It never ceases to amaze me how people continually want to create an earthly utopia. It would seem that some bands of the past have realized that this is not that easy. A few examples here:
The Who - "Won't Get Fooled Again" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbGLVvfB7Y
And the Beatles - "Revolution" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE
And now it seems that many young new revolutionaries have become hypnotized and memorized by Mao and others like him who need I remind anyone killed and tortured thousands, millions. Well, that is just history and that can be re-written to fit into whatever ideology one wants right?
For the most part, I don't blog about political or religious things. I have other avenues where I do that so my internet presence is mostly about music as even this post is to come extent (see above). but as I said, it would seem that some bands had a bit more wisdom than we might give them credit for.
My position is pretty simple. I read the newspaper (or at least peruse it) a bit every day and the news is always the same. Man's inhumanity to man lived out time and time again and the greed that seems to dominate so many people. The problem for me is that I don't experience that in the world I live in at least to the extent that I see it on TV. Are there greedy people out there? I know this might upset some but to borrow a phrase from Sarah Palin: "you betcha". But for the most part I see a lot of good people. Really good people and it affirms my belief in two things.
First, the people are basically good. I get that a source that many hate, the bible. Does that shock some of my followers? An experimental music composer reading above all things, the bible. You betcha!
In those first few chapters it says that man is good (in fact) of all the creations only man is called very good (it does not say that about the earth by the way just man - odd isn't it?).
It also says that something happened that caused the ideal relationship between God and people to change forever. That needed fixing (that is what the rest of the book is about). So something went terribly wrong and from that time on, evil and chaos entered into the world. So when I see people doing bad things, I realize where it came from.
Now here is the kicker. Rather than looking to bring about global change and yell catch phrases like "yes we can" and carry pictures of chairman Mao, I concern myself with the world around me that I can change. First, myself. Who am I? What evil lies inside me? How have I treated others? Wow, now that's a revolution! I sometimes quote the movie the Matrix when Neo said "Free you mind" because in a kind of secular way, it is not so different when "Jesus said: "If the Son of Man makes you free than you shall be free indeed".
For the most part, I am usually happy. I love my faith, my job (frustrating as it is at times) and my music. I guess I don't' need a revolution because I have come to realize that the real revolution is inside me. So when people talk about fundamentally transforming things I guess I echo the words of the Beatles - "when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out". I don't want to change the world, just me so that the world around me will change no matter where I go.
I end this rather unusual blog with a music video. Those who can, might make a connection:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-eM83gz0Zc
When do we ride into Jerusalem?
I guess we just keep reliving the past.
Bottom line - when people try to change the world things get pretty ugly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhDu_Y1sPiE
Remember - Hitler wanted to make the world a better place to but he turned it into a nightmare to every night, I get on my knees and I pray, we won't get fooled again.
Free you mind and then you won't need a utopia here on earth, I guess in the end its that simple for me.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
On Health Care
One of the reasons that I rarely post to the political part of my blog is that I find politics rather, well, unpleasant because in the end, its all about who you stand with. It becomes more about ideologies than reality.
In some sense, and some would find it surprising for me to say this, I am apolitical. I don't believe in any one party. I am a very strong Catholic and yes, my religious beliefs do effect what I support and do not support. I don't apologize for that in the least.
So some might ask then, why I do not support Obamacare. After all, if I am a Christian, why would I not want people to be taken care of. The answer is I do. I don't like double tonged politicians and one of the common political tools that is used is the false dichotomy. The concept is that someone makes a statement, I don't believe in A. The respond is, you must believe in B. The fallacy is that A and B are the only options.
Here is a practical example. I say, I don't believe in Obamacare and someone responds: then you don't believe in health care. The truth is that I believe that people with pre-existing conditions should get health insurance and I believe that everyone who is in need of medical care should get it with some exceptions.
But, I don't' believe in Obamacare and I think that its a colossal mistake for our nation. One which has the potential to collapse our economic system and even send our nation into a state of civil unrest.
Why? Am I a a lunatic right wing fanatic? No. The truth is that I am a realist. I have worked a lot with finance in my life and I also have many opportunities to speak with medical professionals (not as a patient). First, let me say that to demonize those who dedicate their life caring for people and to claim that they only want to make money is grossly unfair. Do I think all doctors and nurses are saints? Far from it. But I do believe that they have to wade through a garbage dump of insurance regulation every day and then balance what they know about sound medicine with the fear of being sued and families that often will agree to anything as long as they think there is a glimmer of hope of keeping a patient alive.
