http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16czar.html
The New York Times has gone off the deep end. The title of this article is: Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy
I do not find hope, but instead fear (a theme in my relationship with President Obama since the start). Fear for the city of Seattle who has placed drug use as such a low priority under R. Gil Kerlikowske, and fear for our nation as he becomes the head of drug policy in this country.
As chief of the PD in Seattle Mr. Kerlikowske ignored a festival called "Hempfest". People lit up directly in front of police officers, a violation of the law and decency, but these officers were instructed to be "courteous and respectful". No arrests were made.
The hiring of Mr. Kerlikowske as drug czar gives some liberals hope that drug addicts will no longer be arrested and dogged by the police, but instead offered "treatment and intervention". We have moved from being a lawful society to one which specializes in hand-holding.
This follows the notion that drug addicts are victims of others and of disease. I was enrolled in a BSW (bachelors of social work) at Rutgers a few years ago. In my intro to Social Work class my professor (the director of the BSW program) called drug addicts "drug victims". I raised my hand and asked if these were a special kind of drug addict. If they were perhaps held down and shot up with heroin against their will, or if they were living in a bubble before using and were unaware of the pitfalls of drug use. The professor chided me for my insensitivity to these people we were "suffering" from drug use. Needless to say, I changed my major.
Selecting Mr. Kerlikowske as the enforcer and writer of drug policy in this country creates a liberal's dream of society. A society where no-one is responsible for their own actions, and the government is seen as a parent.
The New York Times, in a pathetic effort to be "fair and balanced" (as if they should even feign impartiality anymore) offers up some criticism of Kerlikowske towards the end. He arrested too many black people in ratio to the general population (so he stopped). Gang violence is up (no, really? drugs and gang violence are somehow related?). He was soft on rioters, and did not allow police to respond to them in a timely or effective manner. His PD was not involved enough in needle exchanges, and he wasn't supportive enough of a ballot imitative which would have placed drug possession at the bottom of the Department's priority list.
If this is our vision of the War on Drugs in the Obama era we might as well quit pretending and start drawing up business models for pot cafes, like in Amsterdam.
In college my school newspaper would put out a joke edition once a semester filled with outrageous stories. For a moment, I thought that perhaps this was something like that. But, alas, the New York Times only specialises in a new kind of journalism now, "Yes We Can journalism". Welcome to the New America - it's something like Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, only not so many trains. Not much else different though. It's a shame, I really liked the trains.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Just so you don't think I'm not in love with McCain however..
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199589258&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
I am still scratching my head at the level of Jewish support for Mr. Obama. Thanks to Eytan for this link.
Also - here is a copy of the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell this morning about Health Care. Where will the Canadians go when they need quality medical attention in a timely fashion if we close our doors to health care and research in this country? Won't someone please think of the Canadians??
They Left Out the Socialized Medicine Part
The Washington Post has a lengthy front-page story today on Barack Obama’s health care plan, which the newspaper admits contains “profound — and controversial — changes.” The Post tries to compare the Obama plan to Massachusetts’ 2006 health care legislation, asserting the only difference between the two is the individual mandate in the Massachusetts plan. This is indeed a big difference between the two plans, but it is nowhere near the most important. For all of its other problems , the Massachusetts plan did not create a new government-run health care plan that would compete side by side with private insurance plan. Obama’s plan does.
Why is this important? Because not only would the federal government be an active competitor in the health care market, but it would also set the rules for competition. Heritage’s Center for Health Policy Studies Director Robert Moffit explains what would happen next:The likely incentives for government officials would be to set rules to advantage the government’s own health plan and to disadvantage the private health plans, including setting the government’s health plan premiums artificially low, reducing or eliminating cost-sharing requirements, or more heavily subsidizing certain benefits to make the government health plan more attractive than the private health plans. These plans would operate without incurring any of the normal financial risks that private health plans must bear.
One could easily imagine a massive crowd out of private coverage, as employers dropped private coverage and paid the requisite tax. Likewise, lobbyists for businesses or private insurance industry executives may see the government health program as a convenient “dumping ground” for high-risk individuals or families, which would reduce business and insurance industry costs but would amount to massive adverse selection against the taxpayers. … In such a political environment, the value of personal choice and anything at all resembling free market competition would mostly likely be rendered meaningless.
