USA Attitudes are changing

and we're doomed...

Three Questions:
• What should be the role of government?
• Should moral absolutism or moral relativism guide our actions?
• Should our foreign policy primarily pursue unilateral interest through military power or a multilateral approach grounded in diplomacy?

The answers seem to be changing...

For the record, I think the 3rd question is biased and worded in a very liberal way (of course this is an Op-Ed so it is allowed). The question shouldn't be military vs diplomacy. It's not like conservative want to close the State Department and liberals want to close the Defense Department. And it's not even about a balance between the two. It's really about the UN and how much it should effect us. Opinions of allied democracy should effect our foreign policy, but the UN is neither an ally nor a democracy and should not drive or limit US foreign policy.

Op-Ed Contributor - Another Country - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Government is Good?

Yesterday I turned 37. My loving parents (thanks mom and dad!) sent me an amazon gift card for getting older. I immediately went to amazon.com to start looking for some birthday booty. And I came across this:

Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution

I have yet to read through a lot of it, however, there are some things that make my hair stand on end such as the sections entitled: Taxes are Good, The Case FOR Bureaucracy and Why We Need More Government.

This will obviously require a much more in-depth read on my part.

More later...... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

$3 Trillion Budget

3 Trillion!! This is UNBELIEVABLE !!

7 years of republican control (many of which when they controlled Congress too) has lead to a hugh federal government. I think Clinton's last budget, loaded with election year pork, was only 1.8 trillion.

Democrats will be worse in this and other areas, but Republicans don't DESERVE to run anything (Congress or the Whitehouse) anymore. Politics has indeed become the lesser of two very bad evils....

oh.. and $400billion of this is borrowed!!

FOXNews.com - Bush Sends Congress $3 Trillion Budget With Big Increases for Defense - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum [This Post Continues after the jump...]

A Deal 'In Principle' - Economic Stimulus Plan

Congress is close to approving giving away $100 BILLION. I don't see how any conservative republican could say this deal has any "principles" they share.
It's a 100% free money give away.

Instead of giving it away, the government should DO something with the money. Such as...

• Hire more people to study global warming,
• Hire more people to clean up toxic waste sites (the only useful thing in this list)
• Hire people to build a bridge to no where
• Hire more private mercenaries for Iraq (and bring some troops home)
• Build public housing in 10 foot deep flood zones in New Orleans
• Accelerate the building of NASA's next rocket (not delay it like Obama wants to do)

I don't agree with spending money on most of these ideas, but I list them because even "wasting" money and getting something of dubious value in return is better than just "giving it away"...

FOXNews.com - House, White House Reach Deal 'In Principle' on Economic Stimulus - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

PS for my NASA co-workers: NASA's next rocket is not a waste of money in itself, but throwing more money at it to accelerate it's development probably would be.


** UPDATE **
Apparently Carter tried this in 1980... From the The Volokh Conspiracy

*** More Updates ***
House Approves Economic Stimulus Plan

How can Democrats support this, saying how important it is to simulate the economy by giving money to people to spend, without also realizing how harmful it is to the economy when they TAX us and take the money to begin with? It just doesn't add up. Doing this is essentially admitting that we are OVERTAXED and that as a result the economy is in trouble. How can anybody that voted for this vote to raise taxes later (directly or by not extending the current tax cuts).

I still say it would be more stimulating for the government to DO something with the money instead of just giving it away. Giving it away is just a tax refund and PROVES we are over taxed.

***** Supporting Ideas *****
Here's similar thought The government has no money of its own [This Post Continues after the jump...]

GOP on Earmarks

This is the first I've heard of this executive order. Apparently some "earmarks" are not actually in the law as passed and signed, but in "supporting documentation" or "reports". I've never heard of this before.

But Bush won't stop it because they don't want the next President to be able to stop their earmarks. Which is silly because the next president can "undo" the executive order or write their own. So since the cat is out of the bag (meaning that the idea is getting publicized and not a secret idea of the GOP only) there is no risk to doing it.

Someone should ask one of the candidates what they would do...


