Must Reads:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23scotus.html?ref=global-home
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203621.html?hpid=topnews
The Court has before it an opportunity to fulfill the beautiful reasoning of the school desegregation cases that began with Brown v. Board. In Brown the Court rightly asserted that the use of race as a "proxy" or "variable" in decision making is inherently inappropriate. The Court explained that race is a lazy proxy because race has no logical connection to any meaningful differences between individuals (other than a different type of skin pigment), and accordingly race has no legitimate place in distinguishing between people. Any time someone attempts to use race to distinguish between people, there is always a better variable to use which gets at the desired effect more directly. For example, giving out social benefits (i.e. welfare, or school admissions, or promotions) based on race will always end up giving benefits to people who do not actually merit social aid. In other words, some minorities are better off than others (compare President Obama to his poor Aunt in NJ awaiting deportation) and giving social benefits to these well off minorities makes no sense. It's not the goal of the social spending to help the well off. So, a better proxy to use in doling out social benefits is, say, wealth or income. Groundbreaking isn't it? It sounds basic when laid out like that, but many people miss this nuance in our law.
Accordingly, the Court in Brown v. Board held that desegregation (and subsequently, affirmative action schemes) were only permissible as temporary tools to be used to remove the "vestiges of the old system." In other words, the government could temporarily use race as a proxy in order to correct the racial make-up of schools and social programs which were created during years of segregation and racism. This use of race in fixing the de facto segregation that existed in this country in the 70's and 80's (and yes even arguably still today in some places) was always intended to be rolled back and eventually stopped in favor of the basic rule that race is always illegitimate as a proxy. The Court now has a great chance to fulfill this mandate. Lets hope they do, because only when race is truly not used in making decisions about our people (either to promote of hinder a person) will racism truly be eradicated in this country.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Concerns about human rights and torture?
Anyone else find it a bit odd that the Whitehouse and most Congressional dems are fired up about the possibility of investigating the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation tactics while that same crowd applauds overtures to known oppressors like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Just a thought . . . http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/04/23/2009-04-23_pelosi_ups_pressure_for_truth_panel_on_torture.html
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Saw this one comming...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802235514741871.html
Obama keeps saying he's going to cut the deficit in half over the next three years. This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements ever made by an american politician. "Last fiscal year, the deficit was $459 billion. For this fiscal year, it was $569 billion when Mr. Obama took office. Under his proposals, another $1.276 trillion will be added to the deficit this year, for a total of $1.845 trillion. The CBO says deficits will fall for three years to $658 billion, still nearly 50% larger than any past deficit."So he's going to cut the deficit in half over three years after he more than doubles it this year. Even after he "cuts the deficit in half" the deficit will be larger than it has ever been in US history! Then, the deficit will expand dramatically over the next 10 years because of new entitlement spending he's proposing. Some of us saw this comming... it's time for the rest of you to wake up!
Obama keeps saying he's going to cut the deficit in half over the next three years. This is one of the most intellectually dishonest statements ever made by an american politician. "Last fiscal year, the deficit was $459 billion. For this fiscal year, it was $569 billion when Mr. Obama took office. Under his proposals, another $1.276 trillion will be added to the deficit this year, for a total of $1.845 trillion. The CBO says deficits will fall for three years to $658 billion, still nearly 50% larger than any past deficit."So he's going to cut the deficit in half over three years after he more than doubles it this year. Even after he "cuts the deficit in half" the deficit will be larger than it has ever been in US history! Then, the deficit will expand dramatically over the next 10 years because of new entitlement spending he's proposing. Some of us saw this comming... it's time for the rest of you to wake up!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Obama planning to force Wounded Soldiers (and their private insurance providers) to pay for medical treatment.
I know. My jaw dropped when I red it too. Somehow, the Obama White House does something everyday to top the incredulity of the day before. Read the story from Yahoo News here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment
Obama is essentially creating a house of cards (exactly like the one which fell and left us in a financial mess). He is pushing off every federal obligation which does not fit into his agenda of reshaping the nature of the American political system, so that he can pretend that we can afford his unprecedented spending. If you think Bernie Madoff is a crook for setting up a $65 billion ponzi scheme (if you don't know what a ponzi scheme is, Wikipedia can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme ), take a look at the + $10 trillion ponzi scheme that is the Obama Budget. Paying for current "benefits" with the money of future generations is simply unsustainable.
At any rate, Obama's move to hold soldiers and their private insurance liable for the cost of treating their wounds received in service to our country will be a disaster for our wounded warriors. First, how is this at all morally justifiable? We send the soldiers into battle (similar to a private business putting workers on the ground) and then tell a private entity that they have to pay the costs? Second, Anyone want to guess what's now going to happen to the cost of an insurance policy for a serviceman or woman? Yep, this is only going to increase their costs because the insurance companies know that now they are going to be on the hook for treating our veterans. Third, this is really a brash taking of private property without due process of law! (something Obama is clearly comfortable with) The insurance companies who are now going to have to pay for these treatments will have to do so initially under policies that were priced without considering the possibility of covering these costs. The hits just keep coming!
