I am very sympathetic with the desire of Democrats to bring health care to everyone. It seems to me there are enough smart people around that these things could be figured out without destroying the fundamental soundness of capitalism.
But...
That's not what inspired me to post something. It is the language I'm hearing by people like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean of everyone deserving health care or everyone being entitled to health care. Wrong. America is a social contract. Even if Jefferson used language of inalienable rights, he didn't mean anything like this. And it simply isn't true. America will be a better place for everyone if we can work these sorts of things out. But health care is not a right. It's a great privilege.
We have a contract to live together freely as long as we all follow some basic rules. We don't steal each other's stuff. We don't hurt each other. We pay taxes so that we can pay police to keep the peace and so that the government can provide some basic services.
The idea is that everyone is free to thrive. It is in everyone's best interest that mechanisms be put in place to help those who get down on their luck as well as to set rules to protect us from our own stupidity. It does no one any good to let those in a cycle of poverty and despair languish. It is a smart system that helps these sorts back on track to being self-sufficient. That diminishes crime and ultimately benefits everyone.
But we are only "entitled" to what we have agreed as part of the contract, and then conditionally on keeping our end of the deal. "He who does not work, shall not eat" is the default. We might very well make it part of our contract to say that if you are incapacitated, society will help. After all, wouldn't we want help too if we came down on our luck?
But the goal is to get back on track. It's not a free lunch--that's not the contract. People should have to do something to get welfare. I appreciate Obama's pragmatism. But I don't appreciate the extreme elements of the Democratic party who are why I am still registered as a Republican.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Osama who?
I guess bin Laden issued a statement about Obama going to Saudia Arabia today. Certainly the usual rabble rousers of the Republican party--the ones that make me thing about becoming an Independent--are on their hobby horses again.
Sometimes I picture myself at a press conference answering questions, like, "President Schenck, how would you respond to Osama's depiction of your Middle East trip as an attempt to spread hate?"
My response: "Osama who? This is a guy who lives in a cave half the time and every once and a while manages to scribble a note and get it out to the public. Yes, it was a failure of the previous administration to bring him to justice. But really, this is pretty much one guy who got lucky a couple times. One of those times was catastrophic, to be sure, but I give no credit of brilliance or significance to the man who planned it. He got lucky.
"There are some fundamental misunderstandings that were a part of the previous administration's response to this little man. First, they responded to a spider when he is a starfish. With a spider, you hit it on the head and it's dead. You can take the battle to the spider. But with some starfish, almost every part will regrown into a complete starfish again, even if you cut off every arm.
"Terrorism is not a spider. You can't really take the battle to terrorism, because it's potentially everywhere. The previous administration either misunderstood this fact or it saw 9-11 as an opportunity to pursue a secondary agenda in Iraq. If the latter was the case, we can at least admire it for its cunning, for a broader plan that had good intentions but that at least so far has failed to yield the intended results. If the previous was the case, then the pursuit of Saddam Hussein was about as misguided as the French investors who tried to figure out who the president of the internet was before they would invest--and of course with a cost of thousands of American lives and ten thousand Iraqi lives.
"In the process, bin Laden was empowered far beyond the power he had previously. He went from someone on the edges of Islam, despised by those in power in the Muslim world to someone with real symbolic power. Our war in Iraq took someone on the run from his own people, who was denounced by almost every Muslim nation after 9-11, to someone who inspired forces in these nations that those in power now had to deal with on a grander scale. A more conservative regime managed to get elected in Iran, largely because of the American invasion of Iraq.
"Another mistake of the previous administration is that, realizing how much trouble the legs of the starfish caused (themselves still thinking of it as spider legs that would stop if they could just bop its head), they tried to burn the whole starfish. This was practically the approach of the Israelis in Lebanon a couple summers ago. At some point, however, the loss to innocent life is so overwhelming that the only ethical--and reasonably strategic thing to do is to live with disappointment.
The ancient Syrians did this with the Maccabees. They finally realized that it was stupid to keep fighting and losing so many just so that the Jews would "modernize" and stop strange customs like circumcision and not eating pork. The Russians did this in Afghanistan in the 80s. We did it in Vietnam. The Spanish did it with the Apache. You don't try to defeat a starfish. You isolate and insulate its parts. You make sure it isn't where you are or want to be.
"So let's dismiss this Osama person. He's a has been. That part of the starfish is locked up in a box."
I don't know if Obama's mission to the Middle East will accomplish anything. But it's a lot smarter than what the last guy did. It can't hurt.
Sometimes I picture myself at a press conference answering questions, like, "President Schenck, how would you respond to Osama's depiction of your Middle East trip as an attempt to spread hate?"