Tapscotts Copy Desk: Deja Vu all over again Here comes the big collapse by Bush Hill GOP on earmarks - Examiner.com

*** UPDATE ***

In the State of the Union Address, Bush said he would sign this executive order. This sounds like good news to me. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Originalism and the Supreme Court

Great Article.... but it's out right scary that Clinton might get to nominate 4 Supreme Court Justices.

The Federalist Society » Publications - Wall Street Journal Op-ed by Steven G. Calabresi [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason -- By Al Gore -- TIME

Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason -- by Al Gore -- TIME

A very interesting read. I don't know if this was taken as a whole, or if it was edited, but there are some points that can be made.

He talks about the value of PRINT for getting news, and how TV doesn't work because it is a ONE-WAY medium. It seems to be that PRINT is a ONE-WAY medium too.

The funniest point was when he ended a paragraph talking about the need for the "respect of the rule of reason" then in the next paragraph it complains about how "MoveOn.org" wasn't treated fairly. Using "reason" and "MoveOn.org" that close together was a big mistake.

Many Americans now feel that our government is unresponsive and that no one in power listens to or cares what they think. They feel disconnected from democracy. They feel that one vote makes no difference, and that they, as individuals, have no practical means of participating in America's self-government. Unfortunately, they are not entirely wrong.

This is his best point. But WHY do American's feel powerless? Is it, as Gore suggests, because we don't have a healthy marketplace of ideas, of good public debate? I don't think so, I think it is because the Federal government has too much centralized, bureaucratic, power. Gore sees this so clearly when he talks about the effect media centralization has had, or the fears of centralized control of the internet, but he doesn't see centralized government power as dangerous. Like with media, the POWER of government comes from MONEY. If the federal government's budget was cut, then the Senate would once again be a place or reason debate on policy and direction or the country.

(sorry I gotta run right now)
But seriously, the Federal government hasn't worked the way Gore thinks it should since the Income Tax amendment was passed. This this was moved back to the States, then the federal government would work better, I think. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Liberal democracies, not activists and international law, protect human rights.

Interesting read... (and YES, the U.S., even under BUSH, is a LIBERAL democracy...)

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: Liberal democracies, not activists and international law, protect human rights. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

50% Good News in Russia - Or Else!

The world is definitely getting more dangerous...
but according to Bill Moyers, our "free" press isn't work either

50% Good News Is the Bad News in Russian Radio - New York Times [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islam’s Name

Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islam’s Name - New York Times

How can we co-exist with a society like this? How can we "talk" with them as everyone says we should, when we are so different? We should do nothing that gives this government any form of legitimacy.

We can't ignore this sort of behavior and hope it goes away just because it is on the other side of the world. Ideas are important, and their idea is that they can kill any of us and it not be a crime, but a duty. They do it to their own people, their own children, And they've done it to foreigners before and they will do it again unless we deal with them now. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

In China, Talk of Democracy Is Simply That

In China, Talk of Democracy Is Simply That - New York Times

The state-run news media’s newly prolific references to democracy to describe a range of prosaic political actions — like setting up an e-mail address so that the public can comment on pending legislation — so devalue the term that critics of the leadership suspect that Mr. Hu’s goal may be to strip democracy of meaning.

“They want democracy to belong to the party, not to belong to people who oppose the party,” said one retired party official who declined to be identified because top leaders sometimes punish people for discussing elite politics. “If the party can define what democracy is, then it will not be as dangerous.”

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

What the Founding Fathers Really Intended

Will: What the Founding Fathers Really Intended - Newsweek George F. Will - MSNBC.com

best quotes:

...Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, who warned against what Hayek called "the fatal conceit" of governments thinking they can allocate wealth and opportunity more reasonably than can markets.

and...

...James Madison's Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Overzealous Porn Prosecution Tramples Accused's Rights

This sounds like a nightmare to me...

This and the Duke "rape" case clear show the danger of a powerful government and police force....

FOXNews.com - Overzealous Porn Prosecution Tramples Accused's Rights - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Kyoto, Heal Thyself

Kyoto, Heal Thyself -- Friday, Jan. 19, 2007 -- Page 1 -- TIME

Well, this IS interesting...

