It has taken me awhile and I know many of you have been impatient with me, but finally I see the light. No matter what the problem is, President Obama is to blame. Initially I was fooled, but no more. I can clearly see that what we need is another George W. Bush.
There are several factors that kept me blinded to the facts for so long. First there is President Obama's diligence: If the trend continues he will have averaged about 37 vacation days per year, compared to 127 days per year averaged by President G.W. Bush. Then there is his restraint and attempts to work within the system: 147 Executive Orders in first term vs. 173 for Pres. Bush. There was also his desire to address pertinent issues affecting our country, such as the health care fiasco, racial and marriage inequality and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For over 5 years I've been denying what has been obvious to many Republicans ever since President Obama beat Senator McCain in 2008. But finally I can declare that everything truly is Obama's fault.
The clincher was the recent survey taken in Louisiana concerning the emergency response and recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. Over 70% of the people surveyed either believe President Obama is more at fault, or are unsure whether President Obama or President bush is more to blame for the massive failures of the response and recovery effort. But, wait! Wasn't Bush President and Obama just a first term Senator from Illinois? How could he have any blame at all? The problem is trying to apply logic and reasoning to the problem. The proper method is to start with the Universal Axiom: It's President Obama's Fault. Now the answer is clear. If President Obama had devoted his efforts to physics and engineering, he might have developed a machine capable of steering Hurricane Katrina away from Louisiana. With this in mind it is obvious President Obama is to blame for every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, earthquake and tsunami. Shame on you Mr. President! Shame!
Let's take a moment to think about the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare". I personally despise the term "Obamacare". At first I just thought it was an attempt to blind the people to the facts by placing in inaccurate and meaningless label on necessary legislation, but now it's because it is clear he doesn't care (since he did nothing to stop Hurricane Katrina, and don't get me started on AIDS, Michael Jordan's early retirement or The Holocaust). Sure the average cost of healthcare increases more than twice as fast as income increases, and the overall costs are spiraling out of control, but do we really need a law that guarantees everyone will have access to healthcare? Why can't we just rely on the insurance companies to do what they think is best? After all, they would never take advantage of us. Would they?
Besides, there is a much simpler solution to all of our healthcare problems. According to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News host, Mike Huckabee, instead of providing health care we should just find a cure for all of the diseases. With a mind like that, it is clear how he has become a part of the Fox News family. Of course, the only reason we haven't already cured every disease is because It's Obama's Fault (henceforth known as IOF).
It is time for us to seriously get down to business. We need to shut down the government, repeal the Affordable Care Act and Impeach the President because IOF. We need to persecute, punish and whenever possible, shoot and kill minorities because IOF. We need to deport all immigrants (unless the opportunity presents itself to shoot and kill them) because IOF. We need to remove all access to health care for women and put them back in the kitchen where they belong because IOF. We need to take all of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people and put them back in the closet and then burn the closet. If they also happen to belong to an ethnic minority, shooting is an option. After all, IOF. Of course exceptions can be made for any of the above if they are willing to unquestionably and without fail vote republican (and stop acting so gay, lesbian or black).
We need to stop trying to feed, shelter and uplift the poor. If they didn't want to be poor, they wouldn't be poor (plus, IOF). After all, until Obama made the changes in the Bible, didn't Jesus really say "Screw the poor, they don't make campaign contributions"? Let's stop trying to deal with climate change and protecting our environment. Instead of worrying about the future of the planet we need to devote all of our resources to finding all the things in the world that can be blamed on President Obama.
Now I have to do laundry. I'm out of clean underwear and It's Obama's Fault.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Does Anyone Want The Last Donut?
Wednesday mornings and payday Friday afternoons were always the best, along with any day the receptionist woke up to discover she didn't have any clean work appropriate attire (the year was 1989, her appropriate attire was suitable for Hooters. In her inappropriate attire she could have sold condoms to the Pope). At the time, I was working as a Tech Writer for a company that specialized in Department of Defense contracting. Our office consisted of a Vice President, a Department Manager, five Tech Writers, three Word Processors, a Computer Support Tech and the aforementioned Receptionist.
