Do a people have a right to be a nation?

On Nov 18, Pres. Obama stated, "There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on from outside its borders. We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend its borders."

On Dec 3, UN Ambassador Susan Rice stated, "This resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state, ... nor does passing any resolution create a state where none indeed exists or change the reality on the ground."

So the U.S. position on Palestine is that they are neither part of Israel nor an independent state, thus denying them any status at all as an organized nation or an organized people.  According to the Declaration of Independence, "to secure these rights [i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men."  So denying the Palestinian people the right to be a part of any government also denies them the right to secure life, liberty, and pursue happiness. 

What should a people appropriately do when placed in that situation?

All men are created equal

Jefferson wrote in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal."  It is one of the most fundamental principles of democracy.

He did not write "all Americans", "all citizens", or even "all non-terrorists". All men means all men.  (And women too, since English lacks good neutral pronouns.)  When we distinguish between different classes of men, based on income, citizenship, religion, race, etc., and treat them by different rules, we are actually setting up a tyranny.  We may give it different names depending on who is in the position of privilege, such as oligarchy or monarchy or imperialism, but they are all forms of tyranny.

This is not a deep or mysterious concept.  It is self-evident and intuitively grasped by any poor farmer or third world factory worker.  They may not be able to put their feelings into the sophisticated words of the highly educated elite, and they may even be immune to the sophisticated smokescreen of politically correct rhetoric.  But they can look at our actions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere, and judge for themselves whether we are spreading democracy or tyranny in the world.

Another Juxtaposition

A few months ago, Obama defended the use of drones for targeted killings (assassinations), saying "This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists... It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash."

This week, none of that is true any more, as Obama has approved drone strikes based solely on patterns of behavior (called "signatures") without knowing who the victims are.  The leash is off.

Ignoring the Bill of Rights

Compare the Third Amendment ...

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

... with our actions ...

This was a fairly standard practice in Afghanistan, and even in Iraq. When platoons were moving out through really rural areas or even some urban areas, they needed a place to bed down for the night. They’d try to find either an abandoned house or, if they couldn’t find an abandoned one, they would move into a place that was relatively secure, and they’d sort of kick the family out and try to pay them for their trouble.

Do we really believe in the principles of the Bill of Rights any more?

Incapable of Diplomacy

What can you say about someone who doesn't understand that when you do something wrong, you should apologize for it?

Any rational person should understand that when you bump into someone, even if by accident, you should apologize.  It is obvious if you have any inkling of what it means to be polite, civil, or hope to live in harmony with other similar people.

If you cannot comprehend this basic principle of politeness and civility, you would be completely incapable of handling much more delicate issues which occur in international diplomacy.

Thus we see that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have declared themselves incapable of representing the United States in front of the rest of the world.

The language of hope

I've heard a lot of people talk about how we need more hope to overcome the challenges we face today.  But then I heard this and it made something click:

"These revolutions, the unrest, the protests, I think, will go on, because it is about a generation that doesn’t know what the story is anymore. What is the story about how my life is going to get better?"  (Paul Mason)

The language of hope is spoken through stories!

What sorts of stories are being told today?  Compare the cyberpunk of today with the classic sci-fi of the previous generation.  Star Trek was full of hope for the future.  Terminator and The Matrix paint a very bleak future.  The stories this generation is being told and the stories it is telling are full of desperation, and soon, revolution.

If we can change the direction we are going, it will have to start with re-telling our own stories in manner which re-writes a hopeful future, because the stories we are telling today are writing the future we will see tomorrow.

Co-pays are "Evil"

A simple analysis of supply and demand shows how the health insurance copay system warps the economy and allows prices to spiral out of control.

When the patient (or buyer, represented by the demand curve) pays a flat rate, the quantity he demands can increase without limit because he pays the same amount no matter what he demands.

Likewise, the pharmaceutical companies (or sellers, represented by the supply curve) can charge any price without concerning the buyer with that detail, they can charge practically any amount, and will happily do so.

