The Iraq Factor

Tonight on the News Hour, Shields and Brooks were asked to choose the most important factor in the election between Iraq and the US economy. David Brooks felt that the Iraq war was the most important of the two because of 9/11 and the fact that we had to do something about the terrorists. What I find interesting is that the terrorists weren't in Iraq and the "war" was strictly a creation of a bumbling administration. Intelligent conservatives now know the Iraq situation was a fabrication. Of the two major issues, this leaves only the economy and I can safely say that there is very little fabrication going on in our economy since Bush took over.

The McCain Factor

Well, you heard it here first. The Mouthpiece predicts that the republican party is setting up John McCain to accept a vice presidential nomination at the RNC. We all thought it would be Cheney's heart but it might just be his real recent stance on gay rights that will get him a bye. We're predicting that, at the last minute, Cheney will bow out, as gracefully as he can, and McCain will step in. He and Bush have been very cozy lately including the recent lawsuit Bush is supposedly filing to have the offensive attack ads pulled. McCain could breathe some serious life into the Bush re-election bid. Of course, I would lose all respect for McCain if he does.

Neo-Con Gay Empathy

Honestly, you didn't really think the Mouth would ignore this one did you? The Veep's coming out of the closet certainly gives one the impression that his heart is still beating. One of the Mouth's previous commentaries discussed the "empathy" issue where the case was made that a distinct difference between conservatives and liberals (still hate these monikers)is their ability to empathize with other's positions. In other words, the ability to at least imagine oneself walking a mile in someone else's shoes. Am I implying that conservatives lack imagination...hhmmmmm.

Yesterday, Cheney came out in support for his daughter proving that, even the neo-cons, can do it given the right circumstances (like having a gay daughter)! It took my breath away. Don't get me wrong, he'd have to come a lot farther for me to actually like him as a person but, heh, its a start.

Wonder what would have happened if he and GWB had kids in the army in Baghdad?

PS: I'm no longer responsible for spelling errors because the built in spell checker in my Blogger software is lousy (please forgive).

Get out the Vote Reprise

This is a short follow-up to a previous post. I guess this was an epiphany I had that was better written down or else it stood a good chance of being forgotten with many other ideas and notions I've had over the years.

The general population has the power to exert pressure on the voting authorities to implement paper copies of ballots. Here's how. If we all cast absentee ballots, then by default, there would be a paper trail. In addition, I'm pretty sure that, if a significant number of us did it in protest to the current position, then this would be the last time it would probably have to be done (I'm guessing that all the work of counting mailed in ballots would convince someone that just having a paper backup in the electronic system would be a good alternative).

On Abortion

There was an article in the Christian Science Monitor Thursday written by a life long Democrat that hasn't voted as a Democrat for 12 years over the Democratic party's stance on abortion. What was interesting about his perspective was first, it was male and second, it underscores the complexity and confusion many of us have over what the national parties real underlying philosophies are (I'm not passing judgement on the fact that this writer gives a 100% weight to a single issue. That's another blog).

His point is basically this: He feels that the Democrats have always stood up for the poor, downtrodden and, in general, those that can't really help themselves in the world and that who is in a worst position than an unborn fetus? While I do think that generally, the Democratic position is more representative of the poor, lower and middle classes (read "masses"), I contend that, with most of these complex sociological issues, his position is too simplistic to be of any real value. Besides, if he were a Democrat and believed as he believes, doesn't he see a real contradiction in the Republican position on this? That would make me one mixed up voter. I was just kidding because, in reality, abortion is one of those issues that turns traditional political positions on their ears.

Most Republicans would argue that they are for smaller government, less oversight and regulation and pro individual rights. I think most Democrats would argue that the are for more government services, more oversight and control especially where individual rights are affected negatively. The issue is how individual rights are determined, regulated and protected. The abortion issue is counter intuitive on all fronts and can easily fit into both parties general belief system both for and against. So what drives our views on abortion? My view is theocracy. My silent survey over the years indicate that ant-abortionists tend to be those that are the most religious. These folks view human life as something beyond the scientific classification of an animal or organism and is therefore sacred at creation. When "creation" begins, in my view, if you believe this viewpoint, has to be at conception...not somewhere in between. When is a human a human I guess depends on when our biology begins to differentiate us as an organism from, let's say, a chimpanzee. But I digress. The opposing viewpoint considers humans as another form of animal that just so happens to have the enhanced capabilties to wrestle with these types of issues.

That was pretty brutal wasn't it? If you forget the biology for a minute and ask yourself what the philosphical difference between the two contingencies are, you might ascertain that one party places more value on the life that is already a productive member of society over one that is not yet so. The counter arguement is that you might be jipping society of the next Einstein every time you abort a human life (don't think anyone would argue that aborting any other animal's life would have similar consequences). I wonder whether Einstein would have had time for his studies if he had had an unplanned child when he was sixteen? Hmmmm.

After all of this convoluted discussion, I have some really simple guidelines that I follow with these kinds of issues. One is that I assume that most people involved do not take these decisions lightly. Second, does it affect me personally? If not, then I would concede the decision to those involved in the dilemma (in other words, let the folks with the problem decide the outcome). Third, which is more of a mental checksum, is that I try to put myself in their place and see whether I can empathize with their situation. If I can, then it reinforces number two.

