Friday, February 10, 2012
The buzz in the major blogs is the Obama compromise to address the Catholic Church’s concern about birth control coverage, including abortifacients.
The right wing is calling this an accounting gimmick, but somehow Obama doesn’t see it.
The accounting gimmick should be obvious to anyone if we change the covered benefit from something that half of America thinks should be mandatory to something we all agree should not be.
Ask yourself: Consider if Obama had first mandated elective cosmetic surgery must be covered by all employers. In response, employers complained about the effect on their insurance rates. So Obama says, “Fine. Let’s compromise. The insurance companies must cover cosmetic surgery for free when an employer does not do so electively.”
We would all recognize that the consequence is all employers rates will reflect the same insurance increase necessary to pay for elective cosmetic surgery. The increase is not going to be borne by those few who want to provide elective surgery, or the result would be a free-rider problem.
The only difference is in degree. Many more employers will want insurance that covers birth control than would ever pay for cosmetic surgery coverage. So it appears the Catholic Church could get something for nothing, but that is not in fact possible unless insurance companies intentionally misprice policies to provide cover to the Obama Administration.
The right wing is calling this an accounting gimmick, but somehow Obama doesn’t see it.
The accounting gimmick should be obvious to anyone if we change the covered benefit from something that half of America thinks should be mandatory to something we all agree should not be.
Ask yourself: Consider if Obama had first mandated elective cosmetic surgery must be covered by all employers. In response, employers complained about the effect on their insurance rates. So Obama says, “Fine. Let’s compromise. The insurance companies must cover cosmetic surgery for free when an employer does not do so electively.”
We would all recognize that the consequence is all employers rates will reflect the same insurance increase necessary to pay for elective cosmetic surgery. The increase is not going to be borne by those few who want to provide elective surgery, or the result would be a free-rider problem.
The only difference is in degree. Many more employers will want insurance that covers birth control than would ever pay for cosmetic surgery coverage. So it appears the Catholic Church could get something for nothing, but that is not in fact possible unless insurance companies intentionally misprice policies to provide cover to the Obama Administration.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The announcement of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama Friday caused a three-day stir. It is now Monday, and things seem to have died down, aside from a few commentators stirring the embers, either restating what has been said or commenting on comments, usually to call the original writer an idiot.
Rewind to Friday evening, and after a full day of reading and discussing around the office, here was my take:
First, an American should always be proud when an American is awarded a Nobel prize. Folks can claim there were more worthy nominees on the Nobel committee's list, but reality is that any American president is far and away in a better position to impact the world based on goals advanced by the Nobel prize.
President Obama in his first year has made numerous comments and changes in attitude that square with the ideas of compromise and working out the interests of the U.S. with other countries. Among these is openness to international agreements to address global warming, which is always of interest to Europeans. Obama also made a ground-breaking commitment to world-wide nuclear disarmament. Even if that is only lip service at this juncture, it is a proposal that is surely of interest to civilized, non-militarized countries around the world, among which one might count Norway, the awarders of the Peace Prize.
However, I do have issues with awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama this year. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, some of the other nominees have actual accomplishments.
Sometimes, these are a one off, like Sarkozy's mediating the land/seaport dispute between Russia and Georgia to prevent what could have become a hot war and required Europe and the U.S. to try to isolate Russia. Sarkozy's involvement probably avoided a difficult East-West split that could have resulted in a lost decade in relations. You might recall this was a blip of an issue during the U.S. election; both Obama and McCain had muddled positions that tried to split the baby.
Sometimes, these are a lifetime of work toward the sorts of ideals the Nobel Peace Prize represents, as for Greg Mortenson or Sima Samar.
Obama is probably a better candidate for a Peace Prize than Sarkozy in the long run, although there is a possibility Sarkozy will trump Obama in the handling of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Sarkozy, however, is French in the best tradition of French presidents, who universally embody both the principles of President Theodore Roosevelt to speak softly and carry a big stick, and the principles of Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the UK, that nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.
Also, Sarkozy held the EU presidency from July to December of 2008, and giving the award to Sarkozy this year might seem parochial.
The award to Obama this year in preference to Mortenson or Samar recognizes the difference in impact of the U.S. Presidency. This does not denigrate their individual efforts, which are the sort that are sometimes recognized by the Nobel Peace Prize, and may yet be recognized by an award.
