So I hear universal health care is going to save us tons, I'm not sure how... but I really would like to know. Basically, it seems like there will be some big fund that will pay for health care or health insurance. Who will run this fund is unclear, the government "doesn't want to, really" (the way they don't want to run GM or the banks I suspect), so it may be some semi-private freddie mac type outfit (that went well). But what IS clear is, the money will come from (us)... since the government has only that one source.
So my real question is, how does this set up make sense, in a cost saving way, given these facts-1. Everyone needs health care, and from person to person it will cost about the same, that is if health care becomes truly universal.
2. Since everyone needs health care, it seems like everyone should "chip in" to this fund, though obviously some will "be able" to chip in more than others.
3. Since this money (that we all chip in) could have & probably would have, gone towards health care, if not for the new system... It now has to fund health care, as well as funding the new agency/org. that will run the fund.
What would this new outfit cost? I have not even looked to see if someone has an estimate, since the dems will lie to the low side by Powers of ten & the same in the other direction for the republicans. So I thought about it & figured an organization like what would be needed would be a lot like the IRS... collecting taxes ("contributions"), deciding who can pay what... catching cheaters... etc. I guess it might take a little bigger org. since it will also have to deal with health care providers on the other end, so I will add 50% for that.
The IRS will cost us around 11.4 billion this year, so add 50%, you get close to 17.14 billion. Then you have to factor in that, people are already insured... so to get the fund going, money will have to be borrowed... so it will start off in debt, massively. Just figure it will need a trillion to get in rolling, 100% financed, since there is obviously no extra money laying around. Say the interest rate is 5%, the fund will start off, before it does a thing, owing 50 billion a year, just to service the debt. So for the first year, not counting the principal, the savings (whatever it is) will cost us 67.14 billionish... That's $225 per person, for every man/woman/child. Family of 4, $900 a year.
I just cant see any other way of looking at this... a massive agency will cost a LOT, it just will. Borrow the money & let future generations deal with it? Seems like a dick move, number one... But I'm not even sure we can, we are just so in debt now, countries we borrow from are getting nervous.
But really, if someone knows where the savings come from, let me know... I cant find it.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Poor poor misunderstood conservatives.
Yeah yeah, I know what I will get with this... "aww, boo hoo, shut up you whiney puke!!". But I'm not really looking for sympathy for my party, more like just trying to show a nuance, to a group who is supposed to be the ones who invented nuance.
A few years ago I was watching some news deal... don't really remember what it was, but the usual talking heads were analyzing Reagan for some reason. Sam Donaldson was on, and had this to say...
(cut/pasted from some site)- Responding to Charlie Gibson’s request for some criticisms of Ronald Reagan, on Friday’s three-hour Good Morning America, Sam Donaldson maintained that “there were two Ronald Reagans.” One, a man who was “friendly, warm, everybody like him, he liked people,” but “then there was Ronald Reagan the ideologue.” Regurgitating an old Reagan-era media cliche, Donaldson argued that if you “were down on your luck,” Reagan “would literally give you the shirt off his back, and then he'd sit down in his undershirt and he'd sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare."
Now Im not sure if those were the exact words, or if they were gined up a bit by whatever "righty" put it up... but I saw it live, and it IS the general idea. Donaldson, and lots of other leftists, see a huge disconnect between personal generosity & the forced charity of big government.
To me, it's simple- The idea of government exacting a tax from one citizen & giving that money to another, is a pure contrivance. It is an obvious overstepping of federal authority, which MAY have started with good intent, but has, in effect ruined lives & families. While on the other hand, it is admirable to be personally generous, and we as a people are.
But to Sam, the government is an agent of good, a provider for all who need, & a repressor of all who are undeservedly advantaged. The government taketh, and the government giveth away... well, at least some of what it tooketh, the rest it keepeth for thine slush fund. Yeah, I know usually its "giveth" first, and "taketh away" after, but government doesn't produce anything so it has to take first. To him & his like, charity by persons & confiscated/redistributed wealth, are one in the same... And a guy who is personally generous, but politically, is socially conservative, must be some Jekyll & Hyde, bipolar lunatic.
The real mystery is, how can I so easily see his point of view... while he is so flummoxed by the perceived dichotomy of our's, that he had to attribute the behavior to insanity. Why?... Why cant he get, that to a conservative- the government should not take more than it needs, to do what the constitution lets it do. And that we believe individuals & private organizations can take care of charity, and to be better judges of it's need, than government.
