Words Fail Me

Like Obama! He won't tell us who the next leader will be in Egypt! He won't cut spending as much as we will! He probably wants the Muslim Brotherhood in charge because he's secretly a Muslim! He wants to spend our country to ruin because he's also secretly a terrorist!

I think that's my quota for exclamation points for this month. Please read the two stories I linked because they deserve their own time. If Mrs. Palin actually read all of the magazines she said she does, she would know very well that nobody knows who the next leader will be. Nobody even really knows what kind of leader it will be yet. I'm really glad that her speech will be aired on the same show whose host said that America deserved 9/11 on 9/12.

Mr. Hensarling is also an idiot. At the bottom of the article he says quote, "There is no limit to the amount of spending that we’re going to be willing to cut." Well actually there is a limit. Another Republican congressman returns his salary to the Treasury minus the cost of his living arrangements, travel, and other necessary costs. How much money would we save in ten years if the other 534 members of Congress did that? Somebody work on that.

What about cutting the Defense so that it matches the next highest defense budget in the world?

According to a guy who knows more about this than I do, China is second on the list of military spending with $125 billion. We could save $875 billion dollars every year right there. That's not even really asking us to fall behind the curve, that's asking to get back in line. Russia only spends $69 billion a year. So matching China's budget would still be almost double Russia's and neither of those countries wants to go to war with us.

Social Security is next on the list of top three expenditures. I'm sure Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota wouldn't mind ending the program. At least in theory. If she, or anyone else, actually proposed to end Social Security there would be no re-election. For all the vitriol, congressmen are still at the whim of their constituents. The elderly are the most likely to vote regularly and also benefit the most from Social Security, so good luck cutting that and surviving November when your number is up. However, sometimes leaders have to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. Even if the good of cutting spending means not providing for the poor and elderly. I guess you have to then go into a discussion about which is the greater good (I'm not going to).

What about Medicare? Score two for the elderly. If Congress were to approve a budget without any appropriations for Social Security or Medicare and an 87.5% reduction in defense spending, not only would spending be down, but the national debt would probably be paid off in a couple of years (just a guess, if anyone wants to do some number crunching I would love to hear about it). Then we could cut taxes to a bare minimum. That's assuming that by the time we've made those kinds of cuts, other things like the Department of Education has been shut down, grant funding and other silly things like that have been disapproved. We could probably do away with income taxes, lower property taxes, and do with just a sales tax. Wouldn't that be great?

Of course, without any of that spending we wouldn't be able to afford to have an intelligence network that spanned the globe. Without that intelligence network we wouldn't be able to know who the next leader in Egypt would be. Then again, even with their $80 billion per year budget they didn't see the uprising in Tunisia going how it did. Talk about a bad return on investment.

I suppose what I'm saying is that before you go out into the world and say something stupid, run it by someone who knows what they're talking about first. Otherwise you turn into the one thing nobody in Washington wants to be:

The Jasmine is Budding

Jasmine, the national flower of Tunisia, is derived from Persian meaning "gift from God." It is widely popular as a fragrance, a tea, and as a houseplant. When protesters in Tunisia were looking for a name for their cause, they decided upon the Jasmine Revolution. Like the scent of the flowers, the revolution is spreading.

Tunisia is that purple one at the top of Africa between Algeria and Libya. Contrary to normal wind patterns... the revolution spread to Egypt next (read the previous blog for more on that). As soon as people saw, through Twitter and Facebook, that normal Arabs were standing up for freedom, they knew it was possible everywhere. Jordan, which is east of Israel, watched their king immediately fire the whole cabinet and bring on new people to prevent the wide spread protests. The new Prime Minister of Jordan, Marouf al-Bakhit, has already started talking to opposition parties to try to implement major democratic reforms. Yemen's President has vowed not to run for reelection. There have been call for protests in Syria. Some people have been talking about possible uprisings in Morocco. Iraqis and Saudi Arabians are looking on to see how the events unfold. To put that into a sentence: every Arab nation in the Middle East is about to throw off the post-colonial chains of the West and become self-governing nations.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt has vowed to not take advantage of the situation. Hamas, an extremist Islamic group in Palestine, told people not to go out in public to show solidarity with the Egyptians. Hizbullah in Lebanon has been fairly quiet about the whole ordeal. I mention this because it is incredibly significant. The fundamentalist religious groups that everyone fears will prevent democracy are stepping aside to help it grow. Certainly the Muslim Brotherhood would like to have a few seats in the new Egyptian Congress, but they don't expect a supermajority.

