chimerical reactions
If the Terri Schiavo imbroglio did nothing else it should at least convince people that bioethics is not so abstract and distant after all. While the subject is deservedly associated with academic ivory towers, it is still amazing to me how little concern there is over the looming ethical train-wreck. From experience, I know with certainty that mentioning bioethics is the surest way to drive a house (or blog) guest to call it an early night.
I suppose that I must hazard that risk one more time.
This is a hazard worth bearing because science is moving us very far and very fast. If you are a regular reader and followed the links in my post entitled i, heretic, you probably already have an inkling of the profound issues being raised by current and imminent biological research. If you have not personally delved into bioethics or the very latest on what is happening in biology, you owe it to your kids to do so now.
Science fiction stories have nothing on the current experimental projects that can be found on our nation’s lab benches.
If you doubt the urgency of my plea, here is a short AP news story that might get your attention. While it is a continuing challenge to write about this stuff without striking a hyperbolic tone, frankly, if you can pass over the patent application for a humanzee with a wave of your hand, perhaps you have spent a bit too much time Tivoing sitcoms.
Though it may be offensive to our mass media induced instinct to classify and simply, some problems just will not succumb to that effort. I wish I could tell you that I can offer an easy solution to these pressing issues.
I certainly think that the definition of life that I have previously offered rooting humanness and life in the human genome is a starting place, but surely no more than that. Even if we have a sudden infusion of caution and prudence in such matters and pause this kind of research until our ethics, law and society catch up, there will still be those creations that get made by those unscrupulous souls that will inevitably place themselves above or beyond the law.
It would be comforting if I believed that our legal system is fundamentally robust and able to adapt easily to new developments. But the inadequacy of our law to deal with the issues was profoundly demonstrated by the fact that the humanzee patent application was denied on the basis of constitutional prohibitions against slavery. Yes, slavery. It is somewhat chilling that our legal system’s first response was to protect new life forms with the same tools as they would a human being.
The social and intellectual carnage that will be caused when an illegally created humanzee, or some other being resulting from a chimera project yet to be named, falls ill and seeks a human organ transplant makes me shudder in fear.
But there is little doubt that we will choose to continue to ignore our legal predicament regarding a definition of life though the price we will pay for the convenience of procrastination is clear enough. One only has to consider the Terri Schiavo circus to appreciate where we are headed if we fail to act proactively.
Honestly friends, do we really want that cast of characters haunting our lives indefinitely?
I didn’t think so.
But regardless of what thoughtful Americans might desire, I would recommend your girding your mind. Avoiding the national haunt would require leadership and will. Those who pass for leaders in America today are unfortunately politicians first and have much to gain by letting mere disagreements fester into crises. Until we are sufficiently aroused to collectively call bull-feathers on the usual suspects, we will continue to get what we voted for: a slick and well produced reality show.
This time the reality show affects the world in which our children will live in fundamentally different ways than we have never before even imagined.
100 Comments:
Obviously we have a starting point by valuing human life. That being said, what can or should we do genetically? All genetic engineering is not the same. Since this is new without clear precedent on how we should act, extreme caution is certainly the responsible thing to do. We need to classify different kinds of genetic work into catagories with similar parameters.
Plant vs animal vs bug (virus, bacteria, fungi, yeast, etc.). Non-human vs. human. Repair of disease vs creation of new.
Then there is legal ownership/parent issues. Who is responsible? Who is the parent? I once heard this crazy scenario where husband A and wife B wanted children, but couldn’t have any. So they took female C’s egg and male D’s sperm, and put it in surrogate E’s womb. So who are the parents and what is their responsibility? In this scenario there are five participants and genetic engineering (I knew engineers were trouble makers ;) would compound the issue as well.
Tony, can you share with us what your wife thinks about all this with her science background? Maybe C.G. could tell us what is allowable for the common good. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
You know, my wife is an extremely intelligent woman, but doesn’t spend a lot of time on the big picture stuff. I know she views life as starting with the completed genome (fertilized egg). I’ll talk to her about it and get her take.
One problem I see is that the attempt to classify is itself a difficult thing. I think one of the most problematic developments that I linked to in the early post is that of building a new biology based on a form of DNA that includes base pairs that do not exist in natural DNA. How we begin to classify that is very hard indeed.
I think the human chimeras are difficult, but not as hard. I suppose you would look at brain tissue genetics, chemistry and morphology. This can be done, I think, but if we don’t draw the lines, then there are going to be some problems that just can’t be handled well on an emergency basis.
My wife was in cancer research for quite a few years before she became a stay-at-home mom. Her research lab implanted human cancer cells in mice, grew tumors, and tried to isolate monoclonal antibodies (hybridoma) that would attach or attack the cancer cells. Once isolated they could identify, or mark, the cancer cells. Early detection is everything. It was not at the DNA level exactly, but it was definitely messin’ with mixin’ critters.
That is probably acceptable to most people, but creating monsters for fun and profit is less appealing. By noting the different kinds of messin’ with critters, hopefully we can find the borders of acceptable genetic engineering. However, without a core belief system (based on the Bible, I would say) grounded in right and wrong, any imposed limits on experimentation or disposal of life would seem arbitrary and not have the stigma of committing some great wrong.
Our’s, and our children’s, generation has its work cut out for it.
StillDreamin, My wife’s research was mostly paid for by contributions from wealthy people wanting to make a difference in cancer research. I too thought about PETA. And finally, are you going to the book fair this weekend?
Prof. Ricardo
Saurav,
I agree with your larger set of concerns, but I do not share your willingness to leave this one to the intellects. The intellects have given us very little lately unless you count electronic technology. Even I will admit that cell phones rock.
I guess where I come down that ultimately this will be a moral and ethical call. Now the intellects might provide us some guidance for sure, but it is up to society as a whole to develop a moral sense of what we should do. There will obviously be substantial disagreements with people coming forcefully from both extremes. We need time and leadership to reconcile these camps.
I do find it comforting that there do exist people such as you who are more cynical about our society than I.
CG,
Obviously you do not have a full appreciation of two things. First, what an odious career medical research has become, and second, the how incredibly rewarding motherhood is. That said, I do share your incredulity. I was simply shocked to see fully revealed how junior level medical researchers are treated. Only at the upper reaches does it approach what you and I would probably hope would be the treatment of the folks doing some of society’s most important work.
Most make even less than teachers.
This was really driven home to me when I was interviewing people for a programmer position when I lived in Philadelphia. I interviewed two people with Ph.D.s in molecular biology that were simply looking for better pay to support their families. Or check out this fact: some of the offers my wife received were so low she could have made more money working for Wal-Mart.
Our society is so fundamentally messed up--it is just amazing that we have survived this long. Almost as amazing as the fact that everybody just thinks everything is great and as God intended.
Ricardo,
Any chance you read this link from my earlier blog post?
fundamentally new biologies
Somebody please tell me how we are going to classify those kinds of critters. I have some ideas that I’m ruminating on, but I think there are some big challenges there.
C.G.,
“...two of you had wives working on cancer research... and both of you allowed them to stop.
For shame......”
My wife came home to home school. Having the lab close was a bit of Devine serendipity that forced the issue. My wife now has nearly 30 students enrolled for next fall with a waiting list, split between Biology, Chemistry, and Advanced Biology & Anatomy (all high school level+). All extremely difficult classes. One alumni has already expressed a desire to further a career in science. See one, do one, teach one.
Tony,
I just read the article. Although, I think it is highly unlikely that their work will produce anything of value (after all, God is the author of life), we can consider their created bugs and classify them by characteristics.
These new bugs will either resemble current bugs, or they won’t. I believe we discovered viruses after bacteria, yeast, fungi, etc. At that point we had a “new” creature to catagorize. When we observe a bug now, we compare it to known bugs in order to identify it.
New Lab Bugs (NLB) will be labeled as the inventor so chooses. I would say make him (the inventor) responsible for its consequences. We demand a lot from drug companies. How about adding a new FDA area that tests newly created bugs, paid for by the inventor. In addition to the FDA cost of ~$25 million per bug, lets have them bonded for a billion dollars or so. And oh, if the NLB gets out and kills someone (that’s vehicular (the bug is the vehicle) manslaughter), 20 yrs per incident, not to be run concurrent if more than one, etc. If the NLB has medical benefit (cures cancer, replaces organs), the genetic work will thrive and we can complain about obscene drug company profits. The high entry price keeps out the curious and forces responsibility.
Prof. Ricardo
Prof,
While I think market pressures and criminal sanctions should be brought to bear, I fear there is no way to keep a lid on NLBs. They are just too easy to produce. Time will tell whether this is end times stuff or not. I do think the risk potential is in that category, but I just do not see how to contain it. Criminal sanctions will help, but it is not a cure for the sociopathic types.
But fundamentally what I see coming is the creation of chimera beings that demonstrate varying degrees of intelligence. It will be automatic that some will rush to provide human rights protections to these creatures. I see a lot of argument coming over where to draw that line. In a world where many people seem comfortable drawing the line on abortion at a place that is logically ridiculous, I am fearful of where that line will end up.
What about a being with 90% human DNA and 10% vampire bat? {Insert obvious joke about politicians here} Now God may indeed choose to imbue such a being with a soul. Morphologically the creature might be indistinguishable from a human being. 90/10 is the easier case. What about 80/20? What about 75/25 with no obvious signs of higher-order intelligence?
Yes, we will classify. But what about my premise of a chimera seeking a human organ transplant through a court appointed guardian? Where are the lines?
And herein lies the problem with letting the “inventor” classify it. Look again at how many people classify fetuses.
The more you think about it, the more evident it is that we have no business tinkering with the stuff until our brains catch up with our technology. And I have zero confidence that as a society we can just allow such things to proceed and expect people to behave rationally when issues start to pop up. Then again, to complete the circle, I also think we have no real choice because some of the people involved in such things are undeterrable.
Also, for those of you still reading I’d add that my blogsite hit count has gone into the tank on this issue. I knew it would: nobody cares a bit about the issue.
I better get another post out quick…
Tony,
“The more you think about it, the more evident it is that we have no business tinkering with the stuff until our brains catch up with our technology.”
Do we then decide by mutual agreement to cease all/ some/ most genetic testing until we work out the details? Define what is permissible and what is not? Is that a state, federal, or world issue? Whom do we wish to empower with this jurisdiction? What are the consequences if their empowerment and ban overreaches into areas of cures for cancer and disease?
And finally, your reference to abortion, that is not just intelligence, that is morality. There are extremely intelligent people who are very evil. As we become more multi-cultural and post Christian, we loose our consensus of morality, and with that the ability to make decisions and have them be moral and just. But hey, at least we are appeasing the gods of political correctness.
Prof. Ricardo
Randy,
First let me comment that I am definitely pro-legalization on drugs. I can direct you to streets in Philadelphia that Amsterdam could not possibly have anything worse than. I am always willing to have that conversation but will not go further now unless there is interest.
Frankly, your willingness to let the scientists do what they want surprises me. You seem to be sensitive to the definition of life issues that this stuff rubs pretty closely up against. Lets turn the hypotheticals around. What about a human genome that has 5% vampire bat DNA? 1%? You see the point. We know that there is tinkering we can do with the genome and still produce a human being: this happens in nature do to environmental influences. I just cannot go all the way to let them do what they want with you.
Prof,
OK. I’ve been asking questions, so I try taking a stab at some answers. I’ll do it more as an exploration than a serious defense of a well thought-out approach. I am working toward that as a goal.
Do we then decide by mutual agreement to cease all/ some/ most genetic testing until we work out the details?
Yes, I think this is a must. The difficult nut is which is permissible and not. I would say for right now any testing that involves altering the human genome by adding DNA from other species should be prohibited. Any testing that involves splicing human DNA into other species should be generally prohibited. Releasing new species into the wild should be prohibited.
Is that a state, federal, or world issue?
Clearly, this is a World issue. We should seek global proscriptions and criminalization.
Whom do we wish to empower with this jurisdiction?
I would think an international treaty would create a committee that could oversee recommending prosecutions and methods of local enforcement.
What are the consequences if their empowerment and ban overreaches into areas of cures for cancer and disease?
Well, this is the risk and why I believe it is an important discussion. This risk is obvious: unnecessary pain and suffering. We should clearly avoid this risk if at all possible.
But the risk of doing nothing is pretty horrendous in my mind. I am more fearful of useful research being curtailed by the inevitable knee-jerk reaction of the public when some difficult situation is “suddenly” in the public view. The total public freak-out over some of this stuff could jeopardize research in a lasting and persistent way. Look at how irrational people’s responses are to some of these things and tell me you think if we just ignore it that research will proceed without a problem. Not on your life.
Prof,
In the last post, I failed to address your final paragraph.
I agree up to a point that because of the lack of consensus on morality it is becoming increasingly difficult as a society to make moral decisions. But this is not a problem of law, it is a problem of culture and the hearts of men. It is a result of a failure by evangelicals to make their case persuasively.
That failure, I am convinced, is rooted in an inexplicable unwillingness to engage the World in a dialog. Evangelicals, it would seem, would rather rant about Truth rather than gently speaking it as did Christ. I have no doubt that by engaging people forthrightly and compassionately we can have a far greater impact on the World than we ever can through the corrupt and evil tools of political gamesmanship.
My own personal experience bears this out. I do not believe that I have ever intentionally softened my views on Truth here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon or elsewhere. In fact, from what I’ve seen I am far more absolutist in my defense of Truth than the hordes of folks that take up that banner for political purposes. I’m convinced that by engaging in rational dialog with people and supporting the principals of Liberty, we will get our message heard.
I believe in protecting the privacy of my personal correspondence, so I will limit my remarks in this regard, but I wish you could know the breadth of viewpoints of the people who come here and read. There is really a diversity here that the world could be jealous of. And the irony is that I am an evangelical Christian who makes no compromise on standing for Christ. I am consistently unwilling to tell people that what they do or believe is OK. In spite of that “intolerance” I have productive conversations with people of every walk and creed.
This is no credit to me. I thank the Lord daily that he has given me lessons in humility and compassion that make this possible. I am indebted deeply to Francis Schaeffer and many personal friends who have helped me to see the errors of the intellectual constructs of my youth.
It is my firm belief that by serving the World rather than controlling the World, we will have a far greater reach for Christ. If we use love and the brains God gave us, we can win these battles because we are armed with the better argument. Fundamentally, I think those that put their hope in the political system demonstrate less faith in our Lord than those who speak the Truth and leave the enforcement to God.
Tony, you’re a good man. In spite of what Mr. Good has to say about you. :-D
Human babies 'grown in lab' It’s a little eerie that this stuff shows up so often when it’s the topic of the day.
And for the off-topic blog slap C.G. has been missing from me of late: The trickle UP theory works. Through the tax laws, all the tax credits, deductions, and tax rate drop, the under $50K crowd just doesn’t pay a lot of tax, if any. However, the tax bill for the rich, as they have been telling us, let them off Scott-free. Well, sort of. It seems with a reduction in tax rate, the wealthy apparently did something with their wealth that resulted in more taxable income, because the US government was surprised by an extra $54 billion in tax receipts. Wait a sec...lower tax rate = unexpected revenue boost. Must be on the downside of the bell curve. Another tax cut the last one and we can afford that Nationalistic Health Ins. on the Hanukkah list, eh C.G.?
Prof. Ricardo
Actually, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with Socialism. It is utilitarian in its foundations and fails to vindicate the rights of man. Socialism is rooted in the evil of the common good as a gold standard for measuring morality.
