Pseudepigraphic Epistemology will be re-launching with a new design next week! (hopefully)
In the mean time, here's three things to keep yourself occupied.
1. "New boss, same as the old boss" - The Who
Perhaps in honor of The Who playing the halftime show at the Super Bowl, or perhaps due to his inability to speak well when not in front of a teleprompter, Obama defended himself this week by saying (in so many words) that he's the same as Bush. Um, Mr. President, sir, I'm not sure if anyone told you, but no one liked him. That means you don't want to be like him. And, by the way, you got elected because you were the un-Bush candidate. I seem to remember something about "change" being promised, but, well, if you want to be just like Bush, you're doing a pretty good job of it.
2. Do They Understand Why This Won't Work?
The state of South Carolina now has a law that requires all "subversives" to register with the government (and pay a $5 fee to do so). I think this is supposed to target the various "tea-party movements that are cropping up across the country, and presumably in South Carolina as well, but before going into why this is a huge violation of First Amendment rights, can I just ask if anyone in the South Carolina General Assembly has access to a dictionary? Because I have to wonder what about the word "subversive" makes you think the people who can be described that way would line up and pay a fee to the government.
Also, the law states "every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State." So they are lumping in foreign dignitaries and embassadors with terrorists. Talk about painting with a broad brush.
3. They Must Make Some Awesome Windows
Perhaps you've heard of Serious Materials, which happens to be the only window-making company to make the Obama Administration's list of green-energy companies. Both Obama and Biden have personally endorsed the company, and Inc. Magazine recently featured the company's CEO on their cover.
So what makes them so special? Well its not because they make better windows than their competitors.
As John Stossel reports, the "vice president of policy" (whatever that is) at Serious Materials is married to Cathy Zoi, who just so happens to be one of the higher-ups in the U.S. Department of Energy. Oh, and she was in charge of distributing more than $16 million in stimulus funds. What a funny coincidence that is.
--
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"Cadillac Tax" Hurts Everyone
Well, the Senate Democrats reached 60 votes yesterday, so they've shut the door on the potential for a Republican filibuster to stall a vote on the health care bill. It looks like a straight-party vote could come as soon as Thursday.
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
Thursday, December 17, 2009
At Least "Global Warming" Has A Sense of Irony
No matter which side of the Global Warming debate you're on (fun fact: there's actually five sides), you have to admit that this is pretty funny. The day before Obama is supposed to arrive in Copenhagen to discuss how we can "solve" the climate change problem, the city has been hit by four inches of snow.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Bring Bush Back?
Public Policy Polling has released their Presidential approval ratings for December, and Obama remains in favor with just under half of the population (49%, the same as in November), but the most stunning result is that 44 percent of those polled said they would rather have Bush back in office (50 percent said they prefer Obama to Bush).
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Monday, November 16, 2009
Where Is The Money Going?
According to ABCNews.com, the Federal Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in stimulus money to fund projects that do not exist.
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
The website that has been set up to monitor the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, includes fraudulent listings of projects that do not exist in locations that do not exist either, such as the $760,000 that have been spent in to save 30 jobs in Arizona's 9th congressional district. The problem: Arizona has only eight congressional districts.
Sure, one mistake could be a simple typo, but how do you explain all the rest of these:
"There's no 86th congressional district in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there....
....In Oklahoma, for example, the site lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in congressional districts that don't exist. In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in non-existent districts.
In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands....
....$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district."
To make it all even more ironic, the banner at the top of the Recovery.gov site reads, "Recovery.gov is the U.S. government’s official website providing easy access to data related to Recovery Act spending and allows for the reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse" (emphasis mine).
But all this still begs the question: what happened to the money that was supposedly spent on those non-existent projects around the country? Have millions of dollars apparently just disappeared, or is the administration simply lying about the creation of jobs to make themselves look better? Either way, it makes me uncomfortable.
If you want to grab your fair share of the stimulus money (and why wouldn't you?) for no good reason at all, head over to Reason.com and have some fun with their Personal Stimulus Generator.
