Thoughts on Romney

This statement by President Obama today is exactly what I have been thinking on my own: "I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations. What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."

As for the claim that we are not better off economically than we were four years ago, that is quantifiably false.  When Obama took office we were in a negative economic slide of proportions the US had not seen since the Great Depression.  You can speculate whether his actions brought us out as quickly as we could have, although even here you have to reckon with a Republican controlled House that pretty much kept him from doing anything he wanted after Ted Kennedy died.

What you cannot do is say that we are worse than we were four years ago.  Four years ago we were going in a negative direction.  Right now we are going in a positive direction. The debt in itself is not the gauge but the trajectory.

Obamacare constitutional

I thought this cartoon was funny but a little too political for my primary blog:

I stole it from James McGrath.  I am not expert enough to know the full ramifications of Obamacare, a term I don't use pejoratively.  But in general I believe it is good philosophy, as well as good Christianity, for there to be a health care network that is national in scope.

I consider it at least more than a 50% possibility that my father would still be alive if we lived in England, Canada, or Germany.  My father had a serious episode three weeks before his death that in those countries would almost certainly have resulted in a trip to the hospital.  The costs were almost certainly a factor in nothing being done.  Similarly, on the day of his death I believe the 9-1-1 call might have come earlier if the cost of an ambulance and a hospital were not in the equation.

Obama's Risky but Necessary Move

I think we all understand Obama's circumstances. He has to come out on the gay marriage issue, especially after Biden's comments earlier in the week. Most people think this has always been his position, just one he couldn't publicly espouse politically.

But what will be the consequences? Will African-Americans and Latinos still vote for him?  I think in the end they will, not least because he is coming off as reluctantly coming forward.  He's not coming across as a militant on the issue.

The bigger question is his evangelical support.  There are a number of evangelicals who have been able to reconcile his support of abortion with their vote. But will they be able to reconcile his position on gay marriage?  That is a good question.

I suspect in the end that they will because most people have already made up their mind who they are going to vote for in November.

Defeat of Lugar

I don't think anyone actually reads this blog, but I wanted to marvel at the difference in perspective right now on working across the aisles.  Murdock won over Lugar in Indiana with the argument that Lugar worked too much with the other side of the aisle. Basically, he is arguing for polarization in Washington.

He is not presenting it that way, of course.  The hope of the Tea Party is that their ideology will sweep Washington so that they can institute their vision for America.  But if this does not happen, then the end result is polarization and stalemate.

I hope that the Democratic candidate genuinely takes a middle of the road line. I don't think most Americans want the extremes on either side. They want people in Washington who can work together and represent all America. I still believe that this is the majority, but we'll see.

bughan hangug chimlyag

uisim-ui yeojiga bughan-ui choegeun gong-gyeog-ui uimi mogsum jasin-ui ma-eumsog-e geugeos-i sesang-eseo daleun salam-eul-wihan daleul su issseubnida. uliga geudeul-ui haengdong-eun gigoehago issseubnida. geudeul-i yeonjuhaneun seutolido maeu daleun siggudeul-eun daleul su uisimhaeyahabnida. geudeul-eun him-eul boyeojuneun saeng-gaghabnida. geudeul-eun myeong-yeleul bojon saeng-gaghabnida. ulineun geudeul jasin-i amu iyueobs-i seoggi sidaelo dasi nallyeo eod-eul daehae saeng-gaghabnida.

hanpyeon, hangug-ui bughan salamdeul-i gulm-eo. ulineun segyeui nameojineun salamdeul-ege jegonghagi wihae gikkeoijaneun hangug bughan salamdeul-ege boyeojugo jeongug eumsig-eul nohgi wihae jusahaeya jejeongsin-i bughan jeong-gwon-eun hangug-eo suneun eobsjiman.

modeun galdeung ibeon-en daleuge jonglyodoebnida. namhan-eun beon-yeong-eul gajyeowassda seong-gongjeog-in jabonjuui siseutem-i eobs-eoss-eoyo. bughan-eun gyeongje siseutem-eulo gongsanjuuiui silpaeui myeoch gaji nam-aissneun yeje jung hanaibnida. geudeul-eun geudeul jasin-ui son-e gwang-gileul dan payeolga gyesogdoemyeon bughan-ui eotteohan chimlyag-iiss-eul geos-ibnida.

Mondo Secondo Premio - Italia

Aggiudicazione del secondo mondo di oggi va al primo ministro italiano Silvio Berlusconi, che dimostra che l'Italia non è attualmente in grado di essere parte del mondo moderno. Giù il cappello per Berlusconi leader tribali, la cui difesa della prostituzione a partiti di governo è che è meglio che essere gay. Tanto di cappello a voi. L'Italia è squalificata da una voce nel futuro del mondo fino a nuovo avviso.

Health Care is not deserved, a right, or an entitlement

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.