Saturday, November 21, 2009
Collin County, TX
A man died Wednesday afternoon after he was hit in the face and stabbed in the chest with a tire iron on a basketball court in Collin County, TX. Two men were arrested and charged with the murder. Police said that two men, who wanted to use the court to play basketball, "quarreled" with Agha Faran Khan, who was practicing cricket on the court at the time. According to police, it was "just a fight that got out of control. Some young men couldn't control themselves." Oh well. Just another day in Collin County I suppose.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Expensive Jobs
White House officials proudly reported this morning that over 640,000 jobs have so far been created under the $787 billion Federal Stimulus Package. "There is no doubt jobs are being created and saved" said Earl Devaneey, chairman of the Recovery Board. (I imagine Obama's is one of the jobs hoping to be saved.) Some dispute those numbers saying the number of jobs created is less than the administration claims. But let us for a moment take the administration at its word. That comes out to well over $1,000,000 a job. Many of the jobs created are temporary; their existence is predicated on continued federal funding if they are to continue past the "recovery." I assume that the federal government is counting on the taxes collected from these new jobs to help staunch the bleeding at the treasury. Even still, the net loss to the government is staggering, especially given the nature of many of the jobs created. The administration can say what it will about the recovery it is seeking credit for. But $1,000,000 a job, to my mind, is not a bargain. Nor is it something to brag about.
With economic recovery well under way, the administration can now focus on its health care goals. I am surprised the administration has not concluded that the best way to provide national health care and aid the economy would simply be for the federal government to hire every one in the country without a job or health insurance. That would be the surest way to provide health care to all as well as dramatically reduce unemployment. Money certainly doesn't seem to be an object.
With economic recovery well under way, the administration can now focus on its health care goals. I am surprised the administration has not concluded that the best way to provide national health care and aid the economy would simply be for the federal government to hire every one in the country without a job or health insurance. That would be the surest way to provide health care to all as well as dramatically reduce unemployment. Money certainly doesn't seem to be an object.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Problem of Settlements
It was reported this morning That Israel has rebuffed President Obama's criticism of its plan to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians, naturally, are upset at Israeli expansion into territory they consider to be theirs. Danny Danon, of the Likud Party, scolded Obama, declaring that Obama "should not interfere with the rights of Jewish people to live in Jerusalem." The issue, however, is not so much the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem, but the right of Palestinians to live in Jerusalem. The expansion of Jewish housing and settlements is a critical issue. Every Jewish settlement is one more place where Palestinians cannot live, or sometimes even travel through.
Of course, it needn't be this way. The government could build houses and apartments, and provide schools, jobs, and services for all the residents of West Bank, Jewish and Palestinian. But this is unlikely. The first reason is Palestinian hostility toward Jews and Israel. They don't want Jews encroaching on Palestinian towns and cities or taking what they believe to be their land. It is natural that every new Jewish house, apartment, and school would be contested by the Palestinians.
The second reason is Israeli intolerance. Every new settlement built by Israel is a Jewish settlement. Every piece of land seized by Israel becomes Jewish land. Palestinians cannot live in Jewish settlements, nor can they build on Jewish land. Often, they cannot even travel through Jewish territory. The result is everything in Israel is either Jewish, or Palestinian. Everything taken by Israel is taken from Palestine. Everything taken by Palestine is taken from Israel. Little, if anything, is shared. Indeed, one reason for the grudging acquiescence to Palestinian territories was to enable Israel to rid itself of them.
Many seemingly intractable contests over land between peoples have been resolved. Often, the resolution of the conflict was identified by finding a way for the contesting people to share the land and resolve their disputes politically by sharing power. Sharing the land in Israel is evidently not an option. Neither is sharing power. The possibility of an equitable division of the land between Israelis and Palestinians is remote, particularly given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. Continued Israeli expansion increasingly leaves Palestinians with two options: submission or violence. As futile and suicidal as Palestinian violence may be, the day might come again when it is seen by many as preferable to submission.
Of course, it needn't be this way. The government could build houses and apartments, and provide schools, jobs, and services for all the residents of West Bank, Jewish and Palestinian. But this is unlikely. The first reason is Palestinian hostility toward Jews and Israel. They don't want Jews encroaching on Palestinian towns and cities or taking what they believe to be their land. It is natural that every new Jewish house, apartment, and school would be contested by the Palestinians.
