greed. Universal Health Care IS a redistribution of wealth, from those who can afford health care to those who can't. It is this equation:
Equality of Opportunity - whomever can afford it, can have it
to
Equality of Outcome - whomever wants it, gets it, at the cost of whomever can afford it
It is completely about the transition from Meritocracy to Socialism. This is what the vast majority of the proponents of UHC want, whether they be citizens or politicals.
* * *
One other (sub)category exists: so-called 'altruistic' greed. Many people wish for any and all medical treatments to be available to everybody. Whether it is bandages or organs or $75,000 pacemakers, everybody should get the treatment they need regardless of cost, these people say. And since hospitals won't provide it, they must be made to provide it by the government option.
Need I explain why this is a bad idea? When you artifically depress prices, you create shortages. Shortages lead to rationing. This is the iron law of supply and demand. If you want rationing, like we already see in Canada (as one of the worse examples), then by all means implement UHC. But again, you're taking from those who could otherwise have/afford medical care, and giving it to those who can not afford it. Is THIS justice? No, it's redistribution.
Furthermore, we all know that government is inefficient. If you have to mail something, do you go to UPS, USPS, or FedEx? You go to USPS only if you have no choice. If they didn't have a monopoly on 1st class mail, or if they weren't a governmental agency, they'd have long ago gone out of business. Do you think that government-run health care will be any better?
Medical Treatment availability and cost
Medical Insurance availability and cost
When you think about them, the difference between them should be obvious. Medical Insurance is INSURANCE - a form of paying for the probability of needing money if certain conditions are met. With the exception of certain tax ramifications, the need for insurance goes up as your personal income goes down, as theoretically, if you have enough money saved, you don't need insurance, whether it's health or life or auto. So for many people, it's a hedge against an uncertain future. So in summary, medical insurance is an INVESTMENT OF MONEY.
Medical Treatment is a SERVICE. It has become horribly complicated, regulated, and legislated, but at the bottom, it is about you paying a professional (doctor) cash for a service (setting a bone, delivering a baby, etc). Like any private company, this service should be available without blatant discrimination. Whether you walk into a Wal-Mart or a Hospital, if you plunk down cash for a $10.00 gizmo, you should be able to walk out of the store with the gizmo regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This is an issue of AVAILABILITY.
* * *
Those are the preliminaries. Now for the real arguments.
Many people support Obama's Medical Plan because they believe that many people can't get, or can't afford, medical care otherwise. This, again, is two very different options conflated. Let's break it out:
1) I support OMP because many people can't get medical care.
Not true (or it should not be). If you have the proper form and amount of payment, there is (or should be) very little reason why you can't get served whatever treatment you are seeking.
Realistically, with the amount of legislation and legalese involved in medicine, it is a wonder that any healing is done at all. There are countless abuses on all sides of the equation - from abusive nurses to incompetent doctors to stifling red tape to inflated insurance costs to bogus hospital fees - the list goes on. There is no transparancy in either medical legislation, or in medical costs.
2) I support OMP because people can't afford medical care.
This is a criticism of either exorbitant medical costs, health insurance costs, or a lamentation of how poor people are. Medical costs are a real problem, as seen in the corruption mentioned previously. health insurance costs are also an issue, but more from a legislative and legal standpoint; abusive or incomprehensible insurance policies, a bias against cash by hospitals, and convoluted or blatantly anti-capitalistic laws surrounding the industry are much of what is at fault.
There is a humanitarian aspect to #2 as well. Many people argue that health care is a right, that everybody from the president down to an illegal alien bum deserve health care provided to them, regardless of whether they can pay.
My response, however, is "Why?" Our constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; in spirit and in practice, this is meant to mean, "Do your own thing, so long as you don't interfere with anybody elses' right to do the same", which almost parallels the Wiccan creed of "An it harm none, do as you will".
The Constitution guarantees you the right to work as you see fit - to earn money and spend it as you choose, minus a tax for essential services (government infrastructure). You have the right to save for college or a wedding, to put money away for retirement, or to blow it on hookers and dope. It's up to you to decide to strive for lots of cash and fame, or to take a steady, safe, 30k/year job and not have as many options. How much MONEY you EARN is totally up to you, limited only by your ambition, your capability, and (to a much lesser extent) to luck.
Most people earn as much money as they deserve. Before you jump on me for that, think about it. We all know what it takes to make more money in our given profession. We either choose, or don't choose, to pursue that option because of the cost involved. If I want more money as an accountant, I can either pursue a management track or go into business for myself. Both of those options require more time, money, and risk than I'm currently willing to spend, so I stay where I am.
The same goes for most other people. With the exception of people who truly have had misfortune visit them (unforseen rare brain tumor, car accident where insurance illegally won't pay out, etc) we are where we choose to be in life - financially, socially, and spiritually. Growing in any of these three categories is hard - most people shy away from such hard growth. But that option is possible in America, more than it has ever been in ANY OTHER nation that has ever EXISTED in the history of the human race. We have more options to rise and fail on our own merits in the USA than anybody has ever known.
So why the push for Universal Health Care now? Not by government - we all know why the pols want it: power and money, corruption and greed. No, why do the individuals want UHC?
Two reasons: Justice and Greed.
Justice, because the health care and insurance systems ARE broken. In many cases you CAN'T get a realistically priced medical service, or can't get insurance, or laws prohibit you, or what not. Medicine is NOT sold like drapes at a Wal-Mart. Until it is, we DO need more efforts made towards making the system more just. But this could be done by less regulation, not more; just more transparency, less red tape, and less special interest. And a lot of this could come about by treating citizens as adults; letting them choose what is right for them with informed consent, instead of using legislation to 'protect' them from their own decisions.
The second reason why UHC is desired by many is greed. Universal Health Care IS a redistribution of wealth, from those who can afford health care to those who can't. It is this equation:
Equality of Opportunity - whomever can afford it, can have it
to
Equality of Outcome - whomever wants it, gets it, at the cost of whomever can afford it
It is completely about the transition from Meritocracy to Socialism. This is what the vast majority of the proponents of UHC want, whether they be citizens or politicals.
* * *
One other (sub)category exists: so-called 'altruistic' greed. Many people wish for any and all medical treatments to be available to everybody. Whether it is bandages or organs or $75,000 pacemakers, everybody should get the treatment they need regardless of cost, these people say. And since hospitals won't provide it, they must be made to provide it by the government option.
Need I explain why this is a bad idea? When you artifically depress prices, you create shortages. Shortages lead to rationing. This is the iron law of supply and demand. If you want rationing, like we already see in Canada (as one of the worse examples), then by all means implement UHC. But again, you're taking from those who could otherwise have/afford medical care, and giving it to those who can not afford it. Is THIS justice? No, it's redistribution.
Furthermore, we all know that government is inefficient. If you have to mail something, do you go to UPS, USPS, or FedEx? You go to USPS only if you have no choice. If they didn't have a monopoly on 1st class mail, or if they weren't a governmental agency, they'd have long ago gone out of business. Do you think that government-run health care will be any better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)