On the question of how Obama should handle the award, there is no question in my mind that he should accept it gracefully. He did not seek the honor, and he could hardly have sought to avoid the honor either. To withdraw his name from consideration after he was nominated by an unnamed source in February would be to imply he believed he might win, which I sincerely doubt. To reject the prize would be an affront to the committee and would probably result in blacklisting from future consideration, no matter how well deserved.
I do believe it is correct to criticize the Nobel Peace Prize committee, however. They have clearly jumped the gun in awarding the prize this year to President Obama. If they believe his words are sincere, they should have had the patience to wait for the actions, or even the results, and recognize those. Speeches about international cooperation or nuclear disarmament are hardly unique to President Obama. To give the award to Obama in preference to other international leaders of similar bent is to give Obama the place of first among equals. Perhaps as an American I should be grateful that Norway still recognizes that decisions made in America have more impact world wide than those made in France, but I think some truths are best left unspoken.
By jumping the gun, the prize committee cheapens what could have been a more meaningful award to Obama later. I understand it is now customary to give all participants in child sports awards; however, these awards, no matter how trivialized, are awarded at the conclusion of the sports season. Giving Obama the award at this juncture is akin to giving out awards to children when they sign up.
I suspect the committee members' motivations. I don't believe for a minute that this is a slap at Bush. It may simply be a thank you to the leader of a powerful nation for changing direction, which itself would be an abuse of the prize, but I can see three possible reasons why they felt the urge to jump the gun.
First, Obama is a huge star, and to have his name associated with the Nobel Peace Prize guarantees more coverage and makes it seem more important. Ironically, this theory would imply that the Norwegian committee members have taken a different measure of the stature of the prize and of President Obama than I do.
Second, it is possible that by awarding the prize to Obama, the committee hopes to attract a richer and more powerful crowd to the award ceremony. This too raises the stature of the prize, as well as providing the committee members the opportunity to hobnob with some very important international and European dignataries, which may turn out to be good for their individual future prospects.
Third, they may hope to improve their own esteem by recognizing a likely future candidate before his accomplishments. This would make them appear to be perspicacious, and would also make the award appear to be influential in driving the awardee along the path of peace.
Contrary to some bloggers, Obama has not yet compromised U.S. interests for international stature, unless you believe his "apology tours" lessen American stature to an extent that actually affects our ability to pursue our interests. I don't believe that.
I also don't believe that being awarded this prize will influence him one iota to try to be worthy of it. He will be spending the next three years trying to be worthy of the American voters, specifically, the ones that will show up in 2012.
One concern I have about the award, is that while I don't believe Obama is weak enough to allow it to influence him, I do believe other world leaders are petty enough that this unearned award will get under their skins. Imagine being Sarkozy, who by some accounts has already taken the measure of Obama and found him wanting. To see Obama peremptorily awarded the Nobel Peace Prize honor, after Sarkozy has been on the national stage for five years with no personal recognition I believe will grate on him and may cause him to throw a monkey wrench in U.S. negotiations (not that, being French, he wouldn't be doing that for spite anyway).
I also must mention, my third thought upon hearing Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, after "For what?", and "Three in one decade! America is officially the most peaceful nation on Earth!", was "I wonder what Bill Clinton is feeling right now." Some folks have asserted he spent eight years in office with his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, pushing initiatives in Ireland and Israel/Palestine, and spending at least one year after his presidency allegedly involved in a whisper campaign to get the award. For all that, he has nothing to show, and probably no future prospects.
Ironically, his wife may be in the running in future years, for her own work and in recognition of the Obama administration's direction. On the day she wins, he may die.
Rewind to Friday evening, and after a full day of reading and discussing around the office, here was my take:
First, an American should always be proud when an American is awarded a Nobel prize. Folks can claim there were more worthy nominees on the Nobel committee's list, but reality is that any American president is far and away in a better position to impact the world based on goals advanced by the Nobel prize.
President Obama in his first year has made numerous comments and changes in attitude that square with the ideas of compromise and working out the interests of the U.S. with other countries. Among these is openness to international agreements to address global warming, which is always of interest to Europeans. Obama also made a ground-breaking commitment to world-wide nuclear disarmament. Even if that is only lip service at this juncture, it is a proposal that is surely of interest to civilized, non-militarized countries around the world, among which one might count Norway, the awarders of the Peace Prize.
However, I do have issues with awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama this year. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, some of the other nominees have actual accomplishments.
Sometimes, these are a one off, like Sarkozy's mediating the land/seaport dispute between Russia and Georgia to prevent what could have become a hot war and required Europe and the U.S. to try to isolate Russia. Sarkozy's involvement probably avoided a difficult East-West split that could have resulted in a lost decade in relations. You might recall this was a blip of an issue during the U.S. election; both Obama and McCain had muddled positions that tried to split the baby.