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
On payday Fridays, we would take up a collection, send someone to the store for beer and snacks, then lock the doors early and have a mini office party. Usually the VP would skip these, unless it was also an inappropriate attire day. Every Wednesday morning we had a staff meeting with the Manager, Tech Writers and Word Processors all in attendance. The Tech Writers took turns providing the donuts for the meeting. With donuts being about $3 per dozen, it wasn't a significant expense.
When it was my turn to buy donuts, I would visit a local bakery and buy three dozen assorted, fresh donuts (if you're doing the math, that's 4 donuts per person). One of the Tech Writers could be counted on to eat at least 6 donuts, so I wanted to be sure there was enough for everyone. That same person, when it was his turn to buy would go to the local supermarket and pick up one dozen, glazed, day old donuts for a dollar. On payday Fridays, the same person would pitch in two dollars (the average being five), then drink 6 beers and grab any unopened chips to take home.
Every group, no matter the size has givers and takers. Left in the middle are those people who want to pay exactly their share and not a penny more. As a lifelong (to the point of financial ruin) giver, I sometimes find myself annoyed with the takers. My belief is, if we all give a little more than we take, all our problems can be solved. Unfortunately, the givers are a a rather quiet minority.
The phenomenon isn't limited to small office or social groups, but exists within any group, and the groups themselves tend to be either givers or takers (mostly takers). Eventually, what is being taken exceeds what can be given and the whole thing collapses. Most of the problems and issues that we are dealing with today can be broken down to givers and takers. Quite often it is a battle between takers to decide who will reap the profits. The major corporations want to avoid any mandatory increase in minimum wage or worker benefits, the energy companies want to avoid any ecologic restrictions, the bankers want to avoid any limitations on their use of other people's money.
It doesn't matter if a 40% increase in the minimum wage would only increase costs by 4 to 8%. It doesn't matter that we require fresh water, clean air and a biosphere capable of supporting human life. What matters is the profit that might be lost if we try to benefit everyone, rather than just a very small group.
Any attempt to discuss whether or not that small group should benefit to the detriment of the majority of people is met with, often ridiculously inaccurate, hyperbole. An excellent example occurred recently when someone asked Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) about raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10 per hour. Rep. Mullin's response was that this would raise the cost of a McDonald's hamburger to $20. Nobody wants to pay $20 for something with no nutritional value, so forget about the minimum wage increase!
Let's look at the numbers. The best I can come up with (somewhere between an educated guess and no idea at all), it would appear minimum wage labor is somewhere between 15 and 20% of McDonald's operating expenses. Taking the high number and assuming no decrease in company profits, I come up with a worst case of 7.6% increase in food prices for a 38% increase in minimum wage. For a Big Mac, that comes out to just over 30 cents. For the most expensive burger on the menu, the double quarter pounder with cheese, the $4.69 price jumps to a whopping $5.05. Admittedly, mathematics was never my best subject, but I can't find any method that would reach that $20 per burger number. Even if 100% of McDonald's costs is minimum wage labor, the most expensive item would top out at less than $6.50 (higher in Alaska and Hawaii).
But how does raising minimum wage help anyone? Many minimum wage workers (especially in the fast food industry) are working 24 hours or less per week (to avoid providing any benefits). The higher wages would mean $66 more (before taxes) each week. For a young family, with both people working, one working 2 jobs, and one working one job, after taxes, that comes to about $130 more per week. For tax revenues, that's an increase of $77 billion (once again, an approximation). For the country, it reduces the number of people requiring public assistance, and takes 74 million people who are trying to just survive and gives them hope for a future.
Isn't giving hope to almost 25% of the population worth a few pennies?
Friday, August 9, 2013
Slavery: Now New and Improved!
For those of you who have been out of the loop, slavery has been illegal in the United States for the past century and a half. Many people are still wondering why? After all it seemed to be working out so well. The common assumption is the decision involved the dignity of human life, the inherent wrongness of slavery and the realization that all people deserve equal and fair treatment, regardless of their skin color. If you think for just a moment you'll realize how ridiculous that assumption is, since fair and equal treatment is still a long way off.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
When it comes down to cold, hard facts, slavery turns out to only be economically feasible in a non-industrialized society. Any slave is a capital investment that requires constant maintenance, is prone to a wide range of failures, requires trained (and paid) personnel for utilization and comes with no warranty. Slaves tend to be dissatisfied with their servitude and require close, often brutal, supervision, in order to ensure completion of any assigned task. In an agricultural setting, the damage a disgruntled slave can cause is minimal, but in a factory setting the potential revenue loss is staggering.