To us it's clear, letting government decide who needs charity & how much they need, is folly. Any good that comes of it will be (and has been) outweighed by negative consequences 10 fold. Just take the inherent inefficiency of government... losses to bureaucracy, waste, graft, & so on, mean that getting $1 to a poor family costs $20 (a wild guess, that's probably close), this factor alone makes it a bad idea regardless of it's constitutionality. We see that the redistribution of wealth creates more distinct classes than even extreme economic differences, these being groups that are taxed & groups that are not taxed. The untaxed have little incentive to care what is done with the money, confiscated from the taxed, and will of course vote for any tax increase. This begins a cycle of increasing tax rates, on a decreasing tax base, leading to decreased tax revenue. This cycle only lasts till government runs low on cash, at which point a new type of tax will be levied, to catch all citizens (like the VAT tax being discussed now).
But all that is logistics, costs & losses, just money... and that's not the main reason for avoiding a nanny state. We are prosperous to be sure and very productive, we can truly absorb a bit of state coddling, but the point is, it's just wrong. Subverting the responsibility of the family is wrong. Removing the incentive to strive for a better life is wrong. Subjecting people to degrading requirements to attain a minimal existence, is even wronger. Of course you could just give it away, without demoralizing questions... but then even more fraud would occur. It's wrong to breed apathy, it's wrong to lord an adult's "allowance" over them, till they comply with the interest-de jour, it's wrong to create entire generations of zombies.
We are just human, simple animals really... give us stuff for free, and we take it. I'm sure there are a few of us that can persevere, keep striving, inventing, creating, working hard, even as free crap is shoved into our hands. But in general, we only do what we need to do to get by... and getting by should never be a goal of a society.
Mr. Donaldson, conservatives don't want starving children any more than libs do, we just want their parents to provide for them, not the state. We feel for the homeless guy (well ok, not all of them), like you do... and when we say "get a job" it's not meant to shame him...... oh wait, it is meant to shame him, into trying to find honest work. Government can help us succeed, by getting out of our way, and even letting us learn... from failing.
A few years ago I was watching some news deal... don't really remember what it was, but the usual talking heads were analyzing Reagan for some reason. Sam Donaldson was on, and had this to say...
(cut/pasted from some site)- Responding to Charlie Gibson’s request for some criticisms of Ronald Reagan, on Friday’s three-hour Good Morning America, Sam Donaldson maintained that “there were two Ronald Reagans.” One, a man who was “friendly, warm, everybody like him, he liked people,” but “then there was Ronald Reagan the ideologue.” Regurgitating an old Reagan-era media cliche, Donaldson argued that if you “were down on your luck,” Reagan “would literally give you the shirt off his back, and then he'd sit down in his undershirt and he'd sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch program, maybe your parents off Social Security, and of course the Welfare Queen off of welfare."
Now Im not sure if those were the exact words, or if they were gined up a bit by whatever "righty" put it up... but I saw it live, and it IS the general idea. Donaldson, and lots of other leftists, see a huge disconnect between personal generosity & the forced charity of big government.
To me, it's simple- The idea of government exacting a tax from one citizen & giving that money to another, is a pure contrivance. It is an obvious overstepping of federal authority, which MAY have started with good intent, but has, in effect ruined lives & families. While on the other hand, it is admirable to be personally generous, and we as a people are.
But to Sam, the government is an agent of good, a provider for all who need, & a repressor of all who are undeservedly advantaged. The government taketh, and the government giveth away... well, at least some of what it tooketh, the rest it keepeth for thine slush fund. Yeah, I know usually its "giveth" first, and "taketh away" after, but government doesn't produce anything so it has to take first. To him & his like, charity by persons & confiscated/redistributed wealth, are one in the same... And a guy who is personally generous, but politically, is socially conservative, must be some Jekyll & Hyde, bipolar lunatic.
The real mystery is, how can I so easily see his point of view... while he is so flummoxed by the perceived dichotomy of our's, that he had to attribute the behavior to insanity. Why?... Why cant he get, that to a conservative- the government should not take more than it needs, to do what the constitution lets it do. And that we believe individuals & private organizations can take care of charity, and to be better judges of it's need, than government.