Obama’s preference for socialized medicine is no secret. He openly admitted earlier this year, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” The question for Obama and the left is not whether socialized medicine is desirable. They want socialized medicine. The problem Obama is trying to solve is how best to trick the American people into a policy they do not want. Obama’s health plan is the answer to that problem. Just ask New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “The Demoplans offer choice — so that people won’t feel that they’re being forced into a government plan. Over time, I suspect, many people will choose the government plan or plans — but they’ll have the option of staying with those wonderful people from the private insurance industry.”
Krugman is undoubtedly right. But not for the reason he states. The government plan will not win because people love socialized medicine (as Krugman recently learned), but because Congress will strangle the private market to death so the American people have no choice. These are the policy options the American people are about to face. It’s high time papers like The Washington Post begin accurately reporting on them.
I am still scratching my head at the level of Jewish support for Mr. Obama. Thanks to Eytan for this link.
Also - here is a copy of the Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell this morning about Health Care. Where will the Canadians go when they need quality medical attention in a timely fashion if we close our doors to health care and research in this country? Won't someone please think of the Canadians??
They Left Out the Socialized Medicine Part
The Washington Post has a lengthy front-page story today on Barack Obama’s health care plan, which the newspaper admits contains “profound — and controversial — changes.” The Post tries to compare the Obama plan to Massachusetts’ 2006 health care legislation, asserting the only difference between the two is the individual mandate in the Massachusetts plan. This is indeed a big difference between the two plans, but it is nowhere near the most important. For all of its other problems , the Massachusetts plan did not create a new government-run health care plan that would compete side by side with private insurance plan. Obama’s plan does.
Why is this important? Because not only would the federal government be an active competitor in the health care market, but it would also set the rules for competition. Heritage’s Center for Health Policy Studies Director Robert Moffit explains what would happen next:The likely incentives for government officials would be to set rules to advantage the government’s own health plan and to disadvantage the private health plans, including setting the government’s health plan premiums artificially low, reducing or eliminating cost-sharing requirements, or more heavily subsidizing certain benefits to make the government health plan more attractive than the private health plans. These plans would operate without incurring any of the normal financial risks that private health plans must bear.
One could easily imagine a massive crowd out of private coverage, as employers dropped private coverage and paid the requisite tax. Likewise, lobbyists for businesses or private insurance industry executives may see the government health program as a convenient “dumping ground” for high-risk individuals or families, which would reduce business and insurance industry costs but would amount to massive adverse selection against the taxpayers. … In such a political environment, the value of personal choice and anything at all resembling free market competition would mostly likely be rendered meaningless.
Obama’s preference for socialized medicine is no secret. He openly admitted earlier this year, “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.” The question for Obama and the left is not whether socialized medicine is desirable. They want socialized medicine. The problem Obama is trying to solve is how best to trick the American people into a policy they do not want. Obama’s health plan is the answer to that problem. Just ask New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “The Demoplans offer choice — so that people won’t feel that they’re being forced into a government plan. Over time, I suspect, many people will choose the government plan or plans — but they’ll have the option of staying with those wonderful people from the private insurance industry.”
Krugman is undoubtedly right. But not for the reason he states. The government plan will not win because people love socialized medicine (as Krugman recently learned), but because Congress will strangle the private market to death so the American people have no choice. These are the policy options the American people are about to face. It’s high time papers like The Washington Post begin accurately reporting on them.
The future of the Republican Party
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/palin.gop/index.html
I thought that I was a minority voice against Palin in the Republican party which has fallen head over heels in love with her (and with those legs, I can't say I blame them). I'm glad there's such a base of people as unimpressed as I am. Here's hoping we can block her in 2012...
I thought that I was a minority voice against Palin in the Republican party which has fallen head over heels in love with her (and with those legs, I can't say I blame them). I'm glad there's such a base of people as unimpressed as I am. Here's hoping we can block her in 2012...
Monday, October 27, 2008
Two great posts from the Phnom Penh Police Blotter
I'm a tiny bit obsessed with the Phnom Penh Police Blotter. Here's two great posts from today:
MAN DIES FROM OVERSLEEPING
Sao Sorng, 37-year-old moto-taxi driver, was found dead in his family home in Toeuk La' Ork 3 commune, Tuol Kork district, Phnom Penh at 6am Thursday. The man's neighbours said that they suspect that he died from sleeping too long because they had not seen him for a number of days before his body was discovered. The police said a postmortem examination indicated that Sao Sorng died of natural causes.
