The Health of People and Our Planet

My colleague's blog "The Blog has Landed" in the post entitled "'Inconvenient' Time" appropriately highlights the significance and severity of our planet's potential problems due to global warming. Discussions on global warming tend to revolve around the reduction of green house gases. A related issue which tends to get less attention, but one that has been discussed a lot in the news this week, is the issue of adaptation. That is, how will we adapt to the tragic effects of global warming, who will be most impacted by the effects, and who is responsible to pay for adapting to these negative impacts.
Two distinct factions are involved in negotiations to address global warming: the developed nations, and the developing nations. In his Wall Street Journal article Samuel Fankhauser states, "developing countries, which likely will suffer some of the worst impact of any significant warming, have made it clear that they will not agree to an emissions-reduction package without substantial help in coping with the increased flooding, drought, and disease that many scientist say will result from a warming planet."
My colleague alludes to the fact that developing countries in Asia will be producing increased amounts of greenhouse gases in the future. However, it is clear that up to the current time the developed countries in Western Europe and the Americas are mostly responsible for creating this problem. Now it's time for these developed nations to be held accountable and help developing nations pay the high costs of adaptation.
The fact of the matter is we live in a complex world with multiple complex problems. We can not afford to deal with only one problem at a time. Healthcare in the United States is a critical problem that must be fixed as soon as possible. At the same time, the issue of global warming is critical to the entire world and will require an effective global solution. It's important to realize that these topics are not simply fodder for entertaining news programs. These are real issues that require real solutions that will demand changes in human behavior for all.

Another Futile Afghan War

Throughout recent history, one regime after another has acted to impose their will, ostensibly as liberators, upon an Afghan nation. Time and time again the foreign occupiers have failed to produce a government that has served the Afghan people well. Yet, President Obama has decided to dedicate more resources to a mission that history has proven impossible.
The United States' occupation of Afghanistan was a direct result of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, an assault upon our nation which was planned and executed with the full support of the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda. The original purpose for attacking Afghanistan was to throw the Taliban out of power. Now there is an ongoing goal to keep them from regaining control of the government. For some reason we presume that the Afghani people are going to take up our cause and risk their own lives to prevent the Taliban from regaining their foot hold; we are going to risk the lives of our soldiers to support a cause that the Afghan people may not care about and be willing to support.
When the U.S. helped the Afghans defeat the Soviet Union during the Soviet-Afghan war, instead of proving our might and helping them rebuild their nation we simply disappeared leaving their country in ruins. Why should the Afghans have any trust in the United States? In addition, there is great risk that the Afghanis will not commit themselves to our goals hence any further dedication of resources will prove to be little more than an exercise in futility.

Opportunity for All

My colleague recently posted a blog entitled "Inequality Leading to More Inequality" discussing how economic inequalities are hurting America by creating unequal opportunities. His basis for this argument is that "dumb rich kids" have a greater chance of finishing college than "smart poor kids". He fails to recognize that even though it may be easier for a rich kid to enter college, it is not any easier for that kid to graduate. The fact that the "smart poor kid" is able to attend college shows that economic inequalities do not prevent this opportunity. History is full of examples of relatively poor, underprivileged American citizens who have obtained higher education and gone on to achieve great success in their chosen profession. A recent example is the newly appointed Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, a product of immigrant parents who grew up in the projects in The Bronx New York. Another example is President Bill Clinton who was born into a poor single-parent household. Any American who is willing to work hard to achieve their goals is provided an equal opportunity to succeed. Granted entry into college may be harder than it is for a rich kid, but clearly the opportunities exist.
The blogger makes vague statements about how the government needs to step up to reduce economic inequalities, but makes no indications of how this should be done. The fact remains that this is a free capitalist society. Experience tells us that communism doesn't work, and it's not our government's responsibility to spread the wealth equally across the population.

Equal Entitlement

Equality is an inalienable right which is guaranteed to all American citizens by the Declaration of Independence. Equality is an extremely important part of the American Dream, but to what extent are we naturally equal, and how far does government need to go to insure equality for all?

