One Issue Voter Amendment

It has been noted that as I am a human rights issue voter first and foremost, it is curious why am I not vociferating against human rights issues abroad first. After all, people die every day in places like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_world_conflicts

And I agree. We cannot, for example, allow another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

As the social MO generated by decades of Hussein rule has proven rough and painful to unlearn, the bureaucracy - though officially dismantled - has continually proven moderately resilient, like a mythical hydra, but thankfully one with testicular cancer. As its constituents are read its eulogy, their zeal for the old system slowly dwindles. That is, when they aren't inflamed by our media or our voting cycle. Yet there are a few reasons why I firmly believe even the noblest remonstrances against foreign insurrections play second fiddle to stopping the human rights violations happening here:

1. Proximity. Charity begins at home.

Let's say I'm writing what I think to be a brilliant treatise on world peace. One that will ensure its operation for generations to come. Outside my window I hear a scuffle and cursing. It appears someone is being beaten to death (by the hollow tone I'd say it's Col. Mustard, with the lead pipe). Do I pause my pen mid-sentence? I may not easily regain my thought process once again. And yet, for all the numerical pros and cons weighing against it, my moral obligation is to my most tangible domain, the most proximal threat. For that reason, the preventable deaths of innocents right down the street demand action sooner than the preventable deaths of innocents in Darfur, Timbuktu, and Katamazoo. The deaths of innocents are atrocious in either case, and equally impermissible. But one of the more important inputs in the function of their preventability is their proximity.

2. Moral Authority.

I am sure Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would have had a great deal to say about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

had they won WWII. Equally fitting an analogy, however, might be how Russian forces liberating the eastern Nazi Concentration camps paraded their finds and justified their counterinvasion. Of course, we photographed and documented and, in our own way, paraded our finds there as well. We had the moral authority to do so, and it leant, in retrospect, a powerful justification that was admittedly not in our pack of motivation cards at the outset. These Nazi camps, which were more atrocious by all accounts than our lightly simmering Anti-Japanese racism, eventually would pale in number of victims to Russia's own emulations (which were more aligned toward passive, willful, intermittent neglect amongst the bitterest elements than toward active mutilation and slaughterchutes). Now, while being a transgressor as of itself certainly should never disqualify any group or person from making a moral stand, it first risks the perception of hypocracy among third parties, and second, hinders effectiveness and certainty of moral compass. How can we see to remove the speck from our brother's eye with a sequoia projecting itself from our collective iris like the mast of a ship?

3. Pen or Sword?

The methodology is important. If you could save the life of an innocent with the flick of your pen, or a different innocent by intervention (which may mean harming or even killing someone or multiple someones who would kill them), which method would you attempt first? Ideally, you can perform both, but working within the constraints of time, as we perpetually are, we must prioritize. The pen, you see, can be mightier than the sword, also the pen (properly utilized) prevents profusion of the sword. A good law here can save as many or more lives as can an entourage of boots tromping foreign soil. Why draw first the sword when the pen can move as much and save as many (or more).

4. In intervention, which side should we be on?

It's not a given that we can be neutral in any given internal conflict occuring in another nation. At any given point, from the moment of our entry, either one may be the aggressor. Should we alway kill whichever is the aggressor? Sometimes counterattacks get mistaken for unprovoked attacks, because we haven't seen the whole story from the beginning. Given, it's not about fairness but simply stopping the effusion of blood, but sometimes generating a limbo simply solidifies the evils that have been occuring, and eases the final solutions of tomorrow. That is to say, it may simply freeze regional along side the population 'gains' made by the faction initiating genocide, so that once we leave they can perform their original intentions with wider success.

Concerning the hypothetical altercation in the alley, perhaps I should grab the Revolver and shoot Col. Mustard's aggressor (or him, or both, I don't know how this fight started, after all). That would end the violence outside my window so I could get back to writing. Should I attempt to reason with them first? Scold them like they're a couple of unruly neighbor cats? Perhaps I should reason with the Revolver in hand? Suppose I don't have the Revolver, but rather, the unwieldy Candlestick or the flopsy Rope? One of them might have the Revolver. Or both may resist the intervention and turn on me before going back at each other (kinda like the Bosnian debacle). These interventions get messy. Jurisdictions of overlapping entities come into play and demand their pound of flesh. "The U.N. wants it done this way." "Such and such faction has to have it this way." "Why aren't you honoring the borders of our nation?" "Such and such place was our faction's, has some of our people, and yet they get to rule it. Why?" There are army regulars and irregulars. Sometimes they're one and the same (darn camo nightshirts). ALso, usually it's not simply one side that is guilty and the other comprised entirely of saints. While it can be weighted one way, our intervention can even turn these oppressed into oppressors or wanton vigilantees.

