I have a project I have wanted to work on for a very long time: an exploration of what genocide is, a visceral environmental experience of the true horror of the loss of humanity. I, sadly, can never complete this project: the subject is too raw for my soul to deal with, and it would more than likely destroy me.
This thought flows through to bring to mind the video of the song "Beast of America" by Nico Vega. Fair warning, there are very disturbing images shown here.
We have in the american psyke a drive to prove ourselves worthy of the revolution. It's not expressed the same way with everyone, but somewhere, somehow, everyone I have ever met whom identifies as American is driven as if they must prove themselves worthy. I'm not sure what that means in general, but I do know this: It often is expressed amongst the liberty movement in a militantly defensive fashion. A sense of "I will stand for freedom!" Several times in my life, I have had to convince a person of just how bad an idea armed resistance is.
Here's a tip: IT'S A BAD IDEA.
This is not about the logistics of the idea, or the implementation or anything like that. This is about just how mind-numbingly stupid it is to promote violence in pursuit of a peaceful society. Forget the horror of death and dismemberment; Forget the pain and pestilence that will come to the innocent; and forget all romantic visions of a heroic revolution leading to a future utopia.
Guess what folks: Modern USA is the looked for Republic. That concept must be hammered in.
Do we have problems? Oh yeah, we have issues to deal with.
Do we have a persistent slide towards a fascistic future should we do nothing? Yup, that's there too.
What is forgotten is what we had before this experiment in representational-ism began. We were ruled by kings. We were subjects of the crown as ordained by God and ritualized in right of arms. Feudalism did not exist in the brutally bloody sense we have from the movies and fiction, but it was literally ownership of humans by other humans based on the station of our births.
There is also a fantasy of the American Revolution that it came from nothing: we were going along and then "FREEDOM!" was cried and then we fought a war and the constitution was handed down by Gods. That ain't it. If that is what you feel, you need to read a few books about the nearly two centuries of self-governance that existed in North America before the Colonial Rebellion.
Back to my original point on Armed Resistance. If your goal is a free society based on respect for individual rights, how exactly can you justify the use of coercion to have your way? How, in this blessed Universe can any form of killing lead to anything but more killing? Where in your twisted fantasy can murder, no matter how just the cause, be anything more than murder?
Seriously people, I would like to know.
We live in a time and place which is honestly blessed. There is nothing standing between you and your ability to speak. There are no boundaries in society which cannot be crossed by perseverance. There are no political ideas which cannot by spoken about and tried.
Every 2 years we change who makes our laws. Every 4 years we elect a new king.
WE ELECT A NEW KING.
What about that concept does not strike you as radical? What about that process does not seem revolutionary enough? How can you sit there, screaming into the computer screen about justice, and then not take action at any level of the political discourse and still call yourself a patriot? The Founders were not spontaneously vomited out onto the world stage: they were people who had worked for years in their own towns and colonies to make the gears of self-governance work. There was nothing miraculous about the continental congress, it was the colonies sending a bunch of their politicians to one place to talk to each other, THAT'S IT. Imagine your town council member being sent to Wyoming to chat about a problem and then, as things got worse and worse, having that TOWN COUNCIL member signing a charter of human freedom, throwing off the bonds of your God-Given Soveign and calling for war.
This would Jim-Bob, the guy that fixes your car when it breaks down, calling for war against your King.
If you truly want to be worthy of the revolutionary nature of America, you must run for office, work to get a law changed, or just go to your local government meetings and argue. You want to be worthy of self-governance and representational-ism? Then fucking go self-govern and Represent! Ain't hard! It's right there! Down the FUCKING BLOCK!
GO BE A GODDAMN AMERICAN!
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Health Care
Recently it was revealed that the controversy over the mammogram report was due to "Poor Communication" from the panel regarding their findings. The panel is now saying that they advocate that women in their 40s speak with their doctors and decide if the "Risk" of a false positive is worth the possibility of early detection.
This illustrates a fantastically glaring example of why a centrally managed health care system will fail to provide adequate care for the people it is intended to help. Assuming a health care bill is passed which provides for a single payer system or something like it, we can assume that it will listen to government panels on health policy and practice. This assumption comes from our system of today where hospitals, doctors and insurance companies pay attention since it is, after all, "free" data to apply to their practice. This assumption is reinforced by having the recommendations come from the government which created the single payer in the first place. Unlike a private actor, the single payer system would not have the option, like a single doctor, a private hospital or private insurance company, to make a choice for itself about what actions it would take: it would be locked into what ever the policy is for the area of care. If a blue ribbon panel states that Mammograms for women in their 40s only detect cancer in 1 out of 1,300 women [not the actual numbers] and the possibility to a False Positive is higher than the chance of detection, then to save money and streamline the system or just for plain old political reasons then coverage of Mammograms for women in their 40s will be cut out.
