With a nod to TCM:

We're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he does't understand it, passed by a congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes... all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

I'm not a fan of any health care plan that has come up yet, and the clear disregard for any real attempt at bipartisanship is disgusting.

comments [2]

Picked up from a recent boingboing article, it looks like McCain is pocketing some Telco money to fight against Net Neutrality. While I don't agree that the issue is one of national security (like the boingboing commenter asserts), I think McCain's position reflects the most refined essence of rotton politics.

Key text from the article:

McCain, who once described himself as technologically "illiterate" and is the single largest senate recipient of telecom lobby money, is now campaigning against the net neutrality fundamentals recently reaffirmed by FCC actions.

:: sigh ::

From the same people that brought us the series of tubes.

comments [2]

Nationally, support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low. Just 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed.

Obama's approval ratings have been tumbling lately, so I figured I'd jump in and say a few things. I haven't posted anything political or provocative for a while (I've been quite busy welding), but I have had a few things on my mind, particularly about this whole health care fiasco.

Long story short... I think it's quite terrible.

On the surface, this idea of universal health care seems great. I like the idea that nobody should have to worry about being able to afford health care, and that the government would cover health and medicine for the people; good health seems like a basic right, particularly when you consider that the relationship between poverty, health, and inequality. It seems that a government initiative to provide health care for everyone is to the benefit of the nation.

The problem, however, is that health care is expensive, and if you remove the potential competition-driven innovations in efficiency, health care will remain expensive. Furthermore, this sort of intrusion into the market tends to involve higher taxes on the only entities capable of reducing the prices (the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.). When you simply increase the taxes on larger businesses, the natural tendancy of the businesses involved is to simply raise prices in order to stay afloat, which ends up raising costs for everyone that this plan is supposed to help. This is not a solution to the problem of the price of health care.

An actual solution likely requires some much needed (but politically dangerous) tort-reform and some more thought around medicare/medicaid handling (also politically dangerous), as these two issues appear to be the primary causes of ever increasing health care costs.

comments [8]

Anybody who follows my political commentary is keenly aware that I like to zero in on the negative consequences of capitalism, particularly as it relates to the elevation in social status of the rich and the frequent marginalization of those who are unable to breach the division of the classes. Such disparate classes, and the perpetuation of poverty are unacceptable consequence of capitalism, particularly when you consider that capitalism is a means by which poverty can be alleviated.

However, I don't feel that there is anything particularly wrong with wealth or capitalism, in and of themselves. Like any tool, there are responsible and irresponsible ways to wield personal control of money. That said, I disagree with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's recent proclaimation that "the rich are not human, they are animals in human form."

Rough translation from the video:

"(...) a rich man to the Kingdom", because being rich is bad. Being rich in... to accumulate wealth, and lands... Behold, I'm the Lord of the Prairie... you are poor... imbecile! What's more, you're not a man, you're not human; the rich is not human. I say it, and I take responsability for it, the rich is not human, it's an animal, in human form. It's an animal, in human form. Now, if a rich man... comes forth and says "Chavez is offending me", well... ok... Feel offended.

The translation is rough, but it's clear. When a national leader dehumanizes a segment of the population, he only continues to solidify his intentions. Between this, his move towards removal of term limits, and his branding of "traitor" on anyone who disagrees with him... these are the signs of a coming dictatorship. This is a problem.

---

Additional posts from newprotest.org highlighting Chavez's dance with power:

dictator chavez
chavez for life


comments [4]

image: Rain of Power (Falling Economy) (cc) .B.P.M.

I've said before that when it comes to my personal political leanings, I tend to lean socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Regarding the economy, I like the push towards personal financial responsibility and the allowance for risk-taking -- I think the capitalist economic model mirrors the natural world. Those who are willing to take risks are the ones who should reap the greatest consequence (positive or negative), for whatever reason the motivation of that risk. Call it natural selection, call it an environment of opportunity, call it whatever. It's the world we live in.

The problem with the pure capitalist model, as it relates to the financial institutions that are crumbling all over the planet, is that the risks taken by those institutions end up having consequences on people who weren't directly involved; people who were gambling had an impact on people who weren't rolling the dice. If the market collapses, people who put no stake in the hot-potato game of pass-the-bad-debt won't be able to buy bread. People who didn't hope to build up their retirement by buying a home with the hopes of flipping it may lose their jobs. People who didn't speculate that the value of everything would continue to increase may become homeless. And because the consequence of a collapsed market is too great to bear, the government is stepping in and providing some control over the situation by providing a bailout/stimulus package.

Now, I'm not an economist, so I'm not really interested in spending a lot of energy trying to figure out if the Democrat bailout package is going to have any lasting positive impact. I have no idea if it'll work. And because I don't know, I'm not going to spend any more time talking about that. I do think, however, that people should spend more time considering the nature of risk in their own personal lives.

I tend to think of risk in terms of deliberate dependence on uncontrollable circumstances. Choosing to play the lotto with hopes of winning big is a game of risk, though the amount risked is very small. Buying a home with the prospect of selling it is a risk, and in this case, the risk may be very large. Both of these are deliberate - both the $1 risk of the lotto ticket and the $300,000 risk on the home are done with a conscious understanding of the potential payout and the potential loss. However, given the uncontrollable nature of our world, perhaps we should view everything as risk.

For those of us who are employed, we earn our living by exchanging our services for payment, and we build our lifestyle around the level of buying power we think we have. We purchase or rent a home, we agree to cell phone contracts, we pay our utility bills, we manage our eating habits... and all of it is based on what we expect to see on our paycheck. But that paycheck is no guarantee - it is beyond our control, so every payday should be viewed as a good roll on the dice; lifestyle expenses incurred are risk built upon risk. And this notion of risk really pervades everything. Our very lives shouldn't be taken for granted, nor the lives of anyone, really. Plans that depend on the lives of other people are a risk; their lives are beyond our control.


Perhaps this is why believers are able to find solace in God. The notion of an immutable, steadfast, reliable God is comforting, given the unreliable landscape of reality. Those who claim to have a personal relationship with God believe that He will carry them through any hardship. Though a believer might claim that God's nature is unknowable, it is believed to be quite certain and ever present. The value of the dollar may crumble, the institutions of our employment may disappear, and even our own lives only last for a moment. But we trust that God is forever, and that He is interested in us. He loves us. And in that relationship, there is no gamble.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; all other ground is sinking sand.


comments [0]