I was bored, so I decided to read the http://theamericanconservatives.org platform and talk about why their platform is nonsensical and the worst kind of selfish.
“We reject the practice of using Government powers for any purpose of social engineering, and we uphold the principle that the individual is sovereign; where social conduct involves personal choices, the People are best served when those choices are embraced and defended at the family and community level.”
One might read this and think: Government social engineering sounds communistic and socialistic and while I may not understand fancy things I know I prefer vaguely comforting words to vaguely menacing words; and the morons in congress want to ru(i)n my life. Although one needs to add “the morons in both parties” so it's reasonable.
Someone might see businesses that only serve certain races, or neighborhoods only accept a single race, or schools that only accept one race, and think how great everything is. They might even genuinely believe that the cost of preventing social engineering is watching through the window of a restaurant while “the blacks” eat out back. But I'd wager no one who has ever been turned away from every restaurant in their own city walks away thinking how great it is that they have the personal choice to be served from the back entrance of Denny's.
“Persons who are not citizens or resident aliens of the United States have no right to petition or benefit from any agency of the government except for petition of entry or asylum”
This makes perfect sense because people don't have intrinsic rights, they have rights because the government gives them rights and can take them away. Just don't look at the “the government doesn't give us rights we deserve them because we're people” section of the platform.
“Each adult citizen is responsible for the health, education and welfare of himself or herself and their family.”
And if some people happen to be born with a chronic illness, or in a neighborhood with broken schools, or a neighborhood where the only way to make money is to join a gang or deal drugs, and they are essentially doomed to a lifetime of poverty then that's just the cost of liberty. Don't forget, it's fair because the man making 300,000 dollars a year doesn't get to send his kids to free school either.
“We believe the proliferation of dangerous weapons (including WMD) has created a need to act against threats before they are capable of being fulfilled. We support preemption”
Once you establish suspicion as a basis for war, there's rarely any reason to ever not go to war. After all, what's the downside of sending young men to die for you overseas? Better safe than sorry, even if that means soldiers and civilians that don't look like you have to die.
“Eliminate the Department of Education, Terminate No Child Left Behind initiative and terminate federal support of the Head Start Programs”
If there's a bigger waste of money than trying to educate stupid poor people I have yet to see it. If they want to better themselves then they need to take responsibility for themselves and get their own kids private tutors like we do.
“The income tax on individuals can impose an undue burden on those earning minimal incomes. We believe a flat tax with significant personal exemptions offers the best opportunity to distribute the burden fairly.”
This makes sense as long as one assumed the problem with taxes is that the rich pay too much and the poor don't pay enough. Oh wait, their first sentence nullifies all real-world experience and studies about showing how the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer because they says so.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The ICC
I hear a lot of conservatives say that they want America to be sovereign, and that means not adhering to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. They seem to imply that by joining we would be giving up our justice system, our very sovereignty, our ability to decide our own laws and punishment. There's two reasons why this is a ridiculous argument:
The ICC has received has indicted 14 people in it's 8 years of existence, and of those 14 only 5 are alive and have a court date. All of those indicted are indicted because they committed genocide or other egregious war crimes. The justice system in their nation has, for whatever reason, been unable to successfully prosecute them hence the ICC is. The implication that it will somehow usurp the US justice system is absurd once one knows the most basic facts about the ICC.
How can someone argue against the international rule of law? Specifically, how can someone argue for rule of law, just so long as we are exempt. In fact everyone else should follow it, but we don't have to because, you know, we we're such good people we don't need to anyway. How can we hope to have a moral superiority when we don't support prosecution of war criminals and people who commit genocide?
The ICC has received has indicted 14 people in it's 8 years of existence, and of those 14 only 5 are alive and have a court date. All of those indicted are indicted because they committed genocide or other egregious war crimes. The justice system in their nation has, for whatever reason, been unable to successfully prosecute them hence the ICC is. The implication that it will somehow usurp the US justice system is absurd once one knows the most basic facts about the ICC.