Pursuit of the common good within a framework that embraces the natural rights of man, however, is an entirely different thing. Socialism has as much to do with the American moderate view of safety nets as does Capitalism with the payment of wages for labor in a socialist society. Yeah, it looks connected on the surface, but it the underlying framework defeats the “alliteration”.
CG,
First you say the way I frame the debate is stupid, and then proceed to pretty much agree with me. I guess I can live with being stupid.
I stand by my remarks that I believe that Socialism is founded on an immoral premise that morality is judged on what is good for the larger society. Utilitarianism is an ugly thing when wielded independently of any other moral standard.
What I have never said was that I believe that all utilitarian analysis is immoral. In fact, it is impossible to envision a legislative enactment beyond the most basic that doesn’t entertain the balancing of needs for the greatest benefit of society. My opposition then to Socialism and Utilitarianism are on the basis of them as a moral credo, not as a useful analytical tool.
You ask, ”My human rights taken in isolation implies no obligation on my part to the sick or elderly... even if my parents. Is that the kind of gold standard we currently have?
I would say rather that while as a matter of natural rights you are not compelled to help others, we have founded a liberal republic for the purpose of imposing mutual obligations for the benefit of all. We have decided as free and sovereign individuals to hang together and excepting a few radicals, generally agree that this is conceptually a good thing. The debate then should become over what rights we have acceded to the state and what powers we have invigorated that state with.
In order to be crystal clear, let me say it again like this: the notion of an individual possessing a natural right claim arising from their own need on another sovereign individual makes no sense. We create states and social institutions to address this natural, albeit tragic, condition of man.
Lastly I would add that approving comments of Ann Coulter are simply uncalled for in the civil discourse we engage in here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon. I expect better of that of my posters.
Randy,
I do think it is very important to have a clear understanding of what you believe human rights are and what their origin is. Absent that understanding, things are very confusing. People cause themselves no end of internal turmoil wrestling with rights and fairness. This is what causes people to ignorant cast liberals as socialists when there are really very few true socialists around these days.
I disagree that Jesus was a communist as many claim. True, he proposed many communal types of things, but he consistently called not for a changed legal system, but for changed hearts. His suggestions on how the body of Christ should function were premised on a community of believers, not a large nation state. There was never a hint that sharing and caring should be compelled by force of the laws of man or of God. When Jesus said render up to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s, I believe he spoke very broadly.
Randy,
Hahahaha…don’t delete!
Yes, I suppose you could describe Jesus’ version of Utopia like that, but then he also said we would never get there. I think that developing general economic principals from his teaching, as did the liberation theology crowd, is very dangerous and fraught with blasphemous potential.
The problem with the Kempis quote is that it does not answer what a Christian is to do that sees the name of Christ being drug through the mud by others claiming to be Christians. Don’t misunderstand, I think Kempis is certainly correct but at some point, one must speak out for Christ. We cannot let timidity bred from our intimate knowledge of our own fallen condition lead us to remain silent and not defend Christ.
This is a hard line to walk for me. I spend great energy criticizing our President here and do so in part on the basis of the gap between his profession of Christ and worldly practice. Any Christian that undertakes such criticism cannot help but be somewhat reluctant. I personally am not merely afraid of calling splinter and ignoring the logs, but also of the appearance of ignoring the logs.
This is especially dangerous for me because my rhetorical style is very emphatic and I have often been accused of being preachy. But this is a danger I feel called to hazard.
Randy,
Well, at least as far as abortion goes, I have been pretty outspoken regarding the rights of the unborn. If you would ask specifically, I’m happy to recapitulate my positions or point you to where I have written about it. And if I have not spoken on the subject, I’m always willing to offer an opinion.
Bottom line is that I do feel as Christians we have a responsibility to speak out on moral issues. I do not flinch from this. What I also speak out against is mixing the message of Christ with politics or diluting our Legal protections for the purpose of codifying Christian principals in the laws of our land.
CG,
You have made that bogus contract argument before and it gets less impressive each time your repeat it.
Now, I have no clue about Geo. Allen and what he believes. However, the mere act of stating that one believes that our rights come from God is in no way incompatible with being fully engaged in an open society. The natural rights camp has attracted Christians and Atheists alike because it roots rights sovereign individuals without regard to any other status or conditions.
I look at those who do not believe that men are created by God as simply ignorant of those facts. It does not affect their value as a human being in the eyes of God nor should it before the laws of men. I would suppose that an Atheist advocate of natural rights would take an inverse view and think that my lack of understanding that we are mere probabilistic accidents would in no way denigrate my value as a human being.
Base and judgmental people of every stripe often make the leap that you are ascribing. But the view that failure to agree on creation is somehow determinative or that it should be determinative of someone’s standing before the law is not necessitated by the viewpoint of either side.
I share your view on factional politics, as and Disenfranchised Curmudgeon leader surely knows. But I reject your generalizing the political actions of some angry religious right types to somehow define the view of all Christians. These RR types may wield political power today, but they are far from representing the dominant philosophical view of historic orthodox Christianity.
You said, ” It's obscene that a faction would say they have a right to THEIR religion in public schools.”
I totally agree. This is why I am opposed to public schools forcing secular humanism down the throats of everybody but the rich.
CG,
I am trying very hard to spread my view of the inappropriateness of formally mixing politics and Christianity. Please feel free to help promote my website. I think my reach may have plateaued for the time being.
CG,
Man, you could’ve saved yourself some typing. I am having headspins sorting out your last ramble.
You said, “ If a faction believes our rights come from God... I can't really see the distinction from making the statement we are a Christian nation.”
Well, I’m sorry you do not see it. I really don’t think the argument is esoteric at all. You are essentially saying that because I believe that God created us in his image that it is impossible for me to not believe that this is a Christian nation. Since I have spent a lot of time and energy arguing our Government was intended to be entirely secular, apparently you believe that I have a defect of reasoning. For those few others that might actually read this, I will reaffirm the consistency of my view that our Rights came from God and that our government was very deliberately founded as a secular institution.
Next you accuse me of going off track when I was specifically responding to your remarks about non-Christians being second-class citizens, then lecture me about factional politics (again) when I have repeatedly agreed with you on that point.
Move the La-z-boy back from the television: all that radiation is taking a toll on your synapses.
So then you tell me again about Allen, who I have no interest in specifically discussing. Well, if I knew anything about him I might well think him and idiot, or even worse, a politician. Because certain ideologue have their intellectual constructs lashed up in a flimsy political engineering apostasy is of no consequence to an analysis of what a correct viewpoint would be.
And the fact that you cannot see you are generalizing when you assume that all Christians must think this is a Christian nation is fairly amazing.
Kind of like your staunch refusal to see the violation of the Establishment Clause inherent in state run secular schools.
CG,
You are essentially asking me to explain the Protestant Reformation to you.
Protestants believe (and I will not characterize the Catholic position because I realize there is some nuance therein of which I do not have a full grasp) in a personal direct relationship with God. The function of the preacher is merely that of leading the Congregation. In many ways, a preacher’s sermon is no different than an IT professional rendering an opinion on a technical topic. Or in another way of looking at it, preachers are not authoritative on what the Word of God in fact is-this is left to the individual. In the words of the New Testament, we each have our spiritual gifts and preaching is but one of them.
Why organized religion? Good question. In my view, it depends on what type of organization you are speaking of. I think the large denomination mentality is nothing more than a construct of men to accumulate power. I would say this about all large denominations spanning the gap from the Roman Catholic Church to the Southern Baptist Convention. It is no accident that I find myself presently attending a Restoration Movement Church.
Which brings me to these smaller organizations that are the individual churches. This is an institution that Christ himself ordained. The organization exists more as community of believers than for larger social structure. Christ instituted the Church for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and for uniting Christian brothers and sisters for mutual assistance and fellowship. When church leadership steps outside these narrow purposes, in my opinion they are on shaky grounds biblically. And when you start taking steps of allying directly with worldly institutions such as political parties, then you are playing with potential, if not probable, blasphemy.
Common Good said: During the constitutional convention (at a point where it had become particularly tense), Ben proposed hiring a chaplain and starting every morning session with a prayer. The idea was resoundly defeated... Ben's notes to the effect... "not many for morning prayers".
Tsk, tsk. So many students, so little time. :-) “no many for morning prayers” is not quite so accurate as you might like. From This Independent Republic:
“The eclectic approach of both Franklin and Jefferson to all things made them ready samplers of any thought. But were they Deists? Vergilius Ferm has defined Deism as, first, the view that "God has no immediate relation with the world. . . the 'absentee landlord' view," and, second, that "revelation is superfluous, that reason is touchstone to religious validity, that religion and ethics are natural phenomena, that the traditional God need hardly be appealed to since man finds in nature the necessary guides for moral and religious living." In terms of this, let us examine the plea for public prayer given by Benjamin Franklin on June 28, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention:
“In this situation of this assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find the political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible to danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection.
“Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs the affairs of men.
“And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.
I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without this concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our partial little local interests; our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a byword down the future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
Footnote: “The Convention did not accede to Franklin’s plea, fearing that the introduction of a chaplain would lead the public to believe that the Convention was disunited.”
C.G., The evidence is overwhelming to those who have not closed reason and senses that this nation was founded on Christian and Christian compatible ideologies in all their various forms. ALL were not Diest, Athiest, Christian, Puritan, Calvinist, etc.,etc. They all played a part. They each were their own unique blend of philosopies. But the overwhelming influence of the migration and establishment of peoples on this land and the federation of the individual states, was the practice and protection of the Christian religion. That does not make unbelievers a 2nd class citizen. Quite the contrary. Your murderer and my murderer will pay the same price under a Christian government. I doubt you’ll get such guarantees from the Atheist faction.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
I hate to break it to you, but a majority of the nominal Christians that would impose their beliefs on you do not attend churches either. I can’t see that as a useful criterion. And BTW, there are secular Churches out there. You pointed one out to me yourself.
And again, when you invoke the names of certain prominent Christians, you confuse a wrong-headed minority as representative of the whole. I am as appalled by the behavior of these people as are you.
The beauty of our system of laws, if we would be so bold as to actually follow them, is that you do not get to tell me what my religious practice is or should be. It is entirely my call and you get no say in the matter. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Disagree all you want with my assertion that the secular worldview is fundamentally inconsistent with the religious practice of my family, but you will still be wrong. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this speaks to your close-mindedness, not mine.
On to simple topics like evolution. Well, my personal belief on evolution requires some explanation. I start from the premise that God created reason, created men as rational creatures, gave men dominion over the Earth, and the free will to make his own choices. I do not see any biblical warrant for the notion that we are compelled to reject what our senses and reason tells us. Now we are admonished to question our reason and to distrust our own confidence in our faculties. Or in other words, we are to be careful about being too certain that we have a complete understanding.
To apply this to evolution, I would simply say I do not know precisely how evolution fits into the order of the Universe. That evolution happens at a genetic level is unquestionable. God would not ask us to simply deny this truth, but rather rest in the confidence that the Creator of the Universe will make his plan plain to us in the future.
It is easy to forget that Western Society (yeah Saurav, I know you don’t buy that construct) was at one time in quite a turmoil over Galileo’s observations proving that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. Over time, this truth has ceased being a problem for Christians, but in a prior age this seemed as key to some folks as does evolution today. I have no doubt that this issue will resolve itself in much the same way.
So if you are asking me if I believe in evolution, I would say no if you mean in the sense that it is an explanation for creation. In the sense that it explains facts that we can ascertain though our senses and reasoning, I have no problem with it.
Here is the key point that I think separates me from the militant anti-evolution crowd: I think that it is incredibly arrogant for a mere man to assert that they have a clear understanding of what exactly the act of Creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, pre-existent Creator is. Man doesn’t even understand the act of creation by men. Perhaps as we understand better the act of creation by men, we will have a better sense of the act of creation by God, as we are made in his image, but I think we will only get so close to understanding.
And this limit is pretty clear if you just look at the account of Creation in Genesis. It is said there that God spoke things into existence. But speech itself is a physical property of a physical created universe. There is little doubt I think that God here is using an anthropomorphism to communicate a complex act to a simple creature.
This whole discussion raises all kind of interesting and fun questions. For instance, is it not possible that an infinite Creator could create a new Earth that appears old? If one begins to ruminate on what is possible by and infinite creator that exists outside of time and space, the mind does truly boggle.
CG,
Well, #1 is only true if #2 is true. And #2 is most certainly true.
Frankly, if you don’t understand #2 to be true there is very little to discuss. You are of the same ilk that deprives Native Americans the legal right to use peyote as a sacrament-only far more extreme. In your case, you are comfortable telling others not just what to do, but what to believe as well.
On vouchers, you have never once demonstrated why they would damage the public schools. I put forth a reasonably specific argument demonstrating how the public schools can be greatly improved by vouchers. Never once have you argued against the merits. Instead, you resort to the tired old maxims that the secular left loves to repeat over and over. This is understandable because it is hard to argue against something that leaves more money per student in the public school system-which is exactly what the educators constantly tell us is needed.
Common Good: “What's "This Independent Republic"? I googled but didn't find it.”
This Independent Republic, by Rousas John Rushdoony. Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History, ISBN: 1-879998-24-6, Copyright 1964. A series of essays compiled by his son in this book. R. J. Rushdoony has written about 30 books total. For over half a century he averaged reading over one book per day, thus giving him an incredible perspective of history.
If the overriding concern on the table was making a Christian nation, then these man of backbone surely wouldn't have punted because of public perception.
The public thought the founders were amending the Articles of Confederation. We can not impute our thinking, our mannerisms, our today culture on them and say they “surely wouldn’t have punted because of public perception.” These people did not trust ANY centralized government. Not federal, not state, not nobody. As you know, the AofC was nearly worthless because people did not want the centralized body to have any power unless all representatives from every state agreed. Among other things, disunity was a problem. Compromises were made. Blacks being considered 3/5 of a person is an example of that. The whole shebang could fail with disunity. In that day, in that culture, after however many days, having a clergyman show up might appear to be there to reconcile disunity. I don’t know this for a fact, but it is very plausible, very reasonable.
Prof. Ricardo
P.S. What any of this has to do with "chimerical reations" is beyond me. However, it apparently is what we really want to talk about. :-) It always boils down to defining your world view.
Common Good: Christianity wasn't mentioned in the constitution then, and it isn't mentioned now.
From This Independent Republic:
“When reference is made to the Christian nature of the United States, the objection immediately raised is the absence of reference to Christianity in the Constitution. The Constitution would never have been ratified had such reference been made, and to safeguard themselves, the people sought and gained the further protection of the First Amendment. Its wording is significant: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." All the constituent states had in some form or other either a Christian establishment or settlement, or specifically Christian legislation. Religious tests for citizenship, blasphemy laws, singular or plural establishments, and other religious settlements were the rule, jealously guarded and prized, first against British interference, then against Federal usurpation. To preserve the integrity and freedom of the specific forms of Christian statehood of the constituent states, the Constitution forbade any jurisdiction to the Federal Union in this area. The answer to the present federal interference, wrongly based on the Fourteenth Amendment, is not a Christian Amendment but the restoration of the prior jurisdiction of the states”
“The American Revolution was not a revolution in the modern sense of that word. Moreover, it was a defensive war, fought to preserve American liberties from the usurpation and invasion of Parliament. The colonies rightly charged the crown with breach of feudal contract, whereby they could declare that contract null and void. The Constitution was not designed to make the United States a "nation," but to federate already existing states, whose previous unity had been primarily in the British monarch and was now in the Federal Union. As a result, the term "United States" was a plural noun, taking a plural verb. The constituent states being various forms of Christian states, they forbade the Federal Government to enter the area of religion to impose or forbid any establishment or settlement alien to the states. The freedom contemplated, therefore, was not freedom of or from religion, but for religion in the constituent states.”