It's so much cleaner to eradicate something virulently killing innocents like abortion with a smart law than to try to pin down and exact world peace at the tip of the sword. They say whirled peas is wily, and gelatinously evasive. Now, when a peculiar institution like slavery dies, it dies for good (as a state-blessed and now state-sponsored institution). Abortion, different in flavor and... timeline... is likewise a peculiar institution, worthy of equal venom, and likely to die a similar death, though ideally absent our internal, historical convolutions.

5. In intervention, should we wait for the U.N.?

Hold on. Wow. Give me a minute.

OK. Sorry. I crack myself up. As if we are incapable of forming a concensus on what constitutes evil worthy of combating as a sovereign nation. If we want the help of the other nations, we can always ask for it directly. We're not glory hogs, really. We share moral victory fairly well. What we don't share is the same propensity to drag feet and try the same thing over and over with the same ineffective results. Saddam Hussein basically tars, feathers and shaves the beards of all the U.N. non-proliferation inspectors and how did the U.N. respond? They said pretty please this time, with a cherry on top. And this time. And this time. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good thing that the U.N. is toothless. They are and should be an advising body, not a governing body. But still, they've got to be more inventive and resourceful than that or yes, cowboy types like the U.S. will and should step in and make things right. Unfortunately, our leaders are systematically handing more and more sovereignty over to them every election cycle. Sovereignty, by its definition and nature, cannot be shared. It can be invested in one entity of any affiliative conglomerate only. The day the United Nations declares world peace accomplished will mean the most powerful, slowest grown chains have shackled humanity than at any moment to date in history, I am fully convinced. To do so they must obtain final sovereignty. But I digress. If intervening means putting more U.S. troops (pledged to protect the U.S. constitution, the U.S. borders, and answer to U.S. sovereignty) under a U.N. flag, then I'm inclined to be less an advocate of intervention than I would otherwise be.

So those are five reasons why I place abortion a higher priority than human rights violations in Sudan, the Philippines, Central and South American Drug States, Burma, and Quebec (not really) etc...

Life is life. Self evident truths. Unless there is a sound argument which proves that the life of a foreign innocent is of greater (not equal) value than the life of an infant here in the U.S.A. or in Oregon, or in Salem, I think I'm sticking with my prioritization. Don't get me wrong, I would attempt to protect both with the same fervor, one after the other, but as I would never resort to violence here I am wary of and often eschew its application abroad, which is another reason why international intervention takes second place to me. We all know of the types that think they must utilize violence in our domestic sphere. They are very well publicized should they come out of the woodwork. They're the clinic bombers and doctor kidnappers and 'murderer' shouters. They see evil actions and convince themselves to see evil people. They make the same idiotic mistake John Brown made. I see these poor souls giving their blessing for, commiting and performing abortions as I see the 19th century slavers and planters. Foolishly convinced a lesser right of the loudest must take all precedent over a greater, essential right of the voiceless. They're well educated, exactly like the planters were, well read, and often more articulate than their counterparts. But truth resonates on its own, and when advanced through the weaker societal members, God is the one glorified, not man.

So in a messy and convoluted way, I fumble out a justification for my prioritization below. Sorry to pull the "God's on my side" trump card at the end there. For all folks wanting world peace first, God can be on the side of world peace too. That is, after He's done over here, I'll let you borrow Him to adventure way off in the boonies. Actually, He can multitask, so really, we can share. But He likes me better. So there.

One issue voters

Since when is being labeled a "one-issue voter" an insult?

The other day I heard a debate about how idiotic it is that people might actually be voting for Sarah Palin's ticket with McCain solely on her strong Anti-Choice stance (and demonstrable resonance of this in her personal life by bearing a down's child into the world).