If you are like me, and refuse to allow people to die needlessly, then you will have noticed a small problem with the above sentence. The test "Only" detect[s] cancer in 1 out of 1,300 women." ONLY? That is one out of 1,300 who now has a chance to fight a deadly disease! That is 1 out of 1,300 who has a chance to live instead of a death sentence! That is 1 out of 1,300 who might just live long enough to watch their children graduate high school, or finish running a massive project like a bridge or discover the CURE for cancer if she had only known she HERSELF had cancer. But in a world of single payer, that cancer is not detected in her forties, it's not detected at all until it is too late for even a mastectomy to be of any help. Since the detection rate is too low, than coverage is cut and since it is a single payer system after all, there is no option except to go outside to the "Black Market" to get a test.
Now, lets see the flip side: A world of single payer where the coverage stays put despite pressure to not give it to "low risk" populations. Since it's a right now guaranteed to the people, people get a mammogram every other month, just to be safe. It's ok for them to do this, it's free after all. Mammogram clinics are known for waiting lines and delays and since there is now immediate reward for a person to open a new clinic, the number of clinics stays the same despite the rise in demand. Costs balloon and the entire system, which is suffering the exact same fate, spirals out of control costs wise. Even though all the panels tell people to not get mammograms in their forties, the people do it anyway in hopes that IF they are that 1 in 1,300 then they might have time enough to either get in line for chemotherapy [a 9 month wait for the first visit by the way, those clinics are in much higher demand for the number available] or to flee to a country where health care is not regulated to the hilt and they can get the treatment they need to stay alive.
Government involvement distorts the market place and prevents people from seeing the actual value of and demand for goods and services. Subsides and guaranteed supply make people act rationally to an irrational system: there's only so much of this stuff to go around, but you cannot be denied if you ask for it, so ask for it and "Get yours." This depletes the system and causes shortages or skyrocketing prices depending on the structure of the program. Don't believe me? Look at Canada or Japan. Canada's supreme Cort ruled that access to a waiting list is not access to health care, and ordered the country to alter their system. Japan offers services at centrally set prices which are negotiated across the entire system, but even though prices are semi-market set, there are still shortages due to the cost of care being far FAR lower then what is demanded by the market.
What solution might actually work?
First: Insurance is not Health care. Health care come from a doctor, an insurance company helps to pay for services if you are struck be something unforeseen. Insurance is not designed to guarantee care for all the ailments of life and death. Insurance is designed to spread the risk of fiscal failure due to an accident of fortune. Insurance is designed to be an 'opt-in' system where if you have the ability to pay for the service, than you do. Health care is the Doctor, the Nurse or the hospital which actually gets you well, which saves your life. Insurance is one of MANY options you have to trade resources for that treatment.
That being said; If insurance companies were free to act like insurance companies, than not only would the cost of insurance go down, but the cost of health care would go down as well. Open up interstate competition in insurance and not only will the management and administration costs of insurance go down, giving a savings to the consumer [us], but the increased competition would force companies to increase their quality and quantity of service to prevent themselves from going out of business.
What would this look like to us consumers?
I am only one person offering examples of what the industry might do IF it were free to compete openly and honestly for our insurance dollar. Imagine if an entire industry of people were actively fighting for your services and money; imagine what the services might be then.
Remember, when people are complaining about the banks or health care, that the financial and health care sectors are two of the most regulated areas of our entire commercial system. The problems of "Market Failure" also happen to be manifest in these two highly regulated sectors, but who am I to say that one thing has lead to the other.
This illustrates a fantastically glaring example of why a centrally managed health care system will fail to provide adequate care for the people it is intended to help. Assuming a health care bill is passed which provides for a single payer system or something like it, we can assume that it will listen to government panels on health policy and practice. This assumption comes from our system of today where hospitals, doctors and insurance companies pay attention since it is, after all, "free" data to apply to their practice. This assumption is reinforced by having the recommendations come from the government which created the single payer in the first place. Unlike a private actor, the single payer system would not have the option, like a single doctor, a private hospital or private insurance company, to make a choice for itself about what actions it would take: it would be locked into what ever the policy is for the area of care. If a blue ribbon panel states that Mammograms for women in their 40s only detect cancer in 1 out of 1,300 women [not the actual numbers] and the possibility to a False Positive is higher than the chance of detection, then to save money and streamline the system or just for plain old political reasons then coverage of Mammograms for women in their 40s will be cut out.
If you are like me, and refuse to allow people to die needlessly, then you will have noticed a small problem with the above sentence. The test "Only" detect[s] cancer in 1 out of 1,300 women." ONLY? That is one out of 1,300 who now has a chance to fight a deadly disease! That is 1 out of 1,300 who has a chance to live instead of a death sentence! That is 1 out of 1,300 who might just live long enough to watch their children graduate high school, or finish running a massive project like a bridge or discover the CURE for cancer if she had only known she HERSELF had cancer. But in a world of single payer, that cancer is not detected in her forties, it's not detected at all until it is too late for even a mastectomy to be of any help. Since the detection rate is too low, than coverage is cut and since it is a single payer system after all, there is no option except to go outside to the "Black Market" to get a test.