I don't' want to go into a lot of detail but frankly, I see nothing in the Obamacare bill that will cut costs except for health care rationing which I do believe has to happen. Why? Finance is simple. Think of it like a pipe. Whatever amount of water goes in the pipe (let's call this revenue - insurance premiums) is what comes out (medical care). Now insurance is also a large pool. The purpose of insurance is simple. It's easier to pay for small accidents (let's say I break my eye glasses) but large costs (let's say I need a major operation or have a long term disability or illness). The more people you put int he pool the more you can distribute those costs and dramatically reduce personal bankruptcy. If certain groups of people who we know are going to be costly (such as those with pre-existing conditions) are excluded from the pool then insurance will be cheaper which is the motivation for this. I am not saying its a good thing but no one complains about the lower insurance rates do they?
So the trick should be to need less water (money) coming out the other end of the pipe (reduce costs). Adding large bureaucracies does not help costs but only adds to the burden of paperwork for doctors and nurse therefore giving them less time to spend with patients.
OK, I could go into more detail here but I am a realist. Just because I want something to be true does not make it so. I don't want people to die of cancer but they do. I don't want people to get sick and go to the hospital but they do. To some extent people can be healthier but many healthy people get sick and when we get old, even the healthiest people are less healthy. One ways to cut those costs is not pay for the older people and that is what is happening right now. How do I know? Because I don't listen to ideologues but friends who are afraid that they will lose their doctors because they will not accept Medicare. Many doctors may not practice medicine much longer because of the bill passing. Rationing will happen not because people want it to but its just like the pipe analogy. Less doctors in the system, less medical care out. Or more poeple in the system, less medical care for each person. I don't understand why this simple math is so hard for people to understand.
I guess I am trying to simplify something very complex but I do get upset when people defend Obamacare as the only option. I think its short sighted. I would rather see realists who want to deal with the current realities of health care and insurance as unpleasant as those might be and to find solutions that truely reduce costs and insure that those who need medical care can get it.
So that is what I have to say on the subject and I will debate anyone who wants to post here as my timer permits.
In some sense, and some would find it surprising for me to say this, I am apolitical. I don't believe in any one party. I am a very strong Catholic and yes, my religious beliefs do effect what I support and do not support. I don't apologize for that in the least.
So some might ask then, why I do not support Obamacare. After all, if I am a Christian, why would I not want people to be taken care of. The answer is I do. I don't like double tonged politicians and one of the common political tools that is used is the false dichotomy. The concept is that someone makes a statement, I don't believe in A. The respond is, you must believe in B. The fallacy is that A and B are the only options.
Here is a practical example. I say, I don't believe in Obamacare and someone responds: then you don't believe in health care. The truth is that I believe that people with pre-existing conditions should get health insurance and I believe that everyone who is in need of medical care should get it with some exceptions.
But, I don't' believe in Obamacare and I think that its a colossal mistake for our nation. One which has the potential to collapse our economic system and even send our nation into a state of civil unrest.
Why? Am I a a lunatic right wing fanatic? No. The truth is that I am a realist. I have worked a lot with finance in my life and I also have many opportunities to speak with medical professionals (not as a patient). First, let me say that to demonize those who dedicate their life caring for people and to claim that they only want to make money is grossly unfair. Do I think all doctors and nurses are saints? Far from it. But I do believe that they have to wade through a garbage dump of insurance regulation every day and then balance what they know about sound medicine with the fear of being sued and families that often will agree to anything as long as they think there is a glimmer of hope of keeping a patient alive.
I don't' want to go into a lot of detail but frankly, I see nothing in the Obamacare bill that will cut costs except for health care rationing which I do believe has to happen. Why? Finance is simple. Think of it like a pipe. Whatever amount of water goes in the pipe (let's call this revenue - insurance premiums) is what comes out (medical care). Now insurance is also a large pool. The purpose of insurance is simple. It's easier to pay for small accidents (let's say I break my eye glasses) but large costs (let's say I need a major operation or have a long term disability or illness). The more people you put int he pool the more you can distribute those costs and dramatically reduce personal bankruptcy. If certain groups of people who we know are going to be costly (such as those with pre-existing conditions) are excluded from the pool then insurance will be cheaper which is the motivation for this. I am not saying its a good thing but no one complains about the lower insurance rates do they?
So the trick should be to need less water (money) coming out the other end of the pipe (reduce costs). Adding large bureaucracies does not help costs but only adds to the burden of paperwork for doctors and nurse therefore giving them less time to spend with patients.