You know, C.G., that bastion of economic and personal freedom, Taxachusetts, I mean Massachusetts, that state that bans so many kinds of firearms ownership, etc., etc.? An excerpt from their constitution:
“We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government, as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
“Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
“Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.”
C.G., with state constitutions like this and a distrust of centralized governments, there was no need to mention God in the Constitution. He was mentioned where it mattered, at the state level.
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good said: What many seem to be saying in their arguments is "since the country was founded mainly by Christians in the late 18th century... we should all consider this a Christian nation for eternity, regardless of changes in demographics and pluralism".
The principles in the Scriptures that value women, property ownership, worship, parents raising and discipleing their children/families, the pursuit of happiness could be guaranteed by a people that acknowledged God and his principles and codified that knowledge of man in a system of government to protect these rights and liberties. It is the Christians that know that man is inherently evil (prone to sin, temptation, love of power), thus distrust him with power, thus designed a system of government that “separates powers”, has checks and balances, and attempts to eliminate centralization of power. Non-Christian forms of government rarely start off with the premise “man is inherently evil.” They feel that man is basically good. There’s just a few bad apples. If we only have the right people in office, then we can accomplish at the macro level what individuals, or businesses, or communities are not accomplishing at the micro level. Thus their preoccupation with (pardon me here) The Common Good© through forced benevolence on special chosen recipients. Obviously, the Non-Christian faction is not trusting in the benevolence of good Christian men, by definition, and they are so hoping that life is not just three score and ten of selfishness and die. Their good feelings of charity are satisfied by imposing them on others for the Common Good©, rather than personal acts that are a response to their commands from God. Their only hope is to trust in the inherent goodness of men apart from any Christian conviction. A rather futile act if history is to be our guide.
Prof. Ricardo
CG,
On the sacramental peyote thing. The Supreme Court has ruled against the right of Native Americans to practice ancient religious rituals involving peyote. It was some extremely obnoxious law. The opinion hinged on the fact that the law regulating the use of drugs was neutral with respect to religious practice. In other words they said they can pretty much interfere with any religious practice for any reason as long as the law was not specifically aimed at interfering with the religious practice.
The decision should have outraged Christians and faithful of every stripe. But, the RR would rather their own viewpoint be vindicated in the law than look at the larger legal consequences of bad law. And if you are following my other arguments closely and applying them, you can see how this ruling eviscerates my argument on Public Schools being a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. My argument is entirely correct, except that we have a stupid and wrong-headed Supreme Court decision (actually, there is more than one) that would need to be overturned to get the rational result.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Saurav,
Great rant.
I would be in favor of making the Amendment process easier, though I do believe the super-majority requirement should continue to be very high. For instance, I’d be willing to consider the possibility of a national popular vote with a 2/3 requirement to Amend the Constitution. The thing that would scare me about amending the amendment process is the whole trend in our country to over-democratize. If we engaged in that process I think there is a good chance that we could end up with a 51% majority threshold for Amending the Constitution. Personally, I would not let that fear keep me from going forward.
But let me be clear about my view on the Constitution and Founders. I totally agree that inordinate reverence for either is unjustified and that possibility would have mortified most of the founders. If is not reverence that compels me to respect the documents and ideas, but rather the strength of the system of laws they created and a desire to continue to be a nation of laws. What makes my head explode is the Justice Breyers of the world who view the Constitution as something completely malleable to the whim of current social needs.
Now the Constitution is certainly malleable in two senses. The first is the amendment process. It is sad that we have taken so little advantage of this extremely important constitutional provision. The second is the inevitable logical extension that happens in the courts of law that adapt the constitution to changed circumstance. The key phrase in that previous sentence being “logical”. The kind of logic where the court extends the fourth amendment protections to emails even though there was little “e” when the constitution was written. This is a far different thing from creation of new law that so often gets engaged in by our courts. This has traditionally been more of a creature of the left leaning judges, but is increasingly a creature of the right. Whatever viewpoint it comes from, it is wrong every time it is engaged in.
Your health care remarks are right on target. I just had a short conversation with my Father on this topic last night. He thinks our health care system is just fine in spite of the fact that he is a victim of it on many levels. Don’t get me wrong, he is relatively lucky and I am grateful for this. But my point is that he is so bought in to the RR rhetoric that he does not have even an honest appraisal of his own predicament, much less those that have been victimized in far more horrific ways.
Prof,
My view on this America as a Christian country is somewhere between the extremes. Certainly, at the time of our founding we were a predominantly Christian nation and the points you make regarding State sovereignty on those issues are well taken. There is also little doubt that if you had asked the founders if America was a Christian nation and whether this was a good thing, they would have answered both questions in the affirmative.
But, I think you do not do the founders enough credit for having the good sense to keep the Federal Government out of the business of religion. They were intimately aware of the problems of religious persecution within the colonies. While the certainly did not set out to right every old wrong, they were very conscious of insuring that the new Federal Government would not exacerbate or perpetuate the old order. They were also conscious of the strong trend in America toward increasing toleration of various beliefs.
These were men on the cusp of the enlightenment. Many had one foot on each side of that line. While I do not think they saw the coming heterogeneity of America with complete clarity, they did see that trend and wished to create institutions that would lead to a better society in that context.
Lastly, I would say that your observation that such matters were left to the States is unpersuasive in the sense of it being an indication of what they would desire to do if they had a free hand. The Constitution was a fragile compromise at best. They avoided many issues, most notably slavery, for the sole purpose of creating a compromise document that could withstand the ratification process. To use the document itself to suggest that it means that the founders made a positive assertion that this was entirely the right way to do things on any issue is simply unwarranted.
CG,
The Court could’ve done several other reasonable things. First, it could’ve promulgated a narrow ruling that provided a Constitutional exemption for this particular religious purpose. Second, it could’ve struck down that portion of the law that regulated peyote. Third, it could’ve struck down all laws regulating drugs as an impermissible infringement on fundamental human rights.
Here is the text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Clearly the drug statutes prohibit the free exercise of religion by some Native Americans. There is no counterbalancing fundamental right that is being protected by the statutes. If peyote use somehow interfered with somebody’s right to life or freedom of speech, then at least you would have a situation where some form of regulation might be permissible. But even in balancing cases, the Supreme Court has seldom (I think never) allowed the law to totally suppress another’s fundamental liberty.
This is a great example of the activist right wing judges in action. The cruel irony is that it endangers the freedoms that we all hold dear in the name of protecting people from themselves. Which of course has been the standard raised by tyrants through the centuries.
CG,
I’ve told you to back that la-z-boy away from the tele. You never listen.
What I suggested was a middle ground for the prohibitionists that would still be constitutional. It isn’t a religious “exception”. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO ABRIDGE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. Do the capitals help? I hope so.
Your hypothetical causes zero trouble. Part of the liberty we gave up when we signed the Constitution was submitting to taxes. Add to that the limits we have always placed on fundamental liberties when human rights come into conflict and the answers are clear. Religious practice can be imposed upon only when necessary to vindicate other fundamental liberties and only to the extent necessary to protect those liberties. Absent such a conflict, there can be no abridgement.
I also have no trouble with denying a claim of government interference with religious practice if the claimant cannot make a showing that the practice was genuine. Granted, that creates some awkward questions of fact for a court, but it is probably necessary in narrow circumstances. The vast majority of religious practice will fall under well-defined religious doctrines and present no difficulty whatsoever, as is the case with our issues on the table, peyote and secular public education.
And it is odd bringing up Big Church in this context. For all the issues I have with BC, I don’t see it as very relevant to this discussion.
Well, so much for me trying to find a middle ground. Really, if a law operates to impair one’s free exercise of religion, then it is unconstitutional on its face. I have no problem with that result.
The reason I did not address the need to survey religious practice by the legislature is that I frankly thought the answer too obvious to discuss. If there are religious practices that they are aware of they should not draft laws that impede those practices. I don’t see an affirmative duty to make really, really double darn sure that they aren’t impeding a religious practice.
You are in fact a member of the most privileged religious faction in our nation: the secular left. Count your blessings my friend.
I am glad to drop productivity for the sake of the Common Good.
Common Good said:my common safety-nets should not be dependent on Christians or Christian organizations.”
Outside of a command by God to take care of the poor, that I am my brother’s keeper and need to share with and help my fellow man (all individual commands), what obligates man throughout the ages, across the globe, to provide a safety-net by social contract? What objective standard is offered so that I am not having to guarantee that my rich buddies drive, say, a Lexus? Or have air conditioning? Both of which are 20th Century luxuries that may one day be a minimum safety-net. Health insurance is a recent invention. We all have stories of how our parents birthed us youngsters for $36.14 + 2 chickens (or whatever). Since health insurance and government’s participation in the health arena, health costs have skyrocketed. Duh? Of course it has. Any time we make affording something easier, more people will demand it. The greater demand can not help but drive prices up. Universal Health Insurance would be the ultimate destruction of health care. ZERO responsiveness of the consumer to price fluctuations. It doesn’t matter if it is government run or government mandated, the results are the same. I know you’ve heard of people going to the emergency room for non-emergencies because insurance would pay it all. I know you’ve heard of people with $5 co-pays going to the doctor for any little sniffle. Folks like me who have a $2000 deductible per family member think loooonnnggg and hard about a doctor’s visit. My family is paying the inflated medical costs because of the insulation most people feel from medical prices that their insurance provides them. Universal health insurance would mean market prices gone to heck (that place you’ll go if you don’t believe in gosh:-). The kindest thing I could do is prevent the healthcare industry, and people’s access to it, from being destroyed by common do-gooders(:-) who have not thought through the economic consequences of Universal Health Care.
Some have put forth a desire to legalize drugs, prostitution, and other unhealthy acts. But is there a price to be paid by those who engage in risky behavior? Will universal healthcare insurance differentiate between a childhood sickness and drug rehab? Cancer or STDs? Injury from your job or from riding wheelies down I-30? How about the plethora of ailments from the grossly obese person? If the medical costs, premiums, and deductibles are all of mine own choosing, then I can choose whether those risky behaviors are worth the increase in my own cost. Does your universal utopian health insurance help people choose responsible behavior? The stinking rich insurance companies thank you for your support.
Prof. Ricardo
The middle ground was trying to carve out the exception. Neither one of us likes that, so why don’t we drop it?
Many moons ago on a message board far, far away, I made a vigorous defense in favor of legalizing bigamy. I think people don’t get it when I say that I truly do believe in Liberty. This is really no different than the gay marriage thing. I don’t think the state should be involved in religious institutions. I totally support the legal right to civil unions of 3 to a million people. Now if we want to have a discussion about my view on the morality of bigamy, that is a different conversation and I am willing to have it.
Bestiality is a far more interesting topic from a legal standpoint. I will be honest and tell you I haven’t spent a lot of time on that one. But, I do think animals deserve the protection of the law as they cannot consent. It is kinda-sorta analogous to statutory rape laws: animals are unable to consent. But, I am unwilling to go so far as to assert animal rights because I think that legally that could spin out of control and I just do not see a solid basis on which to define those rights. At the moment I am unable to come up with a satisfactory legal resolution of this issue and sadly, I am too busy here at the paying job to give it much time at this moment. I will say that while it is an intriguing academic question, I don’t think it has much importance as a social issue.
Minors are different. There is a consent issue. I’ll stick with 17 on that and it should be in the Consitution.
Under our current laws, it is illegal in all states to have more than one spouse. In my view, those laws are unconsitituional.
I got in the habit of doing the Word thing a long time ago when message boards were far less reliable than Blogger. Not to mention, I am an atrocious speller. I very seldom type straight in anymore. Just a habit.
I don’t know what input to give on the judges. I definitely see some holes. First, while some form of review is a desirable thing, I think an independent unelected body is necessary for that purpose. It is probably too late to fix, but keeping politics out of the judiciary is essential in my view. I could support some shortening of the tenure … 20 years seems reasonable, but I’m not entirely sure that buys you that much.
Promote within is kind of what happens already. But, don’t lose track of the fact that there is a lot of judges that move from state courts to the federal bench. Some of our greatest jurists (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Learned Hand to name two) have come up in the state court systems and you don’t want to exclude them from the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court just because they have not served in a US District Court.
Sorry for having a job Randy. :-D I’ll try to do better with posting! Some of your remarks are sounding kind of Curmudgeonly...better be careful of your image.
Randy,
Well, the nomination process is the same for all Federal Judges at all levels. It’s just that the District Court nominees get a lot less publicity than the Circuit Court or Supreme Court nominees. The states all vary though. Some states elect all or some of the judges. Others are similar to the Federal scheme.
C.G. said re universal healthcare: Just assume (even if wrong) that we could do this together very efficiently and in a cost effective way. Would you still be against it?
That’s a lot like saying, “if abortion didn’t end in the death of a fetus/baby, would you still be against it?”
You wouldn’t think a lowly self-employed accountant could be such a radical on so many topics, but alas, here I am.
I have three problems with insurance: religious, constitutional, and economic. Arguing the religious portion with you might be a kin to a woman arguing with me on which shade of make up to wear to a casual luncheon with her aunt. It just isn’t relevant to me. But for the curious, you might want to look here.
Constitutional issues are pretty straight forward. It’s a legal argument and I will defer to greater minds like Tony to direct us. Regardless of efficiency, relevance, or morality, either the Constitution provides for the redistribution of wealth or it does not, the implementation or mandating of this plan or it does not.
Economics is the fun part. But in the quote above, you want me to ignore that :-(.
It is difficult to argue against insurance in a culture dominated by insurance. We have homeowners, automobile, health, life, fire, cancer, liability, umbrella, partner buy-out, estate, long-term care, disability, workers comp, and a few others I can think of off the cuff. People are not just having a tough time affording health insurance. There are lots of people who have NO life insurance. Small business that are going bare on liability insurance and workers comp. Many larger businesses are self insuring. To say that we are insurance poor is an understatement. And do you know what commission is made by the agent? Do you have any idea what profit is made by the insurance company? When you are relying on insurance, pooling of money has a cost. Our health care cost now includes the insurance cost.
But, let’s set that all aside as you asked and say that, fantasy world aside, we could do this universal health insurance efficiently and effectively. However, economically, a number of things happen, without an judgment on their benefit or cost, when we implement universal health insurance.
1) Who’s covered? Illegal immigrants, persons already insured, US citizens overseas, etc.?
2) What level of protection does your “reason and common sense” compel us to consider? Is it the same “common sense and reason” that elected President Bush twice?
3) Will its implementation be instantaneous giving an outrageous jolt to the health industry because now people, who previously could not afford medical care, can purchase medical care?
4) Will certain things not be covered, like the consequences of alcoholism or drug abuse?
5) Will any act disqualify someone from coverage, say drug abuse, self inflicted wounds, attempted suicide?
6) Will already high demand doctors reacting to the incredible increase in demand for medical care be allowed to raise their prices, or will price and wage controls be implemented and the market system be sidestepped for the sake of “saving the system?”
