Medicine and Politics

            Both Republicans and Democrats are in trouble over medical issues in the upcoming Presidential circus.  It's amusing because if they just used a bit of common sense both parties could avoid the problem.  Let's take a look at the Republican problem first. 

            At some point between the twinkle in the eye of a teenager and the following twenty or so years an impulse becomes a person.  The issue is when does that happen?  I favor when they turn 21, but I suppose that isn't a popular position.  Realistically, no one knows at what point a person becomes a person.  Could it be when the sperm first fertilizes the egg?  There are some people who take that position.  Could it be even earlier?  I don't see why you can't make that argument.  To some people it happens when the baby departs the mother into the world.  If this was a logic problem, or even a legal problem I would be happy to debate it.  Unfortunately I don't believe it is either of those.  It is a medical or moral problem.  The government has proven amazingly inept at making decisions in either of those arenas.  In spite of that, the Republican party insists on deciding for us at what point a fetus becomes a person.  So long as they hold to that position it will cost them many votes - especially among women. 

            The Democrats on the other hand have a different kind of medical issue.  A few years ago they went the time honored political route of creating a problem so they could get credit for solving it.  The problem they decided on was that there were people who didn't have medical insurance.  Come to think of it, there are people who don't have life insurance either, maybe they will tackle that one next - but I digress.  Their approach to making everyone buy insurance was to create a government program where the government would actually pay about 95% of the insurance premiums.  Then they came up with this nonsense that rates couldn't be based on risks, everyone had to be charged the same thing whether they were in perfect health or on the waiting list for a heart transplant.  They made their program - laughingly called "Affordable Health Care act" - so expensive to the businesses that had previously provided health care for their employees that the businesses dropped the coverage in wholesale lots.  Then the states expanded their free medical care programs and the Democrats considered these new poor people as newly insured thus allowing them to claim that more people actually had insurance than before.  The problem with the whole program is that the public is slow to react, but they do react eventually and they are no longer buying this silliness. 

            So, when it all sorts out, I suspect that whichever party manages to deal best with their medical issue will wind up the big winner in 2016.  What do you think?

The Cowards kill again

What are they thinking?  I find that the best way to understand people, particularly enemies is to examine their motivations.  The reasons for their actions often have little in common with their claimed motivation.  I see that the muslim terrorists have just murdered another person on video for the entertainment of the world.  They committed this crime in as hideous a manner as they could manage, and of course they kept their faces covered in hopes of avoiding  prosecution I would assume. 

            Everyone I know is outraged by this heinous crime, but I can't see how that would be their aim in committing it.  How would this benefit them in any way?  I feel pretty sure that the entire civilized world shares this outrage so the only people who they could be playing to is the middle east.  At least it appears that way to me. 

            To look at this crime in context we have to consider the area situation at the time.  The US is trying to remove its presence from the area as quickly as possible.  Crimes like this as well as attacks on other peaceful communities in the area make it very difficult politically for the Obama administration to carry through with it's plan to remove American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.  Applying  Mr. Occam's logic it must be that the terrorists don't want the US to leave the area. 

            Hmmm, who is profiting from the US maintaining a presence in the middle east?  A famous saying goes something like; "Follow the money".  (Or is that "cherchez la femme? )  The former seems more applicable.  It would appear to me that the groups that actually benefit from continued American presents are the arms suppliers and the private security organizations that supply mercenaries in the middle east.  Of course you could also make a case for the Republicans trying to keep up the involvement to make Obama and company look bad.  Or you could make a case for the Democrats being behind it to provide an excuse for staying in the middle east.  The problem with either of those last two scenarios is that I don't think either party wants to stay in the middle east.  It just occurred to me that I missed an obvious group - the press.  It is the press who appears to profit the most from the continued unrest.

            So what is the aim of the terrorists?  Clearly they don't want the US to leave the area, but what do they gain by that?  I really don't know - do you?

What is racism and when did it become a crime?

                     

            What exactly are we fighting for?  There's this old guy (even older than me) by the name of Sterling who apparently has earned a lot of money over the years.  He's got a thing going with a MUCH younger lady of African extraction as I understand it.  Anyway, if I understand this right, he told her he didn't want her posing for photos with some black athletes that he had a problem with (I believe it was a former basketball player) and also that he didn't want her bringing some black people to ballgames.  As I understand it he told her these things in what he believed to be privacy.  Anyway, somehow the press got hold of these statements and branded Mr. Sterling as a rascist.  Now I don't think anyone knows exactly what this means (and I know I don't) but apparently it has become a crime in this country. 