Israel needs to move very quickly and efficiently. If every major Arab nation becomes democratic they will be led by the popular will of the people instead of the Western-backed leaders. If Israel doesn't make peace with the Palestinians very soon their problems will be two-fold. First the new governments will move to impose sanctions on Israel until peace is accomplished. Some might even go so far as to try military options. If you look back at the map you'll notice a lot of Arab nations surround Israel. Sanctions would be devastating to their economy and the United States is already pulling back from Israel. If the entire Arab world, as a democratic whole, were to condemn Israel the US would be hard-pressed to back them as the US currently does. Second, all of the Arabs that live in Palestine will see the effects of uprisings around them and get a few ideas in their heads. The roughly 4 million Arabs that live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank might decide it's time for them to join the Jasmine Revolution and protest against the 5.8 million Jews in Israel. Israel has been able to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state so far because every government around them was supported by the US. That seems to be about to change.

To be sure, it is going to take time for the new democratic governments of the Middle East to become fully functioning. They are going to need help and guidance and they probably aren't going to ask the United States for it. There are two governments in the Middle East who are thought of as democratic, Turkey and Iran. As discussed in the last post, Turkey is moving away from the Western circle. Iran is as far from the Western circle as it gets. So which government will these new ones follow? Both countries want to be leaders in the Middle East and both are poised to be so. Nobody, here or there, knows what is going to happen next.

I can only hope that the people who live there decide what will happen for themselves.

Letter to the Blind

He who blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss. - Niccolo Machiavelli

This post is written with two audiences: to he who is blinded by his own ambition and to those who are unable to see this post because they cannot access the Internet.

Hosni Mubarek took office in 1981 and has held his power ever since. The United States government has supported him because he represented Egypt without Islamic fundamentalism and because he supported efforts to bring peace to Israel-Palestine. When Barack Obama took office, he gave a speech in Cairo that was widely criticized. He spoke about ending what seemed to be a United States jihad on Islam and a new sense of cooperation between the West and Middle East. When the United States makes an ally with an Islamic nation, it is hard pressed to break that alliance (see Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan). Turkey is helping Iran deal with sanctions, Pakistan is harboring terrorists, and Afghanistan is led by a corrupt president. Even though all of that is true, the United States will not sanction Turkey, invade Pakistan, or oust the corrupt president it put in place as the lesser of plenty of evils. Mubarek doesn't really like Iran, isn't a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and wasn't put into office by the United States military. However, Egypt as a country is overwhelmingly Muslim (as is Iran), is home to the Muslim Brotherhood (terrorists), and is led by a corrupt president (Mubarek).

What is the United States supposed to do? It can't jump up the tree, else be knocked to the ground. It can't stay on the ground and listen to the cries of the smaller cat and risk the smaller cat falling, either. To apply that to the situation: the US can't explicitly back Mubarek because if the protests turn to revolt and revolt to overthrow, it will have backed the wrong horse. The US also can't sit back and not support the government in charge or else the international community will think it doesn't want to support its allies. A major problem with supporting the protesters is the unreliability of the protesters to pick a pro-US replacement. It would be very easy for the protesters to overthrow the government with US support and then snub the US in favor of a more Egypt-first domestic policy (Iranian Revolution, 1979, anybody?).

The United States could look to others for help in the situation. The United Nations is busy with things like the Afghanistan conflict. The European Union has a few money problems. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are military organizations and aren't equipped or intended to maintain peace during anti-government protests. The African Union is dealing with Somalian pirates, money problems, uprisings in Tunisia, bloodshed in Darfur, tyrants in more countries than not, and diseases like AIDS and malaria.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in 1979 and current Johns Hopkins University professor, said that, "Egypt is seething." The youth are doing what they always do, they get angry about what they cannot change, and they set about changing it. I had a history professor in college who said that any time a political movement had the word 'young' in the name, it was probably in favor of violent regime changes (Young Italy, Young Tunisians, etc.). The difference this time around is that the Internet has allowed young people from a much larger area to communicate with each other to compare ideas and strategies. Hence the internet being shut off across the country.

Peter Beinart wrote in Newsweek:

Middle Eastern tyrannies aren’t falling the way George W. Bush predicted. America isn’t the hammer; if anything, we’re the anvil. But Bush’s argument that Middle Eastern democracy could help drain the ideological swamp in which Al Qaeda grew may yet be proved true. Osama bin Laden has never looked more irrelevant than he does this week, as tens of thousands march across the Middle East not for jihad, but for democracy, electricity, and a decent job. It’s a time for hope, not fear. America can survive having less control, as long as the Arab people have more.