Now, whatever stance one has on that particular topic, why do so many begrudge others for having the intellectual fortitude and resolve to prioritize the issues before them and be willing to compromise on those they feel far less strongly about (ones they deem issues of style, not principle)? It takes a more liberal mind (old connotation, not the neo-socialist hijacked connotation) to elevate the most important component and ignore the lesser. Only a pompous needler makes mountains out of things even they deem to be political molehills. Now, if the pundits aren't half-witted, they'd see that to Pro-Coersion voters, like myself, HUMAN RIGHTS issues just kind of matter a whole lot more than, say, anything economic. Right makes might, not vice versa. To be wrong on human rights is to be wrong on something so fundamental to everything America stands for that it discounts whatever eloquence may be exhibited beyond the initial error in managing and manipulating any subsequent detail errors.

When, by perspective, an individual's choices are yes to permitting eugenic murder and no to permitting it, any post-WW2 amateur philosopher with any remnant of moral compass shouldn't be flinching. But they do. I listened (I don't watch TV much, but I listen a lot) as an east-coast woman with a heavy New England accent described how, being Catholic, she believed that life begins at conception. But, being a Democrat, she was also pro-choice. Apparently, it's a very common combination. I was floored by the idiocy. Maybe she didn't think it through, but, from my perspective, she just said, "yes, it's human" and in nearly the same breath, "go ahead and kill humans, if you're inconvenienced by them." There is, of course, a third way. A moderate way. It is possible she is taking this road, and her sentiments really are saying, "Oh, it's human all right, but not human like I'm human or you're human. Not human, human. Subhuman, really. Not quite fully developed into humanity."

Some previous Democrats have also taken this historical third-way stance before. In the south, local governments legislated magnificently appropriated rights based on arbitrary gradations of skin tone. Today, these pseudo-moderates are as equally concerned with arbitrary fractions as their political ancestors were. A timeless question to ask one's self, if pregnancy can be divided into thirds, with latter trimesters exhibiting increasing humanity, at what fraction white/black descent does a mulatto lose or gain the rights of citizenship? 1/8th? 7/16ths? 13/74ths? Too concise? Maybe it's roughly between 1/4th and 3/4ths?

Perhaps it's 1/3rd?

Doesn't make any sense? Of course it doesn't! Because there is neither a blur in the arbitrary sand they rummage through nor is their a line. They're looking totally and completely in the wrong field. There's no compromise possible on the definition of humanity. No fraction. Any candididate for it is all or none. Either one is working to expand this definition, and bring more into its sphere as recipients of these rights (Republican Party, then and now), or one is working to constrict that sphere for some individuals to exact more rights at the expense of the weaker or voiceless (Democratic Party, then and now). Or, third way, being a moral idiot.

It's all or none. Truth or lie. Believe it or don't believe it. In a literate nation, most people recognize the significance of strong words, and respond with actions of equal caliber. And then in morally illiterate nations, you get a large number of these, people who don't follow ideals to conclusion, and are caught in the middle, thinking they are helping (yeah, they're helping all right, helping perpetuate the problem so that indecision makes it end painfully, often violently). Far from being as self-evident as we claim by reason, some ideals are, in practice, exacted slowly and painfully. Phantom wounds linger from our last run-in with this very problem. Let us hope they linger long and strong enough to motivate the circumvention of new pains by reason.

Speaking of old pains, did you know that while Roe v. Wade shot down the convoluted state definitions for the beginning of human life (ironically laws established directly in the "moral honeymoon" aftermath of the civil war), I believe the Dred Scott case, fairly applied, would have shot down as many convoluted southern citizenship laws as it attempted to do to northern slave freedom laws? If no person of African descent could ever claim citizenship in the U.S., then southern state laws allowing mulattos with minor, trace black ancestry to be considered natural born citizens would be equally void.

Oh, and about voting based on only one issue. Thankfully, I don't have to. I'm voting for about 4 or so, but I'd certainly be willing to, if it came to it. History will find me on the right side of what I believe to be the linchpin challenge of my generation. Linchpin in that either we pin it to the wall now, or historians rightfully lynch our legacy forevermore. Kind of like how the slavery crisis defines a number of generations of Americans, who I'm sure did other fine things as well (but rightfully are overshadowed by the wrong they permitted).

I'm not getting everything I want politically this year. Are you? If you are, I'd say you're not prioritizing things concisely enough, all you splatter-approach, weasel voters out there. Anyone voting their pocketbook? To those I say might is an effect, not a cause. Right first and the rest follows naturally. Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc? It's the new (old) logical fallacy, inhumane utilitarian humanism, and makes promises like Tantalus' fruit and drink, that is, whenever actively sought for its own sake, it will recede.