--
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Halloween, Obama-style
I wonder how much money the White House Halloween Party cost? According to the AP, the event included "an odd cast of figures [wondering] around the North Lawn, including skeletons playing musical instruments, walking trees, and "Star Wars" characters. The night's arrangements took a month or two to prepare, the White House said."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Not only that, but I'm sure the 200 kids (and who knows how many parents) that attended were required to go through a full security screen when they arrived. I just don't see the White House allowing that many people to show up, in costume no less, spontaneously at the front door. So how much did all that cost?
I just really don't see how an event like this is even necessary. In a few years, is Obama going to stand up at a debate and say, "Maybe I didn't accomplish much, politically, while I was in office. But you have to admit, I threw better Halloween parties than McCain would have."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What About Mississippi?
Today, Obama is making his first trip to New Orleans as President. I'm not sure why more people aren't upset about this. Remember all the anger there was about Bush taking a week to get to New Orleans after Katrina? Well, it's taken this President nearly nine months to get there.
Then again, he sure has been busy with all that he's accomplished since taking office, so I guess its understandable.
What's less understandable is why he is only visiting New Orleans and not taking a couple of extra hours to stop by some of the towns in rural Mississippi that were actually more severely damaged than the city of New Orleans. (Remember, Katrina actually made landfall just across the border in Mississippi, about 50 miles east of New Orleans)
The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, told the AP he's "greatly disappointed" that Obama is skipping the Mississippi altogether. In the same article, U.S. Representative Gene Taylor (D) of the 4th Congressional District, which includes all of the state's Gulf Coast, said he wrote a letter to Obama this week "that began by pointing out the president hasn’t visited the area."
"Taylor criticized the administration for opposing legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, which Taylor believes would prevent gaps in coverage for millions of people who live areas vulnerable to hurricanes.
Then again, he sure has been busy with all that he's accomplished since taking office, so I guess its understandable.
What's less understandable is why he is only visiting New Orleans and not taking a couple of extra hours to stop by some of the towns in rural Mississippi that were actually more severely damaged than the city of New Orleans. (Remember, Katrina actually made landfall just across the border in Mississippi, about 50 miles east of New Orleans)
The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, told the AP he's "greatly disappointed" that Obama is skipping the Mississippi altogether. In the same article, U.S. Representative Gene Taylor (D) of the 4th Congressional District, which includes all of the state's Gulf Coast, said he wrote a letter to Obama this week "that began by pointing out the president hasn’t visited the area."
"Taylor criticized the administration for opposing legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, which Taylor believes would prevent gaps in coverage for millions of people who live areas vulnerable to hurricanes.
“If you visited the Mississippi Gulf Coast today, you would find that some areas have recovered, but in the cities of Waveland, Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian and in portions of other cities and counties, only one-half to two-thirds of the homes have been rebuilt,” Taylor wrote."
Of course, a photo opp and speech in the center of the Ninth Ward is a more powerful image than, say, in Pascagoula or Waveland, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the people there either. It seems to be another example of how this Administration is more interested in its image than in actually doing something positive.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Crazy New Jersey
Public Policy Polling made a bit of an unnerving discovery during recent polling in New Jersey. Of course, no matter how out of whack you might think New Jersey is, this kind of trend is probably not limited to one state.
"We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.
8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure."
Obviously, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Obama, but is he the Anti-Christ? Well, lets say I have my doubts about that. The fact that more than 20 percent of people in New Jersey (and keep in mind, that's a Blue State) think it's possible that he could be the Anti-Christ is another disturbing sign of the extreme radicalism that is sweeping the nation.
Then again, there's always the possibility that this kind of a result shows one of the weaknesses of public polling: you can't trust the responses people give. If I had the chance to compare a politician to the Anti-Christ in an anonymous phone survey, even if I didn't think it was true, I might answer yes. So maybe that accounts for a few percentage points in that one particular poll, but the larger trend remains a concern.
The cross-tabulation of the survey provides some interesting findings as well. The eight percent of people who said Obama was the Anti-Christ were evenly split between males and females (8 8% in each respective group), but young people (ages 18-29) overwhelmingly said yes (24%). Given young people's penchant for shenanigans, I'd say you can chalk a lot of that up to the issue I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Finally, Hispanic people (24%) apparently are much more afraid of Obama being the Anti-Christ than white people (7%) are.
PPP says they will be asking the same question in a nationwide poll this weekend. And in case you're wondering how they came up with such a crazy question in the first place, well, like all good things these days, it came from Twitter.