Egyptians have a right to control their political destiny. The Middle East needs more countries like Turkey, willing to snub powerful Western nations to protect domestic interests. Iran and Syria are close behind, but they are still waiting for their own democratic revolutions to really work. It is a scary thought for the US to allow Middle Eastern nations to control their own policies. Then again, I'm sure most European nations were uneasy in 1776 when a few colonies declared that they were independent from England.

I know that Hosni Mubarek will not read this article. I also know that if he did it wouldn't really change his mind. I know that the people of Egypt can't read this article. If they could, I doubt they would feel like they needed my words of justification. The message applies to anyone who can read this, however. This drama is the same that is played out anytime a third party tries to assume its interests are more important than the first two parties. It was the the wise Nunya Bidness who said, "This is an A and B conversation, so C your way out of it."

Two Birds and One Stone

In New Hampshire it may soon be punishable by death to kill someone before, while, or after you break into their home. Breaking and entering, theft, and murder combined into one charge and given the power of the ultimate punishment. This law would put into effect a new maxim, "Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill, but especially not at the same time."

I recently asked my girlfriend if she thought it was acceptable to have a gun in the home. While we don't live together I think that it is a very important question for everyone to answer. How many murders have happened because a burglar broke into a house and wasn't expecting anyone to be home and panicked? Fortunately, the NH legislature is looking to make this punishable by death.

I think that every person should have some means of defense in their home. From knives to baseball bats to guns, each person should have a reasonable weapon with which they can protect themselves and their family from invasion.

If burglars knew that going into a home could very reasonably end in injury or death, I would expect there to be fewer break-ins. And that would help me sleep better at night.

A Day of Remembrance

I'm going to go ahead and admit something personal. I'm a Christian. We have a lot of holidays. We remember a lot of things. As a country, Americans have a lot of different occasions to look back and remember that there were times we were great and have cause to celebrate those times.

Unfortunately, both groups tend to stop there. (That's really about the end of the religious segment of this post) It is not enough to remember that a group of people stood together under the leadership of a great man and rallied around the cause of equal rights. Are there not still people in our country who are being treated unfairly?

It is not enough to remember that a great man was killed on the path towards his dream, of which he so eloquently spoke. Have we fulfilled the goals for which he lived and died?

What can we accomplish before the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday comes again next year? We even have an opportunity to help the people of Haiti in front of us. We have equal pay for equal work for women waiting desperately for our attention. I think this blog has posted plenty of articles about equal marital (or union) rights for homosexual couples.

Passing a decent law almost 50 years ago was not the end of the fight, it was the beginning of a job. We must always be on the lookout for the disadvantaged, the mistreated, and those crying in desperation for help.

If the man whose birthday we are remembering were to stand in front of you and ask you what you've done, would you be able to answer him proudly? If he asked if you had continued the work that had been cut short for him, could you say yes?

Nobody is perfect, especially not this author, but can you say you have tried to help everyone you have seen around you, even the ones you don't like?

Have you loved your neighbor?

Trading Places

This is a classic scene from the film, 'Trading Places.' If you haven't seen it yet go to a movie store now, rent it (get popcorn too), come back home, watch it, and then continue reading. I'll wait....


That'll do nicely.


With the new year coming swiftly many are looking back to remember what has happened in the last year and decade to say, 'Wow I don't know how we came out of that.' I would rather not look at the depth of the valleys behind us but would prefer instead to turn towards the mountains that we have before us to climb. There are a lot of things we have to do in the next year and decade.

We must fix Social Security. There are many in the country who think that Social Security shouldn't exist anymore. There are some who think that once a person has worked for 20 years they shouldn't have to lift a finger ever again. These two viewpoints obviously have a lot of space between them and some compromise is necessary. I would like to see care for the poor and disabled to be removed from Social Security's charter so that it may be regulated separately from retirement benefits for retired workers. The quickest and easiest fix for Social Security is to put more people to work to put more money into the system. That would also, I might add, solve a lot of other problems...

We must fix Healthcare. Yes the Senate passed a version of a bill and yes the House of Representatives passed one too. now the Joint Committee has to agree to something and God only knows if they can do that. Once they do it's going to be a miracle to see it passed. Legislation takes a very long time, especially of this magnitude. When a bill has as many provisions in it as this newest healthcare bill does, it usually dies.

We must fix the economy. As mentioned earlier, putting more people to work will fix a lot of our problems. We must return to being a producer and exporter of goods and return to a strong dollar fiscal policy so that our nation may once again 'rule the world' with our goods, services, and money instead of our military.