OK, I could go into more detail here but I am a realist. Just because I want something to be true does not make it so. I don't want people to die of cancer but they do. I don't want people to get sick and go to the hospital but they do. To some extent people can be healthier but many healthy people get sick and when we get old, even the healthiest people are less healthy. One ways to cut those costs is not pay for the older people and that is what is happening right now. How do I know? Because I don't listen to ideologues but friends who are afraid that they will lose their doctors because they will not accept Medicare. Many doctors may not practice medicine much longer because of the bill passing. Rationing will happen not because people want it to but its just like the pipe analogy. Less doctors in the system, less medical care out. Or more poeple in the system, less medical care for each person. I don't understand why this simple math is so hard for people to understand.
I guess I am trying to simplify something very complex but I do get upset when people defend Obamacare as the only option. I think its short sighted. I would rather see realists who want to deal with the current realities of health care and insurance as unpleasant as those might be and to find solutions that truely reduce costs and insure that those who need medical care can get it.
So that is what I have to say on the subject and I will debate anyone who wants to post here as my timer permits.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Googleside - Time to Throw Capitalism to the Dogs?
There was a recent decision of Google to shut down several blogs without apparent warning from Google. This decision has generated a lot of controversy and some degree of anti capitalist rhetoric. One comment I read recently said "capitalism is eating itself". As an amateur musician and composer, I don't like to see blogs regarding music shut down without warning. This blog provider that I am using is one as well. However, to see this recent actiion as some deep dark capitalist conspiracy against music or bloggers I believe is stretching the limits of credibility.
First, I would like to point out that this decision involved only a few sites and there may have been reasons behind these decisions. Not knowing the details of why this was done, I don't believe I can speculate on motivation only as to make a general statement that the most like reason is that Google does not want to be involved in a lawsuit.
I find it amazing that the very same people who rally against decisions like this are often the very same ones who remain silent against the extremely negative effect of lawyers on all of capitalist society. I honestly believe that one of the great negatives of capitalism is the effect that lawyers have had on our society this being only one example. Might I point out as well that at least one of the major components of the high cost of health care is medical malpractice insurance. The cost of all products we buy also reflects the expense of companies carrying liability insurance and yet the same moralists who rally against capitalism remain silent when it comes to tort reform.
I would also like to point out that these blogs were free right? I think its part of the agreement that the Google, and other free blog providers, that they reserve the right to shut down a blog. If this blog were shut down I would not be happy about it but I would not rally against the company providing it because its a free service. If one wants a guarantee that their blog will remain then make a contract with a company to insure that. Sure, that is going to involve that oh so nasty word these days, at least in current administration circles, money but that's how capitalism works. If you want a service, you pay for it or you accept the conditions imposed by a free service.
Some have suggested that Google be boycotted. That's fine but realize that boycotts are a capitalist tool are they not? Look at it this way. If someone does not like Google they go somewhere else. If Google or any other company wants to survive they have to keep people happy. While capitalism is not perfect in any sense, this kind of control is automatic. If one does not keep their customers happy then they don't survive.
It's also important to realize that in a socialist or communist system, you don't have anywhere to go if you don't like what the government does. There is also no built in safeguard that is motivated by the profit. The government has no motivation to keep its citizens happy other than votes but even that has its limits. The decisions of politicians are often based more on special interest and big business that provide campaign financing than they are the will of the poeple. Perhaps if there are faults in the system, that would be a good place to start looking. If we give more and more power to the government and throw capitalism under the train then our ability to vote will also be taken away and who will people boycott then.
I guess all I am saying is that there are more sides to this issue than those voiced by reactionary anti capitalists who are ready, willing and able to throw their freedom away.
First, I would like to point out that this decision involved only a few sites and there may have been reasons behind these decisions. Not knowing the details of why this was done, I don't believe I can speculate on motivation only as to make a general statement that the most like reason is that Google does not want to be involved in a lawsuit.
I find it amazing that the very same people who rally against decisions like this are often the very same ones who remain silent against the extremely negative effect of lawyers on all of capitalist society. I honestly believe that one of the great negatives of capitalism is the effect that lawyers have had on our society this being only one example. Might I point out as well that at least one of the major components of the high cost of health care is medical malpractice insurance. The cost of all products we buy also reflects the expense of companies carrying liability insurance and yet the same moralists who rally against capitalism remain silent when it comes to tort reform.
