Thursday, June 2, 2011
iPad 2 for Human Kidney: Organ Harvesting Gone Amuck?
This is outrageous, if true. Does the Chinese government actually allow this crap or is there no sense that an individual human life has value literally beyond its parts? I am not an altruist, but if people are too stupid -- or shall I say a 17-year old is too stupid -- to understand the consequences of such an outlandish act, then someone with some sense -- maybe this moron's parents or any sane person for that matter, related or not, with an I.Q. over 100 -- should be allowed to intervene. When I hear stuff like this, I think the world has gone crazy and we are just historical milliseconds away from human destruction. What next? People selling corneas to buy wii systems? Selling gall bladders for that really neat and big new HDTV set? Americans may be capitalists but we are pikers compared to this twisted form of "commerical" transaction.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Donald Trump's Narcissism
In dropping his nascent bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Donald Trump proved, yet again, his ego has no bounds.
Instead of acknowledging his drop in the polls after questioning the veracity of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and the short-form birth certificate issued, he tries to spin his withdrawal as reluctance to depart from his love of the private sector. Trump went on to state: "I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election[.]" So after finding himself with his tail between his legs, he makes an even greater mockery of himself.
Instead of acknowledging his drop in the polls after questioning the veracity of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii and the short-form birth certificate issued, he tries to spin his withdrawal as reluctance to depart from his love of the private sector. Trump went on to state: "I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election[.]" So after finding himself with his tail between his legs, he makes an even greater mockery of himself.
CNN's Anti-Israeli Bias
CNN is unable to put any event into context when it concerns Israel. In reporting on a Palestinean protest to mark the formation of the State of Israel, the reporter links Israel's formation to the displacement of 700,000 Palestineans 60 years ago.
The actual fact is that the 700,000 people were not displaced by Israel. They left. They left because Arab countries intended to (and, indeed, did) attack Israel on the very day of its formation, to simultaneously snuff out the Jewish state upon its birth. The Palestineans were encouraged to leave as they were assured by Arab leaders that the Jews would be destroyed and they would able return to their land and homes free of Israel and the Jews. As it happens, Israeli defeated the Arab armies and those who had left in anticipation of Israel's defeat were unable to return to the land they VOLUNTARILY vacated to fulfill their own political agenda.
The actual fact is that the 700,000 people were not displaced by Israel. They left. They left because Arab countries intended to (and, indeed, did) attack Israel on the very day of its formation, to simultaneously snuff out the Jewish state upon its birth. The Palestineans were encouraged to leave as they were assured by Arab leaders that the Jews would be destroyed and they would able return to their land and homes free of Israel and the Jews. As it happens, Israeli defeated the Arab armies and those who had left in anticipation of Israel's defeat were unable to return to the land they VOLUNTARILY vacated to fulfill their own political agenda.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
"Anita"
Hoy de noche, vi una pelicula increíble en el festival de peliculas latinas en Chicago que se llama "Anita" de Argentina. Se trata de una joven con "Down's Syndrome" cuya madre se asesinó en el bombardeo en Buenos Aires del centro de judaísmo en 1994 y los personajes que ella encuentra tras ella misma se perdió en el periodo que sigue el ataque.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Are Liberals Selfish?
The prototypical characterization of a Liberal is usually someone who is more altruistic and cares more about people than a Republican. But is that really true or are Liberals actually far more selfish than Republicans?
Completely contrary to "conventional wisdom", I would argue that those who favor wealth transfers via entitlement programs paid for by increased taxes on only a small percentage of the population and by government borrowings (with a future repayment date) are the truly selfish ones. I say small percentage as the top 20% to 30% of income-earners pay 70% to 80% of the taxes or more while at the same time the bottom 50% of earners pay virtually no income taxes.
With that as backdrop, is it really fair or equitable for the government to fund programs that will only benefit the current generation when subsequent generations will actually have to pay for the cost through higher taxes and repayment of the mounting debt used to fund perennial budget shortfalls? I think the answer is obvious to any fair-minded person. Because such a person would necessarily believe that is would not be fair to use his money to pay for someone's else lifestyle or profligate ways. If this is true with respect to a personal budget, how can it not also be true for the federal government's budget as well?
Take the grandaddies of all entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare. While those programs work quite well for the current recipients, it is undeniable that the present systems is unsustainable. FICA or other taxes will have to be increased as will age limits for eligibility. Services will likely decline as well. But where is the sacrifice of the current beneficiaries, especially those who can afford to pay a higher share of the burden? Nowhere, as no contribution or sacrifice is expected of them, even those of them that can afford to pay part of the cost.