KAMPUCHEA THMEY
VILLAGE CHIEF IS A SORCERER: RESIDENTS
Long Thorn, 51, village chief of Prey Keh village, Preah Vihear commune, Krong Pisey district, Kampong Speu province had to be whisked away to safety by the police after an angry mob accused him of being a sorcerer on October 18. The villagers said that they were angry at Long Thorn because he was stealing their money instead of repaying a loan the village took out from the Farmers' Families Association. According to the police the villagers, armed with axes and knives, attacked Long Thorn at his home. When the police arrived at the scene to stop the violence, the angry mob cut up the loan documents and accused him of being a sorcerer. Long Thorn has been detained at the police station for his own safety.
RASMEY KAMPUCHEA
MAN DIES FROM OVERSLEEPING
Sao Sorng, 37-year-old moto-taxi driver, was found dead in his family home in Toeuk La' Ork 3 commune, Tuol Kork district, Phnom Penh at 6am Thursday. The man's neighbours said that they suspect that he died from sleeping too long because they had not seen him for a number of days before his body was discovered. The police said a postmortem examination indicated that Sao Sorng died of natural causes.
KAMPUCHEA THMEY
VILLAGE CHIEF IS A SORCERER: RESIDENTS
Long Thorn, 51, village chief of Prey Keh village, Preah Vihear commune, Krong Pisey district, Kampong Speu province had to be whisked away to safety by the police after an angry mob accused him of being a sorcerer on October 18. The villagers said that they were angry at Long Thorn because he was stealing their money instead of repaying a loan the village took out from the Farmers' Families Association. According to the police the villagers, armed with axes and knives, attacked Long Thorn at his home. When the police arrived at the scene to stop the violence, the angry mob cut up the loan documents and accused him of being a sorcerer. Long Thorn has been detained at the police station for his own safety.
RASMEY KAMPUCHEA
We're doing this NOW?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/us/politics/27web-nagourney.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The New York Times has just published an article on how many members of the GOP and the McCain campaign are questioning the Palin VP pick.
Really? You don't say!
I from the get go supported Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge. Sure, Palin has energized "the base" - but that's not how you win elections. Independent and moderate voters have been swung left due to the Palin choice. She scares them. She scares me too. When I've heard lines like "She's the future of the Republican party" a shudder roles down my spine. Where will we be in four years? And will I still be on board? Outlook not so good.
The pick has certainly helped in the fundraising department however, considering how far back McCain is trailing Obama on that front, what difference would it really have made? On all my campaign contributions I've sent to McCain headquarters, I've written "Palin sucks" in the memo line. I wonder if I'm the only one. If Joe or Tom were on the ticket, it would have felt a lot easier parting with those checks, and maybe more.
The New York Times has just published an article on how many members of the GOP and the McCain campaign are questioning the Palin VP pick.
Really? You don't say!
I from the get go supported Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge. Sure, Palin has energized "the base" - but that's not how you win elections. Independent and moderate voters have been swung left due to the Palin choice. She scares them. She scares me too. When I've heard lines like "She's the future of the Republican party" a shudder roles down my spine. Where will we be in four years? And will I still be on board? Outlook not so good.
The pick has certainly helped in the fundraising department however, considering how far back McCain is trailing Obama on that front, what difference would it really have made? On all my campaign contributions I've sent to McCain headquarters, I've written "Palin sucks" in the memo line. I wonder if I'm the only one. If Joe or Tom were on the ticket, it would have felt a lot easier parting with those checks, and maybe more.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Greenspan gives up on capitalism and free markets?
The lead story in the New York Times today is "Greenspan concedes error on regulation". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?hp
I'm already asleep. Ohh.. what could be more exciting than the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve talking about regulation policy in a hearing on the Hill? Perhaps an Enya concert?
However, towards the end of the story (that shows how slow of a workday it truly is, that I got this far) - I read a sentence that rocked my world a little bit.
I'm already asleep. Ohh.. what could be more exciting than the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve talking about regulation policy in a hearing on the Hill? Perhaps an Enya concert?
However, towards the end of the story (that shows how slow of a workday it truly is, that I got this far) - I read a sentence that rocked my world a little bit.
Mr. Greenspan conceded a more serious flaw in his own philosophy that unfettered
free markets sit at the root of a superior economy.
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own
shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.
Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
I would really like to hear an analysis from my Ayn Rand to this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