How can someone argue against the international rule of law? Specifically, how can someone argue for rule of law, just so long as we are exempt. In fact everyone else should follow it, but we don't have to because, you know, we we're such good people we don't need to anyway. How can we hope to have a moral superiority when we don't support prosecution of war criminals and people who commit genocide?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Healthcare delivery styles
Socialized healthcare: The government hires the doctors and nurses, build the hospitals, every citizen has free (paid in the form of taxes of every citizen not per-visit individual paid) healthcare.
Universal coverage: Doctors and nurses work for private companies, private companies build the hospitals, every citizen has free (paid by taxes) healthcare.
Private coverage: Doctors and nurses work for private companies, one can only afford to go to the doctor by paying for insurance.
What's being proposed in a nutshell is expanding private coverage by using private insurance companies to cover almost all citizens. That's about as far from “government run healthcare” and as weak as “reform” can get and still be called reform. Yet, the GOP is still pretending that they are the only thing standing between a hardworking individual and a socialist nightmare being rammed down America's throat in the dead of night with backroom deals and sweetheart deals that aren't on C-SPAN. In reality the GOP is standing between sick people and doctors while warning of “government bureaucrats standing in between you and your doctor”.
Providing an insurance pool run by the government such as the “public option” open to any citizen was criticized as being too radical of an idea by the GOP, and they managed to quash it. In all fairness though it is a radical idea to anyone from 1910, or anyone that's never had to choose between a mortgage or medicine.
Universal coverage: Doctors and nurses work for private companies, private companies build the hospitals, every citizen has free (paid by taxes) healthcare.
Private coverage: Doctors and nurses work for private companies, one can only afford to go to the doctor by paying for insurance.
What's being proposed in a nutshell is expanding private coverage by using private insurance companies to cover almost all citizens. That's about as far from “government run healthcare” and as weak as “reform” can get and still be called reform. Yet, the GOP is still pretending that they are the only thing standing between a hardworking individual and a socialist nightmare being rammed down America's throat in the dead of night with backroom deals and sweetheart deals that aren't on C-SPAN. In reality the GOP is standing between sick people and doctors while warning of “government bureaucrats standing in between you and your doctor”.
Providing an insurance pool run by the government such as the “public option” open to any citizen was criticized as being too radical of an idea by the GOP, and they managed to quash it. In all fairness though it is a radical idea to anyone from 1910, or anyone that's never had to choose between a mortgage or medicine.
GOP misinformation and popularity
According to a Newsweek poll, Americans are opposed to Obama's healthcare proposal by 40 to 49%. But when asked about the specific proposals, they are overwhelmingly in favor of most parts.
So why are people in favor of the parts but when the parts are grouped together and labeled “Obama's plan” they dislike it? The only conclusion I can draw is that they are misinformed about what “Obama's plan” really means. Perhaps one can blame this on the Democrats not informing the public well enough, but I believe the problem is the GOP pushing misinformation.
For example, according to their purity test they support “Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare”. By pretending that President Obama is proposing socialized medicine and the GOP is in favor of market-based reform they are lying. Although it is accurate to say that the GOP is opposed to socialized medicine, that's not being proposed. I would like to point out that I support “freedom and oppose GOP-style tyranny and slave labor”.
The Republicans have branded themselves as free market defenders and President Obama as a socialist. Following from that any proposal labeled “Obama's plan” is unpopular, no matter the actual content of the plan. It seems to me that the GOP has staked their future on opposing anything the Democrats offer, and if they offer something reasonable then the response is to pretend it's something else (i.e. “government-run healthcare”). If they can gain political points by increasing healthcare costs while more people become uninsured then that's the price they're willing to pay.
