A few months ago, some people pointed out the hypocrisy of conservatives who criticized Obama for bowing to the Saudi prince, while, around the same time, also criticizing Michelle Obama for breaching protocol by hugging Queen Elizabeth. They can't seem to make up their mind about whether the POTUS is supposed to show respect for all the silly little formalities that people commonly go through when they meet with a monarch or not.
The reason for this seems obvious to me. They don't really care about proper protocol. They just want a reason to find fault with Obama.
The people who really hate him, and think that he hates America, see this as further evidence of his contempt for his own country. They see the bowing as an expression of how he sees non-western governments as superior to western ones.
I personally don't think he should have bowed to anyone. I also don't think people should be so upset about Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Why? Not because I think it shows disrespect for the US, but rather because it looks like pandering to these foreign leaders. He comes off to me as someone who is not trying to show respect, but as someone who is patronizing them. Now, I don't really think that Obama intends to patronize these leaders, but when he tries to behave according to customs he doesn't really seem to understand, he is embarrassing himself AND the leaders to whom he is trying to show respect.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
KSM
Could it be more appropriate to KSM in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court? Perhaps. It is very possible that some of the intelligence that was gathered is sensitive information from sensitive sources that should probably be kept under wraps.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Moderate View of Health Care
As a Canadian, I greatly appreciate that I don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for medical bills. I think it is in everyone's best interest to have a system in which there is a public source of funds for medical treatment, as it is in everyone's best interest that there be publicly funded education. Everyone gains an advantage from living amongst literate people, and everyone should enjoy the advantage of living amongst healthy people.
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
The Evolutionary Double Standard
A common criticism of possible or proposed genetic experiments, especially those involving humans, is that many attempts to improve the human genome may result in error, or that we may fuck it up and end up creating human beings worse off than if we had not altered their genes. But how does evolution happen? What is the "natural" process by which organisms adapt to their environments. Trial and error. The "natural" process is not guided at all. There are countless random mutations in random organisms, most of which make no difference or turn out to be harmful to the organism, and sometimes an organism gets lucky and ends up with a gene that gives it an advantage.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mama T
I just found this great video Christopher Hitchens did about Mother Theresa. Fabulous stuff.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
Obama's Speech
It seemed to me (although others dispute this) that Obama made it pretty clear that he was still going for a public option. Which I think is good news. The only thing that did sound kind of scary is the part about health coverage being mandatory like car insurance. Now, this makes sense if there is a public option. It means more people paying into that program. Without a public option, that could mean trouble.
About the guy who shouted "liar" during the part when Obama said the program would not cover illegals, well, officially it will not cover illegals, so calling Obama a liar is pretty stupid. The trouble is that when applying for the program, some would like more rigorous steps to be taken to identify the immigration status of the applicant. Now, I don't know how easy it would be for an illegal immigrant to sneak through the application process, as it is currently formulated, but I doubt it's just that simple to sign up without showing some kind of citizenship or landed immigrant status. Even if it were that easy, how hard could this possibly be to fix?
About the guy who shouted "liar" during the part when Obama said the program would not cover illegals, well, officially it will not cover illegals, so calling Obama a liar is pretty stupid. The trouble is that when applying for the program, some would like more rigorous steps to be taken to identify the immigration status of the applicant. Now, I don't know how easy it would be for an illegal immigrant to sneak through the application process, as it is currently formulated, but I doubt it's just that simple to sign up without showing some kind of citizenship or landed immigrant status. Even if it were that easy, how hard could this possibly be to fix?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Japanese Election
The Japanese have elected a new party to power for the first time in about 50 years and it looks like the most striking difference is their foreign policy. The New York Times says that the party sees a "need to reorient Japan toward Asia" and that they may even come to terms with Japanese history. A significant obstacle to closer relations with China is Japan's long-standing refusal to make any satisfactory apologies for war crimes committed during their occupation of mainland Asia during WWII. This new party "seeks to reverse Japan’s growing isolation in the region under decades of right-wing Liberal Democratic rule."
Another trend that has stood since the end of the war is Japan's near total reliance on the US for its security. At first this was because the Japanese constitution forbids them to have a military, but after a while the US realized that in order for Japan to be an effective ally, they needed to have some kind of defense forces at least, so that's all they've had (although they were deployed in the Iraq War for a time, pushing the concept of self-defense). This is supposedly a more left wing party, so it's hard to imagine that they would expand their military in order to be more self-reliant, so that may mean they have to get closer to China. The obvious advantage to this is there may be a significant thaw in Sino-Japanese relations. On the downside, this may come at price of further marginalization of Taiwan.
Another trend that has stood since the end of the war is Japan's near total reliance on the US for its security. At first this was because the Japanese constitution forbids them to have a military, but after a while the US realized that in order for Japan to be an effective ally, they needed to have some kind of defense forces at least, so that's all they've had (although they were deployed in the Iraq War for a time, pushing the concept of self-defense). This is supposedly a more left wing party, so it's hard to imagine that they would expand their military in order to be more self-reliant, so that may mean they have to get closer to China. The obvious advantage to this is there may be a significant thaw in Sino-Japanese relations. On the downside, this may come at price of further marginalization of Taiwan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)