31 August 2010
One Lesson of Iraq is Distortion
Will the members the Bush of Administration never stop rationalizing the Iraq War effort? Stephen Hadley’s brave defense in the August 31, 2010 Wall Street Journal (“The Lessons of Iraq”) wildly distorts the facts.
• The invasion was not effective at stopping Al Qaeda. That terrorist organization will continue to operate wherever it can. It only could operate in Iraq because of the havoc wreaked by the American invasion.
• The invasion wasn’t needed to prevent the development or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction by the Saddam regime. By 2003 the U.N. Sanctions had already made a WMD program much too costly even for Saddam to have continued to pursue.
• The invasion very soon overstayed achieving the objective of eliminating an internationally dangerous dictatorship. If the Iraqi people aren’t capable of governing themselves civilly after their autocrat has been removed from power, subsequent U.S. subjugation has certainly not prepared them for that task.
The only sensible explanations for the Iraq War are the fulfillment of Bush’s private grudge and the self-preservation of the military-industrial complex. Both of them have nearly bankrupted the U.S. and cost us and the world many lives and much misery.
Will the members the Bush of Administration never stop rationalizing the Iraq War effort? Stephen Hadley’s brave defense in the August 31, 2010 Wall Street Journal (“The Lessons of Iraq”) wildly distorts the facts.
• The invasion was not effective at stopping Al Qaeda. That terrorist organization will continue to operate wherever it can. It only could operate in Iraq because of the havoc wreaked by the American invasion.
• The invasion wasn’t needed to prevent the development or use of Weapons of Mass Destruction by the Saddam regime. By 2003 the U.N. Sanctions had already made a WMD program much too costly even for Saddam to have continued to pursue.
• The invasion very soon overstayed achieving the objective of eliminating an internationally dangerous dictatorship. If the Iraqi people aren’t capable of governing themselves civilly after their autocrat has been removed from power, subsequent U.S. subjugation has certainly not prepared them for that task.
The only sensible explanations for the Iraq War are the fulfillment of Bush’s private grudge and the self-preservation of the military-industrial complex. Both of them have nearly bankrupted the U.S. and cost us and the world many lives and much misery.
24 August 2010
I’m 63 and I’m Tired
In his February 19, 2010, posting to his blog, The Old Jarhead (http://tartanmarine.blogspot.com) Robert A. Hall vented his spleen on how life is being unfair to him. Each of his complaints deserves a response:
1) How do you decide which are the lazy people?
2) One benefit of government regulation would be to save stupid people from themselves.
3) It looks like Hall is envious of outspoken millionaires.
4) You do have to look back centuries for Christian analogies to the outrages of today's Muslim societies. It's not Islam that has prevented uniformity in world progress.
5) Race was all that mattered when slavery was common. We shouldn't resent the fact that we are still having to make up for it.
6) Condi Rice is a sycophant who would never use her free judgment in a way that could spark resentment from someone like Hall.
7) It's easy to knock over straw men.
8) We might as well complain that drilling for oil in Alaska is unfair because it's too cold there.
9) Hall should be concerned about global warming if only because of its potential impact on the lives of his daughter and granddaughter.
10) Educating potential drug addicts--instilling in them the same self-control that Hall apparently has--would be a better way of to avoid the cost of dealing with them after they become burdens on society.
11) Who benefits from the availability of undocumented workers? If growers didn't hire them, they wouldn't come. If drug purchasers didn't buy drugs, the "undocumented pharmacists" would have to resort to the tactics of giant germs stuffing powder up innocent noses.
12) Reasonable Muslims are no doubt just as ashamed and embarassed by the terrorists who act in the name of Islam as we have been by the atrocious behavior of abusers at Abu Ghraib or helicopter gunners in Baghdad.
13) Politics has always been a dirty game.
14) All admitted mistakes are the same. Willfull errors are not a birthright but learning experiences, the consequences of which can often be better compensated for by the rich, but have to be lived with even by the poor. It's the schadenfreude of people like Hall that is undeserved.
15) Who should take responsibility for Hall's being tired of everthing?