7) If we implement price controls, then the high demand, limited supply, artificially held low prices situation will have no choice but create longer lines. How long of a wait is acceptable when going to the doctor? 4, 5, 6, or 7 hours? These are common lengths of time in countries where healthcare is free.
8) If business is to float the bill for this, are we willing to trade 42 million newly insured for 9 million newly unemployed?
9) What is the objective standard by which we can know if this system is a success or a failure? If it is a failure, how easily can it be dismantled? Ever tell 42 million people that you're going to take their Free Health Care away from them? (Its now an entitlement, their right!) And what do the 9 million who lost their jobs for the failed experiment have to say about it?
Frankly, I don’t think you’ve even pondered these questions before. I am not willing to trade this current state of our nation for a third world country. Cuba has great universal health care. I don’t see many folks lining up to take advantage of it. I don’t want the same thing happening here.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.said: Man, I have to be careful what I ask for.
I have a keyboard and I’m not afraid to use it. :-)
9) What is the objective standard by which we can know if this system is a success or a failure?
C.G.:EVERYONE is covered.
Gong! Bad answer. Go to the back of the line. Let me rephrase that: GIVEN THAT EVERYONE IS COVERED, How will we know it’s a success?
In your world once everyone is covered, including those who abuse and cost the system money with no consequence to themselves, it is a success, regardless of how costly the system becomes. Costly in time, money, effectiveness, and responsiveness. Sounds not unlike Green Peace spray painting the baby seals to make their coats worthless to the hunters. The fact that they were slaughtered by polar bears left and right because their camouflage was gone was of no consequence. They didn’t save the baby seals, but they did prevent their good use by the hunters. If you actually DO care for the recipients of health care insurance and actually DO care for “capitalism” not going down the tubes, I would think you would demand something more than mere existence. It appears the champion of healthcare-for-all is more in love with the idea of universal healthcare coverage, than actually improving the healthcare that all do receive.
Right now many county and community hospitals provide “free” or sliding scale healthcare for all in need. Ever gone to JPS (John Peter Smith) in Fort Worth? My niece is without health insurance. She goes to them for reduced rate medicines and healthcare. Covered! A client of mine was a skilled craftsman with employees. Got a spider bite, went into kidney failure. Destroyed his health, his business, his wealth. He’s getting dialysis free or nearly so at JPS. My, my. Healthcare for the masses without Universal Health Insurance. How can this be? Ever been to Parkland in Dallas? Ditto. Hospitals across this country? Ditto. The healthcare system in Cal-uh-Forn-e-uh (as pronounced by the Govenator) is nearly bankrupt because of all the free healthcare going to all the legal and particularly illegal immigrants from Mexico.
I got an idea. Since the poor are being serviced in the medical community, since the system to do so is already in place, let us assist those communities and county hospitals that are having difficulties with financing the “free” healthcare for the needy. How? Federal dollars (don’t have a heart attack, CG :-). If we are coving illegals from Mexico, assess their country a portion of the cost, after all it is their citizens we are servicing. We can finance it by dismantling the Department of Education and Department of Energy, for a start.
My question to you: If my method covers 100% of Americans, would you accept it? Remember, that was your only requirement of Universal Health Ins., the existence of 100% coverage. Or are you too much in love with the idea of Universal Health Ins to achieve the same results some other way?
Pro. Ricardo
I said to Mr. C.G., My question to you: If my method covers 100% of Americans, would you accept it?
Spake he: Yes, IF
1) everyone has access to EQUAL healthcare regardless of economic class or citizen status
Never happen. The reason being some “healthcare” is optional, stupid, or experimental. Much of which should not be mandatory for the taxpayer or insurance companies to foot the bill. At $4-10,000 for breast or butt augmentation, if covered so that EVERYBODY is equal and there is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO DISTINCTION to made by price, EVERYTHING MUST be covered by the new plan. Abortion, cosmetic surgery, Liposuction (Hey CG, this could be the cure for America’s obesity issue - Good job!) etc. Have a tattoo or piercing you want undone, who cares, its covered. Maybe I’m missing how you can not cover foolish excess and abuse of the system if the economic incentive is gone. If you can change cosmetic shape with the seasons, at no cost to you...boy, I can see massive abuse coming. How about dental? That’s health care. I can see it now, every homeless person with brilliant straight white teeth that rival today’s stars, and with a steady diet of booze, a new liver every five years to compliment the ensemble. And why should they not? They’re covered!!! In fact (read below) It’s their right!
2) it becomes a human right delivered faction free.. (I don't know how you can do that without it being a human right under government/constitution protection (i.e. would require a constitutional amendment).
A human right applies to all persons in all ages. The Constitution does not give human rights. It acknowledges human rights. Insurance is a recent invention. My research last year found medical insurance as early as around 1910. I’m not sure of its first debut. But its difficult to see something that did not exist for 6,000 years of human history being a human right when it did not exist. Maybe it’s a good idea. Maybe it’s a fantastic idea. Maybe it is the new minimum standard for our society. But it is NOT a human right. If it was, would you be happy with your current President going in to countries with human rights violations (no health ins.) and waging war to eradicate said human rights violations? Doesn’t quite have the same sting as other human rights violations. Maybe you could find another semantic or descriptive phrase that better described what healthcare is to people.
Prof. Ricardo
Randy P.said...
How about an obligation of those more fortunate to provide health care for those less fortunate.
Good day to you sir. In my book, the more fortunate are not always the more wealthy, if that was in fact what you meant. I am more fortunate than a lot of people because I am in reasonably good health. And indeed I do have an obligation to help those less fortunate. A moral obligation, not a legal obligation. Unfortunately, there are people wanting to legislate morality (C.G., :-) Though not wanting to bring too much attention to myself, my residence is in a location where I have had the opportunity to help many unfortunate individuals, and I have availed myself to many of these opportunities that did not present too great a threat to my safety. As a command of God, my fortunate-ness is irrelevant to my obligation to minister to orphans, widows, the poor, and those imprisoned, to help shoulder their burdens, to carry their load an extra mile.
But as far as wealth goes, By definition whom is the more fortunate who is obligated to care for those less fortunate, and what is entailed in that care that is obligated, and whom is to be considered less fortunate, and what is to become of those people who do not “care?” Who arrogantly places themselves in the position of obligating only a portion of mankind upon another portion of mankind, not a mutual obligation of kindness and care, but a one way obligation, thus pitting group against group, creating animosity, removing the joy of helping and supplanting it with the legal command on pain of imprisonment, enslaving and indebting(sp?) one group? Lets obligate those Chimera to the rest of us eh? (a pathetic attempt to reintroduce the blog topic...)
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good: I agree... when referring to a healthcare right, it is in the "legal rights" bucket.
I’ll drink to that! As far as not being a human right, that is.
C.G>: In your world our healthcare system is a success as long as the quality is high for those who can afford it, regardless of the millions left out.
Actually, I want the quality to be great for everybody. If all you can afford is $100 worth of healthcare, I want it to be quality for them. Shame on any doctor, pharmacy, lab, or hospital that delivers inferior healthcare. The quantity is different, however, as it must be. There must be some relationship based on cost/price system. Insurance greatly severs this relationship, but deductibles and co-pays retain at least a discussable relationship between the two. Having some healthcare not included as you agreed, helps retain some of that healthcare price link. Imagine if you will that C.G. sells widgets on ebay. If price is no object and everybody wants it, what prevents you from raising your price, I mean really high? Nothing. Price does not just gouge the poor and enrich greedy capitalist. It is, to your horror, the necessary tool to ration goods and services to those who need them.
C.B.: Let's quit being so anal about discerning between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.
My apologies. Thank you for being the Preparation H I desperately needed. ;-)
Better to let a few undeserving in, then leave a few deserving out. After all, we are talking about equal healthcare and education here... not equal lives.
Both of which you wish to divorce from the market place. Healthcare is provided by people and businesses. Both of which, regardless of personal charity and mission, are doing it as an occupation for services or product provided. A man is worthy of his hire, and these hard working people should be paid. Price rations your work and your wage, a doctors work and his wage, and my work and my wage. You are trying to extract this industry from the market forces that guide all businesses. You apparently have been missing all the little economic lessons I have been sending your way. I’m not saying you can’t implement national free healthcare. I’m saying it will have very definite economic consequences (among other things) that are wholly undesirable. I’ll give you 5 stars for having a great heart for your fellow man. I’ll give you 4 stars for your zealotry - oh wait, you don’t like zealotry. Skip that. But you only get ½ star for economics. Your hope for a better world is commendable, but to get to a real better world, you must address real economic forces in that real world.
C.G.: This country may very well turn into a country that hates the rich, and it won't be the poor folks fault.
In today’s culture where nothing is anyone’s own fault anymore, I can see where you would include jealousy too.
If you have... X12
So if someone is unfortunate enough to be financially successful in your eyes, they have overstepped the bounds of peasantry, causing all the ills of the earth through their extravagance and ostentatious displays. Particularly evil are the ones driving a Lexus. These should be hung by their Chimera.
Prof. Ricardo
Chimera, tastes just like chicken.
Randy P.said: You might have to lump me in with the moral legislation, I am all for legislating on moral issues like adultery, abortion, drugs and people that break the actually existing laws that we have.
Me too. But usually people of C.G.’s faction don’t agree with the legislation of other faction’s moral legislation. My own faction legislates moral Biblical laws. Common Good may not have interpreted his desire to install healthcare as a legal obligation as legislating morals. I used that moment in my response to you to goose Mr. Good. He likes the attention.
Prof. Ricardo
Do you want fries with your Chimera?
Common Good: People hold out Jack Welch as a hero...
I thought her first name was Raquel...Oh, I’m thinking of someone else with a different excess. :-D
Not until they hang on to "more than they can spend in this lifetime" like it was required for their next breath.
Acquiring wealth. Just out of curiosity, based upon your statement above without getting into polished golf shoes and personal jet planes, dollar wise how much can someone amass? I hope obviously you do not wish all persons to die pennyless. Particularly if they have offspring they wish to pass their wealth on to. Is it acceptable to die leaving a few hundred thou (home, pension, a few bonds, etc.) for the heirs? What if you have 6 or 7 children and its split between them? Maybe a mil or two?
Prof. Ricardo
I dream of gene “E” with the light brown Chimera...
Beyond Common Good said: “But Yoshi... don't you think we have quite a bit of room to operate between my buddy Prof's Neanderthal line and 45 million without healthcare?”
You’ve quoted it over and over. Me too. Everybody does because the faction known as the LL has paraded it in front of us. But the fact is, its not 45,000,000. It is “Between 21 million and 31 million people were uninsured all year.” The qualifing word is “all.” At any one point 40 million people were uninsured for various reasons. Please do some research for yourself.
Off to play Daddy for a few hours.
Prof. Ricardo
PS, Thanks Yoshi for the kind agreement. Just don’t stand too close. I’m an easy target around here.
Yoshitownsend said: ... the Universal Healthcare thing....would have to pay some kind of deductable. Maybe if they had to pay 100 dollars up front...
Which rules out the homeless if that is what they are relying on. But the they get free medical care anyway at the county hospital.
But isn't there access to a minimal amount of basic treatment?
Precisely, but C.G. doesn’t see it. I know of nobody, homeless, poor, anybody that is not now getting healthcare. However, as long as there is one not covered, that is an excuse for some to have federal government trample the system and destroy it for all of us. Yep, it will be equal. Equally bad for all. The problem the left have is that the health care is two fold. One, greedy capitalists are making money at it. Two, the free care is being offered on the local level through community hospitals and is not centrally controlled or managed. They love the centralization of power. It gets the power out of the hands of responsible communities and people and places it into their savior’s hands, big government. It is their form of homage or worship of their savior.
But is the healthcare situation an emergency?
Not in the sense that the people are not having their healthcare needs met. But for the LL faction, it’s the end of planet earth as we know it if it doesn’t pass soon.
Prof. Ricardo
Chimera need healthcare too.
Common Good
Yoshi said:“But isn't there access to a minimal amount of basic treatment?”
Common good responded: “And where does that happen most often. The most expensive form of healthcare we have... in the emergency centers.”
Actually, I think we’re making headway here. So far Common Good has dismissed at least 14 million of the over exaggerated number of uninsured that the LL faction has proffered. He above is responding that “yes, the people are getting healthcare, I’m just worried that it is not the most efficient and cost effective way.”
He realizes that, “Of course "there is a limit to it"...
and finally,
And of course there has to be some form of "incentives" in the system.
Meaning that there must be a cost involved like dollars and cents, probably in the form of deductibles, co-pays, and/or insurance premiums. Meaning that once there is a cost involved, that therefore some will not avail themselves to it, meaning that 100% will not, nor cannot, be insured. I think this is quite a “progressive” move by C.G. towards the free market driven that has, is, and shall continue to provide this country the best healthcare on the planet. C.G. just got a better grade in Prof economics class. It just took the tutor Yoshi to bring out his best.
Prof. Ricardo
Chimera holes, free with every dozen.
Good try.
1) - Have you ever been uninsured for health? There are many reasons why someone is not. Switching between ins. companies, between jobs, college students (who are not the industry standard for maturity), those wealthy you depend to finance your Utopia, Christians and other faith factions that have chosen to rely on God or are also included in that 21-32 million “uninsured.” Poor folks too. Why? With Parkland and JPS, why would they spend their Satelite Dish dollars on anything else?
2) When did I ever say we shouldn't have "incentives" built into the system.
You keep saying its above your paygrade and I think you maybe right. Your “all in” demands that incentives be removed. What is an incentive? If someone does not follow the “incentive”, then a consequence must follow. Eventually that consequence MUST be non-coverage of the individual for not playing fair. That non-coverage is less than 100%. Similarly, that Lexus is every bit worth it’s $50k entry fee. But at $10k, some people still can’t afford it, regardless of how valuable it is. At $1k, still there are those few who can’t afford it.
Maybe your incentive is not money, maybe it’s punishment. “We’ll treat that infection and cane you for using the emergency room!”
3) I'm not "just worried" about the expensive use of the emergency centers. I am "convinced is incredibly stupid" to provide a healthcare safety net in that fashion.
Do you think the medical personnel at these county hospitals show up everyday amazed that people are actually showing up for medical care in different degrees of need? Everybody is triaged. The emergency room in all hospitals are geared to channel true emergencies where they need to go and sniffles where they need to go. Right now people WITH insurance are going to the emergency rooms too. Their deductible is so low, or their emergency room use is covered 100%, why not? The incentive to make them quit must be financial. This "incredibly stupid" healthcare net serves all and satisfies all, maybe not some bureaucrats in Washington DC, but satisfies ALL parties involved.
4) Why is the anti-Universal Healthcare faction so anti-business. You are crippling business by tying healthcare on their backs.
Ok, we’re chasing rabbits here. Please tell me that you’re just trying to be obstinate and you’re not that clue-less about economics.
C.G., economic and social “laws”, as it were, are every bit as real and measurable as gravity or any physical property behavior. You can not assign demand or supply by fiat. They are in response to the market. The market is nothing more than the macro inclusion of all willing buyers and all willing sellers and their available knowledge base with respect to current, past, and expected prices and availability. The “market” is not some evil invention of wicked greedy men. It exists since the dawn of man, in communist countries, prisons, and school rooms. Its everywhere. If you are standing on terra firma and you drop an apple, it will fall toward the earth’s center. If you take a known commodity (say, healthcare) and you reduce the price or BY DEFINITION everybody will have it, then those above elementary paygrades are going to know that “if we are going to get it anyway”(100% no matter what) why pay? Why play fair? Why make an effort?