To us it's clear, letting government decide who needs charity & how much they need, is folly. Any good that comes of it will be (and has been) outweighed by negative consequences 10 fold. Just take the inherent inefficiency of government... losses to bureaucracy, waste, graft, & so on, mean that getting $1 to a poor family costs $20 (a wild guess, that's probably close), this factor alone makes it a bad idea regardless of it's constitutionality. We see that the redistribution of wealth creates more distinct classes than even extreme economic differences, these being groups that are taxed & groups that are not taxed. The untaxed have little incentive to care what is done with the money, confiscated from the taxed, and will of course vote for any tax increase. This begins a cycle of increasing tax rates, on a decreasing tax base, leading to decreased tax revenue. This cycle only lasts till government runs low on cash, at which point a new type of tax will be levied, to catch all citizens (like the VAT tax being discussed now).
But all that is logistics, costs & losses, just money... and that's not the main reason for avoiding a nanny state. We are prosperous to be sure and very productive, we can truly absorb a bit of state coddling, but the point is, it's just wrong. Subverting the responsibility of the family is wrong. Removing the incentive to strive for a better life is wrong. Subjecting people to degrading requirements to attain a minimal existence, is even wronger. Of course you could just give it away, without demoralizing questions... but then even more fraud would occur. It's wrong to breed apathy, it's wrong to lord an adult's "allowance" over them, till they comply with the interest-de jour, it's wrong to create entire generations of zombies.
We are just human, simple animals really... give us stuff for free, and we take it. I'm sure there are a few of us that can persevere, keep striving, inventing, creating, working hard, even as free crap is shoved into our hands. But in general, we only do what we need to do to get by... and getting by should never be a goal of a society.
Mr. Donaldson, conservatives don't want starving children any more than libs do, we just want their parents to provide for them, not the state. We feel for the homeless guy (well ok, not all of them), like you do... and when we say "get a job" it's not meant to shame him...... oh wait, it is meant to shame him, into trying to find honest work. Government can help us succeed, by getting out of our way, and even letting us learn... from failing.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Dessension & protest are what make our country great!!
No... no it's not. The things that make our country great are exactly the things you would think. Smart, hard working people, brave soldiers, police & rescue workers, brilliant inventors & an overall attitude of confidence & pride.
Dissidence, in and of itself, has NEVER made any country great. Of course there have been times, events & circumstances that require protest. And obviously there have been many that changed things for the better... but most are just selfish indulgences, of no use to the country as a whole.
The only thing inherent to protest that shows America's greatness is, that our constitution & we as a people, don't allow our government to protect itself from verbal & ideological attack. The natural inclination of a power, like government, is to stop anything even resembling rebellion. But in our system, we protect the right to disagree, even with the government, that makes us great.
So, just as you suspected, it's really not the clan rally that makes us great, it's that we don't shoot them on the spot. It's not the unshaven, out of shape nudist yelling at the white house that strengthens us... its that we arrest them for public nudity, not public demonstration.
Our brave soldiers fight to keep ALL of us free, even those we agree with the least. We must let even the most idiotic tree hugging jackass be free to express his, or more likely her, stupid opinion... Or one day, when idiotic tree hugging jackasses are in power... common sense could be banned.
Dissidence, in and of itself, has NEVER made any country great. Of course there have been times, events & circumstances that require protest. And obviously there have been many that changed things for the better... but most are just selfish indulgences, of no use to the country as a whole.
The only thing inherent to protest that shows America's greatness is, that our constitution & we as a people, don't allow our government to protect itself from verbal & ideological attack. The natural inclination of a power, like government, is to stop anything even resembling rebellion. But in our system, we protect the right to disagree, even with the government, that makes us great.
So, just as you suspected, it's really not the clan rally that makes us great, it's that we don't shoot them on the spot. It's not the unshaven, out of shape nudist yelling at the white house that strengthens us... its that we arrest them for public nudity, not public demonstration.
Our brave soldiers fight to keep ALL of us free, even those we agree with the least. We must let even the most idiotic tree hugging jackass be free to express his, or more likely her, stupid opinion... Or one day, when idiotic tree hugging jackasses are in power... common sense could be banned.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Guns DO kill people, somtimes the right ones.
Well, guns really dont kill people, they help people kill people. And the cold hard truth is, some people need to be killed. I know this is hard to hear for some, all life is precious/sacred/special/whatever, but no its not, not all life. There are people out there, real people, who have no empathy, who are conscienceless and so selfish they just dont care who they hurt to get what they want. Once a human being decides his needs outweigh the needs of others, to the point of assault or worse, his life is forfeit.