The second reason is Israeli intolerance. Every new settlement built by Israel is a Jewish settlement. Every piece of land seized by Israel becomes Jewish land. Palestinians cannot live in Jewish settlements, nor can they build on Jewish land. Often, they cannot even travel through Jewish territory. The result is everything in Israel is either Jewish, or Palestinian. Everything taken by Israel is taken from Palestine. Everything taken by Palestine is taken from Israel. Little, if anything, is shared. Indeed, one reason for the grudging acquiescence to Palestinian territories was to enable Israel to rid itself of them.
Many seemingly intractable contests over land between peoples have been resolved. Often, the resolution of the conflict was identified by finding a way for the contesting people to share the land and resolve their disputes politically by sharing power. Sharing the land in Israel is evidently not an option. Neither is sharing power. The possibility of an equitable division of the land between Israelis and Palestinians is remote, particularly given the continued expansion of Israeli settlements. Continued Israeli expansion increasingly leaves Palestinians with two options: submission or violence. As futile and suicidal as Palestinian violence may be, the day might come again when it is seen by many as preferable to submission.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Red Cross Treasures
It was reported this morning that the Red Cross, facing a large deficit, is going to auction off decades worth of it's treasures. A considerable number of the more than 135,000 objects and books it has collected over the years will be sold on the block.
It is unfortunate that while Congress is debating a health care bill that will cost billions, an agency such as the Red Cross, a group with a well established track record of aiding the poor, the ill, and the suffering, is struggling to keep itself afloat. There are many groups with long and proven histories of providing health care and aid to the ill, the suffering, and the poor. Moreover, these groups get more out of every dollar than the federal government could ever hope to. So why are they being ignored and forgotten amidst the clamor for national health care reform?
No doubt, some of these private charities have religious affiliations which renders them anathema to public funding. The aid and care these organizations provide matters not. Their religious affiliation excludes them from federal funding. Perhaps it is believed that their religious affiliation taints their care. Perhaps it is feared that the charity and aid these organizations provide is simply a form of propaganda used to gain converts to their beliefs. Whatever the motives, it is believed by many that any public funding of the care provided by private and religious charities is not worth the protests, animosity, and lawsuits of the professionally aggrieved who quarrel over religion and "values" to the point of obsession.
But what of the many private, secular, and charitable organizations? What of the March of Dimes? What of the Shriners? What of all the other private organizations and charities that exist to help the poor, the suffering, and the ill? In many cases, they too, like religious organizations, are cable of providing more with less than any governmental service or bureaucracy can ever hope to provide. Why are these organizations being overlooked and neglected? Imagine what the Shriners could do with a a few million dollars; or Habitat for Humanity. Weigh this against the hundreds of millions being proposed in Washington for a national health care plan.
Most likely, private organizations and charities are shunned because they are unsuitable vehicles for government policy. Private groups have their own charters, procedures, and guiding principals. Where these groups refuse to reorganize or accommodate themselves to the political sensitivities of government, they are avoided. Lip service may often be provided for the admirable services offered by such groups, but funding is denied. If only a fraction of the funding proposed for national health care was redirected to private organizations that have proven themselves able and willing to tend to the public, much of the health care "crisis" that exists in this country would be alleviated.
The crux of the matter is the government never gives anything away. Federal money brings with it strings. Those strings are pulled by bureaucrats and politicians. Groups that would not allow themselves to be regulated or manipulated by government are of little benefit to politicians and interest groups beyond photo opportunities and press releases. Perhaps more importantly, many private groups and charities are largely beyond the reach of those who want to control and manipulate society to serve their own ends and ideals. And so, while the Red Cross has to auction some of its most treasured possessions to stay afloat, billions of dollars are on the table in Washington. But then again, national health care is not simply about aiding the poor, the suffering and the ill. It is also about helping politicians, special interests, and the middle class.
It is unfortunate that while Congress is debating a health care bill that will cost billions, an agency such as the Red Cross, a group with a well established track record of aiding the poor, the ill, and the suffering, is struggling to keep itself afloat. There are many groups with long and proven histories of providing health care and aid to the ill, the suffering, and the poor. Moreover, these groups get more out of every dollar than the federal government could ever hope to. So why are they being ignored and forgotten amidst the clamor for national health care reform?