On a related note, one of the two specific proposals that the majority in the poll opposed is punishing those that didn't buy insurance. Health insurance is a risk pool. When the low-risk people don't join the pool then the premiums have to rise. If I had to share my health insurance only with people with chronic long-term illnesses then my premiums would rise drastically, and cause me to decide to opt-out, which would in term raise the premiums more and cause more sick people to leave in a vicious cycle. It's not debatable that the more high risk people in an insurance pool the higher the cost of coverage. The debate is how to have a healthy population, and while it is cheaper to only cover healthy people (by denying pre-existing conditions) it's not good enough. The only way to have an affordable comprehensive risk-pool is by covering both the high-risk and the low-risk. And the best way to ensure that both groups join the pool is by imposing a fine on those who choose opt-out in the form of a tax.
It's obvious one can't solve the problem of people being uninsured by simply mandating they become insured or pay a tax. That's why government subsidies are being proposed for those that can't afford it, that's why other proposals are being proposed that bend the cost curve and make it cheaper in the long run.
I once had a professor (an intelligent person, but misinformed in my opinion) roll his eyes and comment that “the founding fathers would roll over in their grave” if they knew about the idea of putting people in jail for not paying their fine. Unfortunately I think this is a result of the GOP claiming skewing the healthcare proposals, and skewing reality. Since the founding of the USA paying taxes hasn't been optional, it's necessary to pay taxes because it's necessary for a government to have money to operate. It's like speeding laws, I'd enjoy being exempt while everyone else has to follow the speed limit, but that's not the way it works. The idea that making people pay taxes is against the wishes of the people who founded the US government is being pushed, but it's untrue.
“Providing for the general welfare” is purposely a vague phrase intended to trust the people governing the country to do the right thing. Setting up a system where all (or almost all) Americans can afford to go the doctor is hardly a revolutionary socialist idea. Setting up a system where 43-47 million Americans are in a position where they don't have the option of going to the doctor is hardly providing for the general welfare, and it's hardly the morally right thing to do.
So why are people in favor of the parts but when the parts are grouped together and labeled “Obama's plan” they dislike it? The only conclusion I can draw is that they are misinformed about what “Obama's plan” really means. Perhaps one can blame this on the Democrats not informing the public well enough, but I believe the problem is the GOP pushing misinformation.
For example, according to their purity test they support “Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare”. By pretending that President Obama is proposing socialized medicine and the GOP is in favor of market-based reform they are lying. Although it is accurate to say that the GOP is opposed to socialized medicine, that's not being proposed. I would like to point out that I support “freedom and oppose GOP-style tyranny and slave labor”.
The Republicans have branded themselves as free market defenders and President Obama as a socialist. Following from that any proposal labeled “Obama's plan” is unpopular, no matter the actual content of the plan. It seems to me that the GOP has staked their future on opposing anything the Democrats offer, and if they offer something reasonable then the response is to pretend it's something else (i.e. “government-run healthcare”). If they can gain political points by increasing healthcare costs while more people become uninsured then that's the price they're willing to pay.
On a related note, one of the two specific proposals that the majority in the poll opposed is punishing those that didn't buy insurance. Health insurance is a risk pool. When the low-risk people don't join the pool then the premiums have to rise. If I had to share my health insurance only with people with chronic long-term illnesses then my premiums would rise drastically, and cause me to decide to opt-out, which would in term raise the premiums more and cause more sick people to leave in a vicious cycle. It's not debatable that the more high risk people in an insurance pool the higher the cost of coverage. The debate is how to have a healthy population, and while it is cheaper to only cover healthy people (by denying pre-existing conditions) it's not good enough. The only way to have an affordable comprehensive risk-pool is by covering both the high-risk and the low-risk. And the best way to ensure that both groups join the pool is by imposing a fine on those who choose opt-out in the form of a tax.
It's obvious one can't solve the problem of people being uninsured by simply mandating they become insured or pay a tax. That's why government subsidies are being proposed for those that can't afford it, that's why other proposals are being proposed that bend the cost curve and make it cheaper in the long run.