Now, lets see the flip side: A world of single payer where the coverage stays put despite pressure to not give it to "low risk" populations. Since it's a right now guaranteed to the people, people get a mammogram every other month, just to be safe. It's ok for them to do this, it's free after all. Mammogram clinics are known for waiting lines and delays and since there is now immediate reward for a person to open a new clinic, the number of clinics stays the same despite the rise in demand. Costs balloon and the entire system, which is suffering the exact same fate, spirals out of control costs wise. Even though all the panels tell people to not get mammograms in their forties, the people do it anyway in hopes that IF they are that 1 in 1,300 then they might have time enough to either get in line for chemotherapy [a 9 month wait for the first visit by the way, those clinics are in much higher demand for the number available] or to flee to a country where health care is not regulated to the hilt and they can get the treatment they need to stay alive.
Government involvement distorts the market place and prevents people from seeing the actual value of and demand for goods and services. Subsides and guaranteed supply make people act rationally to an irrational system: there's only so much of this stuff to go around, but you cannot be denied if you ask for it, so ask for it and "Get yours." This depletes the system and causes shortages or skyrocketing prices depending on the structure of the program. Don't believe me? Look at Canada or Japan. Canada's supreme Cort ruled that access to a waiting list is not access to health care, and ordered the country to alter their system. Japan offers services at centrally set prices which are negotiated across the entire system, but even though prices are semi-market set, there are still shortages due to the cost of care being far FAR lower then what is demanded by the market.
What solution might actually work?
First: Insurance is not Health care. Health care come from a doctor, an insurance company helps to pay for services if you are struck be something unforeseen. Insurance is not designed to guarantee care for all the ailments of life and death. Insurance is designed to spread the risk of fiscal failure due to an accident of fortune. Insurance is designed to be an 'opt-in' system where if you have the ability to pay for the service, than you do. Health care is the Doctor, the Nurse or the hospital which actually gets you well, which saves your life. Insurance is one of MANY options you have to trade resources for that treatment.
That being said; If insurance companies were free to act like insurance companies, than not only would the cost of insurance go down, but the cost of health care would go down as well. Open up interstate competition in insurance and not only will the management and administration costs of insurance go down, giving a savings to the consumer [us], but the increased competition would force companies to increase their quality and quantity of service to prevent themselves from going out of business.
What would this look like to us consumers?
- Wider coverage options for us people on the ground and far more ways of saving up our resources in case of a major illness or accident.
- High risk populations allowed to opt for plans which might not cover it all, and since they are not guaranteed coverage for their specific problem, they will take pains to prevent that problem from happening to they will save resource [money] to pay for the treatment should that risk come true.
- Companies encouraged to by the risk of losing market share and customers to offer 'non-cancellation' plans, where for an extra fee they become contractually bond to NEVER deny service in the event of a major illness or debilitating accident.
I am only one person offering examples of what the industry might do IF it were free to compete openly and honestly for our insurance dollar. Imagine if an entire industry of people were actively fighting for your services and money; imagine what the services might be then.
Remember, when people are complaining about the banks or health care, that the financial and health care sectors are two of the most regulated areas of our entire commercial system. The problems of "Market Failure" also happen to be manifest in these two highly regulated sectors, but who am I to say that one thing has lead to the other.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
IMF
I just finished watching a movie titled "Life and Debt" by
Stephanie Black. The IMDB Link is here.
I am a believer in free market solutions to our economic problems. This often gets me in to trouble because of films like this, but for false reasons. I will not defend our system of world banking, in no way could I ever do that, for our system of world banking only exists due to government edict and not from market forces. If no governments held up this system of banking with law and force, then it would fall apart like all monetary schemes like it: from the Roman addition of lead into gold to the Louisiana Bubble of John Law to our own recent and STILL on going inflationary crisis.
Our current system is based on the idea that Money is able to be created and supported and based out of, by and from debt. The underlying principle is this: so long as the units of measure continue to circulate through the markets of the world, then prosperity will follow. If a crisis happens, like if the lending system stops lending because no one wants to borrow anymore or because people have stopped spending the cash they were spending beforehand, then since it is the circulation of money which is important then is is just fine to either A) Remove the money from those who are foolishly not spending it and spend it for them or B) Create more units of money and inject it into the world market through spending which was stupidly not happening before. Therefore, it is important to make the interest rates as low as possible in countries which will borrow and not fully pay back the loans while making those countries which will fully pay back their loans pay higher rates than one could ever believe possible.
This is not silly talk: The US China and Japan have the largest economies in the world and they have the lowest rates for lending while those countries which have the least level of development are forced to pay rates which we would call immoral.