We must fix the military. Our current path is unsustainable. We must find a way to be able to maintain our safety and deter future attacks without the deployment of a quarter million men and women in harm's way and the possession of 9600 nuclear weapons. Raising tax barriers against other countries will not improve the condition of the domestic worker. That will only hurt our relations with other nations that we want to buy our products. We must instead tear down the regulation barriers that make it so difficult to own a business in this country.

We must fix civil rights. I don't know if anybody noticed or not but a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to marry a man and a woman who were of different racial backgrounds. He quit his job after severe political pressure to do so. Every single day men and women of homosexual orientation are refused their equal right to the pursuit of happiness. We must end this hypocrisy or else we should stop criticizing countries like China for their moral fallacies.

We must fix our infrastructure. Our bridges are falling apart, our roads are old, our phone and internet and cable lines are becoming outdated. Surely there is some way we could fix all of these and a few aforementioned problems... ah yes. That stimulus money could be used to update our power grid and our roads and our other vital tools so that we can step into the 21st century (a little late). This would create countless jobs as well as accomplish a necessary goal. We might also send some people down to New Orleans to fix the levies, that would be nice.

I think that's a pretty short list but a hard list. We must look forward to the challenges ahead of us to accomplish them or else we will see another decade pass us by rife with problems. Many other countries have seen such 'lost decades' and we can be sure that more will in the coming years. I would hope that we are not on the latter list. I would hope that we, like Dan Akroyd in the film 'Trading Places' can join with the Eddie Murphy's in the world who have taken our place at the top and overcome our problems.

Merry New Year to everybody and I'll see you a little farther down the road.

I Don't Have Time To Discuss This In A Committee

Someone should draw a comic of Barack Obama shouting that at Nancy Pelosi while she shouts the classic response, "I am not a committee!" Would Joe Biden be Chewbacca? (I would cast Harry Reid play C-3PO and Olympia Snowe play R2-D2 (not to say that Ms. Snowe is a little person but referencing her minority status as a Republican and the character being the lone voice of reason that nobody wants to listen to) The Millenium Falcon could have the word Healthcare on it since the two were both standing on shaky ground at the time of the exchange. I digress.

The Senate came in to work on Christmas Eve so that they could vote on the most important issue of the year: healthcare. The headlines on Christmas morning read that the Senate had passed landmark legislation set to go to committee in the new year. They didn't even need 60 Democrats or any Republicans to move on to voting and the 58 Democrats and 2 Independents also voted yes on the actual bill, moving the bill into the next stage of the legislative process.

I'm blogging from my work computer so if you read this before I can fix it, look up 'I am a Bill' on youtube and enjoy the video.

The link in the title takes you to an article from the Washington Post that compares the House and Senate bills on some of the major points.

I'd like to give the Dems kudos for muscling a bill through both houses of Congress. It's been a long time since a Democratic majority in Congress actually meant anything other than creating a sitting duck. I'm going to hold off my commentary on the healthcare bill until a final version is passed by Congress simply because there are too many facets to explore and I don't want to write a thesis (that's a lie, I don't mind writing it but apparently nobody would read it).

Hopefully the next piece of life-altering legislation that comes through Congress will see a more productive response from the GOP. While "You Lie" activates the base, garners some campaign money, and wins some elections in off-years, giving 30 million Americans health insurance improves the quality of life in our country and might win the Presidency (again).

In he dream world I like to think we might create some day, the moderates will split off from both parties and then nobody would have a majority and would have to form coalitions to get anything done, much like.... almost every country in Europe has to. (Aren't they making an international President soon? We'll talk about that later)

I think that's where I'm going to end this one. I'm glad that something got passed and I'm glad that the Dems flexed their muscles. I hope that the GOP does more in committee to help mold a more cost-effective and private-run bill and I hope that people will realize that higher taxes aren't always a bad thing. Merry Christmas to all of you and thank you for reading!

Blessing in Disguise?

The headline out of the Washington Post begs the question: Can Swine Flu Shut Down the Internet? People staying home from work or school either suffering from or in fear of the new strain of flu that has so far killed fewer people internationally than regular strains of flu kills in this country alone are starting to strain internet networks in several communities. At present this is not a serious problem. The government, in a surprising twist, is doing what it is supposed to do and is planning for future disasters and is afraid that the strained networks will make it difficult if not impossible for government agencies to send out warnings and for e-commerce to survive.

The article says that the companies have several options from laying down new cable which takes too long and is expensive or can figure out a way to slow traffic down which might violate contracts. Sounds like a lose-lose situation right? Perhaps not.

Laying down new cable to deal with an emergency will be too slow if it is in response to a disaster and too expensive if the companies have to pay for it. Enter the stimulus bill.