As for extremism in New Jersey, PPP's found some other scary facts too:
"The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.
Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers."
So it doesn't seem to matter which side of the political spectrum you're on; there's a growing crowd of crazies. Rational debate over actual issues becomes increasingly impossible in such an environment, and with fewer reasonable people making reasonable arguments, the extreme voices get louder and garner more attention. This should be concerning for anyone who cares about liberty, because extremest positions (of both the right and the left) usually don't favor freedom.
"We've been uncovering a remarkable level of anger toward Barack Obama in a lot of our recent polling so for New Jersey we decided to go a step further in determining how extreme some people's feelings are about the President and asked respondents if they think he is the Anti-Christ.
8% said yes. 13% aren't sure. Among Republicans 14% said yes and 15% weren't sure."
Obviously, I'm not the biggest fan of Mr. Obama, but is he the Anti-Christ? Well, lets say I have my doubts about that. The fact that more than 20 percent of people in New Jersey (and keep in mind, that's a Blue State) think it's possible that he could be the Anti-Christ is another disturbing sign of the extreme radicalism that is sweeping the nation.
Then again, there's always the possibility that this kind of a result shows one of the weaknesses of public polling: you can't trust the responses people give. If I had the chance to compare a politician to the Anti-Christ in an anonymous phone survey, even if I didn't think it was true, I might answer yes. So maybe that accounts for a few percentage points in that one particular poll, but the larger trend remains a concern.
The cross-tabulation of the survey provides some interesting findings as well. The eight percent of people who said Obama was the Anti-Christ were evenly split between males and females (8 8% in each respective group), but young people (ages 18-29) overwhelmingly said yes (24%). Given young people's penchant for shenanigans, I'd say you can chalk a lot of that up to the issue I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Finally, Hispanic people (24%) apparently are much more afraid of Obama being the Anti-Christ than white people (7%) are.
PPP says they will be asking the same question in a nationwide poll this weekend. And in case you're wondering how they came up with such a crazy question in the first place, well, like all good things these days, it came from Twitter.
As for extremism in New Jersey, PPP's found some other scary facts too:
"The extremism in New Jersey isn't limited to the right though. 19% of voters in the state, including 32% of Democrats, think that George W. Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.
Beyond that 21% of respondents, including 33% of Republicans, express the belief that Obama was not born in the United States.
Combine the birthers and the truthers and you've got 37% of the electorate. And the 3% of voters who really need to get their heads checked are the ones who are both birthers and truthers."
So it doesn't seem to matter which side of the political spectrum you're on; there's a growing crowd of crazies. Rational debate over actual issues becomes increasingly impossible in such an environment, and with fewer reasonable people making reasonable arguments, the extreme voices get louder and garner more attention. This should be concerning for anyone who cares about liberty, because extremest positions (of both the right and the left) usually don't favor freedom.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Technically, it's Change
But I think violating Habeas Corpus is pretty much the same no matter where you do it. Apparently, the Obama Administration does not agree.
During the campaign, Obama (and pretty much every other Democrat, Independent, and even some Republicans) regularly criticized Bush's policies in Guantanamo Bay. However, as the Washington Independent reports, the new policies being enacted at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan (one of the major detention centers in the nation) sound like "GTMO", Part II.
“They’re setting up what amounts to a CSRT,” said David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees. A CSRT is the acronym for a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the old mechanism at Guantanamo to adjudicate not a detainee’s guilt or innocence, but whether he constituted a threat to U.S. national security. Detainees were at the mercy of hearsay evidence and had the burden of proving that they weren’t a threat and the government’s case against them was erroneous. The Bush administration contended that CSRTs provided all the process rights to which Guantanamo detainees were entitled."
The Washington Post actually heralds this as a victory for the rights of prisoners, since the new policies mean that indefinite detentions can be challenged. But the truth is hidden a few paragraphs down the page:
"Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is "reasonably available," the official said."
If you're going to have a "trial" where the prosecution and the judges work for the same organization (in this case, the U.S. military), I don't think that really counts as a fair trial. Not to mention the fact that you would be assigned another member of the military to act as your defense council. Surely, this is a huge step forward for the prisoners at Bagram. Now, instead of being held indefinitely without a trial, they will be given a sham trial that will "justify" holding them indefinitely.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that we should make it easier for terrorists to be released from prisons (least of all in Afghanistan). If we want to hold them indefinitely for being enemy combatants who are a security risk, then so be it. But let's stop pretending like we are giving them a fair shake.