But this is capitalism, you say, this is how free markets work, I hear called out in the dark.
WRONG.
DEAD wrong.
There is a word before "Market" in the phrase "Free Market." It is the word "Free."
Are you seeing a pattern?
A market is just that, a market. It can be free or not, directed or not, regulated or not. It doesn't care... it's a market! It's a system of exchange, and that is all it will ever be. If you pass a law, or make a regulation or tear down a trade barrier, it is still a market and will never cease to be one.
A FREE market however, is a much more delicate thing. As soon as one person, ONE PERSON uses force to get their way in a deal, then it's no longer a Free Market. It is now a market of force, a Slave Market. Slave Market is the only phrase which matches the full extent of what a coercive market means: one person wants and takes from the other, effectively owning that person's life for the time it took to make what was taken. This is true for Banks, Businesses, Family, Cartels, Governments and Unions. Once one side is able to force an agreement and the other does not have the choice to walk away from the table, the Freedom of that market has gone away.
A bit of an example:
One restaurant is on a street across from another. Both get along, both are selling products which don't interfere, one sells Italian food while the other sells Brazilian fine dining. The economy is good, so both restaurants do well. Once the economy dies down a bit, the Brazilian restaurant isn't raking in the cash anymore, no one can afford the cost for the superior quality of their meals. The Italian joint across the way is doing fine though, since it's food is simple and cheap to make and people can afford it. The people might really really want the Brazilian delicacies, but they just can't afford the cost.
What does the Brazilian restaurant do? It could cut costs, reduce the quality of the supplies, etc. etc. but that would mean they would not be what they were.
In our story, the Brazilian owner walks across the street and talks to the owner of the Italian restaurant. The Brazilian owner presents their argument to the Italian owner, and since the argument is a loaded gun at the Italian owners head, the Italian owner goes along with this plan. The plan is for a percentage of the profit from the Italian joint to be given to the Brazilian joint to cover the loss from the lack of customers for the more expensive food. Since the Italian is now giving money to the Brazilian, they are kept in business but just barely, while the Brazilian is able to keep producing food which is more expensive than the people really want or need at the time, but since they are now subsidized they can cut the cost to the level of the Italian joint. Does this sound like a Free Market to you? Sadly, this is what is thought of when the word Free Market is uttered.
Now, imagine that you are a small country, say Jamaica and imagine you have just signed an agreement which prevent you from having trade barriers to imports. Ok, fine. We buy cheaper from abroad now, but we have great stuff to export so it'll be ok. WAIT! That agreement also prevents you from subsidizing your exports, and since the your largest trading partner has some of the largest agricultural subsidy programs in the world and your country is based on agriculture, guess who will be selling cheaper than you? Guess who won't be buying from you? Guess who has the gun aimed at your head now that you have so eagerly put your own gun down?
True and honest Free Trade and Free Markets can only occur in ONE circumstance: when both countries who are doing so do not subsidize their exports nor place tariffs on their imports. Only in the above situation are both on the same playing field where honest and beneficial competition can happen. For this is the point in pushing for Free Trade and Free Markets: techniques and technology and systems will be created out of the need to be competitive which will push production and productive efficiency higher than they were before, but only as long as people are free to compete without a gun pointed at their head.
Stephanie Black. The IMDB Link is here.
I am a believer in free market solutions to our economic problems. This often gets me in to trouble because of films like this, but for false reasons. I will not defend our system of world banking, in no way could I ever do that, for our system of world banking only exists due to government edict and not from market forces. If no governments held up this system of banking with law and force, then it would fall apart like all monetary schemes like it: from the Roman addition of lead into gold to the Louisiana Bubble of John Law to our own recent and STILL on going inflationary crisis.
Our current system is based on the idea that Money is able to be created and supported and based out of, by and from debt. The underlying principle is this: so long as the units of measure continue to circulate through the markets of the world, then prosperity will follow. If a crisis happens, like if the lending system stops lending because no one wants to borrow anymore or because people have stopped spending the cash they were spending beforehand, then since it is the circulation of money which is important then is is just fine to either A) Remove the money from those who are foolishly not spending it and spend it for them or B) Create more units of money and inject it into the world market through spending which was stupidly not happening before. Therefore, it is important to make the interest rates as low as possible in countries which will borrow and not fully pay back the loans while making those countries which will fully pay back their loans pay higher rates than one could ever believe possible.
This is not silly talk: The US China and Japan have the largest economies in the world and they have the lowest rates for lending while those countries which have the least level of development are forced to pay rates which we would call immoral.
But this is capitalism, you say, this is how free markets work, I hear called out in the dark.
WRONG.
DEAD wrong.
There is a word before "Market" in the phrase "Free Market." It is the word "Free."
- Free as in free to act as one chooses, without coercion
- Free as in free to make agreements as you see fit with whom you see fit as you see fit, without coercion
- Free as in free to act as you will with your property keeping in mind you must never interfere with other people being able to do as they wish with their own property, without coercion.