Sometimes, these are a lifetime of work toward the sorts of ideals the Nobel Peace Prize represents, as for Greg Mortenson or Sima Samar.
Obama is probably a better candidate for a Peace Prize than Sarkozy in the long run, although there is a possibility Sarkozy will trump Obama in the handling of Iranian nuclear weapons development. Sarkozy, however, is French in the best tradition of French presidents, who universally embody both the principles of President Theodore Roosevelt to speak softly and carry a big stick, and the principles of Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the UK, that nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.
Also, Sarkozy held the EU presidency from July to December of 2008, and giving the award to Sarkozy this year might seem parochial.
The award to Obama this year in preference to Mortenson or Samar recognizes the difference in impact of the U.S. Presidency. This does not denigrate their individual efforts, which are the sort that are sometimes recognized by the Nobel Peace Prize, and may yet be recognized by an award.
On the question of how Obama should handle the award, there is no question in my mind that he should accept it gracefully. He did not seek the honor, and he could hardly have sought to avoid the honor either. To withdraw his name from consideration after he was nominated by an unnamed source in February would be to imply he believed he might win, which I sincerely doubt. To reject the prize would be an affront to the committee and would probably result in blacklisting from future consideration, no matter how well deserved.
I do believe it is correct to criticize the Nobel Peace Prize committee, however. They have clearly jumped the gun in awarding the prize this year to President Obama. If they believe his words are sincere, they should have had the patience to wait for the actions, or even the results, and recognize those. Speeches about international cooperation or nuclear disarmament are hardly unique to President Obama. To give the award to Obama in preference to other international leaders of similar bent is to give Obama the place of first among equals. Perhaps as an American I should be grateful that Norway still recognizes that decisions made in America have more impact world wide than those made in France, but I think some truths are best left unspoken.
By jumping the gun, the prize committee cheapens what could have been a more meaningful award to Obama later. I understand it is now customary to give all participants in child sports awards; however, these awards, no matter how trivialized, are awarded at the conclusion of the sports season. Giving Obama the award at this juncture is akin to giving out awards to children when they sign up.
I suspect the committee members' motivations. I don't believe for a minute that this is a slap at Bush. It may simply be a thank you to the leader of a powerful nation for changing direction, which itself would be an abuse of the prize, but I can see three possible reasons why they felt the urge to jump the gun.
First, Obama is a huge star, and to have his name associated with the Nobel Peace Prize guarantees more coverage and makes it seem more important. Ironically, this theory would imply that the Norwegian committee members have taken a different measure of the stature of the prize and of President Obama than I do.
Second, it is possible that by awarding the prize to Obama, the committee hopes to attract a richer and more powerful crowd to the award ceremony. This too raises the stature of the prize, as well as providing the committee members the opportunity to hobnob with some very important international and European dignataries, which may turn out to be good for their individual future prospects.
Third, they may hope to improve their own esteem by recognizing a likely future candidate before his accomplishments. This would make them appear to be perspicacious, and would also make the award appear to be influential in driving the awardee along the path of peace.
Contrary to some bloggers, Obama has not yet compromised U.S. interests for international stature, unless you believe his "apology tours" lessen American stature to an extent that actually affects our ability to pursue our interests. I don't believe that.
I also don't believe that being awarded this prize will influence him one iota to try to be worthy of it. He will be spending the next three years trying to be worthy of the American voters, specifically, the ones that will show up in 2012.
One concern I have about the award, is that while I don't believe Obama is weak enough to allow it to influence him, I do believe other world leaders are petty enough that this unearned award will get under their skins. Imagine being Sarkozy, who by some accounts has already taken the measure of Obama and found him wanting. To see Obama peremptorily awarded the Nobel Peace Prize honor, after Sarkozy has been on the national stage for five years with no personal recognition I believe will grate on him and may cause him to throw a monkey wrench in U.S. negotiations (not that, being French, he wouldn't be doing that for spite anyway).
I also must mention, my third thought upon hearing Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, after "For what?", and "Three in one decade! America is officially the most peaceful nation on Earth!", was "I wonder what Bill Clinton is feeling right now." Some folks have asserted he spent eight years in office with his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, pushing initiatives in Ireland and Israel/Palestine, and spending at least one year after his presidency allegedly involved in a whisper campaign to get the award. For all that, he has nothing to show, and probably no future prospects.