We have already decided to give money to people for projects vital to communities. Very little of the money has actually been given out because planning such civic projects takes a long time. Laying down upgraded cables in many areas, and more in the rest, is a project that can be written up relatively quickly and paid for. This creates new jobs, promotes e-commerce, increases infrastructure, prevents unnecessary problems in security, and in all ways improves the economy.

So perhaps the swine flu epidemic can do something good for everyone after all. Perhaps if everyone has better access to better internet they can find out that 20-something active healthy males don't need a vaccine and they should let the pregnant women in front of them in line. Does the internet teach decency?

Annulment

To quote directly from Wikipedia, "Annulment is a legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void. Unlike divorce, it is retroactive: an annulled marriage is considered never to have existed."

I agree fully with protecting the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution. I believe that it is written in the Christian Bible that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. I think that going to a justice of the peace and signing a marriage license and being declared married is not a religious ceremony and does not create a holy union and does not constitute a marriage.

I think that if two homosexuals want to go to a justice of the peace and be legally united with all benefits allowed therein the government should not say anything about it because it is a legal union of two individuals. To continue, if two adults, even if they are related, desire to join into a legal union they should not be stopped by any force of government or church. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's.

With a divorce rate at or beyond 50% and many celebrity marriages lasting a matter of days or weeks, it is difficult to argue that what is currently called marriage compares to the holy union many people think of when they use the word.

I think that if churches do not want to marry gays that is fine. If the Baptist church down the road doesn't agree with the practice that is well within their rights as an institution to decide. If the Episcopal church does agree with the practice then they should be allowed to unite any two people into sacred matrimony as they see fit without any interference. I believe that refers to the freedom of religion discussed in the first amendment of the Constitution.

I think that marriage is a sacred word which implies a religious ceremony and a religious union and should not have any impact on legal discussion in any case. If two people want to get married but don't want to be considered legally united, what's the problem? They want ceremony without benefit.

I think that legal unions imply a secular contract and should have no impact on religious discussion in any case. If two people want to be legally united without getting married, what's the problem? They want benefit without ceremony.

Some people have seen too many divorces in their lives and don't think that marriage is a beneficial union anymore. They might live with someone else, share bank accounts, share children, share mortgages, etc. They should be able to get legally joined for the purposes of tax breaks and hospital visitation rights and so on.

Some people just want to get married without all of the legal mumbo jumbo and want to express their love in a religious venue. They should be able to get married and wear their rings etc.

The government should not use the word marriage and the church should not be involved in creating contracts. Though most people would go to a courthouse and get a legal union and then go to a church and get married (or vice versa) there are plenty of outliers that would not to make such a separation beneficial to everyone.

Rather than force the government and the church to go through a painful divorce and try to figure out who gets which books, they should get an annulment and just go their separate ways.

BRIC Building

In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRICcountries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001.^[1][2] Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.^[3][4]

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done.^[5] However, there are strong indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".^[6][7] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multipolar world order.^[8]

The numbers came from Wikipedia. I don't normally like using their stuff but in this case they have some really good sources and it's far better than a summary I would have written. Do check the articles they linked to for some more background reading to this post. I've already written an article about Russian foreign policy and about Chinese fiscal policy, but I have quiet till now about Brazil or about the BRIC as a whole. In light of the recent pick of Rio de Janeiro as the location of the 2016 Olympic Summer games I'd like to change that.

Back in July, there was a G8 summit to discuss the global financial situation, which I suppose is the only thing that the G8 does (the G8 is a group of the leaders of the 8 largest economies in the world) but I didn't want to make that such a short sentence. Brazil, China, and Russia went and said that they wanted to shift the global currency away from the US Dollar. No real alternative was given and discussion on the topic wasn't even really held. The thought of ending the United States' financial dominance, however, was out in the open. According to Forbes shortly after,

A possible BRIC replacement for the dollar has more to do with a political and economic power struggle than with getting a stronger currency as the world reserve. "[The BRICs] 'have to' if they want to be able to exert their desire to be taken more seriously and seen as real economic powerhouses on the world's economic stage," says Stephen Roseman, manager at Thesis Capital.

If you actually look at that link don't give me any guff about the titles being similar, I hadn't read that article since July. China is especially wary of the dollar's current dominance in the markets. They have been trading for a lot of dollars and they are now the US' largest lender. What this means for China's economy is that if the bottom falls out of the dollar and it becomes worthless, so does the yuan. Rather than buying fewer dollars and allowing for less risk China has been buying more dollars and looking for more profit. They are in almost no position to jockey for becoming the next major currency. As TIME put it, "Don't expect to change those greenbacks for redbacks anytime soon."