Are you seeing a pattern?
A market is just that, a market. It can be free or not, directed or not, regulated or not. It doesn't care... it's a market! It's a system of exchange, and that is all it will ever be. If you pass a law, or make a regulation or tear down a trade barrier, it is still a market and will never cease to be one.
A FREE market however, is a much more delicate thing. As soon as one person, ONE PERSON uses force to get their way in a deal, then it's no longer a Free Market. It is now a market of force, a Slave Market. Slave Market is the only phrase which matches the full extent of what a coercive market means: one person wants and takes from the other, effectively owning that person's life for the time it took to make what was taken. This is true for Banks, Businesses, Family, Cartels, Governments and Unions. Once one side is able to force an agreement and the other does not have the choice to walk away from the table, the Freedom of that market has gone away.
A bit of an example:
One restaurant is on a street across from another. Both get along, both are selling products which don't interfere, one sells Italian food while the other sells Brazilian fine dining. The economy is good, so both restaurants do well. Once the economy dies down a bit, the Brazilian restaurant isn't raking in the cash anymore, no one can afford the cost for the superior quality of their meals. The Italian joint across the way is doing fine though, since it's food is simple and cheap to make and people can afford it. The people might really really want the Brazilian delicacies, but they just can't afford the cost.
What does the Brazilian restaurant do? It could cut costs, reduce the quality of the supplies, etc. etc. but that would mean they would not be what they were.
In our story, the Brazilian owner walks across the street and talks to the owner of the Italian restaurant. The Brazilian owner presents their argument to the Italian owner, and since the argument is a loaded gun at the Italian owners head, the Italian owner goes along with this plan. The plan is for a percentage of the profit from the Italian joint to be given to the Brazilian joint to cover the loss from the lack of customers for the more expensive food. Since the Italian is now giving money to the Brazilian, they are kept in business but just barely, while the Brazilian is able to keep producing food which is more expensive than the people really want or need at the time, but since they are now subsidized they can cut the cost to the level of the Italian joint. Does this sound like a Free Market to you? Sadly, this is what is thought of when the word Free Market is uttered.
Now, imagine that you are a small country, say Jamaica and imagine you have just signed an agreement which prevent you from having trade barriers to imports. Ok, fine. We buy cheaper from abroad now, but we have great stuff to export so it'll be ok. WAIT! That agreement also prevents you from subsidizing your exports, and since the your largest trading partner has some of the largest agricultural subsidy programs in the world and your country is based on agriculture, guess who will be selling cheaper than you? Guess who won't be buying from you? Guess who has the gun aimed at your head now that you have so eagerly put your own gun down?
True and honest Free Trade and Free Markets can only occur in ONE circumstance: when both countries who are doing so do not subsidize their exports nor place tariffs on their imports. Only in the above situation are both on the same playing field where honest and beneficial competition can happen. For this is the point in pushing for Free Trade and Free Markets: techniques and technology and systems will be created out of the need to be competitive which will push production and productive efficiency higher than they were before, but only as long as people are free to compete without a gun pointed at their head.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Education - The choice
Far to often, we justify actions which violate a person's rights as in the "Public Good." The logic being that to maximize the benefit to all of society, or the maximum number of individuals, then some people must be violated or will be violated unintentionally. The dogma of "The Greater Good" dictates that only selfish monsters would ever stand in the way of this progress.
This is akin to justifying a public stoning, since the greater number of people are for it and see it as necessary then the selfish victim rightly has no say and must submit to the majority.
What if you are the one person who draws the marked lot? What if it's your daughter or son who is forced to the alter of "The Greater Good?"
In a technological society like ours, education is required to operate effectively and to gain meaningful employment. I want to stress that any employment is meaningful, but greater education allows one greater choice on how to apply themselves in their work. A mechanic is just as necessary as a professor. An artist just as needed as a scientist. The list goes on.
The big decision is how each society want to supply education to it's people. Some use a laissez-faire approach, and if this is what they want than it works for them. Some use a socialist model, and if this is what they want than it works for them. Our society has decided on a mixed approach, and according to media and experts, it does not work for us.
The education system of our country is divided into local school boards, with the state and federal level having little control over the process. This is a good thing as it keeps the local officials linked to the parents and children they serve. The problems arise when the officials and the systems they serve in become locked into a way of doing things, making the whole system inefficient. What would serve our society better, and each locality must make this choice for themselves, would to allow greater freedom of movement within the public system without opening the debate over what types of school get money from the public coffers.
If a child is able to choose which school it wants to go to, within it's local public system, with the money and resources locked to that child, then the natural movement of children from under performing schools to performing schools within the public system will spur administrators and teachers to be better at their jobs. This is a simple and easily applied method of placing quote-unquote market pressure to spur efficiency and innovation, without destroying the public system our society has decided it wants in place.