The important government post you've probably never heard of.

Today I learned something new. I've been toying for weeks on how I would set up a government if I started from scratch, with the Federalist Papers as my rough guideline for the reasoning behind it's various components. I like that our highest government is neither federal nor national (or is an amalgamated both, depending on one's perspective, it's perfectly debatable i.e. #41.) I also like our bicameral setup for the legislative branch, but I can't help but feel it's the least circumspect element of the government. So, what I was toying with was an idea I had for a watchdog group, one that had the smallest of checks and balances given or received. It'd have to be an internal component of the legislative branch itself, as obligation to the executive or judicial branch would place undue checks in the hands of these two branches. But it seems someone beat me to a similar idea.

It's only in an advisory and admonishing position, but the Government Accountability Office is an agency that performs in depth reporting on important U.S. government issues, mostly it performs audits, and expressly operates to expose fraud and waste in government, its sole stated mission. Of course, it has no authority, but as a bully pulpit. The head honcho of this agency is someone called the Comptroller General, who is appointed every 15 years by the president and affirmed by the legislature. And they basically cannot be removed, with this current system (if it were more than an advisory and admonishing board there would need be a greater check, naturally). All they do is create reports and give speeches on what those reports show. Like this one:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08371cg.pdf

Proof this guy actually knows American history and reads, for example, the Federalist Papers, he understands the correct role of the United States government:

"Shockingly, the major functions expressly envisioned by our Founding Fathers as a proper role 

for the federal government—things like national defense, homeland security, foreign policy, the 

treasury function, the federal judiciary, the Congress and the Executive Office of the President— 

are in the remaining 38 percent of the federal budget!" - page 2

That means the other 62 percent are programs - some good, some bad and some just plain ugly - that states could easily undertake instead (and do - the states have to duplicate many of the programs that the feds botch).

Anyone desiring socialist european BS, impose it first on your state. Not mine. After you're done bleeding, the rest of us will patch you up and get on with finding WORKING solutions. This means obligatory national health care funding. That's your platform Democrats.

But back to my version of the government, there'd be three levels of this watchdog agency:

The GAO. Pretty much like it is, but the Comptroller General will be in part of a monthly rotation with two other equally capable counterparts (The Comptroller Representative and the Comptroller Judge) in running the program. They would be on five year staggering of terms, similar to the Senate. This would mean for four interspersed months out of the year, one Comptroller runs it and gives the final report, trading time with two others. None can fire the others, of course. The three are nominated by President, Legislature, and Judiciary, respectively, and confirmed by each other (Exec by Leg, Leg by Jud, Jud by Exec... rock, paper, scissors). As before, they would be mostly an advisory body, but with a twist. On their advice a door opens for another branch to act. More on that later.

The Shadow GAO. A GAO nominated and operated by the double minority components of government. It only needs one comptroller. It is in an advisory role only. This is mostly for public record. The idea behind this is that neither dems nor pubs would have this one in their belt, yet it is paid to rip them up, should they agree together to fleece the public, as they've proven they are more than willing to do in the past. It would only bear the Legislative nominated Comptroller, nominated then voted on by a majority of all representatives not bearing the top two party labels.

Finally, the most controversial but most necessary component of how I would set up a government, The Watchdog Branch. It would be an actual component of the legislative branch, effectively making it a tricameral institution. It would operate only in a case of advice given by the GAO that a federal program is "Constitutionally Inflated" that is, performing a function that would benefit from the closer, immediate accountability of state government.

Our constitution was intended to serve certain needs that only a unified government can fill. (see federalist papers, mentioned nearly everywhere) But we have multiple levels of government. The lower the level of government, the easier it is to change to fit complex issues of style, for instance, economic style. (also in the federalist papers, also mentioned nearly everywhere) Here's my maxim: May the best economic evolution win (and be emulated). This is, of course, short of things that are expressly forbidden by the Constitution, like printing "state money," setting duties or tariffs on other states, etc.  However, some programs we currently have operating, which are issues of style, should rightfully be handled by state governments. This proposed branch reallocates that responsibility. Both the tax raising and expenditure of resources will be assessed, and if requested by a 3/5ths majority of state legislatures, are then reallocated to the states. This means the federal tax rates that procured the funds will be dropped by a universal percentage of the rate that will exactly match the program liability cost history. This enables individual state legislatures to pick up the program if they wish (or establish even a more aggressive or extensive policy if they wish, too), or drop it if they do not. Then, if this branch votes to reallocate, the last check is from the Judiciary (the Supreme Court, in this case), who assess the Constitutionality of the reallocation. They are a bunch of lazy butts doing nothing anyway, most of the time (they judge what, like 10 cases a year?) they can check that, too.