Barack Obama tried to hit the big reset button with Dmitri Medvedev, the President of Russia, in an attempt to warm the re-cooling feelings between the two nations. Russia invaded a smaller country during last year's Olympics, has quietly supported Iran's nuclear program, and has been knocking heads with the United States over plans for missile defense shields across Europe. Russia left Georgia and has presented evidence that they were provoked. Iran is finding support from many more places than just Russia. We aren't putting our missiles in Europe. It seems that Russia has won three major battles. However not everything in life is what it seems. During Obama's visit in Russia, he and President Medvedev agreed to cut each nations nuclear arsenal by almost a quarter in seven years. Russia is going to allow us to fly planes through Russian airspace en route to Afghanistan, a move that helps both countries. The missile defense shields were really only ploys by George W. Bush to upset Russia in the first place so they were easy to give up.

Russia has even begun to lessen its support for Iran's nuclear program. Part of this may come from Ahmadinajed's widely-thought rigged election and increasingly anti-Semitic tone, and part of it may come from the previously mentioned nuclear agreement with the United States. This is incredibly important for more reasons than the preservation of Israel, which I won't discuss any further here. I personally buy into the Samuel Huntington theory of the Clash of Civilizations to a point. I think that Iran, formerly part of the Soviet Union, has enjoyed support from Russia for a long time and with that has been much more comfortable going against our wishes. Since Russia maintains a permanent seat on the Security Council at the UN, they are able to veto any meaningful action against Iran. However, with Russia starting to question that support, Iran might find that a decision to turn a peaceful energy source into the most powerful weapon in history would be the opposite of desirable. I had mentioned that there are other reasons for Russia to put pressure on Iran than to prevent 'the bomb.' Iran controls a major portion of the world's oil supply. While the popular media in this country would like to make us think so, we are not the only country in the world that requires oil from the Middle East.

Iran recently re-elected President Ahmadinajed in what many called a rigged election. The opposition rioted in the streets and was beaten back, literally, by state forces. I was asked by a very good friend about my opinion on the matter and I am afraid I did not provide a very good perspective on the matter. I would like to fix that now. 30 years ago the United States put the current Supreme Leader into power by supplying him with weapons and money secretly so that they could fight off who? Islamic extremists and Russian influence. Oops. I stated that doing the same with the new uprising would hardly be prudent because of past failure and probable renewed failure. I was correct, but that is hardly helpful to the conversation. What should happen in Iran is Russia should use its considerable influence and limit nuclear desire and help international agencies make sure that the next election is open and fair. Russia has certainly had its own trouble with fair elections but maybe working to make Iran more democratic will help it look in the mirror.

Ok, I've covered China's economics and Russia's diplomatics. Familiar territory for many writers and especially this one. Let's delve into some less familiar space on the atlas.

Another former colony of Britain, India is an up-and-coming player in world economics and politics. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country, and the most populous democracy in the world. India is another country that has dealt with terrorist attacks in recent years. Attacks on a hotel in Mumbai came from Pakistan and, according to Forbes, funded and armed by China. India is dealing with the growing pains of industrialization and moving into post-industrialization. The location of many outsourced technical support jobs and the homeland of many foreign students and doctors, India is now starting to outsource its own tech jobs and as the education debate rages on in this country it is also the home of ideas for better teaching. India is also the home of new companies that are making smaller cars and cheaper laptops. As these new technologies come out of the largest democracy on the planet, the middle class will boom and their growing economy will continue to grow and we might soon start asking them for the loans that China can no longer afford to give.

Lastly: Brazil. Home of Rio de Janeiro and the 2016 Summer Olympic games, Brazil is perhaps the country I'm most interested in that I don't hear enough about. A couple years ago they found oil just off of their coast and as soon as that oil hits the market not only will the price go down but the economy of Brazil will explode. A side note: gas prices should go down when it hits the market because we will have an option for oil imports that isn't Iran or Venezuela. It should not be taken at face value that Rio was 'awarded' the Olympics. Rio is a beautiful city with a vast population but that is not the only reason they were picked. Rio is the first city in the southern hemisphere to host the summer games as well as the first city in South America. (NOTE: Thanks to one of our dedicated readers I have learned that part of that statement is false. Australia hosted the summer games in 1856 and 2000. I heard that statistic on television and didn't bother to check the facts and I apologize.) The games have been in America, Japan, and Europe before. I don't think that the choice was a move against Obama but a move for Brazil. Obama should publicly embrace the choice and speak proudly of Brazil as an American brother. This could be a very important friendship in a continent, and a world, where our list of friends is somewhat shorter than it used to be.