In his February 19, 2010, posting to his blog, The Old Jarhead (http://tartanmarine.blogspot.com) Robert A. Hall vented his spleen on how life is being unfair to him. Each of his complaints deserves a response:
1) How do you decide which are the lazy people?
2) One benefit of government regulation would be to save stupid people from themselves.
3) It looks like Hall is envious of outspoken millionaires.
4) You do have to look back centuries for Christian analogies to the outrages of today's Muslim societies. It's not Islam that has prevented uniformity in world progress.
5) Race was all that mattered when slavery was common. We shouldn't resent the fact that we are still having to make up for it.
6) Condi Rice is a sycophant who would never use her free judgment in a way that could spark resentment from someone like Hall.
7) It's easy to knock over straw men.
8) We might as well complain that drilling for oil in Alaska is unfair because it's too cold there.
9) Hall should be concerned about global warming if only because of its potential impact on the lives of his daughter and granddaughter.
10) Educating potential drug addicts--instilling in them the same self-control that Hall apparently has--would be a better way of to avoid the cost of dealing with them after they become burdens on society.
11) Who benefits from the availability of undocumented workers? If growers didn't hire them, they wouldn't come. If drug purchasers didn't buy drugs, the "undocumented pharmacists" would have to resort to the tactics of giant germs stuffing powder up innocent noses.
12) Reasonable Muslims are no doubt just as ashamed and embarassed by the terrorists who act in the name of Islam as we have been by the atrocious behavior of abusers at Abu Ghraib or helicopter gunners in Baghdad.
13) Politics has always been a dirty game.
14) All admitted mistakes are the same. Willfull errors are not a birthright but learning experiences, the consequences of which can often be better compensated for by the rich, but have to be lived with even by the poor. It's the schadenfreude of people like Hall that is undeserved.
15) Who should take responsibility for Hall's being tired of everthing?
18 August 2010
First Principles Manifesto
In their OpEd in the August 17, 2010, Wall Street Journal, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe advocate the primacy of the individual over the government. Let’s get back to first principles. Individuals created our government; therefore it should act on their behalf. If we don’t abdicate control over government to “special interests,” it will do what individuals want.
Unfortunately, each of us has one or more special interests of our own. If good governance means equal opportunity for all rather than equal results for all, then inevitably there will be winners and losers. The best situation we can hope for is a safety net that rises over time.
In their OpEd in the August 17, 2010, Wall Street Journal, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe advocate the primacy of the individual over the government. Let’s get back to first principles. Individuals created our government; therefore it should act on their behalf. If we don’t abdicate control over government to “special interests,” it will do what individuals want.
Unfortunately, each of us has one or more special interests of our own. If good governance means equal opportunity for all rather than equal results for all, then inevitably there will be winners and losers. The best situation we can hope for is a safety net that rises over time.
10 August 2010
Letting Go is Cheaper
The cost of medical care in this country reflects the consumer’s desire to deny death instead of to make living enjoyable and fulfilling. As Atul Gowande noted in his August 2, 2010, New Yorker article, “Letting Go,” the medical profession has given in to this customer preference. Many others have also recognized that a high proportion of the resources devoted to health care is intended to extend the final months or days of terminally ill patients.
Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, was lionized in the Wall Street Journal (Review and Outlook, August 8, 2010) for declaring that the Affordable Care Act will not achieve its promised reduction in health care costs, neither for individuals nor for the country as a whole, because it won’t change the behavior of doctors or hospitals when they are faced with decisions on using technology to preserve patients’ lives. It’s not the market that will change the selection of end-of-life choices. Affordable health care requires wholesale reeducation of the public to accept the finality of death.
The nation’s health care reform program, unfortunately, is a political creature that refuses to admit that even an American’s life can’t last forever. It will not succeed in reducing the bankrupting cost of medical care in this country until it seriously attempts to change the longevity expectations of all of us.
The cost of medical care in this country reflects the consumer’s desire to deny death instead of to make living enjoyable and fulfilling. As Atul Gowande noted in his August 2, 2010, New Yorker article, “Letting Go,” the medical profession has given in to this customer preference. Many others have also recognized that a high proportion of the resources devoted to health care is intended to extend the final months or days of terminally ill patients.
