The US and Islam

On 9/11/2001 a small band of zealots murdered thousands of innocent people. They had been brainwashed into believing that the US was hostile to Islam, and attacked symbols of American power as part of a coordinated response.

Today many Americans are willing to discard our constitutional freedoms of speech, religion, and private property just to prove these murderers right, and help recruit the next generation of terrorists. 

These Americans have also been brainwashed by hateful, manipulative people.  It's clear that many of our fellow citizens have lost the ability to discern when they are being manipulated.  They spend hours every day sucking up the bile served by people like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and their evil kind, and—with the hateful poison coursing through their systems—parrot back the opinions they have been taught.  All capacity for independent thought has been surrendered to these cult leaders.

We were not attacked by Islam, any more than the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was attacked by Christianity.  An Islamic Cultural Center four blocks distant from the scene of the crime is no less appropriate than a Christian church or a YMCA would be a half-mile from the site of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. 

There is a craziness along the fringe of all religions; this type of intolerance is both a manifestation of it, as well as the fertile soil in which it thrives.

Citizenship Test

The INS has increased the difficulty of the citizenship exam.  Instead of ‘what do the stripes on the flag mean?’ it’s ‘What are the Federalist Papers, and who wrote them?’ 

I’m starting to warm to the idea – on one condition.  Like the driver’s test, this should apply to everybody, including those born here. Either this knowledge is fundamental for citizenship, or it’s not.  If we apply it to everybody equally, we can't be accused of just putting obstacles in front of immigrants. 

That's not what we're doing is it?

Tax Cuts vs. Unemployment Extensions

In an uncertain economy, extra money in the pockets of people with secure incomes will tend to go into savings – as a hedge against a further downturn.

Money given to the unemployed, or the working poor will go to groceries, rent, and other necessities, more rapidly benefitting the economy via the ‘multiplier effect’, passing through the hands of the butcher, the baker, the landlord, …

This is not only common sense, but is borne out empirically.  If you want to stimulate the economy, give money to those who need it most.  It'll make its way to the rich, but will benefit others in the process. 

Islamic Cultural Center

The question of an Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero tests us as a society.
Will we chose the pluralistic path of our nations founders and contribute to healing; or will our fears and prejudice further the cause of Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 criminals – broadcasting to the World that the US is hostile toward Islam.

The Meaning of Life - Capitalist Style

We exist to consume goods and services in increasing quantities, and produce them at ever-decreasing cost – enabling profits for investors, and stratospheric compensation for executives.

Whenever the government inserts itself into an industry (e.g. healthcare, finance, etc.) to provide a service directly, or regulates it to assure equity among workers or consumers, it blunts the profit motive, decreasing the expression of free will among corporate executives – and depriving the rest of us of our raison d’être.

Reform and Realpolitik

As with healthcare, Congressional leaders have passed the most fundamental reform of the Financial Sector possible – without risking the flow of campaign contributions from the affected industry.

Next, they will team up with Larry Flynt and those guys from Nigeria to clean up and regulate the internet.

Health Care Reform Around the World

When Taiwan sought to reform their healthcare system a few years ago, they commissioned a study of six major countries which were achieving superior public health results, at relatively low cost. Experts from each of these countries conducted independent rigorous studies of their systems, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of their systems, as well as potential opportunities and threats. Then these experts came together in a major symposium, where the various systems were discussed, debated, weighed against one another and evaluated. From the results of this symposium, the leaders of Taiwan designed a modern integrated system, which was a hybrid of the best ideas from around the World, with elements chosen to fit the particular needs of the Taiwanese culture, economy and existing infrastructure. Theirs is now respected as among the most modern, efficient healthcare delivery and financing systems anywhere. 

The United States took a somewhat different approach to reform. Those companies and industry consortia which profit most from the status quo accumulated a war chest to resist and/or shape any possible changes in order to protect their power position and profit margins. They coordinated with right-wing radio commentators and Fox News, launching a disinformation campaign of fear, distortion, slander, and character assassination, which drowned out any meaningful substantive discussion. Their most dim-witted followers—once adequately roused to anger and fear—were unleashed upon elected representatives at town hall meetings around the country. Many of them dressed up in Indian garb, like colonial ‘tea party’ participants; many brought weapons; none brought any meaningful insight. In the end, the law that passed was a very expensive face-saving program for the Democrats, which would have the appearance of reform, without risking profits to the corporate players. 

I’m not saying that either the Taiwanese or the US approach is necessarily better than the other in terms of developing and implementing effective public policy … just contrasting the different approaches.