I dont know where the complexity comes in, if it is your intent to harm others who mean you no harm & have done nothing to you, you are evil. I dont care why you feel this need, I dont care what they said, what they believe, who they pray to, what color they are, or whatever it is about them that pisses you off. You just dont get to hurt people, and if you try, whoever kills you in the attempt, is a hero.
To take a life is a terrible thing(if you are not a psychopath), it will eat at you & be with you for ever. Some people put themselves in a position that may lead them to do this awful thing, in protection of others, they are to be awed & admired as the best among us. And yet some dont get the distinction, the vast chasm between those who would do harm to innocents, and those who would stop them.
These same people can see a grey area in everything, relativism reigns, but somehow the subtle distinction between cold blooded killer & brave soldier is lost on them. Thats ok, the soldiers will still keep the hordes at bay and police will continue to protect & serve, brave selfless people will continue to risk everything to protect... even these fools.
I dont know where the complexity comes in, if it is your intent to harm others who mean you no harm & have done nothing to you, you are evil. I dont care why you feel this need, I dont care what they said, what they believe, who they pray to, what color they are, or whatever it is about them that pisses you off. You just dont get to hurt people, and if you try, whoever kills you in the attempt, is a hero.
To take a life is a terrible thing(if you are not a psychopath), it will eat at you & be with you for ever. Some people put themselves in a position that may lead them to do this awful thing, in protection of others, they are to be awed & admired as the best among us. And yet some dont get the distinction, the vast chasm between those who would do harm to innocents, and those who would stop them.
These same people can see a grey area in everything, relativism reigns, but somehow the subtle distinction between cold blooded killer & brave soldier is lost on them. Thats ok, the soldiers will still keep the hordes at bay and police will continue to protect & serve, brave selfless people will continue to risk everything to protect... even these fools.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Global warming bs
Some thoughts on global warming-
First I would like people on the other side to understand the reason behind my being so unwilling to accept man made global warming as stated by it's proponents. A quick logic check would seem to tell you- Why fight it? fake or real, it will help clean up the earth, win/win scenario! False, and this is the BIG lie, that even if we are not sure, we should act as though we are. Whats the big deal? Cut carbon emisions, tax carbon "polluters", etc.
The kind of cuts in carbon emmisions The UN and others talk about could literally cripple economies, economies that hang by threads in many places. If these changes are forced on people in some areas, governments will fall. There have been many revolutions over less government intrusion than this.
Sure we here in the US can probably handle most of it, big deal we end up on trains & reading by LED light. But there are so many places in this world that cant afford the luxury of "better safe than sorry". If this was not the case, if many many lives were not on the line, I would just roll my eyes at the nonsense & fule up with fry grease with a slowly shaking head. But its not just exaggerated facts & jumpt to conclusions, its dangerous propiganda... fed by people who dont give two shits about those it could hurt.
So why would so many scientists either ignore obvious evidence that contradicts mmgw? I would guess there are many reasons, probably chief among them, "better safe than sorry". They belive in the science of co2 warming, even if the evidence is paper thin (mostly made up on paper). An overwhelming majority have never tested the science. Most, Im sure, take the word of other scientists along with the anecdotal & circumstantial evidence.
As to the long term warming cooling trends, that seem to show any warming is right inline with what it should be? Maybe they figure its a coincidence that the global temp has been warming for thousands of years (naturally). And that you could pick almost any point in the recent past (5,000 years), and judge it "the hottest on record" looking back from there 100 years. Maybe that, man's co2 has heated the planet while the nateral cycle was in a lul, so around the corner is a HUGE temp rise when nature catches up.
How do they explain the adding of ice to the southern ice pack? I dont know, maybe ocean current changes, using up the last of our precious cold no doubt.
What about the past 8 years of no warming, to slight cooling according to NASA sat/temp readings globally? Again, short term coolig trend, to be reversed soon, with devastating consequences to be sure.
The beleif by many in the field that solar activity & cyclical earth axis shifts are probably to blame for most longer term climate change? Even though that would explain a lot, Im sure these rocket scientists are not as smart as the other rocket scientists.
Sea levels not rising to what they expect? Must be that the extreme heat has vaporized much of the melted polar cap water & it has escaped into space... I guess??? (thats a tough one)
What about the exponential rises in atmospheric co2, not matching in any way with temp rises? Im sure there is some convoluted "ocean heat capture" theory that couldnt be proven in a million frickin years... Im getting pissy arent In *takes deep breath*.