A common characteristic happens to children of the wealthy or other family members subsidized by a family member: they become underachievers. They rely upon the economic benefit, start to see it as their “right,” and will resent the person who is giving, not only if the funds are withheld, but also for having that power over them and their disappointment in themselves for needing or wanting it. This same social response happens to those that will have healthcare thrust upon them.
There are social behaviors and laws that you do not understand. They will affect the implementation of Universal Healthcare, and deferring to a higher paygrade is not going to let you off the hook. Yoshi is not my disciple. He knows these principles. He understands these relationships and is not blind to their evidences throughout history. David Johnston, author of Perfectly Legal, appears to be ignorant of these economic laws and social behaviors as well. So many of your responses ignore basic economic and social laws. Its hard to formulate a response when you ignore the major players. I’ve just purchased several economics books for my son as we do his economics course this year. If you wish I could get you the names of a couple of the key books for you. Then you could at least argue without ignoring major components of the argument. Not trying to be condescending. You’re a smart man, but you got to come on board with the real effects of what you are proposing, at least to a point where we can unproductively argue the details. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Kibbles & Chimera
Common Good said:
Let me state something a little different.
Economics is no longer a valid reason to avoid Universal Healthcare.
Of course its not. Your standard is 100% participation. Economic feasibility and consequences are secondary at best.
Of course this economic dismissal is a recent viewpoint of yours considering on the Curm’s web blog you have said in the past: For example, we don't have the capacity ($) to keep every single person in our country on life support... i.e. keep everyone on machines as long as technology can facilitate, regardless of mental capacity. Think we have a health insurance crisis now... just go there.
It would appear that economics matter depending on who’s Shiavo is getting gored. I think economics are a key part to PAYING for anything, or choosing who will be paying. In fact, this issue is nothing but economics. There are already doctors, nurses, drug companies, and hospitals doing what they do - healthcare. What you are wanting to do is make it ECONOMICALLY feasible for ALL to have access. At least that is what I hope your intentions are. Sometimes it seems that those intentions are secondary to implementing a National Healthcare Insurance/Plan regardless of the eventual consequences on all receiving healthcare. We don’t want mediocre healthcare for all. The greater roll that government plays, the more mediocre it will become.
Of the “conservative arguments against universal healthcare,” #1 is a matter of priorities. It was expensive to go to the Moon, but in the sixties we felt it was worth it. If universal (government) healthcare is a good idea, then it should be our focus of what we can “afford.”
#2 - Never said it, don’t defend it. However, because I am generally against universal (government) healthcare you have imputed positions and ideologies on me that are contrary to my nature.
#3 - This IS the crux of the matter. How many people are going to Bosnia, East Germany, and Cuba for those operations? You don’t think their healthcare services have suffered from influences of a controlling government do you? The poor here are already being given healthcare. We’re even giving it to immigrants. Even the illegal variety. You are not adding to those now receiving healthcare, you are wanting to change who is responsible and how it is paid. The healthcare professional does good healthcare because of the patient. By making the purchaser of healthcare an HMO, the government, or some regulatory body, the patient becomes secondary. The healthcare suffers. You play for the one who pays the piper.
The government schools are an example of this. This past century has seen the evolution of local control of schools to centralization (to a degree). From 144,102 school districts in 1930 to 15,361 school districts in 1990 with 4 times the population. The schools went from serving the parents, to serving the institution of education and politicians and the NEA and whoever else could garner sway like Planned Parenthood and such. Do we have a consensus here on the state of education in this country now vs a hundred years ago? The literacy in this country was 99+% two hundred years ago. Right now I’m being kind to say that 25% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Two hundred years ago there was no compulsory attendance laws - totally voluntary. Now its compulsory. Why is it local operated voluntary institutions ALWAYS out perform their centralized counterparts? I know. And it’s your job to find out before you press the issue of universal (government) healthcare any further. One so caring about healthcare would not do well knowing after an inoperable tumor of centralization engulfed their area of passion and concern, that they played a part in feeding the cancer. There are a lot of reasons to argue against mandatory universal (government) healthcare, and economics is one of them. After all the wisdom from my good friend Common Good is telling: “... healthcare costs are going to be a bitch.
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good said:
...lunch is calling.
Then you don’t have much time to kill it, clean it, cook it, and eat it. Chimera? Yea, me too.
The link is www - wait a second. Let me repeat myself: “W” “W” “W” :-D
www.aleks.com
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good said: “Rabbits. Why won't you acknowledge that using emergency centers as our safety-net is about as economically retarded as one could design?
Precisely. “As one could design.” But “one” didn’t design it did they? “One” didn’t have to. It developed quite naturally and effectively in 10,000 places independent of each other. How about that! Tens of thousands of people erected a system independent of one another to deal with the medical needs of their community, including the indigent, whereby all persons needs were being met at the same time that healthcare personnel were being paid a decent wage to take home to their families. None of it was centrally planned or “designed.” A “designer,” particularly in our progressive age, would have designed an elaborate scheme of agencies, distribution centers, a healthcare ID card, application centers, central processing centers, and thirty day waiting lists to see if colds are severe enough for spending tax dollars on and to give them time enough to process the mountains of paperwork. A “designer” would have never thought it could have just happened. He would have dismissed the invisible hand that Adam Smith spoke of. Your right. To the economically ignorant, ill informed, progressive, government embracing “reasonable man” - which I wholeheartedly agree encompasses the vast majority of Americans (we’ll just call them public high school graduates) - a “designed” system is the only way that makes sense.
Sad, but true.
Prof. Ricardo
Black Widow Spider - The original hourglass figure.
In yet another piece of evidence condemning man for global warming, the ice sheets on Antarctica are thickening.
I don’t know how and I don’t know why, but I’m sure its America’s fault, capitalism’s effects, and the worst offender, the religious right.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
Re: Global warming. If you were not privy to the discussion on Global warming we had recently, just go to the Tony’s previous blog. I gave a quote from a Walter E. Williams column that I think you’ll find interesting. Though I too often stab at humor, my poking fun at global warming has to do with the seriousness with which people have taken this unknown given the contradicting evidence, the presumptions necessary in the mathmatical models, and the agenda of those pushing hardest to get us to accept it.
I don’t have much time at the present to deliver a crushing blow to global warming, but I have been following it in the news, radio, television, editorials, internet, books, and anywhere else I could read about it. Those who have been around the Metroplex for a good many years may remember a weatherman by the name of Herald Taft. Very well respected, died of cancer about a decade ago. One of the last things he did was contribute a great deal of time evaluating temperature increases over the last 100 years. He said there was NO indication that there was a warming trend. From what I understand, the global warming proponents have staked their claim on a mathematical model that has something like 25 variables, if any one of which if its projected values is wrong, or if the model itself is wrong, or if the measurements are wrong, or the data points are too sparse or too concentrated in the wrong areas, the whole model fails. And that’s just it, it’s a computer model. I can give you evidence tit for tat with all the global warming evidence.
Now about the global warming crowd. Sorry Tony, but I’ve got to repeart a small quote from Walter Williams here:
You say, "Williams, are the environmentalists lying and deliberately frightening us?" That's part of their strategy. Consider what environmentalist activist Stephen Schneider said in a 1989 issue of Discover: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Here's what former Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., was quoted as saying in Michael Fumento's "Science Under Siege": "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we'll be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
These are the same chaps that claimed a new ice age was due in the 70's. These are the same chaps that talk of a hole in the ozone. NEWSFLASH: It Is Not A Hole! It is a slight depression of about 15% and it was discovered in the 1950's and has not since been as “thin” as it was first measured.
Re: Your asthma. Asthma, cancer, Alzheimer, obesity - I am quote sure that there are a multitude of ailments in the world that are caused by pollution, both industrial and handling consumer chemicals like Diazanon, etc. Government through the FDA and other departments taken over our role of watching out for ourselves. We figure if its on the shelf, its gotta be safe. No body reads the warning labels since so many stupid labels are on products because of idiot lawyers (no offense intended) who have sued everybody over the most inane reasons. Product liability lawsuits are a real measure of how far a society/government has convinced people it will take care of them. Nutrition, or lack thereof, is a great contributor to these ailments. Most is too long for specifics, but our family has modified its diet greatly in response to allergies and for preventative measure. The outstanding growth of fast food restaurants, processed “convenience foods”, is telling. It is also a light at the end of the tunnel to see Whole Foods and Central Market doing well.
My dismissal of global warming mostly has to do with bad characters with bad agendas relying on bad science to determine the next step for our world. And that’s bad.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.
...and economic reasons for abolition too....And your point?
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
And are these "bad" characters with "bad" agendas people like Dick Cheney and W. Bush who aren't going to try and wean us off oil (in fact they subsidize it) (wonder why? Hmm...)
#1) I am not apologist for Cheney & Bush. Their existence has no bearing on how I feel about global warming. Zip, nadda.
The bad characters of the pro-GW (global warming) group are the proponents of it. They, as my quote above suggests, realize that they don’t know if its true, and if its not, don’t let that get in the way of their agenda. GW is merely a vehicle for their agenda. Therefor their testimony, evidence, and science is suspect.
#2) I hope to God that Cheney, Bush, and other politicians do not feel its their duty to wean us off oil. Its not their job to figure out what energy the wee peasants need this year. Right now oil is cheap, plentiful, and relatively clean for the environment. Compare the emissions from today’s automobiles with those of just 10, 20, 50, & 80 years ago. Almost clean enough to wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe? ;-) Our people have embraced the portable power that fossil fuels offer. That availability has been partially responsible for our many benefits in this country.
#3) And replace the fossil fuel with what? Hydrogen? How do they isolate the hydrogen? It takes lots of power, power derived mostly from fossil fuels. You just moved the fossil fuels from the fuel tank to the power plant, and at greater cost to the consumer. Solar? Yep, I bet we all want to see ambulances powered by electric/solar/etc. coming down the street silently at 23 mph with frustrated occupants trying to “rush” to the scene. Admit it, fossil fuels are the best for local transportation. The public knows it, industry supports this demand, and it is not our representatives job to go behind our backs and wean us off that which is best for us.
So, how many electric/hydrogen vehicles you folks own already? They are available right now. Why not voluntarily choose them for our transportation if they are the best alternative?
<...wean us off oil (in fact they subsidize it) (wonder why? Hmm...)
I’m always willing to learn. Please tell me of these subsidies. Being a free market person I have a great interest in politicians doing stupid things like this. Thanks.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
...even though pro-business magazines like Fortune say it's eventually going to catch up to us and the longer we wait the more "shock" it's going to have on our economies. And we aren't talking a little shock. We're talking a big one.
As YOU know, price will vary with scarcity. As oil becomes more scarce, those alternatives (alcohol, electric, hydrogen, biodiesel) will become more attractive. People will migrate to the alternatives if enough incentive exists. Any “shock” will be an act of government or terrorism, not a naturally occurring phenomena in the market place. If congress passes a “wean us off oil” tax of $3.00/gallon, that could be a shock. But as foreign oil price goes up, domestic production increases because unprofitable wells become profitable, exploration becomes profitable. It is government that is standing in the way of the Alaska Anwar wildlife reserve oil being tapped. It is government that made offshore drilling a sin. It is government that made opening new refineries prohibitively expensive. And if government is currently subsidizing big oil, that screws with the price information people depend on to make their decisions.
Any “shock” will not be the last drop of oil coming out of the ground. It will be the government either rapidly distorting the market, or rapidly withdrawing its distortion.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
Anyway, that's the "bad" agenda for "conservatives" refuting the negative consequences of burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. That's why I don't trust them. They are selling out our future to make a buck today.
I don’t think conservatives dismiss all of fossil fuel negatives. However, obsessing over their negatives leads us to rush into alternatives that don’t have a distribution network, not proven, negatives unknown, or negatives not accessed. These kinds of things have happened in the past. Give people information and let the market decide. Currently people, both conservatives and liberals, vote with their dollars and the vote is nearly unanimous, fossil fuels rock. Those businesses willing to supply our fix are not immoral, greedy, or should have any shame for doing so. They are merely providing a commodity at the market price. You are welcome to play the game and no matter how much money you make, you won’t hear me complain about it. You can also market the alternatives with nothing but a profit motive and I will do nothing but sing your praises. Game?
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
The best I can find on oil subsidies by those complaining about them are as follows:
1) Tax breaks, federal $2 billion.
2) Tax breaks, low state & local sales tax, indirect, $4 billion.
3) Motor vehicle infrastructure and services, $45 billion.
4) Oil-related health and environmental damage, ~ $232 billion.
Ok, let’s say I give you items 1 & 2. Let’s talk about how ridiculous items 3 & 4 are.
#3 - Because oil companies did not build the roads, the signal lights, the road signs, highway maintenance, & ancillary infrastructures, they are considered subsidized by that cost annually? Bunk! I don’t want to drive on Exxon/Mobil roadways, Texaco/Shell toll bridges, etc. It’s not their responsibility to determine where roads, highways, and other infrastructure is placed and what it is to consist of. Maybe I misunderstood what they were talking about. Could you enlighten me and show me how that is not the communities responsibility, but is the oil companies responsibility?
#4 - This is scary. If petroleum products are legal to sell, then oil companies should be able to sell them without having to guarantee how the end user will use or misuse them. I prepare tax returns and accounting. I do an excellent job. However, what somebody does with that return once they leave my office is not my responsibility it is theirs. Same with firearm sales. Save with heavy machinery sales. Same with chemical sales, same with everything. We ALL need to be responsible for our own actions. Placing the consequences of a fossil fuel addicted society on the businesses that have chosen to provide us with the fuel we legally demand is preposterous. Although, in a legal sense I understand how society is evolving from personal responsibility into blaming the deep pocket. That way we can demonize legitimate businesses and get rich off of our misfortunes.
If you want to discuss the real subsidies listed under #1 & #2, I will oblige you. I have a few opinions to share in that area as well. But you probably already guessed that. :-D
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.,
The bullet item was 4) Oil-related health and environmental damage, ~ $232 billion.
I didn't take that to be a "product liability" item...It appears to me to represent a fair social contract with the energy industry.
My father-in-law dealt with product liability in the agricultural business. Folks did stupid stuff like cut off metal guards from around moving parts so that they could access parts better, or whatever. Or have their children stand on a rotary cutter while the machine is moving. Hit a bump child is maimed or dies. Is it stupid daddy’s fault for endangering the child? Nope. Should’ve had a sticker covering every stupid act, another guard, training, you name it - It’s the company’s fault. You can burn fuel efficiently, or you can commit arson. The liability for the most part should be what we choose to do with the product, individually or as society. If there are standards as to fuel quality or whatever, fine. But the end user should not be given license to kill because 100% of responsibility for the environment and health is on the oil companies shoulders. I saw it loosely tied to product liability, but more in the sense of the consequence of the end user not falling on the end user, but back up the production chain.
Congratulations on 200! You seemed younger to me. :-D
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi:
Prof. I am starting to think you are not in fact a "conservative" at all. Sometimes you sound like one of those Anarchists who think governments should dissolve and everyone will provide their own local security and all that.