I once had a professor (an intelligent person, but misinformed in my opinion) roll his eyes and comment that “the founding fathers would roll over in their grave” if they knew about the idea of putting people in jail for not paying their fine. Unfortunately I think this is a result of the GOP claiming skewing the healthcare proposals, and skewing reality. Since the founding of the USA paying taxes hasn't been optional, it's necessary to pay taxes because it's necessary for a government to have money to operate. It's like speeding laws, I'd enjoy being exempt while everyone else has to follow the speed limit, but that's not the way it works. The idea that making people pay taxes is against the wishes of the people who founded the US government is being pushed, but it's untrue.
“Providing for the general welfare” is purposely a vague phrase intended to trust the people governing the country to do the right thing. Setting up a system where all (or almost all) Americans can afford to go the doctor is hardly a revolutionary socialist idea. Setting up a system where 43-47 million Americans are in a position where they don't have the option of going to the doctor is hardly providing for the general welfare, and it's hardly the morally right thing to do.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Thomas Sowell's latest article
Thomas Sowell is a syndicated writer, and featured regularly in the El Paso Times. He graduated magna cum laude from from Harvard, has a masters from Columbia, and a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He's been a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford for 30 years, written several books, and is by all accounts an extremely intelligent person. But the articles I've seen that he's written are horribly misguided, and the opinions he's written are, in my judgment, completely incorrect.
I read an article he wrote in the EPT this Sunday, you can read it here and judge for yourself whether my criticisms are correct.
He calls overpopulation and global warming “alarms” meant to take away our freedom, alarms that politicians have invented. Yet to believe that, one would have to assume that Science Daily, CNN, New Scientist, National Geographic, The Telegraph, and countless others are all being duped by crass politicians into “believing” overpopulation is a problem, and that Thomas Sowell is immune from their charms and exposing the truth to the rest of us.
Global warming is accepted as fact by most scientists, but for some reason there are some who won't acknowledge it no matter the reality. They never fail to come up with new “evidence” claiming it disproved global warming. The newest supposed evidence being offered that global warming doesn't exist is that it's snowing in New York. Jon Stewart does a better job than I do explaining how ridiculous that argument is here Again, to believe Mr. Sowell's argument one would have to believe that most of the worlds scientists have been duped by short-sighted politicians.
Mr. Sowell refers to “affordable housing” and “universal healthcare” as “the distractions of political magicians”. I would wager that the millions of American citizens that are unable to afford going to the doctor would vehemently disagree that access to a doctor is a distraction.
As far as what role the government should have in providing affordable housing, it's a complicated topic. While I disagree with Mr. Sowell that it's just a cheap political distraction, at least he is consistent with his laissez faire economic philosophy on this point.
Mr. Sowell references “so called health-reform bills” and claims that the bills were rushed through without Congress getting a chance to read the entire bill. The fact that the members of Congress haven't read every word of the two versions of the healthcare bill is factually correct. But members of Congress rarely read every word of any bill, it isn't reasonable or pragmatic to expect that the best use of a Senator's time is to personally read 2,000 page bills written in legalese month after month. To claim that all previous legislation passed by that method was acceptable, but suddenly it's become unpatriotic is disingenuous. Staff exists for the reason that legislators time is a valuable commodity. In addition to that, both versions of the healthcare bill have been up on the internet for quite awhile, including the House version here and the Senate version here. To pretend that healthcare reform (which has been proposed in various forms for at least 40 years and is posted online for anyone worldwide with internet access to read) is somehow being rushed through in secrecy is just plain misleading. I know that Mr. Sowell is aware of all of this, but he is misinterpreting the facts to appeal to those who are inclined to believe that there is a mysterious – yet sinister - plot afoot.
Mr. Sowell claims that “our freedom to make our own medical decisions — on which life and death can depend — was to be quietly taken from us and transferred to our betters in Washington.” Presumably he is referring to the government taking steps to expand healthcare coverage to more US citizens. Unfortunately, his statement mirrors that of the much less respected Sarah Palin and her death panel hysteria. In addition, his statement is factually incorrect. There was never and is not currently any plan under consideration to have politicians make our own medical decisions. That's just not true. Assuming that giving one the choice of going to a doctor (where that choice did not exist previously) doesn't count as a bureaucrat making my personal medical decisions.