I rarely consider European countries to be a shining example of how a society should run, but several countries, like Belgium, have placed programs like this into their schools and the results are dramatic. The following link will lead to 20/20 report detailing these kinds of programs. There are other reports out there, but don't take my word for it, think it through yourself. If the money stays in the system, how can it be bad for the kids if the administrators and teachers have mild pressure placed on them to perform for the kids?
This one is 'Stupid in America'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
This is akin to justifying a public stoning, since the greater number of people are for it and see it as necessary then the selfish victim rightly has no say and must submit to the majority.
What if you are the one person who draws the marked lot? What if it's your daughter or son who is forced to the alter of "The Greater Good?"
In a technological society like ours, education is required to operate effectively and to gain meaningful employment. I want to stress that any employment is meaningful, but greater education allows one greater choice on how to apply themselves in their work. A mechanic is just as necessary as a professor. An artist just as needed as a scientist. The list goes on.
The big decision is how each society want to supply education to it's people. Some use a laissez-faire approach, and if this is what they want than it works for them. Some use a socialist model, and if this is what they want than it works for them. Our society has decided on a mixed approach, and according to media and experts, it does not work for us.
The education system of our country is divided into local school boards, with the state and federal level having little control over the process. This is a good thing as it keeps the local officials linked to the parents and children they serve. The problems arise when the officials and the systems they serve in become locked into a way of doing things, making the whole system inefficient. What would serve our society better, and each locality must make this choice for themselves, would to allow greater freedom of movement within the public system without opening the debate over what types of school get money from the public coffers.
If a child is able to choose which school it wants to go to, within it's local public system, with the money and resources locked to that child, then the natural movement of children from under performing schools to performing schools within the public system will spur administrators and teachers to be better at their jobs. This is a simple and easily applied method of placing quote-unquote market pressure to spur efficiency and innovation, without destroying the public system our society has decided it wants in place.
I rarely consider European countries to be a shining example of how a society should run, but several countries, like Belgium, have placed programs like this into their schools and the results are dramatic. The following link will lead to 20/20 report detailing these kinds of programs. There are other reports out there, but don't take my word for it, think it through yourself. If the money stays in the system, how can it be bad for the kids if the administrators and teachers have mild pressure placed on them to perform for the kids?
This one is 'Stupid in America'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
Saturday, July 12, 2008
July 12th Rally
I just got back from the Rally in DC. I will blog about it and edit this post on Monday.
***
Edited on Monday, July 14th at 7:16pm
The July 12th March and Rally was a very good time. In my estimate, about 6,000 people showed up, but the 'Official' line is ~ 10,000 people attended the rally on the west lawn. I say 'Official,' since I am not able to find a proper link or anything I could cite directly.
Many people were gathered on the NE corner of the lawn surrounding the Washington Monument, and the march towards the west lawn was a nice walk past such ignominious building like the IRS and the FED. As you may imagine, many a impolite thing was shouted at these edifices of slavery.
The rally itself was interesting, with many speakers who really charged the crowd. In addition to Dr. Paul, other speakers who really showed up to bat were:
Tom Mullen - His letter from the individual was rousing and really got to the heart of what the movement is fighting for.
Marcy Brooks - Her speech on Juror powers and preparation should be heard by anyone who is a potential juror. Knowing what she has to say may make the difference between a just ruling and a free person being placed in jail.
Naomi Wolf - This speech really put our place in history into perspective.
Adam Kokesh - This veteran's speech is proof that outspoken, intelligent people really are moving this movement forward. I would not be surprised to see Mr. Kokesh elected in the near future.
Chuck Baldwin - From what I heard on the 12th, and the limited research I've done at this point, this man seems to be a good candidate for president. Contact the Constitution Party in your area and help them get him on the ballot.
And of course, Dr. Paul Himself.
I was disappointed by the many people who took the opportunity to promote 9-11 truth. While the events of 9-11 require a full and independent investigation, I cannot and in no way do I support the idea that our own government would be malicious enough to to murder 3,000 of it's own people. Additionally, I have no faith in our government to pull it off if it even wanted to. The attachment of the 9-11 truthers to the Freedom movement does nothing more than remove the Freedom Movement from the public forum of discussion and serves only to allow the media at large to point a finger at us and say 'Wow! Look at those idiot!'
I am glad I went to Washington on the 12th, since I got to see a lot of great speakers and I also got to meet up with the NJ wing of the movement and network a bit. I look forward to the next time this kind of thing can be arranged.
***
Edited on Monday, July 14th at 7:16pm
The July 12th March and Rally was a very good time. In my estimate, about 6,000 people showed up, but the 'Official' line is ~ 10,000 people attended the rally on the west lawn. I say 'Official,' since I am not able to find a proper link or anything I could cite directly.
Many people were gathered on the NE corner of the lawn surrounding the Washington Monument, and the march towards the west lawn was a nice walk past such ignominious building like the IRS and the FED. As you may imagine, many a impolite thing was shouted at these edifices of slavery.