The only reason the buyers and sellers can trade at all in this system is because the insurance company steps in to pay the difference.  This means the insurance companies are the only ones with any incentive to control costs, but as long as they can keep raising premiums, their incentive is not that large.

They also get a lot of the criticism because the rising insurance premiums are the only effect the buyers see.  But that effect is so far removed by the broken system from their own consumption choices, that they fail to see the connection.

A good real world example of this happened when a friend of mine was about to lose insurance for her son, so she actually asked how much his prescription acne medication costs.  The answer was $900, which was even a shock to the pharmacist!  Such an over-inflated price for a trivial medication can only happen when none of the actors on the buying side (patient, doctor, pharmacist, etc.) are paying any attention to the actual cost at all.

The solution is easy.  Instead of a flat co-pay, patients should pay a percentage of the cost of health care.  Even if it were a small percentage like 10% or even less, the consumer would be directly exposed to the actual costs of medications.  It is not likely that anyone would be willing to pay $90 for an acne medication, and most people would be discussing alternate medications with their doctors in order to save a few bucks.

MLK Day

I often hear conservatives cast negative aspersions on the characters of certain famous men. Men who are held in respect by the opposition, the liberals, or the majority. You've probably heard such things yourselves from time to time, but I'm not here to repeat them. I'm here to ask a simple pointed question. “What's the point?”

What's the point of questioning these men's character? They're already dead. If we drag their corpses through the mud, is it going to change the judgment they receive on high? Is it going to change the deeds they committed on earth? No, it is too late to harm them. The only thing it can possibly change is what we ourselves think about their message.

You see, I have the impression that we are still trying to kill the messenger, even though the messenger is already dead. Why would we do that? Do we expect everyone who tells us about the beam in our eyes to be perfect? That's only happened once, and it's not going to happen again, at least until it's too late.

If it is a false message, there is no reason to be concerned. The messenger will be discredited by the message itself, if it is untrue. “Let fools rave, that all may hear, and know them to be mad.”

If the message is not addressed to us, there is no reason to be concerned. We can leave the envelope ignored, unopened, returned to sender. Someone's else mail is not to be our concern. And if we are mistaken, the sender will surely try again.

If it is a true message for us, we cannot silence the message by killing or discrediting the messenger. We cannot even silence the message by ignoring it. If we ignore the message when it is delivered by our own conscience, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when delivered by the humble preacher of peace, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when it is delivered by a senator or president, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when it is delivered by crowds of angry protesters, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when it is delivered by mobs of rioting looters, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when it is delivered by well-armed terrorists, the message will be sent again. If we ignore the message when the economy collapses, when the war is brought to the homeland, when it is delivered the voice of thunder and famine, still the message will be delivered. When we stand at the last day, and the message is delivered by the Prince of Peace himself, he will have all the messengers he has sent to us there with him to stand as witnesses against us.

It is not for us to judge the messengers. When we discuss the private lives and personal grooming habits of the messenger, it is merely a distraction from the message itself. Our part is to judge the message. If there is good in the message we should point it out, and do it. If there is error in the message we can also point it out and be edified by the discussion. We should never disregard a message because of its envelope and we should never give credit to a message because the deliverer was able to hire an expert speech-writer.

We can only judge the value of the message based on the content of the message itself, and that cannot happen until we stop discussing the messenger, and start reading and discussing the message.

Corporations are People

"Corporations are People." At least, that's what Mitt Romney says.

What kind of people are they?

• They are people who should pay less taxes (25% instead of 35%, according to Mitt).
• They are people who can deduct 100% of their expenses.
• They are people who enjoy limited liability for whatever they do.
• They are people who pay no death tax, because they are immortal.
• Some Republican candidates even believe they should pay no taxes if they establish overseas sweat shops (see point #12).
• A proposed tax holiday on repatriated corporate income (point #12 again) means corporations get amnesty for illegally immigrating income, but real people immigrating illegally do not.
• They can exercise their free speech in the form of unlimited campaign contributions.

They are the 1%.