There are still many who miss the institution of slavery and many who would happily bring it back, regardless of the economic ramifications. After all, nothing really compares with the feeling of raping, torturing and murdering and being able to tell your friends all about it.
Fortunately, certain people have been putting a great deal of thought and effort into finding a way to bring back slavery without all of the negatives (from a slave owner's standpoint). Success looks to be only a few years away.
The first issue to overcome: Acquisition. Capturing people and transporting them halfway around the world (unless you claim they are potential terrorists) tends to generate negative publicity. They are also likely to seek ways to end their involuntary servitude. If only some way could be found to get slaves to volunteer.
Next is the issue of cost. Not only is there a significant cost in acquisition, but there is food, lodging, security and medical care. On the plus side, through a careful breeding program, the slaves can be used to create their own replacements. Still, this is a significant cost and drastically reduces profits. If only the slaves would carry some of these costs, everything would be much better (for the slave owners, but they are the only ones who matter).
Finally, the problems of supervision and low productivity must be dealt with. If you require a trained supervisor to directly and constantly oversee just a few slaves to ensure they stay on the job and stay productive, the profit margin will suffer.
The work of creating the new slavery has been going on for years, and finally we are on the verge of making this dream a reality. The first step was to convince a significant portion of the population they have no hope of improving their life. This has required effort on many fronts, but has been remarkably successful. We had to take the "education" from the education system and turn it into a simple accounting game, leaving young adults ill-equipped to seek higher education. Next, higher education needed to become prohibitively expensive, further entrenching those from low income families, by keeping a better future just out of reach. The last, and most brilliant step, was to use propaganda to discourage people from seeking higher education
Now that we have a significant pool of potential slaves, we need to convince them to take care of their own expenses. Once again propaganda has been very useful, in convincing the population, anyone who seeks any sort of assistance for housing or subsistence, is a freeloading, drug-abusing criminal. Many thanks to the Republican party for this effort. You've made up for that whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco.
The last, and most crucial step is to convince these potential slaves, slavery is better than their current situation. This has been accomplished by placing a WalMart and McDonald's within reach of every American so they can go and see people who are much worse off, and has been extremely successful. Employees who are paid an hourly wage make up about 60% of the workforce with 4.7% of those making the Federal Minimum Wage or less. This is up from 3% only 10 years ago, and the rate is increasing. Within 30 years, over 50% of the workforce can be expected to earn no more than the Federal Minimum Wage.
One of the few remaining obstacles is the Federal Minimum Wage, but we are working on that. What use is slavery, if the government can turn around and increase their wages to the point where they can live comfortable, happy, healthy and productive lives?
Of course with the new slavery, we will no longer be able to rape, torture and murder our slaves, but we can at least laugh at them for believing in "Employee of the Month" awards.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything
42
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
At least that's the answer Douglas Adams came up with in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I've come up with a different answer. It might even make sense, although I wouldn't count on that.
If you were to find three words to explain humanity, what words would you choose? My opinion is that all of human history can be summed up in three simple words: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. Everywhere you look, these three words seem to apply. Let's try some examples.
What is the one word parents say the most often to their young children? The answer is "no". Every time the child is about to do something wrong, or dangerous, a resounding "no" is heard. Usually the denial is a response to greed, the child wants something that is off limits. When denied their greed, overreaction sets in, often in the form of a tantrum. Check Genesis for the story of Adam and Eve: Denial, Greed and Overreaction. "You can't have this", "I really want this", "You are banished" (instead of just putting a fence around the off-limit fruit). That theme is repeated throughout the Old and New Testament.
Our history is also riddled with examples of the big three. Every war can be summed up by these three words and every major event as well. From prohibition to the civil rights movement, slavery to the cold war, it all revolves around denial, greed and overreaction. Take a look and see if I'm right.