Mr. Sowell asserts that the recent Massachusetts election put healthcare reform on hold, and unfortunately it did set it back. But he leaves out the fact Massachusetts has passed healthcare reform that's more progressive than the US healthcare reform proposals, and that Massachusetts historically has relatively balanced political representation.
Mr. Sowell expresses anger that politicians are telling people what their income can and cannot be. First of all, it's important to note that when he chooses to, he will use the word “politician” instead of “government” or “law” for the express reason that railing against politicians is popular, railing against an unfair tax code isn't as exciting. Again, the government does not tell people what their income can or cannot be. There are taxes, but unless one proposes to do away with government completely then one cannot do away with taxes. It's unfortunate, but it's hardly reasonable to malign all politicians because government exists.
Mr. Sowell complains that politicans have branded wealth as obscene, and that they will only be successful as long as we don't think about what they're saying. Then he asks “what is obscene about wealth? Wouldn't we consider it great if every human being had a billion dollars?” and skips down to calling poverty obscene. But it's the skip over that's important, and it's easily missed if one doesn't take his advice to think about what's being said. Because when someone says wealth is obscene, obviously they are referencing the inequality that exists. Wealth only has a meaning because it's relative. Therefore, the inequality of millionaires wearing 10,000 dollar suits stepping over homeless American military veterans dying in the streets can very reasonably be called obscene.
Mr. Sowell says that “the assumption that what A pays B is any business of C is an assumption that means a dangerous power being transferred to politicians to tell us all what incomes we can and cannot receive”. On its face that seems a fair enough statement, but it's fairly simple to imagine many instances in which the payment does concern another party. Some examples of what could legally happen if what Mr. Sowell seems to be proposing (that is, what someone pays for something is only the concern of the party selling and the party buying) is enacted:
Stores announcing that specific genders, or people of a certain race, will be now charged a surtax.
A police officer can demand any fine for a trivial offense, as long as the two parties involved are the government and the individual being fined, there is no reason to involve others.
Raising prices 500% during natural disasters.
Bribing politicians as a matter of course, ushering a new era of corruption.
Standing in line at a coffee shop, and being charged twice as much for the same coffee as the person in front of you.
There are many instances in which I know I want to be charged a “fair” price for a product. That doesn't mean I want the government to go into the restaurant business, but I do want the government to make sure that restaurants can't charge my race an extra fee that makes it impossible for me to eat there because of the color of my skin.
And finishing up his column, Mr. Sowell continues to express his anger at politicians, by referring to “the aptly named White House “czars””. I suppose it's a fitting end to the article, since the people he refers to are not in fact some form of Russian princes, their title is “special adviser to the President”.
Slighting the President by pointing out that he takes advice is an odd approach, but evidently it sounds better when one uses the word “czar”
Almost every part of his article I very strongly disagreed with. Thoughtful disagreement with policy issues is one thing, but simply stirring up emotions without any real basis is something completely different.
In my own opinion, his assertion that resentment is being stirred up to cloak faulty reasoning is a much stronger indictment on the GOP's position as the “party of no” than on healthcare reform.
I read an article he wrote in the EPT this Sunday, you can read it here and judge for yourself whether my criticisms are correct.
He calls overpopulation and global warming “alarms” meant to take away our freedom, alarms that politicians have invented. Yet to believe that, one would have to assume that Science Daily, CNN, New Scientist, National Geographic, The Telegraph, and countless others are all being duped by crass politicians into “believing” overpopulation is a problem, and that Thomas Sowell is immune from their charms and exposing the truth to the rest of us.