I would also like to point out that these blogs were free right? I think its part of the agreement that the Google, and other free blog providers, that they reserve the right to shut down a blog. If this blog were shut down I would not be happy about it but I would not rally against the company providing it because its a free service. If one wants a guarantee that their blog will remain then make a contract with a company to insure that. Sure, that is going to involve that oh so nasty word these days, at least in current administration circles, money but that's how capitalism works. If you want a service, you pay for it or you accept the conditions imposed by a free service.
Some have suggested that Google be boycotted. That's fine but realize that boycotts are a capitalist tool are they not? Look at it this way. If someone does not like Google they go somewhere else. If Google or any other company wants to survive they have to keep people happy. While capitalism is not perfect in any sense, this kind of control is automatic. If one does not keep their customers happy then they don't survive.
It's also important to realize that in a socialist or communist system, you don't have anywhere to go if you don't like what the government does. There is also no built in safeguard that is motivated by the profit. The government has no motivation to keep its citizens happy other than votes but even that has its limits. The decisions of politicians are often based more on special interest and big business that provide campaign financing than they are the will of the poeple. Perhaps if there are faults in the system, that would be a good place to start looking. If we give more and more power to the government and throw capitalism under the train then our ability to vote will also be taken away and who will people boycott then.
I guess all I am saying is that there are more sides to this issue than those voiced by reactionary anti capitalists who are ready, willing and able to throw their freedom away.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Avatar's Green Agenda
While I must admit that I have not watched the movie Avatar, there is ample evidence that this movie is promoting a green agenda. I myself am an anti greenie. Why? Because I am an evil capitalist who wants to destroy the earth starting with the polar bears? No. What I don't like about greenies is there extreme ideological stance that is not based on reality and plays into other ideologies that are not necessarily linked to a healthy environmental awareness.
First, let me way that I a a big fan of the planet earth and seeing it polluted the way it often has been does not make me happy. Is this the result of capitalism? Sure, greed makes people do some bad things but isn't that why we have regulation? I also don't totally buy into the belief that the earth is on the edge of the abyss and that within a few years we are going to be plagued with massive hurricanes and massive increases in the sea level just to mention a few of the warnings that are almost routinely spouted by greenies with a sickening glee. Truth is, the science of climatology is an inexact science and there is more than enough wiggle room for debate here. Let's also not forget that it was not that long ago that the earth was going to go into another ice age. Remember the movie, very dramatic but totally false. So first, lets use good science not Gore style fear mongering.
Second, the greenies believe that the earth can be saved by windmills and solar panels. Perhaps a long time in the future this might be true but the technology is just not there for this to be a reality for the average family household or for large scale energy production. Nuclear energy was almost completely shut down by a Hollywood movie by a actress who felt it justified to support the enemy while men where dying in Vietnam. Nuclear energy does come with it's risks but why not discuss ways of dealing with these. Nuclear energy has worked will for France and can for the United States and make us energy independent not to mention greener than Al Gore ever could imagine. It would also put a lot of people to work and last time I checked, that was a good thing.
I also see the argument for global energy standards an agenda that has more to do with a global redistribution of wealth than anything else. If we are going to reduce pollution in the world then every nation has to share in this effort. I question the motives of those who accept uneven rules for each nation penalizing the industrialized nations.
On a final note. It would be nice if we could all be like the aliens in Avatar and live a green existence. Perhaps, there was a time that this might have happened for this country. Certainly the American Indian did seem to have a closer connection to the land but they also drove thousands of buffalos off of cliffs. OK, so that are not as cute as polar bears but they were also not perfect. They also burned fires. The truth is that perhaps with the right culture, we could have a much more environmental friendly world but the truth is that the world has a large population living in sometimes complex economies. These realities can be ignored. In the end, if you save the polar bears but people are starving I don't see this as a win.
The truth is that underlying the agenda of the greenies is a Darwinian belief that man is no different than any other animal. Greenies and animal rights activists are often cut from the same political clothe. I for one believe that mankind is unique among all the animals. Does that mean that man should be free to pollute the earth to the point of threatening our survival and the survival of many species? No, of course not but I do believe that decisions regarding the environment should not be divorced from decisions about human beings. Human beings are not as some of the Obama administration claim, a virus.
So yes, I am not a greenie but don't call me anti planet or anti environment because I am neither. I also believe that capitalism if regulated at times, can work very well and can take into consideration environmental concerns.
So if you want, call me an evil capitalist but beware of the road that those who are green may want to take all of us. It may not be as rosy and many believe.
