Liberty is a fascinating concept to me. I appreciate the ability to think for myself and to make my own decisions, and I hope all other human beings enjoy the same liberties.
It's funny how we act about our freedom. How some people believe the government has no right to tell them how to spend their money, but has every right to dictate their other personal choices. Or how the opposite is also true. Government should keep out of my personal business, but take money from people who have more than me to make my life better.
When I see this type of behavior I think it is hypocritical. It reminds me of the parent who says, "I don't mind what my child does, as long I approve."
It is easy to complain about the freedoms we feel that are being taken from us, and to immediately turn around and deny someone else the ability to do something because we think it is "wrong".
I think we all believe that we should be free, but we are uncomfortable with anything that is "different" from the norms or ideals we were raised with. Some things are obviously wrong. Theft, murder, etc are wrong in and of themselves. They are fundamentally wrong because they impede someone else's ability to act freely. But if there is a doubt as to whether people should have certain ability to chose, should we not err on the side of Liberty? If we were contemplating a tax hike, should we not consider people more able to choose for themselves how to spend that money? If we don't agree with someone's behaviour, should we not err on the side of their freedom as well?
Is it really freedom, if we are only free to do anything someone else says is ok?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Obama's Nobel Prize
A little while ago Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The immediate reaction of people asking what he has done to deserve it was understandable. I have waited for someone to explain it rationally, but as of yet no one has.
A few people have made mention of it being for what he will do more than what he has done. This seems a little silly to me. He has reversed our policy of "no dialogue", he has supported the two state Israel option, and has made the decision to finish the nation building going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am confused as to what he has "to do". Apparently opening up dialogue with Iran isn't "doing" anything. Does he have to actually make up facts and invade a country to have "done" anything?
The award is a little premature, in my opinion, but I don't think it is completely unmerited like people pretend. Nominating Obama 12 days into his presidency and awarding him in the first year, is obviously an attempt to influence his decisions. If I lived outside the US I would be a little nervous too. Apparently, we can invade anyone we want and get away with it.
Obama has some major decisions with Afghanistan coming up, and it is obvious the Nobel Committee is trying to influence his decision, just like everyone else.
A few people have made mention of it being for what he will do more than what he has done. This seems a little silly to me. He has reversed our policy of "no dialogue", he has supported the two state Israel option, and has made the decision to finish the nation building going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am confused as to what he has "to do". Apparently opening up dialogue with Iran isn't "doing" anything. Does he have to actually make up facts and invade a country to have "done" anything?
The award is a little premature, in my opinion, but I don't think it is completely unmerited like people pretend. Nominating Obama 12 days into his presidency and awarding him in the first year, is obviously an attempt to influence his decisions. If I lived outside the US I would be a little nervous too. Apparently, we can invade anyone we want and get away with it.
Obama has some major decisions with Afghanistan coming up, and it is obvious the Nobel Committee is trying to influence his decision, just like everyone else.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Healthcare Reform
This is a super fun subject right now, so I decided to throw in my two cents.
Let me begin by saying that right now the discourse over health care is disgusting. Extremists on one side tell you that you are going to die, and the other says you will be broke. Fear mongering is, at best, unhealthy and morally repugnant.
Now then, what is the debate? Our government is currently discussing health care reform. One of the key components to this reform would be to add a public option to cover the uninsured. Do the uninsured deserve to be covered at all? I hope that if someone were to die because a hospital refused to treat them, on the grounds of it not being in their financial interest to do so, most people would be upset. I think most of us, believe that everyone should have access to some basic health care, and not be left to die if they cannot afford it.
So if we want everyone covered, is the public option a good idea? Rather than pretend to know the future, I will be looking at two examples of a public and private option in our current lives.
1. Police
Security is important. We need a system to enforce laws in order to have a productive and fair society. The police provide some basic protection for everyone, no matter our financial situation. The police are an example of a socialist program. It is a purely government program, and is paid by taxes. In addition to policemen there is a vibrant private sector; security guards, alarms, bodyguards etc. This private option provides additional coverage for those who need it.
2. Education
All children in the United States have access to the public school system. In addition to this Socialist, government-run institution there are private options. Tutors, private schools, additional materials, etc are available to those who are willing to pay an extra cost.
We tend to think that since we have free markets, it means we are a capitalist society. This is mostly true, however we have takes that pay for several socialist, government entities. It is true that in a free market society competition tends to make everyone better off. In reality, this is not always the case. A good example of a time when government intervention can stimulate the economy is a monopoly.