            Now we need to look closely at this.  We have reached a point where a person can be fined millions of dollars for what he apparently believes.  I don't care what the belief is, I was under the impression that a man could hold any opinion or belief he wanted in this country of ours.  I'm pretty sure I killed a few people to protect this right.  Now the first amendment has been deemed to protect all kinds of nonsense like flag burnings and picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers but it's illegal to hold "racist" view?  Don't create a phoney misunderstanding here, I'm not defending Mr. Sterling's views.  In fact, his views - whatever they may be - don't require defending any more than anyone else's.  My point is simply that when it's no longer safe to express our views we have already lost the basis this country was formed on.  

A soldier died today

I don't know who wrote this poem, I received it in email but I thought it ought to be available for everyone to read.
 

He was getting old and paunchy And his hair was falling fast, And he sat around the Legion, Telling stories of the past. Of a war that he once fought in And the deeds that he had done, In his exploits with his buddies; They were heroes, every one. And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors His tales became a joke, All his buddies listened quietly For they knew where of he spoke. But we'll hear his tales no longer, For ol' Joe has passed away, And the world's a little poorer For a Soldier died today. He won't be mourned by many, Just his children and his wife. For he lived an ordinary, Very quiet sort of life. He held a job and raised a family, Going quietly on his way; And the world won't note his passing, 'Tho a Soldier died today. When politicians leave this earth, Their bodies lie in state, While thousands note their passing, And proclaim that they were great. Papers tell of their life stories From the time that they were young But the passing of a Soldier Goes unnoticed, and unsung. Is the greatest contribution To the welfare of our land, Some jerk who breaks his promise And cons his fellow man? Or the ordinary fellow Who in times of war and strife, Goes off to serve his country And offers up his life? The politician's stipend And the style in which he lives, Are often disproportionate, To the service that he gives. While the ordinary Soldier, Who offered up his all, Is paid off with a medal And perhaps a pension, small. It is not the politicians With their compromise and ploys, Who won for us the freedom That our country now enjoys. Should you find yourself in danger, With your enemies at hand, Would you really want some cop-out, With his ever waffling stand? Or would you want a Soldier His home, his country, his kin, Just a common Soldier, Who would fight until the end. He was just a common Soldier, And his ranks are growing thin, But his presence should remind us We may need his likes again. For when countries are in conflict, We find the Soldier's part Is to clean up all the troubles That the politicians start. If we cannot do him honor While he's here to hear the praise, Then at least let's give him homage At the ending of his days. Perhaps just a simple headline In the paper that might say: "OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

 

 

 

 

 

The Moslem Problem

I am musing today on the Moslem problem.  What exactly is this problem?  That's the first thing to decide.  Well, the problem is that Moslems believe that not only is killing people indiscriminately okay, it is in fact a good thing.  (You can argue that all Moslems don't believe that and you'd be right but so long as thousands of them do believe it the rest don't really matter)  Now I'm assuming that the terrorists truly believe that they are doing a good thing and that is the root of the problem. 

            In considering this subject we have to think about the unpleasant subject of killing in general.  Let's simplify it and call it murder.  If we come upon a person in the act of murdering another person we conservatives would favor murdering the perpetrator.  By that direct act we are preventing another worse act.  At least we see it that way.  It gets a little more complicated if we don't actually see the whole crime being committed.  Let's consider another possibility.  We come upon a person raping another person.  At my age the only way I can really stop it is to kill the rapist.  Is that truly the moral and correct thing to do?   Most of us wouldn't hesitate if the victim was friend or family, but it might not be so clear cut in other cases. 

            How about a death sentence handed down by a court of law?  Personally I have always favored execution as a preventative measure rather than a punishment.  Nearly all violent criminals continue to commit violent crimes - especially those that have been jailed for some period.  It also doesn't make any sense to support a person in jail for 50 years who cannot be released into society.  But, do we really have the RIGHT to murder a person when they are not in the act of committing a heinous crime?  Hmmm

            So the one time that we have a clear cut right and obligation to kill is on the battlefield, right?  The soldier in uniform is acting to protect his home and country and has a definite right to kill the enemy (and perhaps some collateral damage?) when so ordered by his superiors.  Hmmm, that doesn't seem exactly correct somehow.  In the modern world the order comes down like "drop a bomb or missile on a particular house in a particular village where an enemy is hiding."  So the soldier executes those orders as given and perhaps we kill an enemy and perhaps we kill some folks who are not enemies.  Let's see now, those orders are made by superior officers up to and including the commander in chief after they consider the totally accurate intelligence gathered by the moral folks in the field.  And those stone age Muslims hate us because they say WE kill indiscriminately.  Really makes you think, doesn't it?

 

Disclaimer:  I don't intend to draw any conclusion from the above, I only believe it warrants careful consideration by thinking Americans.  I certainly hope someone will point out the error of my musing above because I don't like the direction it takes me. 

Stop the Spending Cuts!!!