During the campaign, Obama (and pretty much every other Democrat, Independent, and even some Republicans) regularly criticized Bush's policies in Guantanamo Bay. However, as the Washington Independent reports, the new policies being enacted at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan (one of the major detention centers in the nation) sound like "GTMO", Part II.
“They’re setting up what amounts to a CSRT,” said David Remes, the legal director of the non-profit Appeal for Justice law firm who represents 19 Guantanamo detainees. A CSRT is the acronym for a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the old mechanism at Guantanamo to adjudicate not a detainee’s guilt or innocence, but whether he constituted a threat to U.S. national security. Detainees were at the mercy of hearsay evidence and had the burden of proving that they weren’t a threat and the government’s case against them was erroneous. The Bush administration contended that CSRTs provided all the process rights to which Guantanamo detainees were entitled."
The Washington Post actually heralds this as a victory for the rights of prisoners, since the new policies mean that indefinite detentions can be challenged. But the truth is hidden a few paragraphs down the page:
"Under the new rules, each detainee will be assigned a U.S. military official, not a lawyer, to represent his interests and examine evidence against him. In proceedings before a board composed of military officers, detainees will have the right to call witnesses and present evidence when it is "reasonably available," the official said."
If you're going to have a "trial" where the prosecution and the judges work for the same organization (in this case, the U.S. military), I don't think that really counts as a fair trial. Not to mention the fact that you would be assigned another member of the military to act as your defense council. Surely, this is a huge step forward for the prisoners at Bagram. Now, instead of being held indefinitely without a trial, they will be given a sham trial that will "justify" holding them indefinitely.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that we should make it easier for terrorists to be released from prisons (least of all in Afghanistan). If we want to hold them indefinitely for being enemy combatants who are a security risk, then so be it. But let's stop pretending like we are giving them a fair shake.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tough Choices
I'm trying to stay out of the health insurance coverage as much as possible, but this is just too good to pass up.
Obama has talked a lot about the difficult choices that many Americans face. Choices between buying health insurance or paying rent or buying groceries. But this ignores the other group of uninsured who have an equally difficult choice. After all, no American should have to choose between health insurance and other cool stuff they could buy instead.
Obama has talked a lot about the difficult choices that many Americans face. Choices between buying health insurance or paying rent or buying groceries. But this ignores the other group of uninsured who have an equally difficult choice. After all, no American should have to choose between health insurance and other cool stuff they could buy instead.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Collectivism is bad
After all the controversy leading up to Mr. President's back-to-school address to the nation's children, it seems to have gone off without too much in the way of government indoctrination. That's good.
Whats not as good is the subtle tones that were running through the entire thing, which someone like you, or me, or Jacob Sullum might pick-up on, but I'm guessing the majority of third graders probably didn't realize they were hearing. Sullum says:
"...the worst thing about President's Obama's speech...is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best...
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...
Whats not as good is the subtle tones that were running through the entire thing, which someone like you, or me, or Jacob Sullum might pick-up on, but I'm guessing the majority of third graders probably didn't realize they were hearing. Sullum says:
"...the worst thing about President's Obama's speech...is the creepy collectivism implied by sentences like these:
If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....
Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best...
What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...
I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down."
By now it should be pretty apparent that the President (or, more accurately, his speech-writers, publicists, and all the rest of those in charge of grooming his public appearance) sees himself as the new JFK. It's even more obvious when he makes statements like these, an attempt to echo the celebrated collectivist slogan of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
As a side note, how about me and my country don't ask each other those questions at all. The country should go on doing the things it must do (and only those things), like protecting my rights from foreign attackers and keeping a basic rule-of-law, and it should do those things with as little interference in my life as possible. In return, I will go about my daily life without disrupting the state's work, and I won't ask it to help me out with anything I should be able to take care of personally. Deal?
The whole idea of these collectivist statements is to get people to put something else ahead of their own lives. Such statements become even more dangerous when the "collective" includes not only everyone who is here today, but everyone who might be here in the future too.