In my opinion, the road to lasting peace and universal prosperity requires the ability to moderate and reduce the power of these three things. If the first two can be addressed, the third ceases to be an issue. Ecology and our environment are one place we might start. For years, (at least 50) scientists have been warning us about the potential harm of global warming (or mankind induced climate change, if you want to be technical about it). For years, there has been a very powerful lobby denying any possibility of such a problem. Even in light of significant evidence, the denial rages on, unchecked. Why? Very simple, greed. Combating and overcoming the damage that is being done to the environment will require drastic changes, changes resulting in lost or decreased revenue to many industries. The overreaction is to try and get as much now, before they are forced to curtail their indiscriminate raping and pillaging of the planet. When the changes finally come, they will most likely also involve an overreaction.
The problem with addressing these issues, is with the denial itself. The entities that stand to gain, will naturally deny any problem exists. That is to be expected. However, through propaganda and marketing, they are able to convince a significant segment of the population that no problem exists, thus, the problem itself can not be addressed until the will of the public is turned. Whether the issue is gun control or government spending, until the public accepts the existence of a problem, no solution can be sought.
Unfortunately, the only way I see to prevent the widespread public denial is to force the companies who gain from such denial, to disclose the truth about their operations and their knowledge of potential problems, and I see no way to do that. Congress could do it, but there is no way that they will. All we can try to do is to get people to look at the truth, look at the facts and understand the industries do not operate for our benefit. They operate solely for their own profit.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Welcome to my Nightmare
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which is a fairly accurate depiction of this blog and my life. At least my insanity is completely non-violent, and usually keeps me smiling. Just make sure my crayon box is always kept full and we won't have any problems.
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
It would appear the Republican Party is suffering from the same insanity. I hope they have burnt umber, I ate mine. Last month, the GOP controlled US House of Representatives, for the 37th time, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare". That comes out to once every month. I would think after 15 or 20 times, they would either come to accept the reality of the situation, or just get bored with doing the same silly thing every month. Maybe they need a better selection of crayons.
Here's the $2.99 primer on the legislative process:
A bill is presented. The bill may be something frivolous such as the Idaho law making it illegal to give your sweetheart a box of chocolates weighing more than 50 lbs., or it may be something as vital as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Typically, the bill is simple, providing one solution or remedy to one problem. The bill leads a brief normal life, and most of them die. A few however, make it to the next phase, where they go into a cocoon (or committee) for their metamorphosis. When they come out, instead of the beautiful simple solution they are an ugly conglomerate loaded with pork barrel project funding, special interest appeasements and all types of ridiculous legislation. After a lengthy process, the original intent of the bill is removed, so the only trace of its original purpose is the title. The bill is then used as a shuttlecock in a Congressional badminton tournament, until both sides have agreed upon everything contained in the bill. The bill is voted on, passed and unless the President actually reads the bill, it is signed into law.
The end result: less than perfect laws that require improvements and changes. If a law is something very bad, then it might need to be repealed. For a moment, let's assume ACA is such a law. If an attempt to repeal fails (which it did, 37 times), there is another option, modify the bill. Find the most offensive part of the bill, enact legislation to modify that part to something more acceptable and move on. After a few changes (probably less than 37), an offensive or bad law can be made into an unoffensive or good law. This creates a win-win cliche moment. By taking something bad from the other party and making it good, you can claim any benefits from the altered legislation, while still blaming any downside on the originating party. By sitting on their thumbs and stonewalling any attempts to implement legislation, the Republican party is showing they are more interested in taking shots at the Democrats than dealing with the country's problems. Now we have the lose-lose situation. If the ACA turns out to be a great thing, the Democrats get all the credit, and if it's a failure, the Republicans get all the blame.
Granted, it is much easier and a lot more fun to throw insults and exaggerate minor issues into major scandals, but it serves no purpose, other than to make the Democratic party look better. It's hard work to address the issues and find solutions to problems, but isn't that why the people voted for you?
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
By its Fruits a Tree is Known
A few years ago I responded to something I saw written. I don't recall all of the details, but I remember there was great deal of hatred expressed towards some group, including a call to violence, followed by a request that people be good Christians. My response was to quote Luke, Chapter 6, verse 27 - verse 38. All of which is irrelevant to my subject, but it does connect my title with my content.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
There are many who would argue that killing is sometimes a necessity, and with a bit of imagination, I can accept that as a possibility. Certainly it is possible, if someone were trying to kill you or your family, you might have to kill them to protect the innocent. There is nothing glorious about it, there is no reason to celebrate or gloat. A terrible thing has happened and only the worse terror prevented, makes the killing acceptable.