Close. If you looked at tax law and saw the umpty-nine volumes and hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations, notices, code, etc. AND you looked at the large volumes of OSHA requirements, AND you looked at the massive amount of regulations and laws on medical drugs through the FDA and the bodacious quantities of rules and regulations on securities transactions from the SEC, and if you . . . OK, you get the idea. Now guess what? There are communist countries in this world that think we’re not centralized enough and that our government is, well, akin to anarchy. People have too much freedom. They can travel w/o having to show their “papers.” They actually get to choose their occupation. We’re allowed to own property. Very anarchist stuff, but only relative to their restrictive societies.
There is a level of freedom that none of us know. It was auctioned away for security years ago. There is a characteristic of government, as are all entities, that once created their focus becomes survival of the entity itself. Government will expand its size, its control, & its cost. People today can not imagine a time when it was your own responsibility to watch out for snake oil salesman. Today that is the government’s business. We have handed off responsibility so much that we don’t even know what level of freedom can be had.
I hesitate to bring up the dreaded “F” word, but our founding father’s knew all this and designed a system that would preserve our freedoms to the point that as poor of an example as we are now to the freedom our country use to offer, people still flock to us by the millions.
Anarchist? No. But relative to what we now have it might sure seem that way. I am one of the few remnants keeping the vision alive. And yes, I do realize the futility of my efforts as my fellow men embrace Big Brother and long for the day he will wipe their bottoms for them.
Prof. Ricardo
OK, this is the kind of thing I cannot fail to comment on: the best and worst US Presidents.
Best
1) George Washington – not even a contest
2) Abraham Lincoln – a distant second, but way ahead of #3
{now it gets harder}
3) Thomas Jefferson
4) FDR
5) Theodore Roosevelt
6) James Madison
Worst
1) Ulysses S. Grant - again, not even a contest
2) Lyndon Johnson
3) George W. Bush – though he may “rise” on the list yet
4) Richard Nixon
5) Jimmy Carter
6) Andrew Johnson
7) Bill Clinton
8) Calvin Coolidge
9) John Quincy Adams
Yoshi: “Of course in my post I never claimed oil companies had to pay the cleanup costs, just that society does. ”
I know. But you did claim huge subsidies. Since you didn’t offer specifics, I went looking. What I found on numerous sites was the majority was health and environment, not direct subsidies. So no, you did not claim this, but the sites claiming subsidies did.
“No, I noticed the old Prof. specifically seem to dance around most everything I said about fossil fuels though.”
Not really.
“I was saying in fact that the govt. could help new technology by building some kind of nationwide grid to repower fuel cells at existing gas stations.”
If the government subsidizes it, is this fair to its competitors? I.e., if I am trying to create a real, viable alternative to fossil fuels by inventing an electric car with a range of 500 miles (almost unheard of). I’ve spent 50 million of mine, my relatives, and numerous investors money to make it ago in the market place. Then Senator Yoshi passes a bill subsidizing fuel cells by 80 billion. Now my business is sunk. Was my idea a workable good idea? We’ll never know. It wasn’t the market place that defeated it. It was the government playing unfair rewarding one alternative over another. Don’t say: well if its any good it’ll make it in the market place because that’s what I’m saying about all alternatives.
“ This costs money, but if they pulled, diverted money away that they already spend on fossil fuel subsidies...”
I’m still trying to find those subsidies. And if they’re wrong in one industry, why are they right in another?
“And I seriously doubts he believes in uniting with other Americans to help end extreme poverty, as does even Pat Robertson now.”
I am all about helping the poor. However, my idea of helping the poor is through organizations I am familiar with who are accountable to me and other donors. I feel that benevolence is when I reach into my pocket and give to one in need, not when I reach into my neighbor’s pocket and give his money to the one in need. A radical thought, I know.
“The irony however is that both you, Randy, and the Prof., are supposedly representing Christianity on this blog. Christianity, without a sense of social justice, is like having a Flat Screen TV and surround sound stereo systems in your house but with no electricity to power them. What I mean is "What in the world is the point of Christianity if this isn't it?"”
There may be reasons to criticize the Christians who have fallen short of their duties, but do not judge their sense of social justice because they did not use a prevailing socialist methodology to accomplish it by.
“ That religion is on trial as far as I am concerned. I no longer call myself a Christian anymore, b/c it's a dead religion, worthless to me.
I’m am so sorry. Unfortunately the world often sees imperfect Christian’s response to a world whose culture is the antithesis of God’s plan for man. If I may digress for a moment because this is far more important than arguing about fossil fuels. God is real and created everything and there is nothing I can say that can convince you of that. He has a plan of redemption for man that is worthwhile to you and me. Once someone is redeemed, he is not immediately an expert in Christianity or ready to become Pope. He is a new babe in Christ. Babe’s are cute, but they’re not very useful. They crawl around and make a mess. Because of some pretty wretched preaching, there are plenty of “baby” Christian that should have matured. They, and I count myself partly responsible, have tried more to legislate the worldly citizens into being righteous, than through changing their hearts towards Christ. There will always be excellent examples and pathetic examples of every group: politicians, Christians, auto mechanics, etc. However, If I may be so bold, even if all of the examples of Christians before you are pathetic, that will not be a worthy excuse for rejecting Jesus Christ on the day of judgement. I implore you to look beyond those who have disappointed you. With your insight into how Christian should act, why don’t you become the model Christian that others look to?
Later that day on the Bat Channel...
“Can I take back the part about Christianity being dead and meaningless? I now change that to "the RR's hijacked version of Christianity is...."
Your name written in the book of life is of more importance to me. Really.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi:
When I said the Prof. didn't address something, I meant he ignored the military costs of oil. I think that's fair game.
Shall we include the cost of homeland defense in the “subsidized” cost of office space? We lost 50,000 sq ft in the two towers alone, let alone adjoining buildings. Do we include lost wages, healthcare for immigrants, etc. in the cost of our food? We could draw numerous analogies across society, showing its interconnectedness. I don’t think we want to open that box.
Lets call a subsidy a subsidy and work with that. Do oil companies get a depletion deduction? The answer is yes! Without going into details, its basically like saying that 15% of their income is not subject to tax. If you have something wrong with this, fine. We subsidize homeowners, parents who farm out to daycare, makin’ babies (child tax credit), etc. We reward some activities and circumstances and penalize others. Somewhere in time after Noah parked the boat, they felt it necessary to give a depletion deduction. Probably got tired of horse poo on the streets. They obviously didn’t ask me for my opinion. :-) But if it lowered my fuel costs, then I must have received a subsidy too...indirectly, of course. You, therefore, also received a energy subsidy. Now take that savings and invest it into alternative energy. K?
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi:
What's next? Oh, I was thinking about the Prof.'s dismissal of Global Warming.
I did not dismiss discussing it with you and others here, the previous blog, or at WilderBlog. But until I see concrete evidence from those not calling themselves dishonest that there is a real concern, I will dismiss it.
So all this research and evidence and all those guys in Dallas posting the "Ozone alert days," that's all just a big, massive, world-wide conspiracy.
Ozone alert days do not global warming make. Just like smoking is pollution and bad for your health, it doesn’t affect global warming.
...and Prof., an accountant, have actually unlocked the mystery and they discovered it's all B.S.
I too have deferred the scientific details to the experts. My experts disagree with your experts. And my experts didn’t say: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Q: Do you think simplified dramatic statements are for the thinking man or the emotional type?
If we err, it needs to be on the side of life. All our lives.
I’m glad to hear that, ‘cause I didn’t take you for the Pro-Life type.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.,
Prof... btw... is that all you have to say about the book Perfectly Legal. It's not like you to hold back... maybe the author actually dented your convictions. Nah! LOL
Sorry, I had 1.5 pages of small handwritten critique of the first chapter. I am progressing slowly. I’ll discuss details later.
Prof. Ricardo
Obi-Wan Yoshi:
"Oil is completely inelastic because without it the economy will stop dead in its tracks. It is a monopoly in that sense. There are no realistic alternatives now."
I agree. But the same can be said of Microsoft Windows XP. Sure there is Unix, Linux, et al., but Microsoft has the PC market covered. It is not market by license or design, but by superiority of product. Alternatives exist to automotive fuel. Let me discuss two.
1) Electric. Heavy because of all the batteries. Slow because of the need to conserve battery power. Actually electrics can be outrageously powerful and they don’t have the torque curve of a traditional engine. Full on power from 1 rpm up. I’d say battery storage reserve is a key problem here. Locomotives use diesel power to create the electricity to power its “electric” locomotive engines. The pollution still exists. With vehicles getting the electricity from sources outside of the vehicle itself (non-hybrid), several more objections accrue:
A) Time for “refueling” is inconveniently long.
B) The source of energy used is probably polluting. Coal, etc.
C) As you said the infrastructure is not in place.
D) New chemicals used in current lead-acid and new designed batteries may be new sources of pollution. If there is any cost in disposing old batteries, people will pollute with them. Landfills, ditches, backyards, etc. Will this have an impact on the environment? How much? Etc.
2) Fuel Cell. I’m pretty ignorant on this one. However, they aren’t bulldozing hydrogen on the road side. They have to make it either chemically or mechanically. This takes a lot of power. Where do we get this power? See item “B” above. In the land of milk and convenience, does it offer cost and other benefits enough to warrant the inconvenience of not currently having a distribution infrastructure in place? People who really want to can overcome this. Remember the diesel vehicles by Mercedes, VW Rabbit, Olds Cutlass and others from the 1970's? You just had to go to a truck stop. How about handling hydrogen. Is it safe? Is it poisonous if it leaks into the passenger compartment? How well does it handle altitude changes, vehicular accidents, market changes?
There are lots of unknowns (by me at least). I know all this about dirty fossil fuels. And with electronics and catalytic converters, it is exponentially cleaner than my old Dodge musclecar..
I’m all about looking 20 years down the road. I want entrepreneurs to invent, implement, and profit from a growing market for alternatives. Not be force to change to Alternative “A” by the government, particularly when Alternative “B” was better. Bureaucrats don’t have a good track record on predicting the future. The market is extremely adaptive and resilient. If fossil fuel evaporated completely over night. From Mom&Pops to conglomerates would in short order have a multitude of alternatives that would boggle the mind. Ready for a steam powered Suburban?
Prof. Ricardo
There comes a time when a person has to be man enough to ask to be rescued out of a situation. This is the time and I am that person. As I sit hear beating my skull against my desk I am recoiling in horror at the Republicans response to the Democrats. Rumor is growing that Laura Bush is positioning herself for a possible Presidential run. This ludicrous act can only be done in response to Senator Hillary RODHAM Clinton supposed run for 2008. If this girl girl race happens we will know that America is the laughing stock of the world. Men have forfeited any leadership roles and the political parties have shut out wisdom through the ages with a historical perspective of man, for the entertainment of an American Idol race. It will be the quintessential Tit for Tat...hold that thought...release... America is in an inebriated, crack smoking, Darvon induced vertigo spiral on the road of wisdom and both parties are jumping on its back hooting & hollering to beat all. I don’t know when the next bus is leaving this planet, but I know its late or I’ve missed it.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi,
You said, "Speaking of Sean Hannity, I have this sense the he masterbates to pictures of Pat Tilman..."
Put down the mouse, stamp out the peyote, and back away from the keyboard. You may be right, but that is just a mental imagine I did NOT NEED.
OK, I’m confused. Again. Why is it y’all watch far more FOX TV than I do?
Prof. Ricardo
C.G.: “You are an anarchist... you don't have a TV? :)
Yes, but I think its under my stack of John Birch Society meeting flyers up at my Y2K cabin in the mountains. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi said: "Also, do you think that when a society has fallen deep into economic crisis, it needs external help to get it back on track?"
Its not necessary, but could be helpful. Economic crisis might occur if 8% of your population is wiped out by a tsunami or 99% wiped out through government strangulation and centralized control ala communism. The problem must be identified to find the cure. Some of the African countries have had infusions of money and material aid, but governments (a loose use of the term considering their conduct, for sure) unconcerned for their own people intercepted the aid. So, is there problem economic or political? Both, because they are dependent upon one another. You CAN NOT have economic freedom without political freedom, AND you CAN NOT have political freedom without economic freedom. If you find a country in economic distress, immediately look at its political and social components for a diagnosis. Great poverty is rarely the cause of laziness, but is almost exclusively caused by people impoverished by a prevailing government or culture. You have to correct the problem first. No need to feed a man who still has a tight noose around his neck.
As regards external help. Is that free aid or loans? If free, you could wreck economic commerce. If loans, without a removal of that cause which impoverishes, the country will only acquire debt, then seek to cancel debt. Usually not helping those who needed to be helped, but destroying a possible good international relationship by borrowing money, then not paying it back.
Once a society has been impoverished, a rebellion, revolution, or overthrow of the impoverishing government/culture is necessary. Mankind has a poor record of doing this well. For an excellent example of what is involved in dissolving bonds with a tyrant and how to do it, start by reading the Declaration of Independence and study our country’s reasons and method of gaining independence.
Question for you: If you are in an impoverished society and another country comes in with aid, say free food, and that is exactly what you are trying to sell to provide for your family, what does that distribution of free food do to your business?
Prof. Ricardo
Tacky.
Yoshi said: “So, say the Iraqi people, no longer having Saddam Hussein, should be absolved of its debt that ol' Saddam accumulated?”
No. Just like if Bush obligates the U.S. to pay, after he’s gone, we’re still liable. It may not be what we want, but to be a good guy ourselves, sometimes we have to foot the bar tab for the worthless brother-in-law.
Yoshi: “Actually, in the case of Poland, the reverse was true. With too much debt overhang, you can not get more credit. ...When the books are clean, creditors start knocking on your door again. Especially when they see the political/ economic changes accompanying this debt write-off.”
I have no doubt it was good for Poland. But if the loans came out of my pocket, that hurts. Now it moves from loans to foreign aid. If that’s what the taxpayers, bank shareholders, or whoever is happy with, so be it. I wouldn’t mind a little debt forgiveness myself from the mortgage company. :-)
"Question for me: If you are in an impoverished society and another country comes in with aid, say free food, and that is exactly what you are trying to sell to provide for your family, what does that distribution of free food do to your business?"
“ So, we can infer that the Prof. now supports emergency aid such as tsunami relief (or other crises that compare in scope, hint, hint).
Now, now. Let’s not trash well earned heartless conservativism with careless extrapolations. :-D Of course as fellow compassionate humans we should help those less fortunate. However, I am sure you are talking of federal government money going to relief. Without respect to whether it is a good idea economically, socially, and politically for the U.S., one has to address the permissibility within our constitutional government....i.e., is it permitted? My question to you is: Why the federal government? Why not the states?, the counties?, the cities?, the regions? Any other association of individuals w/o regard to geography? I know these days it is neigh impossible for people to consider international anything if it is not done federally, but that is the centralized planning, socialism influence guiding our thought. BTW, I did not use “socialism” as a curse word, but as a description of perspective that biases against individual, private, or local efforts, and biases for non-individual, collective, and centralized perspective.
Debt relief ONLY under extremely extenuating circumstances...
If its somebody else’s money, its easy to forgive debt. BTW, can I borrow ten grand. I’ll pay you back soon. Really.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi: “....shouldn't have to pay for debts that are "illegitimate."”
I agree. So define “illegitimate” leaders. Kings? Elected tyrants (Hitler)? The winner of the US year 2000 election? Would the Democrats definition of “illegitimate” (2000 election) be considered the definition? Do you have any clue how many leaders throughout history would fit their definition?
