Ted Kennedy is Dead

Please read the linked article from The Hill. I don't know if we can truly appreciate at this time how great a loss the death of Ted Kennedy is. He was a pillar in Washington and an example for politicians. Hopefully the medical community will receive a new push to learn of new ways to treat, and perhaps even cure, the brain cancer that took Kennedy's life. For the first time in almost 50 years, the Kennedy boys are together, may God rest all their souls.

Well What Do You Know About That?

How often do we get to talk about a government program that works? Now that you've thought about that, how often to we get to talk about a government program that works so well it almost breaks down? Now comes the analogies. Like the engines of the clunkers being traded, the government program CARS was barely able to maintain the pace at which people bought new cars over the last few weeks. Dealers were selling so many cars that they began to think about not permitting the deals because they had too much paperwork to do. To quote the Boston Globe, ""A borderline train wreck," said Charlie Swenson, general manager at WalserToyota in Bloomington, Minn. In Glen Burnie, Md., Bob Bell, who owns Ford, Kia and Hyundai dealerships, said his employees were overwhelmed filing for reimbursement from the government's clunky system."

The government did not expect people to want to buy new cars in the numbers that people wanted to buy new cars. The government even did something right by having dealers send in their forms online, not only does this lessen the strain on the postal service, it speeds up the process for the dealers. But the tech guy at the White House was on lunch when the plans for the website were being discussed. Nobody bothered to mention that if a single site gets enough hits during a period of time it will slow down or even crash. So many dealers across the country were trying to process rebate applications that the rebate site took hours to upload the necessary documents for the applications.

Good news. People are buying cars, this gives a vital boost to an industry that was starting to, pardon the pun, run out of gas. Good news. People are buying cars that are more fuel efficient than the cars they had before which means less oil dependence and less environmental impact. Good news. The government was able to give out some of the stimulus money quickly and efficiently (mostly). Lesson? Instead of trying to find ways to spend 787 billion dollars in projects that won't get out of planning for another couple of years, perhaps the government could spend 10 billion stimulating the auto industry, the renewable energy industry, rebuild a few major highways which always need repairs, and inject some cash into some scientific research or artistic projects.

I know that in today's economies of scale 10 billion dollars doesn't sound like a lot of money, but the economy doesn't need to be completely rebuilt, it just needs a jump (yes another car pun). One thing I like the most about the Cash For Clunkers program is that it doesn't have a buy American clause in it or a buy GM clause, it just says buy a car with better gas mileage. Some commenattors have said that any stimulus for the industry unfairly props up the industry and I think that those people should shut up because they drove to work that morning. A relatively small injection of cash has gotten the economy flowing, even if temporarily. What I think is most important about this turn of sales events (too much?) is that it gives people a reminder that government spending isn't always bad and it gives the government a reminder that sometimes giving people money for something specific is better than any of the other spending they've been doing under the stimulus project.

Low on Capital

Avigdor Lieberman, the Foreign Minister of Israel, said that Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, shouldn't be putting Israel's continued settlement building at the top of the international agenda. He said, "North Korea fired three missiles yesterday" and he alsobrought up Iran's continued efforts to develop nuclear technology. Here's a tip for the Israeli Foreign Minister: don't align yourself with two members of the Axis of Evil. Two wrongs do not make a right and just because Iran and North Korea are breaking the rules doesn't mean that Israel gets to break them as well. Especially since North Korea and Iran are under heavy sanctions from the UN.

Israel has got to understand that while 6 million Jews were killed 70 years ago, a lot has happened since then. Germany has paid its debt to society, Jews got their own homeland, and we've been kissing their ass ever since. Here's the point: stop breaking the law. Eventually Israel is going to run out of the political capital necessary to keep its impressive list of allies and then the Muslim world, which will by then include a nuclear Iran, will be free to do as it pleases.

The United States, the European Union, and soon the United Nations, are toughening their stances on Israeli settlements and for good reason. As Chancellor Merkel so astutely states, "they are blocking the peace process." Jews should understand what it's like to be kept down due to religion and race, and they should remember the golden rule that even Moses followed: do unto others what you would have done unto you.

Nobody likes a bully and though we've turned our back to Israel's practices for 60 years, their continued belligerence towards the Palestinians and apathy towards the international community's concerns will find them in a tough spot: alone.

The Cost of Liberty

Kevin Sabet wrote an op-ed piece for the LA times a couple months ago about the high cost of legalizing marijuana, sorry it took me so long to write about it, I should be getting back into a normal schedule soon. I really enjoyed reading a piece that was against the legalizing of marijuana but refrained from any moral or religious argument. He stated that the social costs (i.e. abuse treatment, accidents, healthcare, etc.) of legalizing marijuana were so high that the tax revenue possible was not worth it. One figure he used dealt with alcohol. He said that while alcohol brings in roughly $8b in tax revenue, the social costs are approximately $200b. That's and understandable argument. Certainly a much more tolerable one than "drugs are bad for you".

I would like to respond to his comments in a manner that hopefully won't sound like the usual hippie-styled "but it feels good". Would Mr. Sabet rather that we made alcohol and tobacco illegal? What about all harmful things, a la Demolition Man, such as caffeine, salt, spicy food, even so far as cursing (I'm sure that bit was a joke)? Where is the line between arguing against the gateway drug and arguing against personal choice?

The only reason that I am for a legalization policy is that I do not feel that it is the government's job to protect me from myself. Protect the general welfare should mean promote legal activity and ensure equality not prevent unsafe decisions and ensure mediocrity.

If it weren't for alcohol and tobacco and the hundreds of billions of dollars in social costs would we have as many doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, social workers, jailers, probation officers, counselers, support groups, etc? That's a lot of jobs to consider. Cheap argument I know, but it's valid.

I suppose the real issue for me isn't marijuana or tobacco or heroine or whatever other specific substance one could choose, the issue is much more broad: does the government have the right or the ability to protect me from myself? I do not believe that it does and I believe that the cost of losing our liberty is much greater than any dollar figure anyone can make up about the social cost of our vices.

I Thought I Told You Never To Say That Word

Hey look everyone, the leaders of Congress are calling their opponents un-American. House Democrats responded to these claims... oh, they made the claims? You mean the same people who just three years ago balked at being called un-American for their opposition to the Iraq War are now calling opponents of healthcare reform the same thing? Really?

Have I mentioned I don't like Nancy Pelosi? I don't like using the term California liberal, but she is. There's not way around it. Who made her Speaker of the House? It wasn't me.

Luckily, John Boehner (pronounced Bay-ner, not Boh-ner. Can we grow up?) was there to respond and say that such verbal attacks were "outrageous and reprehensible" even though he made such attacks three years ago. To quote Al Michaels, "Thanks John."