Obama is essentially creating a house of cards (exactly like the one which fell and left us in a financial mess). He is pushing off every federal obligation which does not fit into his agenda of reshaping the nature of the American political system, so that he can pretend that we can afford his unprecedented spending. If you think Bernie Madoff is a crook for setting up a $65 billion ponzi scheme (if you don't know what a ponzi scheme is, Wikipedia can help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme ), take a look at the + $10 trillion ponzi scheme that is the Obama Budget. Paying for current "benefits" with the money of future generations is simply unsustainable.
At any rate, Obama's move to hold soldiers and their private insurance liable for the cost of treating their wounds received in service to our country will be a disaster for our wounded warriors. First, how is this at all morally justifiable? We send the soldiers into battle (similar to a private business putting workers on the ground) and then tell a private entity that they have to pay the costs? Second, Anyone want to guess what's now going to happen to the cost of an insurance policy for a serviceman or woman? Yep, this is only going to increase their costs because the insurance companies know that now they are going to be on the hook for treating our veterans. Third, this is really a brash taking of private property without due process of law! (something Obama is clearly comfortable with) The insurance companies who are now going to have to pay for these treatments will have to do so initially under policies that were priced without considering the possibility of covering these costs. The hits just keep coming!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Negotiating with the Taliban...
President Obama recently floated the idea of "trying to negotiate with the moderate elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan." The idea is so asinine that I would have thought it was just another mis-step due to "lack of sleep" (like Obama's absolutely thoughtless gift to British P.M. Gordon Brown), but then Joe Biden went to Belgium to speak "at" a bunch of NATO officials ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11/biden-us-likely-to-try-to-negotiate-with-taliban/ )and suggested that the administration is seriously considering this strategy. The Vice President actually started parsing numbers with us:
"Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25 percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, [of] the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency. . . And roughly 70 percent are involved because of the money, because of them being . . . paid."
Unbelievable. When people start parsing numbers like this, it sure sounds like they're reaching... or making it up entirely. I mean, on what evidence does Joe base his "view" that 25 percent of the Taliban is "not quite sure" if they want to kill anyone who opposes their extremest Islamic beliefs? Did the new administration poll the Taliban? Laugh now, but perhaps this is why the White House took control of the census. Maybe they want the Census folks to start polling our enemies to see if they still hate us now that the immaculate messiah has descended upon the American presidency. Anything's possible with this bunch...
Now, all jokes aside, here's why this idea is just plain dumb: There is no such thing as a "moderate Taliban member." The Taliban, by definition, is a radical group with a well defined (and ages old) religious doctrine which guides their decision-making. Only the "audacious" [read: arrogant] Obama would think that these historically grounded and religiously motivated militants would just lay down their weapons at his immaculate feet. (I mean, he is the messiah after all).
In short, the Taliban wants to impose shari'a law on all people within its control, kill anyone who listens to music, enjoys art, or any other "secular" indulgence, "honor kill" rape victims, murder anyone with an independent thought, and use their territory to train suicide bombers to terrorize the rest of the planet. Which one of those demands do you think Obama believes we may be able to compromise on? The answer, of course, is none of them. This is the key problem with negotiating with religiously motivated groups. Their demands are so extreme, i.e. nothing short of the total destruction of the secular world, that it is impossible to negotiate with them. This is why, in the academic study of terrorism and violence, we separate the politically motivated from the religiously motivated. Concessions can often be made to political groups which can lead to sustainable middle ground between the parties. The Taliban, however, is not one of these groups and negotiations will never be possible with them. Obama, however, seems to have taken a page from Jimmy Carter in thinking that "If we'd just take the time to sit down and understand these people," they'd love us as much as we want them to.
"Five percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25 percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, [of] the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency. . . And roughly 70 percent are involved because of the money, because of them being . . . paid."
Unbelievable. When people start parsing numbers like this, it sure sounds like they're reaching... or making it up entirely. I mean, on what evidence does Joe base his "view" that 25 percent of the Taliban is "not quite sure" if they want to kill anyone who opposes their extremest Islamic beliefs? Did the new administration poll the Taliban? Laugh now, but perhaps this is why the White House took control of the census. Maybe they want the Census folks to start polling our enemies to see if they still hate us now that the immaculate messiah has descended upon the American presidency. Anything's possible with this bunch...
Now, all jokes aside, here's why this idea is just plain dumb: There is no such thing as a "moderate Taliban member." The Taliban, by definition, is a radical group with a well defined (and ages old) religious doctrine which guides their decision-making. Only the "audacious" [read: arrogant] Obama would think that these historically grounded and religiously motivated militants would just lay down their weapons at his immaculate feet. (I mean, he is the messiah after all).
In short, the Taliban wants to impose shari'a law on all people within its control, kill anyone who listens to music, enjoys art, or any other "secular" indulgence, "honor kill" rape victims, murder anyone with an independent thought, and use their territory to train suicide bombers to terrorize the rest of the planet. Which one of those demands do you think Obama believes we may be able to compromise on? The answer, of course, is none of them. This is the key problem with negotiating with religiously motivated groups. Their demands are so extreme, i.e. nothing short of the total destruction of the secular world, that it is impossible to negotiate with them. This is why, in the academic study of terrorism and violence, we separate the politically motivated from the religiously motivated. Concessions can often be made to political groups which can lead to sustainable middle ground between the parties. The Taliban, however, is not one of these groups and negotiations will never be possible with them. Obama, however, seems to have taken a page from Jimmy Carter in thinking that "If we'd just take the time to sit down and understand these people," they'd love us as much as we want them to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)