Common Good said: “Let's say a tech business goes bankrupt. They get there debt cleared by wiping out the stockholders. Let's say 10 years later, after given a clean start, they turn into another Microsoft. Whether they turn into another Microsoft or not, there is never anything carried on the books regarding the original stockholders.”
That is because, as you said, the were given a “clean start.”
“It would seem that a company given a clean start, could carry this little asterisk on the balance sheet which says... if you make it to point $x, you own x% back to the original stockholders until they are made whole. You could make it where the provision never kicked in unless the company made it in a significant way...
Then it is not a clean start, it becomes a contingent liability. That asterisk would have to be on every financial statement. It would affect the markets valuation of the stock, it would affect the loans made to the company. The non-stockholder stockholders would have to be tracked. Because there is a potential value to it “if the company made it big,” then it would have a market and possibly be traded. Just like stocks & options, their would be bankruptcy pink slips. When it eventually paid off, probably few of the original stockholders might still hold an interest in the contingent “if we make it big” pseudo-stock. Then, what are its characteristics? Does it get accumulated earnings? What is its basis? Would its existence keep you from recognizing a loss on your tax return? Is it covered by SEC? Reported on tracked by EPS, shares outstanding? Could it be purchased back by the company as Treasury stock?
Part of owning stock, or even being a sole proprietor, is, you might just loose everything. It is a calculated gamble. In the real world, everybody knew that about stocks. You hated it, but took it like a man. Now, people want a guaranteed ride, outcome, we all cross the finish line side- by-side and we all jump up and down screaming “We win!” The great profits of stock ownership are for the risk involved in stock ownership.
”I've never understood how stockholders could be completely wiped from the books for life.”
It’s a percentage math thingy. 4% of $0 = $0. Try it on your calculator. I’ll wait for you.:)
Prof. Ricardo
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yoshi: So basically, the entire problem with the developing world is simply that they don't have democratically elected leaders, or just good leaders? ...They aren't in some perpetual vicious downward spiral poverty trap?...Do you have any other solutions besides "let's just wait until Jesus gets back to fix it?"
I like the great 20th Century philosopher Rodney King. After the LA riots sparked by his resistence to arrest and the police beating on him with night sticks, he said, “Can’t we all just get along?”
I would like for other countries to permit their peoples to have liberty like what our country has and guarantees, both economic, religious, and political. However, if a nation chooses a course of governing and society that not only permits widespread poverty, but encourages it through its various influences, who then are outsiders to “force” their choice upon the sovereign nation? The consequences of Fascism may be real and painful, but as an autonomous country that chooses this for themselves, what international moral law are you appealing to that can have us intercede, that does not also open our country to the attack and influences of other nations who see our own short comings? You have mentioned on several occasions your compassion for the people of Africa. Are you willing to extend that compassion to our near neighbors with horrendous poverty in the country of Cuba? What do you propose? Their hunger pains are no less than any others, but they supposedly love their communist leader and his form of government that enslaves them in poverty.
If our affairs are perfect at home, we have solved all social and economic ills, we are without political strife, and revenues runneth over the government coffers, the Constitution permitting, we could spread the good cheer to nations in need. But we are far from that.
Here is an analogy for you. It is hard to see a family member acting self destructive with alcoholism. It is also hard to see those family members hurt by the alcoholism not of their own making. However, our aid to the alcoholic often covers up, hides, facilitates, or enables the alcoholic to continue his destructive behavior, the consequences of which we have partially insulated him from by our aid. Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes it is necessary to let them hit bottom and come face-to-face with the consequences of their actions.
Likewise men of different world views construct governments to protect or destroy liberty, commerce, and felicity of their fellow citizens. Regardless of their goals, the results of their actions may be dire. To what level is it prudent to tax/impoverish your own nation to whom you do have an obligation to, to address the concerns of foreign peoples whom you do not have an obligation to, but wish to elevate economically and politically, even though that would be 1) arrogant to do so on our part, thus insulting the country we seek to help, 2) possibly insulating them from the consequences of bad government or culture, or 3) estranging our selves from other countries not receiving our favoritism.
I’m sorry that you are not pleased that I am not a yes man, rubber stamping checks to all nations, forgiving debt at will.
I appreciate your good intentions, but you cannot make men do the right thing. In fact, as a nation, we rarely even agree on the right thing. Let’s take care of the home front first and let the missionaries and hundreds of well funded private organizations identify, infiltrate, and influence where the greatest good can be done.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi, You appear to have this generalized understanding of things sometimes.
I suppose that’s what it “appears” like. You see, I try view the situation based on the principles involved and the definitions of the words. I tried to offer a problem area of defining who “illegitimate” leaders were, with regards to paying debt. I’m still open to your definition. Definitions matter. Otherwise we really haven’t agreed, and without a meeting of the minds, its hard to establish a real response.
I said: "However, if a nation chooses a course of governing and society that not only permits widespread poverty, but encourages it through its various influences, who then are outsiders to “force” their choice upon the sovereign nation?"
The Yoshi said: “Here lies the basic disagreement. What if, instead of the problems being "internal," caused not by bad governance but instead by outsider "EXTERNAL" governance.
I agree that there are internal and external factors affecting trade and potentially the wealth of the people. However, in your move to explain this concept, you did not address my issue. Was not the issue of outsiders forcing their choice upon a sovereign nation a key argument of some about President Bush attacking Iraq? Frankly I had no answer for this since. But for your argument, I will temporarily abandon internal causes to discuss external “governance.”
Yoshi: “Unfair trade laws anyone(?), agricultural subsidies, anyone?
True, free trade is beneficial for all. However external trade laws are not as harmful as internal trade laws. If you are Zimbabwe, and you want grain, if the USA puts Tarriffs or an outright ban on grain to Zimbabwe, there are 275 other countries they can turn to. If the US taxes its people and in turn subsidizes its grain to Zimbabwe, the dumping of cheap grain could be harmful to the local economy. It has a couple of choices. It could enjoy the generosity of our country taxing itself for their benefit through subsidies, OR it could counter with Tarriffs to offset the subsidies up to the now imaginary “market rate.” The greatest harm would be internal controls forbidding trade, Tarriffs on all trades, etc., because these all affect their own country, whereas other countries trade modifications only affect their trade and Zimbabwe can seek trade with others as they see fit.
Yoshi: “ Crippling debt overhang anyone?
As an external condition as unpleasant as debt is, there is a consequence to borrowing money - having to pay it back. Not all debt is acquired by Despots. Not all financiers are mobsters deserving non-payment. Bona fide countries have over borrowed. Rewarding bad fiscal policy by giving them - How did Common Good refer to it? Oh yea - a “clean start,” will not have the likely happy outcome of them learning not to over borrow. Once again, I am talking concepts and principles. People are attracted to reward and repelled from penalty and negative consequence. If borrowing like crazy does not mean one has to pay for it, what have they learned from their policy of borrowing money?
Yoshi: “ What about geography? Malaria? Yellow fever? Agronomic limitation due to tropical soil/weather. No access to clean water. AIDS.”
All factors. All dealt with better with freedom and prosperity.
Re: AIDS........Were you aware that the definition of AIDS in Africa is different, and a looser definition, than that used in America?
We all know that in education in this country, the schools receive more money for “special education” or “disabled” children than “normal” children. Thus the financial incentive exists to label as many children “disabled” as possible. In Africa, the people are not so dumb as to ignore this concept in the AIDS community. Not much money in Malaria or Yellow Fever. Tons of money (aid) in AIDS.
Additionally, A series of studies published in the March 2003 issue of ... the International Journal of STD & AIDS, suggests that ... the main cause of the spread of the epidemic in Africa is not sexual transmission but "medical transmission." Specifically, the studies point to the very clinics that the UN experts say are the cure as the likely cause .of the current "crisis." In other words, the culprits are infected needles, infected instruments, and infected blood from the WHO and UN-approved medical facilities.
and finally...
Why does HIV in Africa disproportionately strike women? Dr. Steven M. Mosher of the Population Research Institute answers, in the PRI’s April 29th Weekly News Briefing:
The answer lies in the medical transmission of HIV/AIDS. The public health sector in many African countries has simply collapsed.... The one exception to the generally dismal state of primary health care in Africa is Western-funded Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) programs targeting women. African medical workers are taught (and paid) to emphasize reproductive health procedures (contraception, sterilization, and abortion), often to the near exclusion of primary health care. Poorly equipped clinics are kept well-supplied with Depo-Provera, IUDs, and condoms. According to Dr. Stephen Karanja, the former Secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association, "Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria whose treatment costs a few cents, in health facilities whose stores are stacked to the roof with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, most of which are supplied with American money."
Yoshi, "I think you underestimate how complicated economic development is."
Believe as you wish. I claim no expertise in analysis, nor am I an encyclopedic reservoir of international knowledge. However, I have had great amusement in the posts of those who do.
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi asked, “do you think it's possible to reconcile Christianity and Social Darwinism?”
The short answer is yes. I am continually amazed by the fact, but people seem to be able to reconcile almost any difficult and conflicting ideas when they are properly motivated. I do not mean this as flippantly as it may sound: I really do stand in awe at this phenomenon at times.
The real question is whether Social Darwinism as an analytical tool can be useful to a Christian, and I would still answer that question yes. The moral question, in my view, is whether we as Christians are to be satisfied with the [in]justice of the non-survival of the unfit. My view is that we clearly must not be.
Here is the problem for contemporary American Christians: Social Darwinism is effective in explaining much of what we see around us. We all know enterprising people who prospered and slothful souls who did not. When you look around America and observe its incredible success it is hard to discredit the Puritan Work Ethic. And I think it is even foolish to not acknowledge that the PWE played an important role in the development of the social cohesiveness of Americans.
Christians also love black and white concepts. The Bible draws a lot of neat lines and it is comforting to find more in the world around us. It is easier for those Christians who, in spite of Christ’s attack on the Pharisees, are dogmatically inclined to adopt simple answers as Truth. This is much of what I see going on in the World around me: laissez-faire capitalism has become for many an axiom defining justice.
I have, of course, come to a place where I reject that thinking, or at least reject it in a pure form. As a Christian I look at the economic reality of the World and acknowledge that the invisible hand must have sufficient freedom to do its Good Work. But I also see limits as to the amount of suffering I am willing to tolerate in the name of this abstraction. So for me, the survival of the fittest test is one that does produce more good than bad, it just has its limits.
As a Christian, there are two responses to the suffering whether you see the results as just or not. The first is a personal response of actually doing something about it. I stand in awe of the personal dedication of many Christians in their labors on behalf of the underprivileged and needy. And it is often the same people who spout Social Darwinism who are reaching into their own time and money banks for all the right reasons.
But the second response is to try to influence our broader society to positively address the cracks and those who have fallen through. I am thinking historically in terms of the Christian response to Slavery. There were those who helped Negros to freedom and those who worked to change the law to eliminate the injustice. The former is admirable but the latter was to be the solution.
I stand with those Christians of our past who recognize that capitalism for all its utility is still a worldly system. I support Capitalism because I do believe it generates more good for more people than any other system. But it is not perfect: the lessons of the Great Depression are sadly too easily forgotten. Keynes and Galbraith still have much to teach us. The flattening out of the economic cycles is a good thing for both the poor and the wealthy. To attempt to achieve a more perfect economic union is not to disparage the underlying principals. Rather, it vindicates them in profound ways.
So, yes, Social Darwinism and Christianity can be reconciled after a fashion. But in my view, those Christians that are comfortable with the hard unmitigated results to those who do not survive the trials have gone a bit off the reservation. And those who do not recognize the old maxim, “there but for the Grace of God go I”, have forgotten who is in charge and instead placed themselves in the Captaincy of their Destiny as surely as the most ardent humanist.
CG,
Indeed, it is the second response that produces a great country. But I am totally convinced that you cannot achieve greatness without the people willing to do the first thing. The first is evidence of character; the second is evidence of wisdom.
Yoshi: “...and the Prof. sends me a link to some radical right wing conspiracy site saying the AIDS statistics are overblown...
Yep. It’s a pretty radical group. They quoted the March 2003 issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS. Since I did not wish to expend the $18.00 per article at the journal website, I used the article from the subversive material. I also quoted from the Communist Manifesto on WilderBlog, so you may want to chastise me for that too.
The World Health Organization did not agree with the results of the “three review articles” from the International Journal of STD & AIDS, only in that they did not consider medical transmission the predominant mode of transmission of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
But there are reputable (though you make think of them as “crap” and “scary and comical”) organizations worried about medical transmission. For instance, the Health Action AIDS campaign disagrees with the WHO in a paragraph as follows:
In the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the risk of HIV transmission in health care settings received considerable attention. Studies in the mid-1980s suggested its importance to the emerging HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, with crude risk measures even associating a higher proportion of HIV infections with medical injections than with measures of sexual exposure(2). In 1987, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) developed universal precautions, measures to protect against the transmission of HIV and other bloodborne pathogens in the medical setting. When the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded in 1988, however, that about 90% of HIV cases in adults in Africa were caused by sexual transmission, the risks of HIV transmission in the medical setting, especially from unsafe injections, largely dropped out of the discussion of AIDS in Africa(3). Prevention efforts in Africa came to focus almost exclusively on sexual transmission, along with blood safety.
More than a decade later, in June 2001, the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS that emerged from the UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS acknowledged the risk of HIV transmission in health care settings – and the need to do something about it....
...While steps in the past two years have placed the issue of HIV transmission in health care settings back on the international agenda after an absence of more than a decade, the unhurried pace at which the international community is moving is inconsistent with these risks.
Apparently I am not the only person taken in by this informtion. Africa Action bought it as well when they gave their executive summary of the white paper that Physicians For Human Rights gave on the subject, that I quoted above from the Health Action AIDS campaign.
Randy P was correct. I am trying to argue this analytically. When I mentioned Zimbabwe above, I was not address any real need they had for grain, nor was I “(s)aying Africa is Zimbabwe” I order to “generalize. ” I guess I should have said Country XYZ. My error for putting a name on an example.
I am out of my league here. My compassion for my fellow man apparently does not flow through the accepted channels of secular man’s Utopia. To question efficiency or motives of the international savior organizations of the UN and others is impermissible.
Yoshi: “Earth to Prof., Come in, do you copy?”
No, I’m all original. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
In that definition of extreme poverty of less than $1/day are the doctors of Cuba, at $25/month. However, they have free healthcare, transportation, and employment by the government. Why would anybody need money in this paradise.
Yoshi, since we are having sport with one another at the moment, and since I am being judged by the ideological friends that you think I keep, you might like to know that you are not the only person who believes “the only reason (Cuba) is poor is we've choked them off with an economic blockade for 50 years.”
“The Cuban government of Fidel Castro has condemned the United States for the high level of poverty in Latin America, stating that the "neo-liberal" economic policies supported by the U.S. "generate discontent" which demand change, according to official Cuban sources.” I’d give you the link, but.... well, we don’t want to start another one of those discussions do we? :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Randy P: “...watching CSPAN and heard Frist and Reid talking about by-passing some of the nominees to get to the ones everyone could agree to vote on and get them over with. Frist declined, and IMO lost my respect on the floor...”
Think of Frist as you will, I just wanted to interject that Frist’s objective was not particularly to get Bush’s appointments past, but rather to return the process to the Constitutional method. From his own words:
The confrontation over judicial filibusters is the greatest single Constitutional issue to confront the Senate in our lifetime.