Medicare Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, was lionized in the Wall Street Journal (Review and Outlook, August 8, 2010) for declaring that the Affordable Care Act will not achieve its promised reduction in health care costs, neither for individuals nor for the country as a whole, because it won’t change the behavior of doctors or hospitals when they are faced with decisions on using technology to preserve patients’ lives. It’s not the market that will change the selection of end-of-life choices. Affordable health care requires wholesale reeducation of the public to accept the finality of death.
The nation’s health care reform program, unfortunately, is a political creature that refuses to admit that even an American’s life can’t last forever. It will not succeed in reducing the bankrupting cost of medical care in this country until it seriously attempts to change the longevity expectations of all of us.
03 August 2010
What Counts in a Democracy
It’s not how votes are counted that matters in a representative democracy as much as how citizens’ preferences are formed. Anthony Gottlieb’s review, “Win or Lose,” (in the July 26, 2010, New Yorker) and William Poundstone’s book, “Gaming the Vote,” both appear to miss the point.
Participants in an electoral democracy like the U.S.A. have lost control of their political decisions. The reason is probably mainly because of intellectual laziness. The technologies of persuasion have become so effective that voters’ opinions are easily manipulated when sufficient resources are devoted to media strategies. The result is that comparative reports of campaign fund-raising are more accurate predictors of election outcomes than opinion polls.
And where do those funds come from? The sources are the beneficiaries of government largesse--contractors and service providers for public sector programs. After all, what do democratic representatives do better than distribute tax revenue?
It’s not how votes are counted that matters in a representative democracy as much as how citizens’ preferences are formed. Anthony Gottlieb’s review, “Win or Lose,” (in the July 26, 2010, New Yorker) and William Poundstone’s book, “Gaming the Vote,” both appear to miss the point.
Participants in an electoral democracy like the U.S.A. have lost control of their political decisions. The reason is probably mainly because of intellectual laziness. The technologies of persuasion have become so effective that voters’ opinions are easily manipulated when sufficient resources are devoted to media strategies. The result is that comparative reports of campaign fund-raising are more accurate predictors of election outcomes than opinion polls.
And where do those funds come from? The sources are the beneficiaries of government largesse--contractors and service providers for public sector programs. After all, what do democratic representatives do better than distribute tax revenue?
02 August 2010
Tax Aversion Syndrome
As Peter Peterson pointed out in his OpEd in the July 24, 2010 Wall Street Journal, it is not possible for the country to continue ad infinitum not to pay for its spending programs. Those programs have to be reduced in size and sufficient revenue has to be raised to finance them.
Federal government deficits are not caused mainly by the demand for entitlement programs. They result rather from government spending on programs that directly benefit those who rely on government contracts for their income—defense contractors, fee-for-service healthcare providers, unnecessary infrastructure builders (a la “the bridge to nowhere”).
The politicians in our totally corrupt electoral system depend not on entitlement programs to buy votes. They depend on contributions for expensive Public Relations strategies from the beneficiaries of government spending programs to pay the cost of sophisticated media persuasion campaigns that ultimately determine who wins elections.
This reflects the sorry state of our political discourse. We claim to possess a democratic polity that is capable of considering available information and selecting representatives to make decisions on our behalf. In fact, we select those representatives based on what we are persuaded to do in the media.
As Peter Peterson pointed out in his OpEd in the July 24, 2010 Wall Street Journal, it is not possible for the country to continue ad infinitum not to pay for its spending programs. Those programs have to be reduced in size and sufficient revenue has to be raised to finance them.
Federal government deficits are not caused mainly by the demand for entitlement programs. They result rather from government spending on programs that directly benefit those who rely on government contracts for their income—defense contractors, fee-for-service healthcare providers, unnecessary infrastructure builders (a la “the bridge to nowhere”).
The politicians in our totally corrupt electoral system depend not on entitlement programs to buy votes. They depend on contributions for expensive Public Relations strategies from the beneficiaries of government spending programs to pay the cost of sophisticated media persuasion campaigns that ultimately determine who wins elections.
This reflects the sorry state of our political discourse. We claim to possess a democratic polity that is capable of considering available information and selecting representatives to make decisions on our behalf. In fact, we select those representatives based on what we are persuaded to do in the media.