What really angers me are the radicals. Those that take the law into their own hands and act as judge, jury and executioner are the lowest forms of humanity in our society. They cannot acknowledge differing perspectives or empathize with involved parties. To them, everything is black and white.

Nothing is black and white.

Newspapers

Sorry, I just had to post this:

A Brief Guide to American Newspapers

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run
the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run
the country but don't really understand The New York Times.
They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running
the country - if they could find the time - and if they didn't have
to leave Southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to
run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure
who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can
get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care
who's running the country as long as they do something
really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running
another country but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure
there is a country... or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose
all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders
are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to
be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course,
that they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

They left out my favorite: The Christian Science Monitor. Its read by people who don't have time to read all of the other newspapers!

The Health Care Nightmare

EDUARDO PORTER writes in today's NY Times online about the rising cost of health benefits being a contributing (if not primary)factor in the non-existent rebound of jobs today. He points out that some small businesses are hiring only younger workers in order to minimize premiums. He goes on to point out that this is illegal.

While there are many examples of this type out there, this is a particularly good one in the sense that it points out how one mechanism can heavily impact another. And that good legislation is a lot like chess. The more moves ahead you can think, the better your current move will be.

Currently, health insurers base premiums on the average age of the work force in a given enterprise. This works to the benefit of most very large businesses because their average ages tend to be around 40. Add that with a stronger negotiating position and you have lower premiums. I'm not however, denying that big business are not also getting hit hard by rising health care costs. Small businesses have a different problem. Extremely small businesses (I use them to highlight the other end of the spectrum), say 10 employees or so,of which there are thousands across the US, usually employ very young workers and often only those that can do without the benefit-no wonder. Since their populations are small, their average age calculation is very sensitive to the addition of a single older worker. So, for a retired person looking for a job in a small business of this type- good luck. If they pay benefits, I can assure you the owners will think twice about hiring you because you'll raise the average age of the population which will make you a very expensive addition to the club.

Hopefully you've figured out the problem already but I'll state it here for good measure. Allowing health insurance premiums to be determined by age in small pools directly contradicts the legal constraint of age discrimination. And this is one that could be easily fixed by legislating the way premiums are determined by the insurance industry. Yeah, yeah, I know...more regulation. This is pretty serious stuff though and it affects all of us, republicans, democrats and communists alike (ok well maybe not communists...I think they all get healthcare right?).

The current administration cites that low cost insurance, with high deductibles, is available to cover catastrophic illness. Well, I have some experience here since I had to go looking for health insurance after I was laid off. Believe me, these plans are not much of a savings. A plan with a $10,000 deductible, still costs over $450 a month for you and your spouse. While that's not quite half of what a plan that includes maintenance will set you back, when you have no income or are just managing, $400 is not chump change. If you make a million a year, I guess it looks like a bargain.

Another anecdote on the high deductible plan issue is appropriate. My father, who is on a fixed income, has catastrophic coverage but has to pay for regular checkups etc. You know what, he just doesn't do them. He can't justify spending the money for the tests etc. I have a similar plan and, while I hate to admit it, I've been doing the same thing. So, if you project ahead and assume that most folks won't do maintenance on their own nickel only two outcomes can occur: A.)maladies will be caught too late to be treated and a lot of us will die prematurely or B.)the medical industry will go into catastrophic treatment mode and the system will bankrupt itself. On the bright side for the insurance company, "A" will save them gobs of money in treatment costs but they'll lose the ongoing premiums and "B", well, I think we're seeing this already.

God bless the insurance industry. Its one of the few big businesses that makes a ton of money producing absolutely nothing. There is something to be said for security. Stay healthy America.

Kill 'em with Commerce

In the scope of time, I'm still not sure why it is/was necessary to do anything about the middle east. Why don't we just kill 'em with commerce? We've all heard about, and some experienced first hand, the hypocracy of Saudi society preaching abstinance from western invention and influence on the one hand and holding a ice cold bud in the other. Don't you think that, over time, the Arab world will succumb to western influence in the course of normal commerce? True they appear to be stuck in the 5th century but its like the introduction of anything new...it takes time. As long as the oil is cheap, what's the hurry? And, when the oil runs out...who will care? Why are we forcing it? And please don't recite the 9/11 spiel on me.

Nope, get at 'em with commerce. That's the ticket.

Wanna buy a watch?

The Intellect of a Chimpanzee

While listening to NPR this morning, I heard Mr. Bush say, "and the terrorists can wait 6 months in a day." I nearly drove off the road I was laughing so hard. And that brings me to the point of today's rant. How can someone with the intellect of a chimpanzee muster nearly 50% support in the polls? What I hear is that toughness and decisiveness are his strong qualities and rallying points. I have to say that these attributes are all well and good if, the decision being made has some brainpower behind it and being tough doesn't get anyone killed unecessarily.