Each of these four nations still has a little growing up to do. I have listed them in a very particular order: China, Russia, India, Brazil. I don't think they are quite ready to be the foundation, or BRIC, for the world yet because they are still each in their own CRIB.

China needs to bring its poor into the 21st century and make the middle class vastly more independent economically. Russia needs to stop playing Cold War politics and realize that we are in a new world with new problems and they can't keep blaming us for everything while their people starve. India needs to find its own voice and become the kind of regional and global leader that its economy and population allow. Brazil needs to grow out of its former corrupt shell and also lead South America towards freedom from fear and foreign influence.

Once they have each done that they may become the BRIC that we can stand upon to find our own place in a world where we aren't the only superpower and where we must rely on others for survival.

Nancy Pelosi is Killing Old People

See? I can use strong language that isn't completely true but isn't completely false too!

Nancy Pelosi has now said that co-ops will not be in any form of a House bill that goes to the President. Last week she said that there would not be any 'trigger' language written in, meaning that a public option would only be enacted if the private insurance firms don't provide cheaper rates etc.

Moderate and conservative Democrats and all Republicans in both the House and Senate have said that either of those options must be in anything that they approve. Barack Obama hasn't exactly said it, but everyone knows that he will sign anything that actually gets put on his desk.

Here's the problem: Nancy Pelosi and liberal Democrats only control about 20 percent of the seats in the House and a couple seats in the Senate. That minority controls all of the leadership of both and has a choke hold on the legislature.

The President is catching flack for being too liberal on healthcare and the Democrats are being accused of quelling filibuster when actually the party is much too fractured for that and the President doesn't have as much of a voice in the argument as everyone assumes. If the President had said during his speech to Congress that the public option was a sliver of the overall pie Nancy Pelosi would have stood up behind him and slapped the back of his head.

Barack Obama doesn't want to raise taxes and he doesn't want to infringe on care and he doesn't want to kill old people: Nancy Pelosi does.

Vocabulary Lesson

I don't know if anyone who reads this blog has been keeping track of the health debate as much as I have been, but I've spent hours researching what would have turned into a lengthy essay on the current status of the congressional debate. Scanning magazines and newspapers from across the country I have heard every side of each issue and seen most of the possible solutions. If any of you wants to see any of the articles, comment and I'll email them. I have decided nobody that does read this blog wants to read a lengthy essay, especially one written by me.

What I'm going to write instead is what I think we should do to move forward in the debate and ultimately move forward in our lives. We need, first off, to recognize a difference in vocabulary. There is a massive difference between health care and health insurance. Reform in one is not necessarily reform in the other, and both need help. End-of-life care does not mean unnatural death and does not mean Kevorkian-style assisted suicide, necessarily. While politicians must be the keepers and maintainers of politics, the time for politics is not now.

Health care, doctors taking care of patients, needs reform. Especially in Eastern Kentucky, where doctors develop reputations for prescribing any pills desired by their patients, also known as 'pill farms' give the entire profession a bad name, there must be a measure of control and assessment placed on those who can impact the very core of our lives, our bodies. Health insurance, planning for the unpredictable, needs reform. Especially in a country where 44 million people, or roughly 1 in 8 people, don't have any means of paying for health services.

Now that I have established my opinion that reform is necessary, the question is where should that reform come from? Should it be privately sourced or should our government be asked once again to rescue us from ourselves? Doctors are already required to get licensed by an independent organization and when they 'screw up,' which for doctors usually means end someone else's life, they are investigated by a private organization and can lose their license. Is it possible for these organizations, run by private companies, to run routine examinations of each doctor's skills and an evaluation of their diagnoses and care plans for their patients? Giving doctor's a check-up? Professors in colleges must undergo this sort of maintenance. While it certainly won't prevent all deaths and it certainly won't catch all 'bad doctors,' it is certainly a step in the right direction and it can be done without any government interference.

Health insurance needs to be reformed as well and it is in the particular area that I think that government interference may be necessary. The only reason that I think the government may have to step in in these aspect of health services is that insurance has been broken for a while now and the private system seems either unable or unwilling to fix itself, in either case someone might have to step in. Before there can be reform for insurance there must be reform in what I think is the biggest problem of all: hospitals.