Whether or not you believe that the Education system or Justice system are perfect, I think you have to admit that they do a pretty damn good job. And even if they aren't perfect at least everyone is covered.
Let me begin by saying that right now the discourse over health care is disgusting. Extremists on one side tell you that you are going to die, and the other says you will be broke. Fear mongering is, at best, unhealthy and morally repugnant.
Now then, what is the debate? Our government is currently discussing health care reform. One of the key components to this reform would be to add a public option to cover the uninsured. Do the uninsured deserve to be covered at all? I hope that if someone were to die because a hospital refused to treat them, on the grounds of it not being in their financial interest to do so, most people would be upset. I think most of us, believe that everyone should have access to some basic health care, and not be left to die if they cannot afford it.
So if we want everyone covered, is the public option a good idea? Rather than pretend to know the future, I will be looking at two examples of a public and private option in our current lives.
1. Police
Security is important. We need a system to enforce laws in order to have a productive and fair society. The police provide some basic protection for everyone, no matter our financial situation. The police are an example of a socialist program. It is a purely government program, and is paid by taxes. In addition to policemen there is a vibrant private sector; security guards, alarms, bodyguards etc. This private option provides additional coverage for those who need it.
2. Education
All children in the United States have access to the public school system. In addition to this Socialist, government-run institution there are private options. Tutors, private schools, additional materials, etc are available to those who are willing to pay an extra cost.
We tend to think that since we have free markets, it means we are a capitalist society. This is mostly true, however we have takes that pay for several socialist, government entities. It is true that in a free market society competition tends to make everyone better off. In reality, this is not always the case. A good example of a time when government intervention can stimulate the economy is a monopoly.
Whether or not you believe that the Education system or Justice system are perfect, I think you have to admit that they do a pretty damn good job. And even if they aren't perfect at least everyone is covered.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran
What is happening in Iran?
I hope that this is a question that many people are asking themselves. Iran is a fascinating country that will have a lot of influence on our future. I am going to try to explain a little about what is going on, and hopefully shed some light on the situation.
The Past
Iran was called Persia for a long time. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed the middle east was carved up and divided how we know it today. Iran was ruled by the "Shah" or King until 1979ish when the Ayatollah took over. Ayatollah basically means "Leader" it is often translated as "Supreme Leader", but that is a little strong. The Ayatollah is a religeous leader as well as a political one. The US wasn't very happy with this regime change and we decided it would be in our best interest to fight them. So when Iraq invaded Iran we helped the Iraqis out with weapons, even thought they may have killed up to 100k Kurds living in Iraq. Iran was not a fan of US involvement and we have had our disagreements since. (Most notably the Hostage Crisis and Nuclear Enrichment concerns)
The Present
Iran had their presidential elections recently. Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi (A and M for short) A was president and very well controlled by the Ayatollah. M was his most popular challenger. Polls predicted it would be a very close race, but after counting hand ballots for a few hours A is declared the winner by a 66% majority. Most people seem to belive this a clear indication of fraud. People right and the Government of Iran is trying to quell the uprising.
The Future
Remember that because of protests and uprisings like what are going on now the regime changed hands in 1979. It took around ten years of revolts before the actual change occurred but this is interesting all the same. I hope that the people of Iran realize that now dictator holds power, and that the power is always in the hands of the masses. We may end up with a free and democratic Iran, and we may not only time will tell.
I hope that this is a question that many people are asking themselves. Iran is a fascinating country that will have a lot of influence on our future. I am going to try to explain a little about what is going on, and hopefully shed some light on the situation.
The Past
Iran was called Persia for a long time. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed the middle east was carved up and divided how we know it today. Iran was ruled by the "Shah" or King until 1979ish when the Ayatollah took over. Ayatollah basically means "Leader" it is often translated as "Supreme Leader", but that is a little strong. The Ayatollah is a religeous leader as well as a political one. The US wasn't very happy with this regime change and we decided it would be in our best interest to fight them. So when Iraq invaded Iran we helped the Iraqis out with weapons, even thought they may have killed up to 100k Kurds living in Iraq. Iran was not a fan of US involvement and we have had our disagreements since. (Most notably the Hostage Crisis and Nuclear Enrichment concerns)
The Present
Iran had their presidential elections recently. Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi (A and M for short) A was president and very well controlled by the Ayatollah. M was his most popular challenger. Polls predicted it would be a very close race, but after counting hand ballots for a few hours A is declared the winner by a 66% majority. Most people seem to belive this a clear indication of fraud. People right and the Government of Iran is trying to quell the uprising.