Global warming is accepted as fact by most scientists, but for some reason there are some who won't acknowledge it no matter the reality. They never fail to come up with new “evidence” claiming it disproved global warming. The newest supposed evidence being offered that global warming doesn't exist is that it's snowing in New York. Jon Stewart does a better job than I do explaining how ridiculous that argument is here Again, to believe Mr. Sowell's argument one would have to believe that most of the worlds scientists have been duped by short-sighted politicians.
Mr. Sowell refers to “affordable housing” and “universal healthcare” as “the distractions of political magicians”. I would wager that the millions of American citizens that are unable to afford going to the doctor would vehemently disagree that access to a doctor is a distraction.
As far as what role the government should have in providing affordable housing, it's a complicated topic. While I disagree with Mr. Sowell that it's just a cheap political distraction, at least he is consistent with his laissez faire economic philosophy on this point.
Mr. Sowell references “so called health-reform bills” and claims that the bills were rushed through without Congress getting a chance to read the entire bill. The fact that the members of Congress haven't read every word of the two versions of the healthcare bill is factually correct. But members of Congress rarely read every word of any bill, it isn't reasonable or pragmatic to expect that the best use of a Senator's time is to personally read 2,000 page bills written in legalese month after month. To claim that all previous legislation passed by that method was acceptable, but suddenly it's become unpatriotic is disingenuous. Staff exists for the reason that legislators time is a valuable commodity. In addition to that, both versions of the healthcare bill have been up on the internet for quite awhile, including the House version here and the Senate version here. To pretend that healthcare reform (which has been proposed in various forms for at least 40 years and is posted online for anyone worldwide with internet access to read) is somehow being rushed through in secrecy is just plain misleading. I know that Mr. Sowell is aware of all of this, but he is misinterpreting the facts to appeal to those who are inclined to believe that there is a mysterious – yet sinister - plot afoot.
Mr. Sowell claims that “our freedom to make our own medical decisions — on which life and death can depend — was to be quietly taken from us and transferred to our betters in Washington.” Presumably he is referring to the government taking steps to expand healthcare coverage to more US citizens. Unfortunately, his statement mirrors that of the much less respected Sarah Palin and her death panel hysteria. In addition, his statement is factually incorrect. There was never and is not currently any plan under consideration to have politicians make our own medical decisions. That's just not true. Assuming that giving one the choice of going to a doctor (where that choice did not exist previously) doesn't count as a bureaucrat making my personal medical decisions.
Mr. Sowell asserts that the recent Massachusetts election put healthcare reform on hold, and unfortunately it did set it back. But he leaves out the fact Massachusetts has passed healthcare reform that's more progressive than the US healthcare reform proposals, and that Massachusetts historically has relatively balanced political representation.
Mr. Sowell expresses anger that politicians are telling people what their income can and cannot be. First of all, it's important to note that when he chooses to, he will use the word “politician” instead of “government” or “law” for the express reason that railing against politicians is popular, railing against an unfair tax code isn't as exciting. Again, the government does not tell people what their income can or cannot be. There are taxes, but unless one proposes to do away with government completely then one cannot do away with taxes. It's unfortunate, but it's hardly reasonable to malign all politicians because government exists.
Mr. Sowell complains that politicans have branded wealth as obscene, and that they will only be successful as long as we don't think about what they're saying. Then he asks “what is obscene about wealth? Wouldn't we consider it great if every human being had a billion dollars?” and skips down to calling poverty obscene. But it's the skip over that's important, and it's easily missed if one doesn't take his advice to think about what's being said. Because when someone says wealth is obscene, obviously they are referencing the inequality that exists. Wealth only has a meaning because it's relative. Therefore, the inequality of millionaires wearing 10,000 dollar suits stepping over homeless American military veterans dying in the streets can very reasonably be called obscene.
Mr. Sowell says that “the assumption that what A pays B is any business of C is an assumption that means a dangerous power being transferred to politicians to tell us all what incomes we can and cannot receive”. On its face that seems a fair enough statement, but it's fairly simple to imagine many instances in which the payment does concern another party. Some examples of what could legally happen if what Mr. Sowell seems to be proposing (that is, what someone pays for something is only the concern of the party selling and the party buying) is enacted:
Stores announcing that specific genders, or people of a certain race, will be now charged a surtax.