Doctors have to make money, they should, they went to school for a long time and they provide a necessary service. Hospitals, on the other hand, should be entirely non-profit organizations. When hospital administrators are more worried about cost margins than they are the lives of their patients, care is impacted. Another source of frustration, and by frustration I mean destruction of human life, that stems from hospitals is the complete lack of any means of accountability. In a free market, services are provided for a price and then buyers decide if the service is worth the price set. If it is they buy it and if it isn't they go find a similar service somewhere else. This is supply and demand and it's the only way a free market works. I'm going to put this next sentence in capital letters so that everyone gets this. WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND THUS WE CAN NOT PROTECT IT. Hostpials need to set prices for procedures based on the price of supplies and labor such that the doctors are paid and the administrators are paid and the hospital staff are paid and the best quality products are purchased while the costs are able to be kept low because there is no eye for profit on the part of the hospital as a whole. That was a long sentence but not a run-on I'm keeping track. That last sentence was a run-on. Tee hee.

If hospitals list their prices then people will be able to decide if they actually want to purchase health insurance or not and they will also be able to see the direct benefits of that insurance. If you don't have car insurance and your brakes go out then you know how much it's going to cost to get your brakes fixed. If your insurance covers brake repairs you are able to see exactly how much money you're saving on that specific repair due to your monthly pay-in to the system and you are able to recognize the benefit: thus you understand the service provided.

If people understand the benefit of the service provided by insurance companies, they are also able to give that benefit a value, and then insurance becomes open to a free market as well. To speak to the issue of socialized medicine, people who mention that mean socialized health insurance, and we've had it for 40 years. The majority of people who are uninsured are not the old, who receive Medicare, or the poor, who receive Medicaid, or teachers or other government employees, who receive government insurance (yes, your Congressman too. Even Republican Congressmen receive public insurance, in case you were wondering), but instead it is the young and employed who are the most uninsured. In essence, me. So this issue doesn't affect the old or the poor or the government-employed, it affects me. When you see tapes of the town hall meetings, who is providing the most vitriol against healthcare reform? The old, the poor, and the government-employed.

So I'm going to end this blog with a familiar phrase: keep your hands off my health-care!

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."

the screwed-up-idness of the American financial system.

First, let me start out by saying that since the great Cr. Hunter S. Thompson (peace be upon him) passed by a self inflicted shotgun vblast to the face, i have not made a habit of reading the Liberal Shill that is rolling stone. This is the mag that had Obama on its cover ... god knows how many times during the election often imaged almost as a god. I happened across this article as I checked out one of my regular Net hangouts, Fazed. It is a great piece of investigative journalism, but it misses a few of the important points. I found it interesting for one that this article only found its way to the pages of Rolling Stone when they found a way to pin the economic crisis and bailout on the Republicans. There too is blood on the hands of the Dems. Obama signed bailouts and the Omnibus spending bill that was INCREDIBLY overinflated and beyond the imagination. It is the Liberals (both Ds and Rs" that give the power to make these bubbles and give bailouts to companies. The power to make these mistakes should have never have been intrusted to the federal government and now that they have claimed it will difficult to take it away. The federal government no longer likes to be limited the way it did before FDR and Wilson. If anyone needs a lesson in how bubbles are made see below.

If you want to make a great stride in fixing the drastic economic problems in this country we have to make drastic measures. We MUST end the income tax and cut spending. We Must take away the federal governments blank check to companies. For gods sakes Goldman Sach is not doing better than ever without the bailout money. We MUST END THE FED. allow the god made organic markets to do their job. We must stop interfering in the natural laws of the world. Liberals get that when it comes to global warming but miss it ompletely when it comes to economics. Take a nap on this one Stan. We all know economics is not your strong suit.

Yes I'm late so what of it

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY !!! Spend some time today thinking of the wonder and glory that is liberty and don't forget, liberty comes at the cost of those willing to stand and fight for it. Whether the enemy of freedom is across the seas or right here at home, pay respect to all those who fight with their hands, wits, and words.

My Hero

The war against the war on drugs has found a new hero, whether he knows it or not. A student was asked to give a persuasive speech and he did. About marijuana. He finished the speech by pulling out a joint, smoking it, and eating the remains. He was eventually charged with suspicion of possession of a controlled substance. Thirty kids in a room watched him smoke it and they got him for suspicion... Hopefully this kid has some idea what he's doing unlike the last high school student with a meaningful pro-drug message...

States like California, Oregon, and Washington are beginning to discuss thinking about their marijuana policies. That's a long way from actual change, but with New Hampshire passing a medical marijuana bill, hopefully not too long. There is a movement in politics, has been for a very long time, that the government is supposed to protect you from everything that is wrong in the world. Sorry folks, that's what your parents and church are for. If a person wants to sit in his living room and hit a doobie, the government should take their tax cut and be done with the matter. Unfortunately, some of the best activists for the cause, as discussed and pictured above, will probably lose interest and lie around the house eating cheetos instead of doing anything productive.