Unfortunately, once killing for a valid reason becomes acceptable, it is only a few steps away from killing for any reason being acceptable. War is an excellent example. Our countries official entry into World War II began on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese navy attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2400 Americans including about 60 civilians. The war with Japan effectively ended August 9, 1945 after a second atomic bomb was dropped, this time on the city of Nagasaki. Between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nearly 250,000 people were killed, most of them civilians.
When someone is actively trying to kill you, the morality of defending yourself is not an issue. If you take the time to try and justify the actions you need to take, you will no longer be able to take those actions. Moral dilemma solved. Send flowers. But what if the person is a block away and on his way to kill you? Should you kill him before he gets close enough? What if he's just talking about killing you? At what point are you no longer justified to kill in self defense?
On the morning of September 11, 2001 a horrible attack occurred and in response we went to war with Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a rather large leap. In another questionable move we declared war on Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein was gloating. Estimates vary wildly over the number of Iraqis killed, from a low of just over 100,000 to over 1 million. Most estimates agree that about 60% of the deaths were civilians. No reliable estimates exist for deaths in Afghanistan, although it is doubtful the death toll is less than 50,000. Along with the wars, the United States decided to allow torture as a means of interrogation. Once upon a time, interrogation by any means was considered unacceptable.
Another of our actions, which continues to this day, is the use of drones to carry out attacks. Somewhere, a decision is made that a person, or several persons, needs to be killed, and an operator at a safe location flies a drone to the target and attempts to kill them. The justification is simple; they are a potential threat. Granted, they are a potential threat 7000 miles away, living in a shack 300 miles from the closest flush toilet, but still a potential threat.
If someone is running at you with a knife, take action, do what you need to do. But if someone in another country happens to talk about wanting to buy a knife, maybe we can hold off on killing them and everyone else who happens to be in the area. At least until after they actually get the weapon and get close enough to become a threat.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Sounds of Silence
Sometimes, the best possible thing to hear is nothing at all, at other times, silence is terrible. Ask any parent if you don't believe me. Communication takes many forms and is the backbone of civilization. Without our ability to communicate thoughts, feelings and ideas, nothing can be built, nothing can be learned. Without our written history, we would not have learned the futility of war. Oops. Forgot what century I was in, always a problem when you own a time machine. For those of you who plan to be around next century, I can just say, there is good news ahead.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
Communication is active. It requires thought and participation. If the people you are speaking to are not listening or not thinking about your words, then you are not communicating, you're mouthturbating. To truly communicate, ideas and knowledge need to flow both ways, thoughts need to be shared, and this leads to growth.
I recent times, our country has gotten away from communicating. Thought and discussion are discouraged, and often not allowed. You either accept what has been said, without thought or reservation, or you become the enemy. Attempt a dialogue with anyone who expresses a belief you disagree with sometime and you'll understand. Facts are no longer nearly as important as volume and repetition. When the facts become to glaringly obvious to ignore, the issue is forgotten, never to be spoken of again and we are left with silence.
For the past several years I have heard almost constant complaints about unemployment, runaway deficits and the weak housing market. President Obama has been blamed exclusively by many, even though these problems were inherited from his predecessor. Recently, all talk about these issues has ceased, which is somewhat troubling, since these issues are supposed to lead to a total collapse and destruction of our country.
Last year, when unemployment rates began to fall, we heard a great deal of noise about doctored data, and misrepresentation. Then when the rates continued their slow decline, we heard only silence. Recently, the out of control deficits have been shown to be under control and falling steadily, with no response from those who spent 4 years harping on nothing else. Today I see that housing prices have been rising steadily for the past 3 months, last month posting their biggest gain since 2006. I expect to hear a great deal of nothing from the failed housing market crowd..
What all this indicates, is a recovering economy. While there is still much to be done, things are improving. Perhaps they will improve faster if our government can stop trying to score points and start trying to fix problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)