A police officer can demand any fine for a trivial offense, as long as the two parties involved are the government and the individual being fined, there is no reason to involve others.
Raising prices 500% during natural disasters.
Bribing politicians as a matter of course, ushering a new era of corruption.
Standing in line at a coffee shop, and being charged twice as much for the same coffee as the person in front of you.
There are many instances in which I know I want to be charged a “fair” price for a product. That doesn't mean I want the government to go into the restaurant business, but I do want the government to make sure that restaurants can't charge my race an extra fee that makes it impossible for me to eat there because of the color of my skin.
And finishing up his column, Mr. Sowell continues to express his anger at politicians, by referring to “the aptly named White House “czars””. I suppose it's a fitting end to the article, since the people he refers to are not in fact some form of Russian princes, their title is “special adviser to the President”.
Slighting the President by pointing out that he takes advice is an odd approach, but evidently it sounds better when one uses the word “czar”
Almost every part of his article I very strongly disagreed with. Thoughtful disagreement with policy issues is one thing, but simply stirring up emotions without any real basis is something completely different.
In my own opinion, his assertion that resentment is being stirred up to cloak faulty reasoning is a much stronger indictment on the GOP's position as the “party of no” than on healthcare reform.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The free market not paying 100%
According to an article in The Guardian (1), the "World's top firms cause $2.2tn of environmental damage, report estimates". That's 2.2 trillion dollars per year that governments are effectively subsidizing to help out the top 3,000 biggest public companies. The report also notes that if those companies were forced to pay for the costs they're passing onto others it would eliminate about 1/3 of their profits.
The debate over to what extent the government should interfere with the free market is important and legitimate. However, knowing that governments are subsidizing a third of the yearly profit of the world's top 3,000 biggest public companies - so they can pollute cheaper - it's difficult to come to the conclusion that the free market calls for increased subsidies to big businesses.
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage
The debate over to what extent the government should interfere with the free market is important and legitimate. However, knowing that governments are subsidizing a third of the yearly profit of the world's top 3,000 biggest public companies - so they can pollute cheaper - it's difficult to come to the conclusion that the free market calls for increased subsidies to big businesses.
(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/worlds-top-firms-environmental-damage
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why God Wants the Gays and Unmarried to Die
I was reading over a newspaper article recently about a leader of a Christian movement to deny city employees' domestic partners health benefits, and I couldn't help but wonder how some Christian leaders have gotten so far off track.
There are three premises of this movement that I strongly disagree with:
1: The idea that an individual is in a position to come into an adults home and inform them that based on his interpretation of an ancient holy text they are no longer free to choose with whom to have a relationship; his approval is now required.
2: The idea that the best way to "love the sinner and hate the sin" is to deny them healthcare. Denying people access to a doctor if they're having a relationship without a license is ridiculous.
3: The premise that Christianity is best served by letting the sick get sicker, but only as long as they're gay or unmarried domestic partners.
The only "family values" being shown here is letting people you disapprove of die. Oh that's right, they love the people so they promise to pray for their soul while letting their bodies die.
El Paso Times Article: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14401773?IADID
There are three premises of this movement that I strongly disagree with:
1: The idea that an individual is in a position to come into an adults home and inform them that based on his interpretation of an ancient holy text they are no longer free to choose with whom to have a relationship; his approval is now required.
2: The idea that the best way to "love the sinner and hate the sin" is to deny them healthcare. Denying people access to a doctor if they're having a relationship without a license is ridiculous.
3: The premise that Christianity is best served by letting the sick get sicker, but only as long as they're gay or unmarried domestic partners.
The only "family values" being shown here is letting people you disapprove of die. Oh that's right, they love the people so they promise to pray for their soul while letting their bodies die.
El Paso Times Article: http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_14401773?IADID
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