When Obama asks what Presidents in the future will say about what this generation did for its country, what he is really saying is that we should subjugate our own lives in the name of making the future a better place. Never mind the fact that this idea, wonderful, peaceful, and successful future is hardly a guarantee (and never mind the fact that you'll be dead before you get to enjoy it, even if it were to happen someday).
Of course, the bigger irony is that Obama, like most politicians, wants people to do only what they are told. So the answer Obama is looking for to that question is that Presidents in the future will say this generation did exactly as they were instructed to do by their wise governmental masters.
Living your life in the name of some unknown future seems foolish at best and downright dangerous at worst. It gets closer to being dangerous when the government is the one inventing the imagined future state, and telling you what you can do to make it possible.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Obama's first love: the campaign trail
Mr. President, doing what he does best, at a rally of adoring fans yesterday.
I think Obama is very good at campaigning. He knows how to feed off people's excitement and stir up a crowd. He is the definition of a populist. Of course, when he's surrounded by people who already love him, it's not very difficult to work the room. I just think, you know, he's the President now....so maybe he should stop sounding like a high school football coach getting his team pumped up before the big Homecoming game.
I'd rather listen to Peter Finch.
I think Obama is very good at campaigning. He knows how to feed off people's excitement and stir up a crowd. He is the definition of a populist. Of course, when he's surrounded by people who already love him, it's not very difficult to work the room. I just think, you know, he's the President now....so maybe he should stop sounding like a high school football coach getting his team pumped up before the big Homecoming game.
I'd rather listen to Peter Finch.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Omnibus
I haven't done much posting on here for the past few days, and since I updated you on my personal life below, here's some other important information that you might have missed during the past few days:
Jacob Sullum, a blogger for Reason, is apparently a beer snob - and I couldn't agree with him more. Really, Mr. President? Bud Light? What makes it even worse is that he obviously made that choice (or, more correctly, his image consultants did) because you want to look more appealing to the average middle class beer-drinking America: "Look, Obama isn't an Ivy League intellectual snob, he drinks crappy beer just like you!" The sad part is that they believe Joe the-middle-class-soon-to-be-out-of-work-beer-drinking-average-dude is more likely to say "I like Obama because he drinks Bud Light like me" than "I hate Obama's because he's raising taxes", and they are probably right.
***
The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the definition of a successful failure, and even if you knew nothing about it, I bet you could guess that only a government idea could become the epitome of an oxy-moron. I guess no one in Washington bothered to think that giving people free money for a new car would get an overwhelming response. Now they are all acting surprised that so many people took advantage of the offer, and riding in to rescue a program that was a mistake in the first place. Remind me again - why does someone else having a crappy car give them a right to my tax money so they can get a better car? Did they pay help pay for my car? I don't remember that happening.
***
Interesting fact about some new polls (and for the record, polls like this are crazy this far in advance of the next Presidential election): Mitt Romney is seeing both his "favorable" and "unfavorable" numbers decline. In other words, fewer people like him....and fewer people dislike him. How does that happen? Are people just completely apathetic about him? Maybe that's good for him, since every member of the GOP who gets attention is getting it for the wrong reasons (paging Jindal....Stanford....Palin....)
***
Arlen Specter, also known as that Senator from Pennsylvania who flipped parties after the Democrats took control of everything in January, got loudly booed this weekend in Philadelphia. I can't wait to help kick him out of office next November. I'd vote for just about anyone over Specter at this point.
***
Brand New is set to release a new album - so does that make Emo kids happy? or does it make them sadder? Does it make them happy to be feeling sadder, or sadder to be feeling happy? Will I ever understand Emo kids? Maybe the band is growing up a little, because there are 11 tracks on the album and only 19 words (total) in the 11 names. A few years ago, 19 words would get Brand New through about two song titles, if that. This is the band that has given us such verbose gems as:
"Good to Know That if I Ever Need Attention All I Have to Do is Die" (that's 16 words right there)
"Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't"
"I Will Play My Game Beneath the Spin Light"
Though I must give a little credit. I've been busting on Brand New for a long time (and mostly they deserve it) but "Play Crack the Sky" is a really good, haunting song.
***
The Dallas Cowboy's new stadium (which cost well over $1 Billion to build) will have luxury boxes where you can order pizza. The catch? That round slab of dough, cheese, and sauce (no toppings) will cost you $90. In my opinion, anyone who is paying that much for a pizza needs to seriously re-examine their lives.