Obviously there are some who are created smarter than others, those with better athletic abilities, and even those with more of an artistic ability. Clearly people are not created equal but they are, in fact, created different. However in a free society all people should have equal opportunity to pursue there own happiness and self actualization.

Recent developments in the United States involve taxing all to provide some people, who are less fortunate, access to important things like healthcare and education. Many would argue that for the overall good of the country all citizens should have access to education and healthcare which could ultimately lead to greater prosperity for our nation. Is this really fair? Does this sort of taxation not take away some amount of freedom and equality from those who work hard to earn their money?

To be a leading super power in the world requires a healthy, educated population. The benefit of a free society is not to receive money from others, it is to have the ability to be free and lift one's self up. As Winston Churchill put it "I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." We should all have an equal opportunity to achieve our own pursuits, but only through hard work and dedication, and not by exploiting the labors of others.

Economy Observer

The October 22, 2009 posting on the National Review by Veronique de Rugy entitled "Critical Condition" is intended to warn concerned citizens about the dangers of the Obama administration’s economic policies. More specifically, Rugy is targeting an audience comprised of conservatives – those people most likely to be tapped into the National Review as regular readers.

Rugy points out that the U.S. economy is in critical condition, but issues around health-care are only part of the problem. She argues that the health-care bill going through Congress right now will not help to shrink the deficit, but would in fact increase it. The claim that the new bill would create a savings of $180 billion over the course of ten years does not take into account that the costs associated with this program are predicted to be $900 billion over ten years.

In addition to the costs of the proposed health care plan, Rugy makes the claim that several of the programs covered by the economic stimulus package will likely live into the future. This fact supports her main idea that the economy is in critical condition mainly due to excessive spending.

Whether or not you agree with her views, as a recognized expert in the field of governmental economic policies, Veronique de Rugy is a credible author. She has served as fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, an organization that applies research principles to understand economic issues and provide policy makers with the knowledge they need to make good decisions. Rugy is also the coauthor of a book about taxation called "Action Ou Taxation".

I agree with Rugy's position that the U.S. economy is headed towards serious trouble. The increasing number of new programs being introduced by the government will lead to a growing deficit over time. The government's liberal fiscal policies will present a burden to future generations of taxpayers. Will these liberal programs be worth the price? I don't think so.

Think for Yourself

In response to Klinenberg and Thomas' "How the First Family Can Lead on Swine Flu" (Opinion- Wall Street Journal September 30, 2009) regarding President Obama's lack of urgency in asking the American public to have themselves vaccinated against the H1N1 flu. The authors hold the belief that the President should do what ever it takes to get Americans vaccinated, and want the Obama's and their children to get inoculated in front of the cameras and on TV.
It seems to me that the authors' intent is to create a larger sense of panic, scarying people into getting vaccinated. In the beginning of the article the authors are not satisfied with Obama simply urging Americans to get vaccinated, claiming that it "fails to convey the urgency required for a successful mass vaccination". They are not even satisfied with Obama saying that he and his wife "will stand in line like everybody else" to receive the vaccine, for they want the vaccination to be in front of the cameras and on TV. They go on to discuss how effective this approach was in 1976 when President Ford got some 42 million people to follow his lead during a similar H1N1 flu outbreak.
It seems to me there has to be more to this story. Why are these two so concerned with getting "Americans" vaccinated? What about the rest of the world? It turns out Anisya Thomas "Fritz" is on the board of directors of the Fritz Institute who is partnered with several of the larger pharmaceutical companies. I suppose Americans pay more than the rest of the world, and are better sheep.

Freedom to Speak

With all of the health-care debate taking place right now it's easy to forget about all of the other important political reforms also being debated. One of these being the McCain-Feingold act of 2002 which ended the proliferation of issue advocacy ads with-in 30 days of a national primary and 60 days of a national general election. It also prohibited corporations and non-profits from being able to bank-role these types of ads with their unlimited supplies of "soft-money". As it turns out, and even though a lot of us hate these ads, this is a limitation to our freedom of speech. Would we rather be able to speak freely or watch our TV's without being bombarded with partisan political ads? I'll take the former. In fact, if this law holds up, the FEC would be able to ban books which were paid for by corporations. Lets hope the Supreme Court gets this one right!