Military men and women of high rank are trained to be decisive and tough but I'll bet if you ask any of them what the most important criteria is that leads up to these finalities, you'll get answers like: facts, compassion, regard for human life (casualties)and long term strategic interests. I don't really see any of these considerations in most of this administration's actions with the exception of some misguided notion about what the middle east ought to look like long term. I say, who cares?

Since, long term, oil will run out in favor of alternative fuels, the Arab countries that are lucky enough to have oil don't have much time to get what they can out of it. In my view, as long as the price of oil is relatively stable, then we shouldn't have a problem with middle eastern nations and Bush shouldn't either. In fact, from a strategic perspective, we should use all their oil before we go drilling for our own- don't you think?

I don't think risking people's lives going to war under the thin veil of fostering terrorism had anything to do with long term strategic interests. In fact, all its managed to do is push the price of oil up. This is where the most damage is done and don't think this isn't lost on the terrorists. I'm sure they would love to see this administration bumble their way through a few more years at the top. Question is, can we afford it? You'll have to answer this for yourself.

As your contemplating this, consider that 1000 of us have died...for what? A few wacko Egyptians who managed to hijack some planes (no disrespect to the families who lost people in 9/11)? Was losing another third as many Americans worth what's going on in Iraq? You'll have to answer this for yourself.

We would all do well to remind ourselves that terrorism takes on many forms. Its not limited to Arabs and/or Muslims. Christians, Catholic and Protestants have been hashing it out for centuries too. This conflict will continue as long as we are intolerant or unhappy with our lot. It will not stop until we see ourselves in each other and can laugh about our differences and similarities. It will not stop until governments are secular and tolerant of philosophical differences. Can you really defend against terrorism by waging war against an entire population. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

Do you think President Bush is running a secular administration consistent with the constitutional edict for a separation between church and state? If you don't think he is, then can you see that there are only marginal differences between us and the theocracies we wage war against? If you think he is, then isn't his administration acting in direct conflict with the constitution? You decide.

Me

Philcloseup,
originally uploaded by pgoelz.

My Mug

Get Out the Vote

Well, its time to mouth off about this electronic voting thing. First and foremost, electronic voting will be the way of the future. So, get over it. Personally, I look forward to being able to vote from the comfort of my own living room. We aren't there yet.

The current issue, as I understand it, has to do with mostly liberal (I hate that moniker but that's another blog) suspicion of the process as a direct result of the last presidential election. It wasn't just hanging chads, it was a lot of things and, of course, the process itself that was questionable. If you were on the winning side, congratulations, you probably aren't worried..until of course, your candidate loses. Then there will be bloody hell to pay so, remember the Alamo, so to speak. What goes around comes around.

Now that I go that off my chest...The real issues here are: the accuracy in the count and; fairness in access to the vote by all constituents. The media has reported lately on some perceived tampering, especially in Florida, with minority voters. I guess I would wonder just how effective such tactics could be in a national election but then, I'm a survivor of the last election and, there is also that sticky issue of the electoral colleges. Again, that's another rant.

The issue of voting accuracy is an altogether different problem. I have a fairly decent technical background which tells me that if, someone can write a virus or worm that affects every Micro Soft operating system on the planet, then someone can always tamper with the data. The idea of electronic voting is to eliminate, or reduce to a very small number, the error in reporting the results by eliminating most of the human element involved. A side benefit is perhaps, some day, the convenience of voting from your living room. We upload our taxes electronically today and I haven't heard one complaint about it. But then, there's feedback involved. You get a check...or you get audited. There's at least some acknowledgement or feedback even in the IRS system. This brings me to the solution to the voting issue. You have to have feedback of some sort. Feedback will provide some comfort to the voter that the machine recorded what they actually voted for. I want to underscore one very important point: This will not guarantee that the electronic data will not be tampered with! That's another problem entirely.

Voting systems need to print out a voting receipt, the voter needs to sign it and the confirmation needs to be put in a ballot box. There should be an audit committee that does a statistical audit on the paper ballots relative to the electronically recorded ballots and their findings published before an outcome is ever declared. So, there you have it. The almost perfect solution. It makes the voter feel good (feedback), provides a check for shady politicians (audit process) and doesn't eliminate any jobs (just turns people into auditors). Oh, and if you want to further reduce the chance that someone will screw with the system, use Apple products...only 4% of the computer using population even has a chance of knowing how to tamper with them. Its OK Steve, you don't have to pay me for this ;-)

Bush Tax Cut

For all of us Bush supporters out there, hope we're in the top income bracket because a vote for Bush earns us an instant 6% return on our investment. That's right, we'll get a whopping 6% cut in our income taxes! The poor bastards stuck in the middle and lower classes will get no more than 2% on the high end. You've got to love trickle down economics.

While I'm on the subject, can't he (Bush) do anything about my property taxes? They just went up 48% on my million dollar plus home. He ought to be able to do something about the gas prices...say, maybe in October...right before the elections. Yeah, right. Sounds like a plan. Truthfully, my gas guzzl'n cars all take the super stuff which, as a percentage, didn't seem to go up as much as the lower grades. Most of my friends drive the big foreign SUVs too. Wonder how much of that $400 tax cut is left. Good thing we got the rebate or we wouldn't have been able to afford to drive to work (ha).