Of course, to even rent one of those luxury boxes you have to pay $800,000 a year (and that doesn't actually include tickets to games), so maybe $90 for a pizza, $66 for a 12-pack of beer, and $22 for four Red Bulls is just small change. All I know is that if I had $800K to spend, I wouldn't use it to go see the Dallas Cowboys.
***
Cab drivers in New York City are pretty much openly ignoring the cell phone use ban. This isn't much of a surprise though, since they already ignore most other traffic laws.
***
This is pretty cool (even if it did come from the New York Times), a chart showing what people are doing at any given time during the day. It also makes a pretty background for your desktop.
***
Let the countdown begin - exactly 2 weeks until Third Eye Blind's new album is finally released.
Jacob Sullum, a blogger for Reason, is apparently a beer snob - and I couldn't agree with him more. Really, Mr. President? Bud Light? What makes it even worse is that he obviously made that choice (or, more correctly, his image consultants did) because you want to look more appealing to the average middle class beer-drinking America: "Look, Obama isn't an Ivy League intellectual snob, he drinks crappy beer just like you!" The sad part is that they believe Joe the-middle-class-soon-to-be-out-of-work-beer-drinking-average-dude is more likely to say "I like Obama because he drinks Bud Light like me" than "I hate Obama's because he's raising taxes", and they are probably right.
***
The "Cash for Clunkers" program is the definition of a successful failure, and even if you knew nothing about it, I bet you could guess that only a government idea could become the epitome of an oxy-moron. I guess no one in Washington bothered to think that giving people free money for a new car would get an overwhelming response. Now they are all acting surprised that so many people took advantage of the offer, and riding in to rescue a program that was a mistake in the first place. Remind me again - why does someone else having a crappy car give them a right to my tax money so they can get a better car? Did they pay help pay for my car? I don't remember that happening.
***
Interesting fact about some new polls (and for the record, polls like this are crazy this far in advance of the next Presidential election): Mitt Romney is seeing both his "favorable" and "unfavorable" numbers decline. In other words, fewer people like him....and fewer people dislike him. How does that happen? Are people just completely apathetic about him? Maybe that's good for him, since every member of the GOP who gets attention is getting it for the wrong reasons (paging Jindal....Stanford....Palin....)
***
Arlen Specter, also known as that Senator from Pennsylvania who flipped parties after the Democrats took control of everything in January, got loudly booed this weekend in Philadelphia. I can't wait to help kick him out of office next November. I'd vote for just about anyone over Specter at this point.
***
Brand New is set to release a new album - so does that make Emo kids happy? or does it make them sadder? Does it make them happy to be feeling sadder, or sadder to be feeling happy? Will I ever understand Emo kids? Maybe the band is growing up a little, because there are 11 tracks on the album and only 19 words (total) in the 11 names. A few years ago, 19 words would get Brand New through about two song titles, if that. This is the band that has given us such verbose gems as:
"Good to Know That if I Ever Need Attention All I Have to Do is Die" (that's 16 words right there)
"Okay, I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't"
"I Will Play My Game Beneath the Spin Light"
Though I must give a little credit. I've been busting on Brand New for a long time (and mostly they deserve it) but "Play Crack the Sky" is a really good, haunting song.
***
The Dallas Cowboy's new stadium (which cost well over $1 Billion to build) will have luxury boxes where you can order pizza. The catch? That round slab of dough, cheese, and sauce (no toppings) will cost you $90. In my opinion, anyone who is paying that much for a pizza needs to seriously re-examine their lives.
Of course, to even rent one of those luxury boxes you have to pay $800,000 a year (and that doesn't actually include tickets to games), so maybe $90 for a pizza, $66 for a 12-pack of beer, and $22 for four Red Bulls is just small change. All I know is that if I had $800K to spend, I wouldn't use it to go see the Dallas Cowboys.
***
Cab drivers in New York City are pretty much openly ignoring the cell phone use ban. This isn't much of a surprise though, since they already ignore most other traffic laws.
***
This is pretty cool (even if it did come from the New York Times), a chart showing what people are doing at any given time during the day. It also makes a pretty background for your desktop.
***
Let the countdown begin - exactly 2 weeks until Third Eye Blind's new album is finally released.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