The Future
Remember that because of protests and uprisings like what are going on now the regime changed hands in 1979. It took around ten years of revolts before the actual change occurred but this is interesting all the same. I hope that the people of Iran realize that now dictator holds power, and that the power is always in the hands of the masses. We may end up with a free and democratic Iran, and we may not only time will tell.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Palin Letterman joke
There is some stuff going around about Letterman and Palin. I will attempt to clarify.
Letterman said "during the game Sarah Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. You can see how that would be awkward."
It was a joke. Mr Letterman was not saying that Sarah Palin's daughter was raped. He was not saying that he wants to have sex with the girl. I know that the 14 year old was the one at the game, but the joke obviously referred to the older daughter who was, in fact, knocked up.
I don't expect you to like the joke or find it funny. It is ok if you hate the joke. I hate a LOT of jokes, but it is a joke.
Letterman said "during the game Sarah Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. You can see how that would be awkward."
It was a joke. Mr Letterman was not saying that Sarah Palin's daughter was raped. He was not saying that he wants to have sex with the girl. I know that the 14 year old was the one at the game, but the joke obviously referred to the older daughter who was, in fact, knocked up.
I don't expect you to like the joke or find it funny. It is ok if you hate the joke. I hate a LOT of jokes, but it is a joke.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Rick Koerber responds to Indictment
"This indictment was not the most powerful work of the most intelligent people"
-Rick Koerber
While the fancy conference room may not have been the most appropriate place to explain to people that you didn't defraud them out of money, Rick Koerber's message was clear. He will be pleading "Not Guilty" to Federal charges.
Mr Koerber accused several Government officials of misconduct and "conducting a personal vendetta" against him. Mr Koerber appears to believe that government investigators need to have proof of malfeasance before conducting an investigation. Mr Koerber has recorded or is in the possesion of several recordings of officials stating to him or others that the government did not have proof of wrong doing, but didn't like what he was doing.
According to Mr Koerber Government officials communicated suspicion of a Pyramid/Ponzi schemes, before the indictment. This helped cause FranklinSquires collapse in addition to the melting real estate market.
He dismisses the media's obsession with Mark Shurtleff's supposed breakfast meeting stating, "Why a private citizen, asking to meet with an elected representative is ever, in any circumstance, innappropriate is a mystery to me."
Mr Koerber states he is ready to meet the accusations in court, and only time will tell how this will play out.
-Rick Koerber
While the fancy conference room may not have been the most appropriate place to explain to people that you didn't defraud them out of money, Rick Koerber's message was clear. He will be pleading "Not Guilty" to Federal charges.
Mr Koerber accused several Government officials of misconduct and "conducting a personal vendetta" against him. Mr Koerber appears to believe that government investigators need to have proof of malfeasance before conducting an investigation. Mr Koerber has recorded or is in the possesion of several recordings of officials stating to him or others that the government did not have proof of wrong doing, but didn't like what he was doing.
According to Mr Koerber Government officials communicated suspicion of a Pyramid/Ponzi schemes, before the indictment. This helped cause FranklinSquires collapse in addition to the melting real estate market.
He dismisses the media's obsession with Mark Shurtleff's supposed breakfast meeting stating, "Why a private citizen, asking to meet with an elected representative is ever, in any circumstance, innappropriate is a mystery to me."
Mr Koerber states he is ready to meet the accusations in court, and only time will tell how this will play out.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Government in action (inaction)
It is fascinating to me that severely important topics seem to be shelved until they become a crisis. Healthcare and Social Security are good examples of this. We have been hearing that the healthcare and Social Security costs for quite some time now, but still have yet to see any major changes. The problem with the Congress is that it rewards inaction. It is a very plush and privileged existence to be a Congress person. It's not something that people are willing to risk losing. Congress has an amazing reelection rate. This is much more amazing when you consider its approval rating sunk below 20% within the last year. Congress has an amzing 20% approval and and a 94% re-election rate. To me these numbers are saying, "I hate the job that Congress is doing, but they are there until they die or are arrested." If a congress person wants to advance politically then all of their previous legislation will be brought up against them (this is also why Governers tend to do well. They don't have a voting record). One politician who tried to put through legislation to help prevent child molestation was accused of teaching kindergardners about sex etc. It can become truly nasty. Therefore there is very sstrong incentive to keep your head down, and do as little as possible.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)