The rally itself was interesting, with many speakers who really charged the crowd. In addition to Dr. Paul, other speakers who really showed up to bat were:
Tom Mullen - His letter from the individual was rousing and really got to the heart of what the movement is fighting for.
Marcy Brooks - Her speech on Juror powers and preparation should be heard by anyone who is a potential juror. Knowing what she has to say may make the difference between a just ruling and a free person being placed in jail.
Naomi Wolf - This speech really put our place in history into perspective.
Adam Kokesh - This veteran's speech is proof that outspoken, intelligent people really are moving this movement forward. I would not be surprised to see Mr. Kokesh elected in the near future.
Chuck Baldwin - From what I heard on the 12th, and the limited research I've done at this point, this man seems to be a good candidate for president. Contact the Constitution Party in your area and help them get him on the ballot.
And of course, Dr. Paul Himself.
I was disappointed by the many people who took the opportunity to promote 9-11 truth. While the events of 9-11 require a full and independent investigation, I cannot and in no way do I support the idea that our own government would be malicious enough to to murder 3,000 of it's own people. Additionally, I have no faith in our government to pull it off if it even wanted to. The attachment of the 9-11 truthers to the Freedom movement does nothing more than remove the Freedom Movement from the public forum of discussion and serves only to allow the media at large to point a finger at us and say 'Wow! Look at those idiot!'
I am glad I went to Washington on the 12th, since I got to see a lot of great speakers and I also got to meet up with the NJ wing of the movement and network a bit. I look forward to the next time this kind of thing can be arranged.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Independance Day - 2008
This 4th of July marks the 232nd anniversary of a treasonous document signed by 56 men who in so doing were also signing their death warrants should they be captured. A document which, opposed to common view, had more to do with English common law then any grand statement of a free people.
The Declaration of Independence lists out the many and various transgressions of the British crown against the people of the American colonies and seeks to prove that in legal terms those same people had the right to throw off the bounds of their sovereign lord in England and establish their own government. This right to deny the sovereignty of the crown dates to the Magna Carta.
Essentially, when the Declaration of Independence was written, more correctly titled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America," it was a declaration to the rest of the world that they were not denying the law nor were they against monarchies in general, but the rights they had as loyal British Citizens were violated by their very crown and they there fore had no choice but to throw that same crown off and stand on their own.
This move was very important for the times to come, as the only powers which were, at the time, able to stand against the British Empire were themselves Monarchies. The only way to survive this dangerous time in the before now untested waters of full colonial rebellion was to be as civilized as they could and to toe the letter of the law as much as they could.
Our nation is the result, and long may it stand.
The official site of the Declaration of Independence can be found here.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
The Declaration of Independence lists out the many and various transgressions of the British crown against the people of the American colonies and seeks to prove that in legal terms those same people had the right to throw off the bounds of their sovereign lord in England and establish their own government. This right to deny the sovereignty of the crown dates to the Magna Carta.
Essentially, when the Declaration of Independence was written, more correctly titled "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America," it was a declaration to the rest of the world that they were not denying the law nor were they against monarchies in general, but the rights they had as loyal British Citizens were violated by their very crown and they there fore had no choice but to throw that same crown off and stand on their own.
This move was very important for the times to come, as the only powers which were, at the time, able to stand against the British Empire were themselves Monarchies. The only way to survive this dangerous time in the before now untested waters of full colonial rebellion was to be as civilized as they could and to toe the letter of the law as much as they could.
Our nation is the result, and long may it stand.
The official site of the Declaration of Independence can be found here.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Equal
Back when I was young, I sought some kind of order to the world. Day and night I would sit and think about how our society and our universe works. More than once, this search brought me to a crisis of faith, a break through of thought o a period of massive and pervasive confusion and despair.
The problem is this: whenever I look for order, I find chaos. Evey rule has it's exceptions, every truth is it's own lie and the world as it ought to be, isn't.
I have struck on a few points which seem to be stead fast in the flow of the universe. No matter how often I get lost in the flood of chaotic creation and thought, these points always arise as stead fast bulwarks to calm my flailing mind.
- Everyone who is, was or will be will go from nonexistence to existence. Afterwards, they will cease to exist. More to the point, we all came from nothing, were born, live and die.
- The world as you see it is not the same as the world as I see it. Our nature as individuals prevents us from ever knowing what another person knows, feels, thinks, believes or hopes for. Our lives color our perspectives.
- The world as I see it is the only one I will ever know. The only guarantee I have that the wold exists is that I interact with it. In many ways, the world only exists for the person who is observing it. You and I have no guarantee that the world we are interacting with is not a dream, and all we know only figments of some imagination. More exactly; I experiance, therefore I am.
- You are unique and special, just like everyone else.
From the above, I have drawn two conclusions. Each conclusion is mutually exclusive, and therefore I apply a qualifying agent to them, so as to have a basis for further exploration.