But it seems like too much to ingnore, way more than a shadow of a doubt, and scientists are supposed to love doubt, love to prove a theory wrong... right? Then why? Maybe its as plain as scientists are human. Whatever the "ideal" of science, people have vanity & greed, they are clickish & seek fame. And maybe any can see that evidence is mounting against the theory, as each cooler year passes, but hubris prevents retreat, from the so clung to position.
Lastly, I would like to answer sporks simplistic attempt at a catch 22 question.
"spork-It's up to you to tell me what other way you can possibly come to the conclusion you can. It's not enough to simply say "you don't understand both sides"
- Assume you have access to data that all these organizations don't
- Assume they are all misreading the mountains of data, and you're not.
- Assume they're all in a grand conspiracy to lie to the world.
There's simply no other way to deny the reality."
I guess my reality is different, because I dont see the great hord of selfless scientists throwing out tons of irrefutable evidence. I see organizations & people who get paid based on a problem existing, not paid to say it aint there.
Number one, I assume they see more data than me by far, but they have to filter what data is useful (to them & their cause), as we all do, just being human (and self serving by nature).
Number two, do I assume they are misreading the data... Why not? these are just people, just like us, smarter in many cases to be sure, but mistakes happen. Especially with data that is not like counting tree rings... vast extrapolation is needed in climate analysis, but this is way beyond that, truly mountains of arbitrary numbers & countless contradicting facts.
Grand conspiracy? I doubt it, just a scared bunch of regular people who are on a bandwagon going 100 mph, who wants to jump off... would you?
And still, 31,072 PhD's MD's and... lots of other leters (just in the US, and in just the first petition I found), sign on to say "slow down there jr." and they are ignored (or worse) by the rest... Who are supposed to value contradictory points of view, as a rule... the scientific method is spinning in its grave.
And to top it all off, I have my doubts that those who strongly believe in mmgw really outnumber those who dont. All I see are dipshit plastic news prompter readers trying to keep their jobs by spouting theories they bearly understand. And vacuous sycophantic hollywood morons, who all need something to give their life meaning, pretending to "get" large scale thermodynamics. Im sure there are loads of credentialed believers, but seriously... how many? And how many work at NOAA or somewhere that its better to toe the line & not speak out if you dont agree.
Really, what advantage is there, for the average scientist to try to contradict the "accepted" science of mmgw. Why be on that list, the one where the in crowd rolls eyes when you walk in... I mean people gotta make a living. On the other hand, to agree with the theory... is there a down side today? More to the point, how to find an unused angle to get paid somehow. Hell, its hard to get a clear number on how many billions go to "green anitiatives" from the bailout bill & suplimental bills.
Anyway, those who dont drink the mmgw coolaid, keep up the good fight. And sorry if I spelled every other word wrong, me not got a PhD.
Oh yeah, and sorry for the 80 trillion words :(
First I would like people on the other side to understand the reason behind my being so unwilling to accept man made global warming as stated by it's proponents. A quick logic check would seem to tell you- Why fight it? fake or real, it will help clean up the earth, win/win scenario! False, and this is the BIG lie, that even if we are not sure, we should act as though we are. Whats the big deal? Cut carbon emisions, tax carbon "polluters", etc.
The kind of cuts in carbon emmisions The UN and others talk about could literally cripple economies, economies that hang by threads in many places. If these changes are forced on people in some areas, governments will fall. There have been many revolutions over less government intrusion than this.
Sure we here in the US can probably handle most of it, big deal we end up on trains & reading by LED light. But there are so many places in this world that cant afford the luxury of "better safe than sorry". If this was not the case, if many many lives were not on the line, I would just roll my eyes at the nonsense & fule up with fry grease with a slowly shaking head. But its not just exaggerated facts & jumpt to conclusions, its dangerous propiganda... fed by people who dont give two shits about those it could hurt.
So why would so many scientists either ignore obvious evidence that contradicts mmgw? I would guess there are many reasons, probably chief among them, "better safe than sorry". They belive in the science of co2 warming, even if the evidence is paper thin (mostly made up on paper). An overwhelming majority have never tested the science. Most, Im sure, take the word of other scientists along with the anecdotal & circumstantial evidence.