First, let me way that I a a big fan of the planet earth and seeing it polluted the way it often has been does not make me happy. Is this the result of capitalism? Sure, greed makes people do some bad things but isn't that why we have regulation? I also don't totally buy into the belief that the earth is on the edge of the abyss and that within a few years we are going to be plagued with massive hurricanes and massive increases in the sea level just to mention a few of the warnings that are almost routinely spouted by greenies with a sickening glee. Truth is, the science of climatology is an inexact science and there is more than enough wiggle room for debate here. Let's also not forget that it was not that long ago that the earth was going to go into another ice age. Remember the movie, very dramatic but totally false. So first, lets use good science not Gore style fear mongering.
Second, the greenies believe that the earth can be saved by windmills and solar panels. Perhaps a long time in the future this might be true but the technology is just not there for this to be a reality for the average family household or for large scale energy production. Nuclear energy was almost completely shut down by a Hollywood movie by a actress who felt it justified to support the enemy while men where dying in Vietnam. Nuclear energy does come with it's risks but why not discuss ways of dealing with these. Nuclear energy has worked will for France and can for the United States and make us energy independent not to mention greener than Al Gore ever could imagine. It would also put a lot of people to work and last time I checked, that was a good thing.
I also see the argument for global energy standards an agenda that has more to do with a global redistribution of wealth than anything else. If we are going to reduce pollution in the world then every nation has to share in this effort. I question the motives of those who accept uneven rules for each nation penalizing the industrialized nations.
On a final note. It would be nice if we could all be like the aliens in Avatar and live a green existence. Perhaps, there was a time that this might have happened for this country. Certainly the American Indian did seem to have a closer connection to the land but they also drove thousands of buffalos off of cliffs. OK, so that are not as cute as polar bears but they were also not perfect. They also burned fires. The truth is that perhaps with the right culture, we could have a much more environmental friendly world but the truth is that the world has a large population living in sometimes complex economies. These realities can be ignored. In the end, if you save the polar bears but people are starving I don't see this as a win.
The truth is that underlying the agenda of the greenies is a Darwinian belief that man is no different than any other animal. Greenies and animal rights activists are often cut from the same political clothe. I for one believe that mankind is unique among all the animals. Does that mean that man should be free to pollute the earth to the point of threatening our survival and the survival of many species? No, of course not but I do believe that decisions regarding the environment should not be divorced from decisions about human beings. Human beings are not as some of the Obama administration claim, a virus.
So yes, I am not a greenie but don't call me anti planet or anti environment because I am neither. I also believe that capitalism if regulated at times, can work very well and can take into consideration environmental concerns.
So if you want, call me an evil capitalist but beware of the road that those who are green may want to take all of us. It may not be as rosy and many believe.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Science of Intimidation
When I grew up, I remember the scientific method being pretty simple. Experiments were used to confirm scientific theories and usually, within the limits of the accuracy of the measuring devices, theories would be confirmed . With global warming, now we have moved into a new type of science which claims to predict the future, specifically, the science of global warming.
In the related science of meteorology there is about about a 5 day window in which predictions about the future work reasonably well. However, there have been days when the weatherman said it would rain and a mere look out the window confirmed the contrary. Even short term theories about the weather seem often more to be educated guesses. With theories about global worming , some sciences and certainly Al Gore claim to know what will happen to the climate years down the road. Al Gore recently claimed that in 5 to 10 years the ice caps will melt. I have never known climatology to be so accurate.
Call me a radical, but I suspect that the ice caps will not melt in 5 or even 10 years and that Mr. Gores claims, have more to to with hype than actual science. I frankly don't see a lot of science in Al Gore's dire predictions. He seems to believe that the mere fact that he makes a claim should inspire complete confidence that he know what he is talking about. Sorry if I don't have that much confidence in Al Gore predictions and frankly, don't understand why come claim I should. Even Al claims that those who disagree with him are the modern day concept of flat earthers. Well Al, I don't believe that I am going to fall of the earth if I go to far any more than I beleive that the ice caps will melt in 10 years, sorry if that offends.
Perhaps Al Gore should go back to school and learn more about the scientific method before making such dire claims. I am a realist. Do I want to see our planet ravaged by pollution? No, and I endorse reasonable effects to reduce pollution but if science becomes more about fear than verifiable results then it stops being science and Al Gore actually contributes more to global warming by his hot air than anything else.