If ultra-efficient Japan can't wean itself from the carbon habit, what hope does the rest of the world have?

In the US, people were talking about the extreme measures we would have to take to reduce our emissions, but they were said to be exagerating...

But here is what Japan is considering..
-- "we might need to do something as extreme as 'no-car day'
-- or a 'no-air-conditioning day' once a week

Of course they already encourage (or require, I couldn't tell) businesses to set their A/C on 82.4 degrees.

and they STILL are not going to meet the "modest" goals of Kyoto!! [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Congressional oath of office ...with a Koran

Representative-Elect Keith Ellison will take his oath of office using a Koran instead of a Bible. But its not just any Koran, but one formerly owned by none other than Thomas Jefferson.

Smart move by Ellison....

------------------------------------------------
I don't think the link will keep this story at the top, so here it is...

But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran!

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Wednesday, January 3, 2007; C03

(washingtonpost.com)

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

"He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison's 5th District, was happy to help.

Jefferson's copy is an English translation by George Sale published in the 1750s; it survived the 1851 fire that destroyed most of Jefferson's collection and has his customary initialing on the pages. This isn't the first historic book used for swearing-in ceremonies -- the Library has allowed VIPs to use rare Bibles for inaugurations and other special occasions.

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself," said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

One person unlikely to be swayed by the book's illustrious history is Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison's use of the Koran. "I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible," the Virginia Republican told Fox News, and then went on to warn about what he regards as the dangers of Muslims immigrating to the United States and Muslims gaining elective office.

Yeah, but what about a Koran that belonged to one of the greatest Virginians in history? Goode, who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday.

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Scrooge and intellectual property rights

Interesting...

Scrooge and intellectual property rights
A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations

At Christmas, we traditionally retell Dickens's story of Scrooge, who cared more for money than for his fellow human beings. What would we think of a Scrooge who could cure diseases that blighted thousands of people's lives but did not do so? Clearly, we would be horrified. But this has increasingly been happening in the name of economics, under the innocent sounding guise of "intellectual property rights."

Intellectual property differs from other property—restricting its use is inefficient as it costs nothing for another person to use it. Thomas Jefferson, America's third president, put it more poetically than modern economists (who refer to "zero marginal costs" and "non-rivalrous consumption") when he said that knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish from the light of the first. Using knowledge to help someone does not prevent that knowledge from helping others. Intellectual property rights, however, enable one person or company to have exclusive control of the use of a particular piece of knowledge, thereby creating monopoly power. Monopolies distort the economy. Restricting the use of medical knowledge not only affects economic efficiency, but also life itself.

We tolerate such restrictions in the belief that they might spur innovation, balancing costs against benefits. But the costs of restrictions can outweigh the benefits. It is hard to see how the patent issued by the US government for the healing properties of turmeric, which had been known for hundreds of years, stimulated research. Had the patent been enforced in India, poor people who wanted to use this compound would have had to pay royalties to the United States.

In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year's treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (£65; {euro}170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.

Developing countries paid a high price for this agreement. But what have they received in return? Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns. The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said "We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way ... You can't expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale."2

Research needs money, but the current system results in limited funds being spent in the wrong way. For instance, the human genome project decoded the human genome within the target timeframe, but a few scientists managed to beat the project so they could patent genes related to breast cancer. The social value of gaining this knowledge slightly earlier was small, but the cost was enormous. Consequently the cost of testing for breast cancer vulnerability genes is high. In countries with no national health service many women with these genes will fail to be tested. In counties where governments will pay for these tests less money will be available for other public health needs.

A medical prize fund provides an alternative. Such a fund would give large rewards for cures or vaccines for diseases like malaria that affect millions, and smaller rewards for drugs that are similar to existing ones, with perhaps slightly different side effects. The intellectual property would be available to generic drug companies. The power of competitive markets would ensure a wide distribution at the lowest possible price, unlike the current system, which uses monopoly power, with its high prices and limited usage.