As to the long term warming cooling trends, that seem to show any warming is right inline with what it should be? Maybe they figure its a coincidence that the global temp has been warming for thousands of years (naturally). And that you could pick almost any point in the recent past (5,000 years), and judge it "the hottest on record" looking back from there 100 years. Maybe that, man's co2 has heated the planet while the nateral cycle was in a lul, so around the corner is a HUGE temp rise when nature catches up.
How do they explain the adding of ice to the southern ice pack? I dont know, maybe ocean current changes, using up the last of our precious cold no doubt.
What about the past 8 years of no warming, to slight cooling according to NASA sat/temp readings globally? Again, short term coolig trend, to be reversed soon, with devastating consequences to be sure.
The beleif by many in the field that solar activity & cyclical earth axis shifts are probably to blame for most longer term climate change? Even though that would explain a lot, Im sure these rocket scientists are not as smart as the other rocket scientists.
Sea levels not rising to what they expect? Must be that the extreme heat has vaporized much of the melted polar cap water & it has escaped into space... I guess??? (thats a tough one)
What about the exponential rises in atmospheric co2, not matching in any way with temp rises? Im sure there is some convoluted "ocean heat capture" theory that couldnt be proven in a million frickin years... Im getting pissy arent In *takes deep breath*.
But it seems like too much to ingnore, way more than a shadow of a doubt, and scientists are supposed to love doubt, love to prove a theory wrong... right? Then why? Maybe its as plain as scientists are human. Whatever the "ideal" of science, people have vanity & greed, they are clickish & seek fame. And maybe any can see that evidence is mounting against the theory, as each cooler year passes, but hubris prevents retreat, from the so clung to position.
Lastly, I would like to answer sporks simplistic attempt at a catch 22 question.
"spork-It's up to you to tell me what other way you can possibly come to the conclusion you can. It's not enough to simply say "you don't understand both sides"
- Assume you have access to data that all these organizations don't
- Assume they are all misreading the mountains of data, and you're not.
- Assume they're all in a grand conspiracy to lie to the world.
There's simply no other way to deny the reality."
I guess my reality is different, because I dont see the great hord of selfless scientists throwing out tons of irrefutable evidence. I see organizations & people who get paid based on a problem existing, not paid to say it aint there.
Number one, I assume they see more data than me by far, but they have to filter what data is useful (to them & their cause), as we all do, just being human (and self serving by nature).
Number two, do I assume they are misreading the data... Why not? these are just people, just like us, smarter in many cases to be sure, but mistakes happen. Especially with data that is not like counting tree rings... vast extrapolation is needed in climate analysis, but this is way beyond that, truly mountains of arbitrary numbers & countless contradicting facts.
Grand conspiracy? I doubt it, just a scared bunch of regular people who are on a bandwagon going 100 mph, who wants to jump off... would you?
And still, 31,072 PhD's MD's and... lots of other leters (just in the US, and in just the first petition I found), sign on to say "slow down there jr." and they are ignored (or worse) by the rest... Who are supposed to value contradictory points of view, as a rule... the scientific method is spinning in its grave.
And to top it all off, I have my doubts that those who strongly believe in mmgw really outnumber those who dont. All I see are dipshit plastic news prompter readers trying to keep their jobs by spouting theories they bearly understand. And vacuous sycophantic hollywood morons, who all need something to give their life meaning, pretending to "get" large scale thermodynamics. Im sure there are loads of credentialed believers, but seriously... how many? And how many work at NOAA or somewhere that its better to toe the line & not speak out if you dont agree.
Really, what advantage is there, for the average scientist to try to contradict the "accepted" science of mmgw. Why be on that list, the one where the in crowd rolls eyes when you walk in... I mean people gotta make a living. On the other hand, to agree with the theory... is there a down side today? More to the point, how to find an unused angle to get paid somehow. Hell, its hard to get a clear number on how many billions go to "green anitiatives" from the bailout bill & suplimental bills.
Anyway, those who dont drink the mmgw coolaid, keep up the good fight. And sorry if I spelled every other word wrong, me not got a PhD.
Oh yeah, and sorry for the 80 trillion words :(
Friday, February 27, 2009
Right & wrong cont.
To convince another that he is wrong... the holy grail of debate, who doesn't want to be agreed with? Its all well and good to "meet in the middle" and compromise with someone, but you always know they really still think they are right, they only half agree out of convenience. Once two people agree on what is right, BAM, its settled (unless there are more than two people around), but the point is that's when personal truth becomes recognized public belief.