In the related science of meteorology there is about about a 5 day window in which predictions about the future work reasonably well. However, there have been days when the weatherman said it would rain and a mere look out the window confirmed the contrary. Even short term theories about the weather seem often more to be educated guesses. With theories about global worming , some sciences and certainly Al Gore claim to know what will happen to the climate years down the road. Al Gore recently claimed that in 5 to 10 years the ice caps will melt. I have never known climatology to be so accurate.
Call me a radical, but I suspect that the ice caps will not melt in 5 or even 10 years and that Mr. Gores claims, have more to to with hype than actual science. I frankly don't see a lot of science in Al Gore's dire predictions. He seems to believe that the mere fact that he makes a claim should inspire complete confidence that he know what he is talking about. Sorry if I don't have that much confidence in Al Gore predictions and frankly, don't understand why come claim I should. Even Al claims that those who disagree with him are the modern day concept of flat earthers. Well Al, I don't believe that I am going to fall of the earth if I go to far any more than I beleive that the ice caps will melt in 10 years, sorry if that offends.
Perhaps Al Gore should go back to school and learn more about the scientific method before making such dire claims. I am a realist. Do I want to see our planet ravaged by pollution? No, and I endorse reasonable effects to reduce pollution but if science becomes more about fear than verifiable results then it stops being science and Al Gore actually contributes more to global warming by his hot air than anything else.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Pipe
Having worked in the financial field for a number of years, one thing I learned was a simple principle, anything to do with money is like a pipe, what goes in one end has to come out the other.
Lately, I have seen a new kind of ecomonics that claims to create money where it does not exist. For example, claims that putting more people in the health care system but actually reducing costs and lower the deficit. Clearly, the current administration has no interst in lowering the deficit. Even China, who basically owns the United States, no doubt indicated by Obama's less than friendly treatment to Tibet, has warned the president to stop increasing the debt.
Truth is that like credit cards, debt has to be paid and yes, you can print more money but all t hat does is strech the pipe, it does not actually create money. Think of four poker player who are each given chips which are valued at one hundred dollars. If each of the four players is playing for a share of a common pot, say $400, and you double each of the player chips you still only have $400 to distribute.
The $400 is like our GDP. Its not determined by how much money the government prints but what America produces and how much it gets for those products. Now government spending will also increase it but it does little to help that number to go up other than artificially proping it up with jobs. I can, for example, employ a young naive student out of college to count polar bears and prayer 5 times a day in the direction of Al Gore but that does little to help create jobs making products that are going to compete on a global market.
Look at it this way. If you put 10 liberals on an island and they sit around talking all day about everthing they need to survive but never actually do it (such as produce products), then they will starve or be killed in the next storm because they had no shelter.
Labor unions want higher wages and benefits but they complete on a global market. This can't be sustained unless you do what the goverment probably plans to do with GM which is continue to pump money into it. Besides, who wants to buy cars that run on pedal power.
There is clearly no doubt that health care could use an overhall but having worked with people in that field I would suggest somethng radical, let them figure out a solution rather than relying on starry eyed liberals who hang up pictures of Mao. The truth is that tort reform is the only real meaningfull way to reduce costs because money is wasted on doing tests which are merely defensive and trying to keep the ambulance chasing lawer away.
Reducing the number of mamograms and pap tests is called rationing. Obama knows that the easy way to reduce costs is rationing but sorry folks "he lies". Yes, that evil man who said that was telling the truth. Truth, remember that one. I think sometimes our government should try it.
Lately, I have seen a new kind of ecomonics that claims to create money where it does not exist. For example, claims that putting more people in the health care system but actually reducing costs and lower the deficit. Clearly, the current administration has no interst in lowering the deficit. Even China, who basically owns the United States, no doubt indicated by Obama's less than friendly treatment to Tibet, has warned the president to stop increasing the debt.
Truth is that like credit cards, debt has to be paid and yes, you can print more money but all t hat does is strech the pipe, it does not actually create money. Think of four poker player who are each given chips which are valued at one hundred dollars. If each of the four players is playing for a share of a common pot, say $400, and you double each of the player chips you still only have $400 to distribute.
The $400 is like our GDP. Its not determined by how much money the government prints but what America produces and how much it gets for those products. Now government spending will also increase it but it does little to help that number to go up other than artificially proping it up with jobs. I can, for example, employ a young naive student out of college to count polar bears and prayer 5 times a day in the direction of Al Gore but that does little to help create jobs making products that are going to compete on a global market.
Look at it this way. If you put 10 liberals on an island and they sit around talking all day about everthing they need to survive but never actually do it (such as produce products), then they will starve or be killed in the next storm because they had no shelter.