Either only one person an ever be 'right' at a time and the rest of us 'wrong,' or we are all 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time.
Our culture is filled with stories of 'The Chosen One' who leads the rest of us on the path to enlightenment and fulfillment. A person is born who is destined to hold each of our fates in hand and guide the whole of the earth to it's preordained destiny. This conclusion creates a mythical god on earth who knows what is best for every person on the earth and is given heavens mandate to take those people like so many sheep and usher them about, all for their own good.
Alternately, since each person has a unique and special perspective of the world and each person makes decisions with only the accumulated knowledge and experiance they and only they could collect during their miraculous lives, then it may very well be that each and every one of us is 'right' from our own perspectives, but possibly 'wrong' when viewed by other people.
A western Man, when meeting a western Woman, will generally show the respect of standing and offering his hand for a hand shake. This is considered correct and polite by western society. In some middle eastern societies, a Man would never under any circumstances even attempt to look at a Woman he was not related to, let alone touch her hand. This would be considered a horrible offense not only to the woman, but her entire family.
Since the only qualifier I can ever really have is to ask howI would feel if I was placed on the losing side of a situation, I side with the miraculous position that every single person on the face of the planet is simultaneously right and wrong at the same time. Evey one of us, we whole human race, is bound up in a morale equivalent of a quantum theory light beam: we are a particle and a wave, only depending on how you look at us at that moment. Perspective is everything, and since each perspective is unique and miraculous, then I side with the outcome which leaves the possibility I may be right, as opposed to the side which only allows one person to ever be right, and the rest of us are only sheep or cattle to be lead around for our own protection.
Thus, we find the source of this post's title: We are all equal in our claim to being right, with the only difference being our perspective from which we view the world. I want to note that this is only a starting point and not the final destination of this meditation. Over time I will flesh this idea out to some logical conclusions, but that is for another time.
The problem is this: whenever I look for order, I find chaos. Evey rule has it's exceptions, every truth is it's own lie and the world as it ought to be, isn't.
I have struck on a few points which seem to be stead fast in the flow of the universe. No matter how often I get lost in the flood of chaotic creation and thought, these points always arise as stead fast bulwarks to calm my flailing mind.
- Everyone who is, was or will be will go from nonexistence to existence. Afterwards, they will cease to exist. More to the point, we all came from nothing, were born, live and die.
- The world as you see it is not the same as the world as I see it. Our nature as individuals prevents us from ever knowing what another person knows, feels, thinks, believes or hopes for. Our lives color our perspectives.
- The world as I see it is the only one I will ever know. The only guarantee I have that the wold exists is that I interact with it. In many ways, the world only exists for the person who is observing it. You and I have no guarantee that the world we are interacting with is not a dream, and all we know only figments of some imagination. More exactly; I experiance, therefore I am.
- You are unique and special, just like everyone else.
From the above, I have drawn two conclusions. Each conclusion is mutually exclusive, and therefore I apply a qualifying agent to them, so as to have a basis for further exploration.
Either only one person an ever be 'right' at a time and the rest of us 'wrong,' or we are all 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time.
Our culture is filled with stories of 'The Chosen One' who leads the rest of us on the path to enlightenment and fulfillment. A person is born who is destined to hold each of our fates in hand and guide the whole of the earth to it's preordained destiny. This conclusion creates a mythical god on earth who knows what is best for every person on the earth and is given heavens mandate to take those people like so many sheep and usher them about, all for their own good.
Alternately, since each person has a unique and special perspective of the world and each person makes decisions with only the accumulated knowledge and experiance they and only they could collect during their miraculous lives, then it may very well be that each and every one of us is 'right' from our own perspectives, but possibly 'wrong' when viewed by other people.
A western Man, when meeting a western Woman, will generally show the respect of standing and offering his hand for a hand shake. This is considered correct and polite by western society. In some middle eastern societies, a Man would never under any circumstances even attempt to look at a Woman he was not related to, let alone touch her hand. This would be considered a horrible offense not only to the woman, but her entire family.
Since the only qualifier I can ever really have is to ask howI would feel if I was placed on the losing side of a situation, I side with the miraculous position that every single person on the face of the planet is simultaneously right and wrong at the same time. Evey one of us, we whole human race, is bound up in a morale equivalent of a quantum theory light beam: we are a particle and a wave, only depending on how you look at us at that moment. Perspective is everything, and since each perspective is unique and miraculous, then I side with the outcome which leaves the possibility I may be right, as opposed to the side which only allows one person to ever be right, and the rest of us are only sheep or cattle to be lead around for our own protection.
Thus, we find the source of this post's title: We are all equal in our claim to being right, with the only difference being our perspective from which we view the world. I want to note that this is only a starting point and not the final destination of this meditation. Over time I will flesh this idea out to some logical conclusions, but that is for another time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