The most important matters a society faces generally deal with getting a consensus on what is right. Many subjects are convoluted & near impossible to reach accord, luckily most of these (even if vigorously disputed) will not break us, regardless of which side wins (or if stalemate is perpetual). Some topics are easy, it's wrong to kill another person if they are no threat to you or others "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man, you take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have" -Clint Eastwood. Almost everyone agrees with that, and those that don't... well, we will kill them ;)
We will never agree on what is right & wrong in all subjects, that's just not how we work. But I think we all can concede that when no consensus can be reached, we should indeed let Clint Eastwood decide.
The most important matters a society faces generally deal with getting a consensus on what is right. Many subjects are convoluted & near impossible to reach accord, luckily most of these (even if vigorously disputed) will not break us, regardless of which side wins (or if stalemate is perpetual). Some topics are easy, it's wrong to kill another person if they are no threat to you or others "It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man, you take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have" -Clint Eastwood. Almost everyone agrees with that, and those that don't... well, we will kill them ;)
We will never agree on what is right & wrong in all subjects, that's just not how we work. But I think we all can concede that when no consensus can be reached, we should indeed let Clint Eastwood decide.
Right & wrong
Views of right and wrong are so subjective, your right may be my wrong. So to it only makes sense to draw a line between a broad personal view of right/wrong, & matters so important we mean to insist on "right" behavior of others (laws).
The balance between effect on us by actions of others, and the effect on others by our insistence on a prescribed behavior, is the place laws should start. When a society decides on a law, it decides what is right & wrong, a large group of people insist on a given (right) behavior (feed your kids, pay your debts, etc.), or a need to NOT engage in a behavior (take things you don't own, kill people, etc.). Laws should protect individuals from negative effects caused by the actions of others, not force them to behave in a given manner, for only the purpose of the "comfort" of society. Conversely, laws should not protect the individuals right to cause harm to others in the name of "freedom". This balance between tyranny and anarchy is where all consideration of right & wrong, in regards to law, should be focused.
Laws of course are not the only outlet for a society's (or individuals) expression of their views on right and wrong, all forms of media & personal interaction are ripe for articulation of opinions on right/wrong. Letting others know what you think is right/wrong is a foundation of healthy personal interaction between people. Judgements on right/wrong are made every second of every day, from weather its right for you to eat some more ice cream, to if the latest massive spending bill by congress is wrong. Should you change your view of right & wrong on a subject because others feel differently? Maybe, if their reasoning persuades you to change your mind, or if the triviality of the subject makes a change worth it (ie. what movie is "right" to see tonight).
More later.
The balance between effect on us by actions of others, and the effect on others by our insistence on a prescribed behavior, is the place laws should start. When a society decides on a law, it decides what is right & wrong, a large group of people insist on a given (right) behavior (feed your kids, pay your debts, etc.), or a need to NOT engage in a behavior (take things you don't own, kill people, etc.). Laws should protect individuals from negative effects caused by the actions of others, not force them to behave in a given manner, for only the purpose of the "comfort" of society. Conversely, laws should not protect the individuals right to cause harm to others in the name of "freedom". This balance between tyranny and anarchy is where all consideration of right & wrong, in regards to law, should be focused.
Laws of course are not the only outlet for a society's (or individuals) expression of their views on right and wrong, all forms of media & personal interaction are ripe for articulation of opinions on right/wrong. Letting others know what you think is right/wrong is a foundation of healthy personal interaction between people. Judgements on right/wrong are made every second of every day, from weather its right for you to eat some more ice cream, to if the latest massive spending bill by congress is wrong. Should you change your view of right & wrong on a subject because others feel differently? Maybe, if their reasoning persuades you to change your mind, or if the triviality of the subject makes a change worth it (ie. what movie is "right" to see tonight).
More later.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Where to start
I hope to put down some thoughts on what is going on in the world, the reality of it, not the standard party line or soundbite crap.
Weather its analysis of the latest urban myth, how big the universe is or what lie a given politician is telling today.
Comment at will, language is up to you, suggest topics, whatever. I dont hope to come up with answers to all of life's questions, but maybe at least I can make fun of people who think they have.
Weather its analysis of the latest urban myth, how big the universe is or what lie a given politician is telling today.
Comment at will, language is up to you, suggest topics, whatever. I dont hope to come up with answers to all of life's questions, but maybe at least I can make fun of people who think they have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)