Labor unions want higher wages and benefits but they complete on a global market. This can't be sustained unless you do what the goverment probably plans to do with GM which is continue to pump money into it. Besides, who wants to buy cars that run on pedal power.
There is clearly no doubt that health care could use an overhall but having worked with people in that field I would suggest somethng radical, let them figure out a solution rather than relying on starry eyed liberals who hang up pictures of Mao. The truth is that tort reform is the only real meaningfull way to reduce costs because money is wasted on doing tests which are merely defensive and trying to keep the ambulance chasing lawer away.
Reducing the number of mamograms and pap tests is called rationing. Obama knows that the easy way to reduce costs is rationing but sorry folks "he lies". Yes, that evil man who said that was telling the truth. Truth, remember that one. I think sometimes our government should try it.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Whole Picture and the Hollow President
Many of those who may from time to time, when truly bored, read by blogs. I never really set out to be a blogger but from time to time I like to get my thoughts into words and for those who want to read them, make them available.
I suppose my tweets of twitter and even this blog itself seems a contradiction. A conservative Catholic who writes about Tangerine Dream, Pink Floyd and at the same time, Catholicism and conservatism. Perhaps, many see these as contradictions.
In my spiritual journeys in life, and there have been many, I came upon a wonderful spiritual practice, Zen Koans. Koans were written by Zen Buddhist monks to break the back of logic. To present to the mind what might seem like a contradiction to bring about the knowledge of a greater truth.
I suppose that is what I am trying to do. I like Tangerine Dream and Pink Floyd because frankly, since I was a naive young kid I loved synthesizers and electronic music. My first electronic Album was Morton Subotnicks "Sidewinder" in vinyl which I still have today and probably has thick grooves in in from being played so many times. Later in life I discovered Floyd and then much latter, Tangerine Dream. I continue my love of electronic music now by writing it myself.
As I have stated before, I understand that both of these bands are associated with a certain drug culture. Let me state again that I am extremely anti drug. I have seen the damage that drugs and alcohol do and I do not want to see anyone go though that hell on earth that is addiction.
That said, what I like about these bands is their creativity and artistry which I find sadly lacking in much music today and why I like to support new artists who follow their own drummer. I have reviewed their music on my music blog.
As for me, I also have my own drummer. I see all beauty as a reflection of God's creative work. I find sound beautiful and I know that its created by God so if it comes from the wind blowing thought he trees or the circuits of a Moog Voyager, I know that its all part of the same creation. Music is to be, a way of participating in God's creation, to praise God by praising the ability of my mind to order and structure sound to make music. Like Olivier Messiaen, who I very much take as a role model musically, I do not limit my music to what one might hear in a Church but rather, express my feelings in my music much like David did when he wrote some of the psalms some of which are to be played with harp accompaniment.
So is some of my music theological? Sure, some of the ideas I have that lead to ideas about sound that lead to pieces of music are.
So that's the "whole picture", onto the hollow president. Much of what I believe about God effects how I see the world. I believe that God gave us all freedom so we can create but create responsibly. So when I see that freedom being curtailed, I get a bit upset.
The funny thing about change is that sometimes, it does not come up to us and tell us its there. I remember when Barack Obama ran for president and how he spoke about being transparent. Truth is that he has been the least transparent president who probably has ever been in the White House. S..E. Cupp recently eluded to him being like an "empty veseel". I see him as the hollow man. In some ways, perhaps he is transparent, in that we see through him and don't see him, who he is and what he really believes.
The truth is that Obama seems to be like a puppet for a cause that is dark and sinister. Now I am sure that that makes me sound like a radical tea party person who is ignorant and wants to save the world for guns and bibles. OK, well I don't own a gun and yes, I have a bible, a few of them actually, and a Catechism of the Catholic Church which to some may make be a papist I suppose but I also have a bachelor's degree and two masters degrees so ignorant? Well, you decide.
What I see in the latest bills that seem to weigh enough to bend any table they are on, is hollow bills, transparent bills, bills that are not what they seem. it seems to be that change is not what many Americans think it is. I fear that one day we will wake up with the government controlling every aspect of our life and Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's "Brave New World" will sound like the news of the day. Net neutrality for example sounds a lot like Orwell's newspeak.
A wise man once said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I guess don't want to see some rather ugly periods in the 20th century repeated. For those who don't study history, you might learn from this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/wl_asia_afp/chinausdiplomacymediacnn
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
which banned a lot of music.