No doubt, some of these private charities have religious affiliations which renders them anathema to public funding. The aid and care these organizations provide matters not. Their religious affiliation excludes them from federal funding. Perhaps it is believed that their religious affiliation taints their care. Perhaps it is feared that the charity and aid these organizations provide is simply a form of propaganda used to gain converts to their beliefs. Whatever the motives, it is believed by many that any public funding of the care provided by private and religious charities is not worth the protests, animosity, and lawsuits of the professionally aggrieved who quarrel over religion and "values" to the point of obsession.
But what of the many private, secular, and charitable organizations? What of the March of Dimes? What of the Shriners? What of all the other private organizations and charities that exist to help the poor, the suffering, and the ill? In many cases, they too, like religious organizations, are cable of providing more with less than any governmental service or bureaucracy can ever hope to provide. Why are these organizations being overlooked and neglected? Imagine what the Shriners could do with a a few million dollars; or Habitat for Humanity. Weigh this against the hundreds of millions being proposed in Washington for a national health care plan.
Most likely, private organizations and charities are shunned because they are unsuitable vehicles for government policy. Private groups have their own charters, procedures, and guiding principals. Where these groups refuse to reorganize or accommodate themselves to the political sensitivities of government, they are avoided. Lip service may often be provided for the admirable services offered by such groups, but funding is denied. If only a fraction of the funding proposed for national health care was redirected to private organizations that have proven themselves able and willing to tend to the public, much of the health care "crisis" that exists in this country would be alleviated.
The crux of the matter is the government never gives anything away. Federal money brings with it strings. Those strings are pulled by bureaucrats and politicians. Groups that would not allow themselves to be regulated or manipulated by government are of little benefit to politicians and interest groups beyond photo opportunities and press releases. Perhaps more importantly, many private groups and charities are largely beyond the reach of those who want to control and manipulate society to serve their own ends and ideals. And so, while the Red Cross has to auction some of its most treasured possessions to stay afloat, billions of dollars are on the table in Washington. But then again, national health care is not simply about aiding the poor, the suffering and the ill. It is also about helping politicians, special interests, and the middle class.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Clinton and Democracy in Afghanistan
It was reported this morning that Secretary of State Clinton declared that the U.S. will not provide any more civilian aid unless the Afghan government takes steps to curb the rampant corruption that the government has exhibited. "We are going to expect more from the Afghan government...we've got some very specific asks (sic) that we will be making." It was also reported that Obama is expected to "announce" a troop increase later in the week.
It is of note that Clinton "declared", and Obama "announced." It is also of note that the U.S. aid Clinton threatened to withhold was civilian aid. Military aid is not in jeopardy. Clinton stated that U.S. aid was contingent on the Afghan government having ministries that the U.S. can hold accountable. Evidently the Afghan government, in addition to being accountable to the people of Afghanistan, must be accountable to the U.S. as well.
Part of the problem in Afghanistan is that the U.S. in not simply insisting upon an accountable and responsible government for the sake of the Afghan people, but for U.S. interests as well. Moreover, the only form of government that can be accountable and responsible, by U.S. standards, is democratic government. For a country which has never known democratic government, and lacks the social and political infrastructure for it's existence, it hardly seems reasonable to expect democracy to take root in the matter of a few years. Democracy is a little more complicated than passing laws and erecting voting booths. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. A democratic people create a democratic government. If the U.S. goal in Afghanistan is to create a democratic people, we had better be prepared for a very long occupation.
It is of note that Clinton "declared", and Obama "announced." It is also of note that the U.S. aid Clinton threatened to withhold was civilian aid. Military aid is not in jeopardy. Clinton stated that U.S. aid was contingent on the Afghan government having ministries that the U.S. can hold accountable. Evidently the Afghan government, in addition to being accountable to the people of Afghanistan, must be accountable to the U.S. as well.
Part of the problem in Afghanistan is that the U.S. in not simply insisting upon an accountable and responsible government for the sake of the Afghan people, but for U.S. interests as well. Moreover, the only form of government that can be accountable and responsible, by U.S. standards, is democratic government. For a country which has never known democratic government, and lacks the social and political infrastructure for it's existence, it hardly seems reasonable to expect democracy to take root in the matter of a few years. Democracy is a little more complicated than passing laws and erecting voting booths. A democratic government does not create a democratic people. A democratic people create a democratic government. If the U.S. goal in Afghanistan is to create a democratic people, we had better be prepared for a very long occupation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)