While most beneficiaries will argue that since they paid what was required of them at the time into the system that they should not be required to withstand a cut in benefits, this argument fails to take into account the extended projected life spans and sheer number of prospective workers available to fund the entitlement benefits to current recipients as opposed to what was originally contemplated.
It is not new information to point out that at the time of Social Security's creation, there were approximately sixteen workers paying FICA taxes for each recipient and the projected life span and overall benefits to a retiree were substantially lower. (In other words, it was expected that most people would die before even collecting any benefits.) But this implicit, if not explicit assumptions, upon which Social Security was enacted has never been seriously readjusted even though such assumptions are constantly reexamined for a private pension fund.
And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare is actually being paid by current workers not current recipients. As Medicare costs have risen so has the portion of ordinary income taxed to fund those benefits. It is likely that Medicare funding will continue to rise via the amount and percentage of compensation taxed. That had already become that pattern with Social Security and Medicare within the last decade or so; Indeed, Medicare no longer has any limit on the amount of personal service income taxable to sustain its funding.
There are numerous other examples of government largess being expended today that will effectively have to be paid for in the future. Why does this happen? Principally because the recipients of those programs aren't paying for them out of their pocket but they are stalwart supporters of and voters for politicians who keep handing out the benefits. So, the issue of generational fairness is often trumped by the political expediency of reelection concerns.
For this country to return to a sound economic footing, we must stop incurring debts beyond our ability to pay for them currently. It is an outrage that today's politicians focus solely or almost exclusively on the non-contributing beneficiaries as their constituency as opposed to the people who are paying the bill.
While the needs of a society will always seem to trump its ability to pay for them. The tide has swung so disproportionately in the other direction as to engender alienation and cynicism of the political process to those who resources are forever being drained to fund programs that will either not exist in the future or, if they do, in a much more limited form. And for those politicians, for the most Liberals or Progressives, that wittingly, self-righteously and methodically promote this sort of government sponsorship as being in the "common good", they can only be viewed as selfish to those who will bear the burden of their irresponsible actions of today.
Completely contrary to "conventional wisdom", I would argue that those who favor wealth transfers via entitlement programs paid for by increased taxes on only a small percentage of the population and by government borrowings (with a future repayment date) are the truly selfish ones. I say small percentage as the top 20% to 30% of income-earners pay 70% to 80% of the taxes or more while at the same time the bottom 50% of earners pay virtually no income taxes.
With that as backdrop, is it really fair or equitable for the government to fund programs that will only benefit the current generation when subsequent generations will actually have to pay for the cost through higher taxes and repayment of the mounting debt used to fund perennial budget shortfalls? I think the answer is obvious to any fair-minded person. Because such a person would necessarily believe that is would not be fair to use his money to pay for someone's else lifestyle or profligate ways. If this is true with respect to a personal budget, how can it not also be true for the federal government's budget as well?
Take the grandaddies of all entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare. While those programs work quite well for the current recipients, it is undeniable that the present systems is unsustainable. FICA or other taxes will have to be increased as will age limits for eligibility. Services will likely decline as well. But where is the sacrifice of the current beneficiaries, especially those who can afford to pay a higher share of the burden? Nowhere, as no contribution or sacrifice is expected of them, even those of them that can afford to pay part of the cost.
While most beneficiaries will argue that since they paid what was required of them at the time into the system that they should not be required to withstand a cut in benefits, this argument fails to take into account the extended projected life spans and sheer number of prospective workers available to fund the entitlement benefits to current recipients as opposed to what was originally contemplated.
It is not new information to point out that at the time of Social Security's creation, there were approximately sixteen workers paying FICA taxes for each recipient and the projected life span and overall benefits to a retiree were substantially lower. (In other words, it was expected that most people would die before even collecting any benefits.) But this implicit, if not explicit assumptions, upon which Social Security was enacted has never been seriously readjusted even though such assumptions are constantly reexamined for a private pension fund.
And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare is actually being paid by current workers not current recipients. As Medicare costs have risen so has the portion of ordinary income taxed to fund those benefits. It is likely that Medicare funding will continue to rise via the amount and percentage of compensation taxed. That had already become that pattern with Social Security and Medicare within the last decade or so; Indeed, Medicare no longer has any limit on the amount of personal service income taxable to sustain its funding.