Ironically, his wife may be in the running in future years, for her own work and in recognition of the Obama administration's direction. On the day she wins, he may die.
Monday, March 09, 2009
I was reading a Washington Post story on Obama's change in direction regarding government funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Got to this paragraph, which I had to read twice because of the misplaced modifier:
"Because of their ability to become any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe human embryonic stem cells could lead to new therapies for many diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and paralysis. But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral."
Specifically, I don't think anyone considers the embryos to be immoral.
On the second read, I attempted in my head to rewrite the end more gramatically:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which are not considered human by some."
And I realized I don't think I've ever seen the position of embryonic stem cell research advocates expressed that way. To be sure, there are better generalizations of the advocates' positions.
I'm trying to work out whether there is anything to be read into the "some people" to whom journalists often ascribe ideas they are too busy to dig up a source quote for.
In this case, "some people" means "people with no scientific training...", set in opposition to "many scientists."
Sometime "some people" seems simply to mean "this guy I met at a party last Friday night...."
I just now realized with a little less rewriting, I could use the original misplaced modifier to advantage, expressing two independent truths simultaneously:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be inhuman."
Some people consider the destroying to be inhuman, and some consider the embryos to be inhuman.
Got to this paragraph, which I had to read twice because of the misplaced modifier:
"Because of their ability to become any type of cell in the body, many scientists believe human embryonic stem cells could lead to new therapies for many diseases, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease and paralysis. But the research is highly controversial because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be immoral."
Specifically, I don't think anyone considers the embryos to be immoral.
On the second read, I attempted in my head to rewrite the end more gramatically:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which are not considered human by some."
And I realized I don't think I've ever seen the position of embryonic stem cell research advocates expressed that way. To be sure, there are better generalizations of the advocates' positions.
I'm trying to work out whether there is anything to be read into the "some people" to whom journalists often ascribe ideas they are too busy to dig up a source quote for.
In this case, "some people" means "people with no scientific training...", set in opposition to "many scientists."
Sometime "some people" seems simply to mean "this guy I met at a party last Friday night...."
I just now realized with a little less rewriting, I could use the original misplaced modifier to advantage, expressing two independent truths simultaneously:
"... because the cells are obtained by destroying embryos, which some consider to be inhuman."
Some people consider the destroying to be inhuman, and some consider the embryos to be inhuman.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
I've been meaning to address my other outrage from last month, an article posted on Powerline.
Titled "The Congress We Pay For", in it, Paul Mirengoff suggests we need to raise the pay of Congress to reduce corruption, in agreement in spirit if not degree with an opinion piece he found at CBS news. In his logic, because these men and women could make more money in private business, we should not be surprised when they accept bribes and gifts to supplement their meager incomes.
Oddly enough, Mirengoff's lead-in is a link to a story about corruption at the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles.
For a logical person, this would lead to the question: how many people will need to be included in these pay raises that are ostensibly necessary to stem corruption? Raising congressional pay won't prevent DMV shenanigans. And if $170,000 a year isn't enough to stem corruption for a person sitting in an air-conditioned office with private parking and a staff of ten writing laws that indirectly affect all of us, how much more will we need to pay a police officer who's life is at risk out among the hoi poloi, cruising the streets with a side-arm and the power to put people in jail for up to 48 hours uncharged?
Seems to me, $170,000 is enough pay to stem corruption in all those who are not born corrupt. Like Bill Gates, the corrupt do not have some target dollar amount at which they have pre-decided they will stop their over-the-top effort. Ambition has no natural bound.
The argument Mirengoff could have made but didn't is that for a million dollars, you can attract much better candidates away from their private sector jobs. Which is to say, he thinks we'd get better congress people if they were in it for the money, which oddly cycles back on the corruption issue.
I have a better solution to Mirengoff's dilemma: cut the pay of D.C. lawyers and lobbyists (apparently the only people suited to a job in congress in some folk's view).
Or how about a constitutional amendment precluding anyone in a profession paying more than congress from becoming a congressperson. This would increase the professions represented in congress from the current mix of primarily doctors and lawyers, although it wouldn't affect the number of political science and history double majors that worked their way up from officeboy through various levels of political office. Is that any more outlandish an idea than a $1 million salary for congresspeople?
Titled "The Congress We Pay For", in it, Paul Mirengoff suggests we need to raise the pay of Congress to reduce corruption, in agreement in spirit if not degree with an opinion piece he found at CBS news. In his logic, because these men and women could make more money in private business, we should not be surprised when they accept bribes and gifts to supplement their meager incomes.