My response: "Osama who? This is a guy who lives in a cave half the time and every once and a while manages to scribble a note and get it out to the public. Yes, it was a failure of the previous administration to bring him to justice. But really, this is pretty much one guy who got lucky a couple times. One of those times was catastrophic, to be sure, but I give no credit of brilliance or significance to the man who planned it. He got lucky.
"There are some fundamental misunderstandings that were a part of the previous administration's response to this little man. First, they responded to a spider when he is a starfish. With a spider, you hit it on the head and it's dead. You can take the battle to the spider. But with some starfish, almost every part will regrown into a complete starfish again, even if you cut off every arm.
"Terrorism is not a spider. You can't really take the battle to terrorism, because it's potentially everywhere. The previous administration either misunderstood this fact or it saw 9-11 as an opportunity to pursue a secondary agenda in Iraq. If the latter was the case, we can at least admire it for its cunning, for a broader plan that had good intentions but that at least so far has failed to yield the intended results. If the previous was the case, then the pursuit of Saddam Hussein was about as misguided as the French investors who tried to figure out who the president of the internet was before they would invest--and of course with a cost of thousands of American lives and ten thousand Iraqi lives.
"In the process, bin Laden was empowered far beyond the power he had previously. He went from someone on the edges of Islam, despised by those in power in the Muslim world to someone with real symbolic power. Our war in Iraq took someone on the run from his own people, who was denounced by almost every Muslim nation after 9-11, to someone who inspired forces in these nations that those in power now had to deal with on a grander scale. A more conservative regime managed to get elected in Iran, largely because of the American invasion of Iraq.
"Another mistake of the previous administration is that, realizing how much trouble the legs of the starfish caused (themselves still thinking of it as spider legs that would stop if they could just bop its head), they tried to burn the whole starfish. This was practically the approach of the Israelis in Lebanon a couple summers ago. At some point, however, the loss to innocent life is so overwhelming that the only ethical--and reasonably strategic thing to do is to live with disappointment.
The ancient Syrians did this with the Maccabees. They finally realized that it was stupid to keep fighting and losing so many just so that the Jews would "modernize" and stop strange customs like circumcision and not eating pork. The Russians did this in Afghanistan in the 80s. We did it in Vietnam. The Spanish did it with the Apache. You don't try to defeat a starfish. You isolate and insulate its parts. You make sure it isn't where you are or want to be.
"So let's dismiss this Osama person. He's a has been. That part of the starfish is locked up in a box."
I don't know if Obama's mission to the Middle East will accomplish anything. But it's a lot smarter than what the last guy did. It can't hurt.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal
Here is Limbaugh on a tirade against the Fairness Act. Obama came out saying he did not favor the fairness act.
Of course after the attempt of the previous regime to suppress "anti-American" thought, it's not a little hypocritical to say such things now. I agree with Limbaugh's position, however. And he seemed a little more restrained than usual.
I should expect to hear an increasing number of conspiracy theories about what the Obama administration is doing beneath the surface. To some extent, "to the victor belong the spoils," as it certainly was for the Bush administration. So far, Obama seems to have resisted the temptation to let the liberals in his party exert the kind of revenge they did under Clinton and that Bush's people did.
But of course we'll see what happens in time.
P.S. No comment on the stimulus package. I simply don't know enough to have an opinion.
Of course after the attempt of the previous regime to suppress "anti-American" thought, it's not a little hypocritical to say such things now. I agree with Limbaugh's position, however. And he seemed a little more restrained than usual.
I should expect to hear an increasing number of conspiracy theories about what the Obama administration is doing beneath the surface. To some extent, "to the victor belong the spoils," as it certainly was for the Bush administration. So far, Obama seems to have resisted the temptation to let the liberals in his party exert the kind of revenge they did under Clinton and that Bush's people did.
But of course we'll see what happens in time.
P.S. No comment on the stimulus package. I simply don't know enough to have an opinion.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Warren and others
I don't really know most of the people Obama has appointed, but I am pretty pleased. More than anything, I'm pleased with his attitude. All the extremes are angry, which tells me he's doing the right thing. Bush said he was a uniter, but his administration turned out to be full of extremists.
Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)
I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.
My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.
Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.
Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.
Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)
I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.
My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.
Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.
Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Obama picks Shinseki for Veteran's Affairs
Obama announced that he would be appointing retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as Secretary of the Office of Veteran's Affairs. The following lines from the article on msnbc.com stood out to me.
"Shinseki’s tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.
"Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as “wildly off the mark,” and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki’s words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a “surge” of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence."
:-)
"Shinseki’s tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.
"Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as “wildly off the mark,” and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki’s words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a “surge” of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence."
:-)
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday Night Live strikes again...
Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:
Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:
Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:
Friday, September 26, 2008
First Presidential Debate
Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.
I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.
So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?
First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.
It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."
Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.
I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.
So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?
First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.
It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."
Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