There are numerous other examples of government largess being expended today that will effectively have to be paid for in the future. Why does this happen? Principally because the recipients of those programs aren't paying for them out of their pocket but they are stalwart supporters of and voters for politicians who keep handing out the benefits. So, the issue of generational fairness is often trumped by the political expediency of reelection concerns.
For this country to return to a sound economic footing, we must stop incurring debts beyond our ability to pay for them currently. It is an outrage that today's politicians focus solely or almost exclusively on the non-contributing beneficiaries as their constituency as opposed to the people who are paying the bill.
While the needs of a society will always seem to trump its ability to pay for them. The tide has swung so disproportionately in the other direction as to engender alienation and cynicism of the political process to those who resources are forever being drained to fund programs that will either not exist in the future or, if they do, in a much more limited form. And for those politicians, for the most Liberals or Progressives, that wittingly, self-righteously and methodically promote this sort of government sponsorship as being in the "common good", they can only be viewed as selfish to those who will bear the burden of their irresponsible actions of today.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Liberals and the "It's About Time" Attitude
Something occurred to me tonight as I watched the end of the Academy Awards broadcast. Barbra Streisand while announcing the "Best Director" award to a woman said: "It's about time!" I thought: It's about time that a woman won the award for Best Director because she was a woman? My question was only prompted by her need to qualify the woman's achievement or to frame it in a sexist construct. Otherwise, I frankly wouldn't have thought about it.
This "It's about time" mentality is the same mentality that was frequently cited by Liberals when Barack Obama was running for President for his election -- It's about time that an African-American was elected President of the United States -- as if that were a reason or argument. It's the same mentality that has been used by Liberals in politics and in the workforce and in education for a long time to justify an action that, perhaps, on its own merits may not stand up to scrutiny.
I am not suggesting that the selection of a woman as Best Director or that Barack Obama's election as President was based on their diversity rather than her or his qualifications. Quite to the contrary. Rather, I think it is sort of an insult to preface someone's achievements with the qualifier "It's about time" if it is said as "code" for "entitlement", rather than an acknowledgment of something that strictly from a historical perspective took a long time to happen. Sadly, the former is often how it is used principally.
While that phraseology may have been more appropriate when there was blatant racism or sexism in corporate America or education institutions or where there were prohibitions, carved into the law and custom, against the hiring or acceptance of blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, etc. because of that very status, it is quite another thing to continually lament even after the election of the first black to the presidency and the vast numbers of women and blacks and Asians, for example, in senior positions in corporations and in a wide array of industries, and as doctors and lawyers and other professions, that "It's about time."
"It's about time" signifies just the opposite of when someone, anyone, regardless of race, creed or religion, is qualified or has earned a distinction separate and apart for one's diversity identifier. It lessens the achievements of those whose identifier is completely irrelevant to their success, baggage which suggests that "but for that identifier" the person wouldn't be where he is today.
It is not surprising that Streisand would make such a comment. She is a classic limousine liberal who almost expects the audience to cheer when she ignorantly uses the expression "It's about time" almost as a compliment. It is no such thing. It is, in fact, the perpetuation of a stereotype that over the years has continually abated, in law and costom and general human interaction, and will continue to abate. It is a non-issue for the majority of Americans lest 53% of them would not have voted for Barack Obama.
There is also a danger of making any argument when one's perspective is in a significant way guided by the "It's about time" mentality. Such an individual is looking to use diversity as a qualifying characteristic.
Should a woman or a black or a black women or a Muslim or whomever (who is not a while male) get a job, award or special consideration because of that fact alone? In the world of Liberal politics and policies the answer still appears to be "yes" for the Steisands of the world. These types of people are truly dangerous once "merit" becomes less important or no more important than all other color-blind characteristics of a person.
This "It's about time" mentality is the same mentality that was frequently cited by Liberals when Barack Obama was running for President for his election -- It's about time that an African-American was elected President of the United States -- as if that were a reason or argument. It's the same mentality that has been used by Liberals in politics and in the workforce and in education for a long time to justify an action that, perhaps, on its own merits may not stand up to scrutiny.
I am not suggesting that the selection of a woman as Best Director or that Barack Obama's election as President was based on their diversity rather than her or his qualifications. Quite to the contrary. Rather, I think it is sort of an insult to preface someone's achievements with the qualifier "It's about time" if it is said as "code" for "entitlement", rather than an acknowledgment of something that strictly from a historical perspective took a long time to happen. Sadly, the former is often how it is used principally.