Oddly enough, Mirengoff's lead-in is a link to a story about corruption at the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles.
For a logical person, this would lead to the question: how many people will need to be included in these pay raises that are ostensibly necessary to stem corruption? Raising congressional pay won't prevent DMV shenanigans. And if $170,000 a year isn't enough to stem corruption for a person sitting in an air-conditioned office with private parking and a staff of ten writing laws that indirectly affect all of us, how much more will we need to pay a police officer who's life is at risk out among the hoi poloi, cruising the streets with a side-arm and the power to put people in jail for up to 48 hours uncharged?
Seems to me, $170,000 is enough pay to stem corruption in all those who are not born corrupt. Like Bill Gates, the corrupt do not have some target dollar amount at which they have pre-decided they will stop their over-the-top effort. Ambition has no natural bound.
The argument Mirengoff could have made but didn't is that for a million dollars, you can attract much better candidates away from their private sector jobs. Which is to say, he thinks we'd get better congress people if they were in it for the money, which oddly cycles back on the corruption issue.
I have a better solution to Mirengoff's dilemma: cut the pay of D.C. lawyers and lobbyists (apparently the only people suited to a job in congress in some folk's view).
Or how about a constitutional amendment precluding anyone in a profession paying more than congress from becoming a congressperson. This would increase the professions represented in congress from the current mix of primarily doctors and lawyers, although it wouldn't affect the number of political science and history double majors that worked their way up from officeboy through various levels of political office. Is that any more outlandish an idea than a $1 million salary for congresspeople?
From google news I got a link to "Portman vs. Johannson", I fluffy feature comparing the two lead actresses of "The Other Boleyn Sister". In summary, the photo-spread compares the actresses for exprerience, education, awards, and finally political causes, the last of which pressed one of my trigger points.
First, some quotes. On Portman's causes, the article states:
On Johansson's causes, it states
So to be clear, Portman is dedicated to relieving animal cruelty, and Johansson is interested in reducing third-world poverty and suffering. I would think that would give a clear win to Johannson, but I guess to some folks, people are a pestilence (nothing personal against third-world people in particular).
The conclusion of the article:
First, some quotes. On Portman's causes, the article states:
A vegetarian since she was a child, Portman has been a lifelong advocate for animal rights and won’t eat animal products or wear fur, feathers or leather.
On Johansson's causes, it states
She’s a global ambassador for the aid and development confederation Oxfam and a supporter of Barack Obama.
So to be clear, Portman is dedicated to relieving animal cruelty, and Johansson is interested in reducing third-world poverty and suffering. I would think that would give a clear win to Johannson, but I guess to some folks, people are a pestilence (nothing personal against third-world people in particular).
The conclusion of the article:
A tie, but anyone who loves animals has a slight edge.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I am not proud to say I watch Smallville almost weekly. It is one of the purest examples of TV as a vast wasteland. The up side is the producers have exhibited a consistent dedication to entertainment -- story telling over all else -- so the episodes never intentionally contain a message targeted at swaying the U.S. audience.
Last week's episode guest starred Dean Kane as an immortal scientist/madman who (somewhat guiltily) had to kill scientifically selected "meteor freaks" as part of a plan to transplant their powers into the love of his live, in hopes she could live forever beside him.
At the end of the episode, Dean Kane made a public service announcement in which he urged donations to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which works for a cure for spinal cord injuries.
Given the Foundation's very public support for fetal stem cell research, I wonder how the Smallville producers could miss the irony, except, as I already said, I don't think they ever intend their plots to have a message.
The point of this post is not to take sides on the stem cell issue. Irony can be recognized in and of itself. Although if you want some insight into how I fall, let me just add that in general I consider the Pope a better arbiter of good and evil than Hollywood. This does not translate into opposing the very worthy goals of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I think the Pope would agree.
Last week's episode guest starred Dean Kane as an immortal scientist/madman who (somewhat guiltily) had to kill scientifically selected "meteor freaks" as part of a plan to transplant their powers into the love of his live, in hopes she could live forever beside him.
At the end of the episode, Dean Kane made a public service announcement in which he urged donations to the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, which works for a cure for spinal cord injuries.
Given the Foundation's very public support for fetal stem cell research, I wonder how the Smallville producers could miss the irony, except, as I already said, I don't think they ever intend their plots to have a message.