Stop the Spending Cuts!!!  That's what I'm hearing from AARP.  If you've forgotten, many months ago Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling in return for an agreement to cut spending.  That cut never happened.  Now we are up against the debt limit again and AARP is screaming at us that we must just raise the limit again and keep on spending.  Apparently there is no end to this.  We just keep borrowing forever.  Hmmmm, that sounds like something you would go to jail for if you were a business.  Can you say "Ponzi Scheme?"   

            I don't claim to be an economic expert but I have the strong feeling that the folks making these decisions are no better qualified than I am.  It seems pretty obvious to me that we can't just keep on spending, especially when we have a dwindling income due to tax cuts.  It seems just as obvious that all spending isn't created equal.  We owe certain legitimate debts that must be paid.  These include social security payments and government retirement pensions that have been bought and paid for by the recipients.  They include legitimate debts secured by bonds, both domestic and foreign. 

            They DO NOT include the handouts that have been created during times of surplus by politicians buying votes.  The average citizen is collecting free money from the government for things that make absolutely no sense.  For instance, we pay $1000 a year for each child that a family (or person) has.  We give out billions of dollars in Earned Income Credit each year.  (That's what used to be called welfare)  We have turned unemployment compensation into a permanent income destroying any incentive to take a job. 

            So where is the solution to this problem?  Well, it's really pretty simple.  We have to cut spending AND raise taxes.  This isn't difficult math, we all know it's true.  The reason everyone is opposed to raising taxes is the government is wasting our money already.  We don't want them to waste more of it.  That's why we MUST have real cuts in spending at the same time. 

            One of the first things the government should get out of is Ethanol.  What a crock!  I was in Kansas last week where they grow all that corn and found that most stations there carried ethanol free gas.  It was generally at a price comparable to the alcohol diluted stuff and a LOT cheaper than we pay here on the east coast.  I bought mid grade ethanol free gas for $3.19 a gallon last week.  My local station sells it for $4.09.  What has the ethanol thing accomplished?  Well, it has destroyed lots of gas operated tools such as lawn mowers.  It has raised the price of beef substantially.  And SOMEBODY has gotten rich off of it.

            We are on the way to an economic boom within the next few years.  It will be easy to sit back and say that the economy will take care of itself with the new income from oil and natural gas.  That attitude is how we got to this position in the first place.    

            But to return to my original point, we MUST stand our ground somewhere and force this administration to make spending cuts.  If there is no way other than closing the government, then close the government.  Hmmm, I wonder how much we save every day the government is closed?

So what is "Middle Income?"

With both parties talking about tax cuts for middle income taxpayers I thought they were talking about me.  Perhaps you did too.  I took a look at the definitions and was amazed to discover that "middle income" is very close to $50,000 annual HOUSEHOLD income. 

            Now it appears to me that Obama wants to increase taxes on the "rich" taxpayers (that's you and me) and cut taxes on the "middle income" taxpayers.  Romney wants to keep taxes at the same rate on "rich" taxpayers and cut taxes on "Middle income" taxpayers.  Now this is a major issue so I wanted to know what it meant in the real world.  How much income tax is the "middle income" taxpayer paying now?  That's the real surprise - nothing at all!  Here's how it works:  Assume you are a married taxpayer with three children and you earned $50k in 2011.  If you are married filing jointly you subtract $11,600 from your income for standard deduction assuming you have no mortgage or other deductions available.  That leaves $38,400 to pay taxes on.  Then you subtract $3700 for each person in the household, 5 in our case or a total of $18,500.  That leaves $19,900 to pay tax on.  Using the 2011 tables we pay 10% of the first $17000 or $1700 tax.  Then we pay 15% on the remaining $2900 or $435 for a total tax liability of  $2135.  Theoretically we have paid some withholding tax during the year so we don't actually owe any more, but wait.  You get Child Tax Credit of $1000 for each child you have  under 17 so that's $3000 free money from the government.  Now instead of owing $2135 taxes you get $865 in free money. 

            Notice we haven't mentioned Earned Income Credit.  Our hypothetical "taxpayer" made  $922 too much to qualify.  If he had managed to get laid off the last month of the year he would have probably wound up with more net income to spend because of the additional free money from the government. 

            Just to be fair, if the above case only had two children and no additional dependents or deductions he could owe up to $690 income tax that I suppose we could cut.  In other words, we are paying people who can't afford it to have children, in this case $1555 for the third child EVERY YEAR.  Over the 17 years of eligibility a child is worth $26435 in direct government subsidies.

            Median income is now $50,054.  Half of American households make less than that and half make more.  The top 10% of US households make $143,611 or more.  The top 5% make $186000 or more.  Now do you understand what they mean by "middle income?"  I'm sure I don't.