While that phraseology may have been more appropriate when there was blatant racism or sexism in corporate America or education institutions or where there were prohibitions, carved into the law and custom, against the hiring or acceptance of blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, etc. because of that very status, it is quite another thing to continually lament even after the election of the first black to the presidency and the vast numbers of women and blacks and Asians, for example, in senior positions in corporations and in a wide array of industries, and as doctors and lawyers and other professions, that "It's about time."
"It's about time" signifies just the opposite of when someone, anyone, regardless of race, creed or religion, is qualified or has earned a distinction separate and apart for one's diversity identifier. It lessens the achievements of those whose identifier is completely irrelevant to their success, baggage which suggests that "but for that identifier" the person wouldn't be where he is today.
It is not surprising that Streisand would make such a comment. She is a classic limousine liberal who almost expects the audience to cheer when she ignorantly uses the expression "It's about time" almost as a compliment. It is no such thing. It is, in fact, the perpetuation of a stereotype that over the years has continually abated, in law and costom and general human interaction, and will continue to abate. It is a non-issue for the majority of Americans lest 53% of them would not have voted for Barack Obama.
There is also a danger of making any argument when one's perspective is in a significant way guided by the "It's about time" mentality. Such an individual is looking to use diversity as a qualifying characteristic.
Should a woman or a black or a black women or a Muslim or whomever (who is not a while male) get a job, award or special consideration because of that fact alone? In the world of Liberal politics and policies the answer still appears to be "yes" for the Steisands of the world. These types of people are truly dangerous once "merit" becomes less important or no more important than all other color-blind characteristics of a person.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Real Cost of Progressivism
Students -- Wake up! You are not immune from the travails of the U.S. economy or the policies of the government. If you're angry about budget cuts to public education, wait until you see what happens with Medicare and Social Security. By the time you are eligible for these programs, they will either be bankrupt or a shadow of their current selves.
There are consequences to the progressive agenda. And it's about time you started learning about them. Progressivism is just a euphemism for "creeping socialism", for greater government involvement in the economic affairs of this country as well as many of its social benefits such as education, healthcare, social security, unemployment compensation, welfare and food stamps. All of these "entitlements" cost money. They have to be paid for either from tax receipts or borrowings.
Taxes should be designed to pay the current costs of operating the government. Borrowings should only be used to fund long-term benefits lasting beyond one tax year. In that way, the cost of the benefit will be spread over its useful life and the taxpayers of today and in the future will all contribute because all of them benefit.
What is going on in the current economic crisis is that costs continue to be incurred that can't be paid from current income (i.e., tax receipts). So, instead of deferring or cutting non-essential expenses, the government continues to borrow more money from foreign sources knowing full well that the current generation is not going to have to repay the bill and associated interest. That cost will be borne by future generations who received no benefit from such cost and will ultimately bankrupt this country once the interest on the national debt makes it impossible to continue borrowing or fund current governmental expenses.
So, dear students, remember that if you are inclined to fight against cuts to education which directly affect you now, you should be equally inclined to do so against those programs and expenditures that you will be forced to pay for in the future without any benefit to you. That is the consequence of progressivism in a nutshell.
There are consequences to the progressive agenda. And it's about time you started learning about them. Progressivism is just a euphemism for "creeping socialism", for greater government involvement in the economic affairs of this country as well as many of its social benefits such as education, healthcare, social security, unemployment compensation, welfare and food stamps. All of these "entitlements" cost money. They have to be paid for either from tax receipts or borrowings.
Taxes should be designed to pay the current costs of operating the government. Borrowings should only be used to fund long-term benefits lasting beyond one tax year. In that way, the cost of the benefit will be spread over its useful life and the taxpayers of today and in the future will all contribute because all of them benefit.
What is going on in the current economic crisis is that costs continue to be incurred that can't be paid from current income (i.e., tax receipts). So, instead of deferring or cutting non-essential expenses, the government continues to borrow more money from foreign sources knowing full well that the current generation is not going to have to repay the bill and associated interest. That cost will be borne by future generations who received no benefit from such cost and will ultimately bankrupt this country once the interest on the national debt makes it impossible to continue borrowing or fund current governmental expenses.
So, dear students, remember that if you are inclined to fight against cuts to education which directly affect you now, you should be equally inclined to do so against those programs and expenditures that you will be forced to pay for in the future without any benefit to you. That is the consequence of progressivism in a nutshell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)