That is because this issue involves the relationship between the Senate and the Presidency and the relationship between the Senate and the courts. In addition, it involves interaction between majority and minority parties within the Senate itself. The Senate confronts many important issues every year, but none of them touches the grand institutions of American democracy the way this one does.
The President has the Constitutional obligation to appoint judges. And the Senate has Constitutional responsibility to offer its advice and consent. For 214 years, the Senate gave every nominee brought to the floor a fair up or down vote. Most we accepted, some we rejected. But all those nominees got a vote.
In the last Congress, the minority leadership embarked on a new and dangerous course. They routinely filibustered 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees and threatened filibusters on six more. Organized and fueled by the minority leadership, these filibusters could not be broken. By filibuster, the minority denied the nominees a confirmation vote and barred the full Senate from exercising its obligation to advise and consent.
The purpose of the filibusters was not only to keep the President's nominees off the bench, it was to wrest effective control of the appointments process from the President. Anyone who did not pass the minority leadership's ideological litmus tests would be filibustered. That meant a minority would dictate who the President should appoint if he expected the nominee to get a confirmation vote. This was a power grab of unprecedented proportions. And with more filibusters threatened for this Congress, the power grab would become even bolder and more entrenched.
Fundamental Constitutional principles were called into question. These included the separation of powers, checks and balances, the independence of the judiciary, and negation of the Senate's right to advise and consent. The minority claimed the right to impose a 60 vote threshold before a nominee could pass muster, for that is number needed to invoke cloture and break a filibuster. The Constitution doesn't say that. It only requires a majority to confirm. But for a minority spinning novel Constitutional theories, the real Constitution took a back seat...
Prof. Ricardo
PS....Looks like little piggy went to market.
Ok, cease fire. :-)
“Ever had a Chicken McNugget in Bagdad?”
Only at gun point. The thought of it makes me ill..
Re: Britney. I’ve heard exercise videos and infomercials are a hit over there.
Prof. Ricardo
C.G., “Every single person that made the claim that the Constitution demanded an up or down vote on judges was lying."
Male bovine stinky-poo!
However, what is also clear by a reading of the Constitution, is that the method for rejecting a nomination by definition falls to the rules of the senate. The Constitution is silent on this matter.
The clear reading of the Constitution AND the founder’s own words describing the reasoning and process of appointing in Federalist #76 leaves no doubt that the Presidential power is “nomination” and that the Senate power rests in rejecting appointments. And all they would need to do so was a mere majority vote. Its not very complicated, unless we start extracting nuances from the prenumbra of the Constitution.
...but currently rejecting of judges falls in the domain of Senate rules.
Not the Senate rules, but on the Senate itself (unless you were kidding about the “clear” reading of the Constitution). The body must accept or reject. Making up childish games after a two century track record should be shameful to the party with no-shame. Sure, they could change the rules to mooning the nominee. But decorum, all too uncommon sense, and 214 years of tradition resting on top of the actions and procedures of the body of men who wrote the document should have a wee bit of sway, should it not?
1) Do you want a simple majority of either party to control judicial confirmations?
Irrelevant. We don’t have a Constitution of the parties, we have a Constitution of the people. When President Clinton was in office, regardless of how much I ideologically disagreed with him and his appointees, it was his prerogative to nominate and appoint as the Constitution directed.
If your answer is "yes", then you should be for a Constitutional ammendment to make it so. Leaving this in the domain of the senate rules just kicks it down the road to future rule changes. The precedence will be set that the majority in charge is free to change the rules when they decide to.
As a parent you learn early on that you can’t tell Johnny every little thing to do and not do.
((Smack.))
“Johnny, don’t slap the cat.”
((Kick! - Meoooowwww!))
“Johnny, why did you just kick the cat? Didn’t year hear me?”
“But Mama, you said not to slap the cat. I didn’t slap.”
For 200 + years it wasn’t necessary to spell it out. I guess after generations of Government education, we’ve descended to having even rudimentary procedures amended to the Constitution because no one has the historical knowledge or clarity of thought to determine what to do. However, another problem raises its head for my friends like Common Good who don’t give a flaming rip what original intent was, so codifying the procedures into words of an amendment merely pass the buck to the next generation to determine what it meant.
...then you have to address the definition of minority participation.
Actually, no we don’t. We did not elect groups. We elected people. Those people are to represent their constituents. They should vote as a representative, not as a group. The fact that people can be grouped by ideology, make of car they drive, or hairdresser IS IRRELEVANT. Send the nominee in there, everybody vote their conscience, move on to the next issue. Guess what? There will be people you agree with politically getting in, and people you don’t.
This obsession of parties and their group think politic-ing and representation has left more political orphans than just Tony Plank in their wake. Let’s not pander to such misdirected efforts. This country and what it can do through this Constitution is so much greater than the current political atmosphere is creating.
Prof. Ricardo
Emeril: “Pork fat rules!”
Common Good: “I noticed you didn't bring up the "advice" portion of the constitution. What do you think they meant by that..."
Just that, advice. It was the authority, responsibility, and jurisdiction of the executive to nominate for certain positions. An executive that needed help to find suitable persons for the offices, or the Senate’s “advice” on a particular selection, could do so. However, advice is just that, advice. It is not a co-nomination. It is not mandatory. If I give you advice on marriage, it is purely optional for you to abide by it. If you want a sneak peak at our founding fathers discussing this topic, take a look here:
DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF 1787 By James Madison
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-1787.txt
Go about 80-85% down the page. A good section was this:
Mr. WILSON objected to the mode of appointing, as blending a branch of the Legislature with the Executive. Good laws are of no effect without a good Executive; and there can be no good Executive without a responsible appointment of officers to execute. Responsibility is in a manner destroyed by such an agency of the Senate. He would prefer the council proposed by Col: Mason, provided its advice should not be made obligatory on the President.
Mr. PINKNEY was against joining the Senate in these appointments, except in the instance of Ambassadors whom [13] he thought ought not to be appointed by the President.
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS said that as the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security. As Congress now make appointments there is no responsibility.
Mr. GERRY. The idea of responsibility in the nomination to offices is chimerical. The President can not know all characters, and can therefore always plead ignorance.
Prof. Ricardo
Re: "Advice"
....Additionally, when this country was in its infancy, there was not the burgeoning executive staff, instant across the nation communications, and computer databases that exist now to assist in selecting appointees. Given today’s political atmosphere, punctuated by Al Gore's insanity plea disguised as an election losing toddler tantrum complete with screams, whining, and over eating, AND the lock stock step of so many Democrats in reiterating his lunacy via the “illigitimate president” mantra, it is easy to see how seeking the advice from such a body possessing so much antagonism in the “minority” party, that to do so is merely a facade, with no real or even intended substance, and would be considered purely political posturing, and no doubt revealed as such by the altruism of the “minority party.”
Prof. Ricardo
Scotty: “Captain! We’re at 324 posts. I don’t think she can stand it much longer, but I’m givin her all she’s got!”
I have NOT pulled a Wilder...I have been busy though. I will be making amends for my sloth.
C.G.: “Being a prick is optional also.”
I forgot to include that in Al Gore’s dossier.
“If you don't, and you send over judges that claim social security has been our nation's Socialism revolution, and that our old cannibalize it's young...”
Yep, there are some odd balls out there. Like those who constructed a human right to kill their unborn offspring from an amendment to prohibit CONGRESS from interferring with political speech or religious expression. Go figure.
“Oh yes... some more founder intentions from the Prof.”
Actually, this all fits. Your love of public education and hatred of absolutes. Its OK if the document is written, lets just not know what it means.
“The author (Richard Broohiser) made the point that the vast majority of those at the Constitution Convention left in low spirits... i.e. there were no high-fiving going on. The fact you point to an argument and debate from the Convention proves there was no founder intention.... there were opposing intentions.”
Soooo, your wife wants to buy the house, but you don’t want to go that far in debt. You buy it anyway and get the mortgage. Since it wasn’t your intent to be mortgaged out the wazoo, the mortgage document doesn’t express your intent. Since it does not express your intent, there was not a meeting of the minds. If business law serves me correctly, that means there was no valid contract. Cool. In C.G.’s world past intentions never obligate future responsibilities. You’re debt free dude, and you never new it. Unless you don’t buy your own argument.
“Your intentions you always quote may have won by a 1 vote margin.”
Can we apply this lunacy to Supreme Court decisions? After all it was just by one vote. The “argument” I quoted is not to be confused with quarreling. It was discussion. Grown men with vast, but differing, insight into the world of governing men and countries, discussing and proposing various authorities and their consequences when applied to this new government with three branches. After the vote on each and every little part, they were free to walk away from the whole document. Didn’t happen. They accepted the document and all its parts, including those won by “1 vote.” The arguments, a dictionary, a knowledge of history, all play a part in unveiling the “intent” of the governing instrument.
“why would anyone view a constitution like a deity decree.”
It is not diety, but a governing instrument. If you don’t know what it means, then it can’t govern very well. There is a reason we don’t have two presidents today. And its not because we don’t feel like it. Its because the governing instrument does not provide the authority for two simultaneous presidents. Deity? No. Authority, yes! There is a difference.
Prof. Ricardo
yoshi, Does Prof.Ricardo then respect the U.N. Charter? It was ratified by the U.S., thus is legitimized by the U.S. Constitution.
Good question. As long as we are party to it, we need to honor it to the extent that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
Suddenly the U.S. Constitution is out the window now I bet.
Oh, Ye of little faith. :-)
Prof. Ricardo
Yoshi: “-So we do honor the U.N. charter (or ideally we should) then? Because it hardly seems "destructive" to me. Maybe a little too idealistic sometimes, but not destructive.”
The UN has a perspective based upon the consensus of its members that is unfriendly to our western culture. Our founders, rightly I believe, believed in human rights that were not a privilege of government, but an inherent right of man, given by God, they would say. Among those were life, property ownership, the right to pick your own career, the right to speak out, particularly opinions on civil matters was to be protected, the right to defend oneself and to be armed in doing so, the right to a fair trial, the right to worship something or not worhip at all, the right to raise my children according to my standards, not someone else’s, etc., etc.
Many countries do not share these views. Some are quite radical. I don’t know where you stand with regard to providing for your own family, but if you have children and you see a grave threat to them in society, if a foreign international body were to mandate your worst fears for your children, is that “destructive” and should we honor the U.N. charter in whole, in part, or not at all because of it?
IMO, it makes sense to govern as much as possible at the local level. We don’t need the fed changing street lamps. The more local control, the more responsive government can be to the governed. Certainly much has to be done at the Federal level, defense & security, foreign affairs, trade, and treaty issues, interstate issues, that sort of stuff. Once again, IMO, education, welfare redistribution, social issues do not need to be bumped up to the international level, but brought down to the state level. Few states if any are so destitute as to not have wealth, individually or collectively, not to be able to work social programs. If it takes 300 million people now, how did we do it with 60 million and no computers 75 years ago?
Any nation that wants to participate in global warming, and other campaigns, hop to it. However, if someone wants to abstain, so be it. Right now the world is salivating at the money the US has. Just heard a report today, $8 billion spent on AIDS, mostly in Africa. They said its not half what they need, and all 126 countries on the panel are looking to the US to foot the remainder of the bill. Their objectives seem good. But remember, they are still tempted by the same greed that influences westerners. And if you have the knowledge of foreign countries that you claim, you are fully aware of their propensity to cheat government and each other, almost as an established social order.
I think our UN presence is not nearly so beneficial to us as it is to all the nations waiting for a chance at our wealth. Were they to duplicate our freedom and somewhat higher moral underpinnings, they would have the funds themselves. But, like men are want to do, they want their cake and eat it too (ie, their socialism, but the wealth of free enterprise).
Prof. Ricardo
Common Good: “Prof... on planet earth there are a bunch of poor folks...”
My point exactly. Although skimmin a few clams off Bill Gates may not wreck the economy trying to do our pet United States social projects, try spreading enough of our wealth around the world to alleviate suffering and poverty. By comparison to the poor of the world, you live like a king. In their eyes, you don’t need 90% of your money. Out of the goodness of their hearts, they know just who needs your wealth. So, you gonna be greedy and keep it from them?
“You can continue to measure everything in terms of what $ value do we get out of it if you want, but I'm seeing a lot scarier stuff out there than losing a buck or two....”
I am not worried about “getting anything out of” it other than not enslaving my posterity and posterior to unelected, unaccountable, money hungry global politicians.
Prof. Ricardo
IMO - In My Opinion
IMHO - In My Humble Opinion
The Price of Gold
Thought someone interested in learning about debt relief would be interested in this. - yoshi
Yoshi, “BTW, Prof.- I was reading the Gospels again. And as I did, I was noticing that none of Jesus' apostles had any private property, nor did Jesus. Strange example he left for us huh?”
I suppose you could identify private property as real property, personal property, and financial property. Obviously in a roaming ministry where Jesus and the disciples sojourned they were not buying up real estate everywhere they went. So the very nature of their mission would not lend itself to proving private real estate property. You did miss Matt. 8:14, “when Jesus had come into Peter's house,...” Additionally, we do have His teachings on real estate. “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;” Matt 13:24 and many other like teachings. I have a plethora of verses if you wish. Do not steal, covet, old testament laws on stealing and restoring your neighbors property like livestock, etc. Even servants were “owned” for a period of time. I could quote you New Testament scripture on real estate (house, field), personal property (clothes, food, boats, swords, livestock, sheep, donkey), and financial property, hard money (gold, silver, denaris, talents), but I will leave it up to you to search our the matter. If Jesus example was meant to be having no private property, He would be quite the contradiction from his teachings and Old Testament teachings. Thankfully, He is not contradicting Himself.
Prof. Ricardo
Bye-oh-ethics. Our relation to other species via hunting on the Internet is curious. Although I am for freedom at nearly every turn, internet hunting is a disrespectful way to harvest game. Unsportsmanlike. We develop rules o f the game. Hunt dove with shotguns, not rifles or pistols, Deer must be shot with a certain caliber rifle, and those sorts of rules are for the humane taking of game animals and the sportsmanship. Internet hunting converts a real experience to a virtual experience. Sure the game is dead in the end, but the same can be said for road kill. The point of hunting is the experience and the meat, not the distant, sanitary (sedentary?) low resolution, disconnectedness that a monitor, keyboard and mouse provide.
But then again, who am I telling this to and how?
{BANG, BANG} Got him!
Prof. Ricardo
Randy P: I think there are people out there that deserve for like "make a wish" to go one more time, and if that is from the wheel chair or bed, using a mouth controlled mouse to aim with all the better for someone that wants to do what they love.
Make-A-Wish is a wonderful program. They really do make “wishes” come true. I am suspect of the “experience” a tongue jiggle could offer. However, my children have never lost vast amounts of ability in an area important to them like hunting. We have, though, overcome difficulties in our own pursuits of hunting, just not of that magnitude.
For most hunting has become a caulous sport and is not nearly what it used to be.
I am not quite sure what you mean. I do know that “hunting” is used to describe, not only traditional hunting of po’ folk like me seeking meat and an antler or two, but also the well off flitting about from guided safari to guided safari, poaching, and what we call “slob hunters” who shoot everything in sight without respect for game or laws. Given the predominant disconnect most folks have with hunting, the last thing our sport needs is a “virtual” blemish among the general populace.
Prof Ricardo
Post a Comment
<< Home