Truth is, I like to practice my faith and make my music and yes, talk to people about God. I am not sure that I will be able to even make posts like this soon and will have people at the door coming to take me to a re-education camp. I feel the Autumn winds of change and a winter storm coming but perhaps, I have just been drinking to many tea or perhaps, that terrible book that is on my shelves is right when it says this:
"no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." (2 Cor 11:14-15).
Perhaps with transparency also comes a certain degree of light and darkness or perhaps, I have just drunk to much tea. Perhaps, I need the government to tell me how much I can drink, after all, we have to save the polar bears don't we?
I suppose my tweets of twitter and even this blog itself seems a contradiction. A conservative Catholic who writes about Tangerine Dream, Pink Floyd and at the same time, Catholicism and conservatism. Perhaps, many see these as contradictions.
In my spiritual journeys in life, and there have been many, I came upon a wonderful spiritual practice, Zen Koans. Koans were written by Zen Buddhist monks to break the back of logic. To present to the mind what might seem like a contradiction to bring about the knowledge of a greater truth.
I suppose that is what I am trying to do. I like Tangerine Dream and Pink Floyd because frankly, since I was a naive young kid I loved synthesizers and electronic music. My first electronic Album was Morton Subotnicks "Sidewinder" in vinyl which I still have today and probably has thick grooves in in from being played so many times. Later in life I discovered Floyd and then much latter, Tangerine Dream. I continue my love of electronic music now by writing it myself.
As I have stated before, I understand that both of these bands are associated with a certain drug culture. Let me state again that I am extremely anti drug. I have seen the damage that drugs and alcohol do and I do not want to see anyone go though that hell on earth that is addiction.
That said, what I like about these bands is their creativity and artistry which I find sadly lacking in much music today and why I like to support new artists who follow their own drummer. I have reviewed their music on my music blog.
As for me, I also have my own drummer. I see all beauty as a reflection of God's creative work. I find sound beautiful and I know that its created by God so if it comes from the wind blowing thought he trees or the circuits of a Moog Voyager, I know that its all part of the same creation. Music is to be, a way of participating in God's creation, to praise God by praising the ability of my mind to order and structure sound to make music. Like Olivier Messiaen, who I very much take as a role model musically, I do not limit my music to what one might hear in a Church but rather, express my feelings in my music much like David did when he wrote some of the psalms some of which are to be played with harp accompaniment.
So is some of my music theological? Sure, some of the ideas I have that lead to ideas about sound that lead to pieces of music are.
So that's the "whole picture", onto the hollow president. Much of what I believe about God effects how I see the world. I believe that God gave us all freedom so we can create but create responsibly. So when I see that freedom being curtailed, I get a bit upset.
The funny thing about change is that sometimes, it does not come up to us and tell us its there. I remember when Barack Obama ran for president and how he spoke about being transparent. Truth is that he has been the least transparent president who probably has ever been in the White House. S..E. Cupp recently eluded to him being like an "empty veseel". I see him as the hollow man. In some ways, perhaps he is transparent, in that we see through him and don't see him, who he is and what he really believes.
The truth is that Obama seems to be like a puppet for a cause that is dark and sinister. Now I am sure that that makes me sound like a radical tea party person who is ignorant and wants to save the world for guns and bibles. OK, well I don't own a gun and yes, I have a bible, a few of them actually, and a Catechism of the Catholic Church which to some may make be a papist I suppose but I also have a bachelor's degree and two masters degrees so ignorant? Well, you decide.
What I see in the latest bills that seem to weigh enough to bend any table they are on, is hollow bills, transparent bills, bills that are not what they seem. it seems to be that change is not what many Americans think it is. I fear that one day we will wake up with the government controlling every aspect of our life and Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's "Brave New World" will sound like the news of the day. Net neutrality for example sounds a lot like Orwell's newspeak.
A wise man once said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I guess don't want to see some rather ugly periods in the 20th century repeated. For those who don't study history, you might learn from this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/wl_asia_afp/chinausdiplomacymediacnn
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
which banned a lot of music.
Truth is, I like to practice my faith and make my music and yes, talk to people about God. I am not sure that I will be able to even make posts like this soon and will have people at the door coming to take me to a re-education camp. I feel the Autumn winds of change and a winter storm coming but perhaps, I have just been drinking to many tea or perhaps, that terrible book that is on my shelves is right when it says this:
"no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." (2 Cor 11:14-15).
Perhaps with transparency also comes a certain degree of light and darkness or perhaps, I have just drunk to much tea. Perhaps, I need the government to tell me how much I can drink, after all, we have to save the polar bears don't we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)