The prizes could be funded by governments in advanced industrial countries. For diseases that affect the developed world, governments are already paying as part of the health care they provide for their citizens. For diseases that affect developing countries, the funding could be part of development assistance. Money spent in this way might do as much to improve the wellbeing of people in the developing world—and even their productivity—as any other that they are given.

The medical prize fund could be one of several ways to promote innovation in crucial diseases. The most important ideas that emerge from basic science have never been protected by patents and never should be. Most researchers are motivated by the desire to enhance understanding and help humankind. Of course money is needed, and governments must continue to provide money through research grants along with support for government research laboratories and research universities. The patent system would continue to play a part for applications for which no one offers a prize . The prize fund should complement these other methods of funding; it at least holds the promise that in the future more money will be spent on research than on advertising and marketing of drugs, and that research concentrates on diseases that matter. Importantly, the medical prize fund would ensure that we make the best possible use of whatever knowledge we acquire, rather than hoarding it and limiting usage to those who can afford it, as Scrooge might have done. It is a thought we should keep in mind this Christmas.3 4 5 6

Joseph E Stiglitz, professor

1 Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA

jb2632@columbia.edu

Competing interests: JES was chief economist of the World Bank from 1997 to 2000 and a member and then chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997. He won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001.

References

1. Médecins Sans Frontières. People not getting the treatment they need to stay alive. Newer AIDS drugs unaffordable and unavailable. Geneva: MSF, 29 November 2006.
2. Andrew J. Novartis chief in warning on cheap drugs. Financial Times 29 September 2006.
3. Stiglitz JE. Making globalization work. New York: WW Norton, 2006.
4. Hollis A. Optional rewards for new drugs for developing countries. Geneva: World Health Organization, 5 April 2005. www.who.int/entity/intellectualproperty/submissions/Submissions.AidanHollis.pdf.
5. Pogge T. Human rights and global health: a research program. Metaphilosophy 2005;1/2(36).
6. Love J. Submission of CPTech to IGWG. 15 November 2006. www.who.int/entity/public_hearing_phi/summary/15Nov06JamesLoveCPTech.pdf

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Italy: Judge rejects man’s request to cut life support

Judge rejects man’s request to cut life support
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16242596/

"The (Italian) constitution states that no one can be forced to undergo health treatments unless ordered by law".... but the since "Italy’s medical code requires doctors to maintain the life of a patient." .... no one can legally remove this respirator.

Go figure.... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Painful Execution?

Botched execution likely painful, doctors say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241245/


This looks like a very bad situation, but is any amount of pain automatically "cruel"? Can we really make death painless? Certainly there is the emotional pain of knowing you will day on a given day, and just putting the IV needles in causes some real (but trivial) pain.

When we come up with a new mix of drugs, how are we going to "test" it. There will always be some doubt that the person has some amount of pain. The people fighting this because it may be "painful" won't be happy when we make sure it isn't painful.

So even though this is a real bad situation and needs real attention, its hard to take it seriously because I know nothing the state of Florida does will satisfy them [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Dems to Wipe Out Pet Projects in Bills

WOW,

If this is any indication of what the Dems will do, where do I sign up?

I'm thinking of switching parties anyways so I can vote against Hillary in the primary....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/11/D8LV029G0.html [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Bush's use of "signing statements"

What does it mean to pass a law aimed at limiting an executive branch practice (such as a Torture ban) if the president says he can just ignore it? Is the president "above" the law?

But then again, if the 3 branches of government are supposed to be "equal" then congress should not be able to limit the President (If they could then congress would be "above" the President, not co-equal)

The whole idea of "equal branches" seems unworkable to me. In my opinion, Congress should be the "first" among equals. The Supreme Court is above Congress because they can strike down any law passes (but supposedly only if it clearly contradicts the constitution), but they can be cut out the loop if congress says they don't have jurisdiction.

The President is the most powerful brach mainly because he is one person and doesn't have to debate issues or work the middle ground. He or She does whatever they want.

Congress is the pass all laws, but is a large body and has to compromise a lot. It is also the most effected by "the people" in many ways.

I'm rambling.. here's the link
USNews.com: Inside Washington: Bar association task force urges Congress to push for judicial review of Bush signing statements [This Post Continues after the jump...]