The point of this post is not to take sides on the stem cell issue. Irony can be recognized in and of itself. Although if you want some insight into how I fall, let me just add that in general I consider the Pope a better arbiter of good and evil than Hollywood. This does not translate into opposing the very worthy goals of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. I think the Pope would agree.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Maybe I'm not paying close attention, but in the materials I've read about the Armenian Genocide bill that may soon be voted on in the House, I haven't seen anyone mention yet that this past spring, the House passed a resolution urging Japan to apologize for conscripting "comfort women" during and before WWII.
Japan, another important US ally, urged the House not to for the sake of comity, and pointed out they had (sort of) apologized in 1993. The Korean American lobby, like the Armenian American lobby, appears to view settling old scores as a higher priorities than America's foreign relations with allies. Or perhaps they think that the rest of America won't recognize the truth unless Congress tells us what to believe. (To be fair, in both cases, the controversial bills informed a broader segment of America than would probably have been exposed to the war crimes, so the lobbies did make progress toward their goals, even if the bills weren't passed.)
I am given to understand that we have been having issues regarding the expansion of the US base in Okinawa. Like our struggles with military basing in Turkey, tensions between the U.S. and its allies predate the resolutions, but relationships between equals aren't supposed to result in one side always getting its way. A well-recognized social compact among friends, however, is that we don't point out our friend's failings publicly just for fun.
In both cases, Congress has the right opinion, but it seems odd that a responsible governing body would take time out from governing to call for apologies from a third party to a third party. They used to actually have power to change things.
Both issues seem to boil down to an analog of the old joke "Let's you and him fight". If a wrong is serious enough to warrant attention from Congress, surely it is serious enough to warrant sanctions against the offender, if the urge for an apology is not heeded.
Japan, another important US ally, urged the House not to for the sake of comity, and pointed out they had (sort of) apologized in 1993. The Korean American lobby, like the Armenian American lobby, appears to view settling old scores as a higher priorities than America's foreign relations with allies. Or perhaps they think that the rest of America won't recognize the truth unless Congress tells us what to believe. (To be fair, in both cases, the controversial bills informed a broader segment of America than would probably have been exposed to the war crimes, so the lobbies did make progress toward their goals, even if the bills weren't passed.)
I am given to understand that we have been having issues regarding the expansion of the US base in Okinawa. Like our struggles with military basing in Turkey, tensions between the U.S. and its allies predate the resolutions, but relationships between equals aren't supposed to result in one side always getting its way. A well-recognized social compact among friends, however, is that we don't point out our friend's failings publicly just for fun.
In both cases, Congress has the right opinion, but it seems odd that a responsible governing body would take time out from governing to call for apologies from a third party to a third party. They used to actually have power to change things.
Both issues seem to boil down to an analog of the old joke "Let's you and him fight". If a wrong is serious enough to warrant attention from Congress, surely it is serious enough to warrant sanctions against the offender, if the urge for an apology is not heeded.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
I was reading the comment thread associated with a post at JustOneMinute, in which a poster complained (hypothetically, it turns out) that she could not retire because of four drugs costing $40 a month and health costs of $360 a month.
I'm curious as to how it is so very acceptable for an able-bodied 65 year old to bandy about ideas for other folks to pay for her drugs (either taxpayers or drug companies) so she can retire, while everyone agrees an able-bodied 25 year old who won't work for his food and housing is a bum?
When did it become a rule that at 65 you get to stop working and live off the state? Oh, that's right -- when America became a socialist country. Free health care, four week vacations, multi-year unemployment allowances, and retire at 65. Don't worry, someone will pay for it. America has only one of those socialist aspects, but Americans are as wedded to it as the English are to free health care, independent of whether it is economically feasable.
I'm steeped in socialism enough to accept that a modern state can afford low-cost drugs for the poor and infirm, but I think it was an AARP magazine where I saw an article on low cost drugs right up next to an article or ad hawking exotic vacations.
I'm curious as to how it is so very acceptable for an able-bodied 65 year old to bandy about ideas for other folks to pay for her drugs (either taxpayers or drug companies) so she can retire, while everyone agrees an able-bodied 25 year old who won't work for his food and housing is a bum?
When did it become a rule that at 65 you get to stop working and live off the state? Oh, that's right -- when America became a socialist country. Free health care, four week vacations, multi-year unemployment allowances, and retire at 65. Don't worry, someone will pay for it. America has only one of those socialist aspects, but Americans are as wedded to it as the English are to free health care, independent of whether it is economically feasable.
I'm steeped in socialism enough to accept that a modern state can afford low-cost drugs for the poor and infirm, but I think it was an AARP magazine where I saw an article on low cost drugs right up next to an article or ad hawking exotic vacations.