But I'm torn on it. I kind of want the Shadow GAO to perform this role, but not really, since it'd have similar origins (too much opportunity for corruption). Needling reports are the best role for it.

Oh, and how would the Watchdog Branch be formed? We have it already. It's the state governments. Instead of duplicating program after program, the states can finally say to the feds in one voice (or 3 /5ths of a voice), "Hey, that's our jurisdiction, back the h off and focus on what you're supposed to focus on." As the states are rarely so unified, having the structure built in for miniature financial revolutions would be nice. And don't be so dismissive of state governments, if you're thinking to yourself that they're more corrupt than federal ones. They're not. They simply don't hide it as well (less swindling, wool-pulling politically skilled individuals, as with any other skills, are to be found amongst smaller populations, the proportionality being the same). People can understand and are outraged when hundreds of thousands or a couple million dollars are mishandled. Their eyes glaze over when the number becomes trillions. Yes, trillions.

Finally, I cannot drive this home enough, if we really need a government mandated healthcare program, why haven't the states stepped in and done it? Why must it be at the federal level?

Answer: Because it's a horrible idea and people can see its fetid rottenness when it's implemented on a smaller (read: visible) scale. Illinois (home of Obama), New York (home of Clinton), you're two of the wealthier states, let the others see you chug this snake-oil first. When taxpayers flee your borders and costs operate void market checks that keep them proportional, we'll be happy to welcome you back into the fold once all wild european oats are sewn, all self-imposed anguish exacted and the prodigal phase begins.

Nothing prevents any state from trying an extensive healthcare program effective immediately, not even my insightful, perhaps, "incite-ful?" exhortations. I would even possibly encourage such an action. I like both tragedies and comedies. I like to watch them, that is, not partake.

An Obama Ad

Perhaps, like myself, you've been following the political events of this election year. Perhaps not. But whether you have or haven't, you've likely seen Obama's new ad. It's the one starts out, "Well, he's made his choice." talking about Sarah Palin.

What drew my attention was a later phrase, both written and stated audibly for emphasis: "John McCain Votes with Bush 90% of the time." Now, maybe that phrase looks perfectly fine to you, apart from capitalizing the verb (it was two separate lines in the original). Maybe you're nodding your head saying, "he sure did" (with good or ill connotation). If you are, shame on you.

Shame on you.

Shame on you for not knowing the Constitution.

Shame on you for being clueless about the mechanics of your own government.

Since when the hell does the President of the United States VOTE?

Now, maybe this little oversight doesn't bother you. Maybe you're not concerned about the tiny distinction between the word "vote" and it's scrambled alter ego "veto."

If so then shame on you for an entirely different reason. Shame on you for being a subpar mathematician. Obama cannot presume in the slightest to be able to catalogue McCain and Bush's "voting records" with any level of intellectual honesty. For one thing, as established above, apples and oranges. But assuming them to be both apples, it potentially deals in unrealized alternate universes (i.e. speculation). Let me walk you through eight hypotheticals, generated by a three dimensional graph consisting of sets of yes/no variants. The variants are: A bill passes congress/A bill fails to pass congress, McCain votes yes/McCain votes no, Bush signs into law (a one-man "yes supervote")/Bush vetos.

````````+` CongressYes `+` CongressNo `+
--------+---------------+--------------+
BushYes + McCainYes/No `+ McCainYes/No +
--------+---------------+--------------+
BushNo `+ McCainYes/No `+ McCainYes/No +
--------+---------------+--------------+

In the eight scenarios possible, either McCain and Bush will be voting the same (yes/yes or no/no) or differently (yes/no or no/yes).

Also recognize that four of them are simply not possible to know. Should a bill fail to pass congress, however McCain should happen to vote, history, by our intentional mechanics, will never allow us to know how Bush would have "voted." The percentage of issues upon which McCain and Bush share ideology will not be revealed by what is only a portion of the bills proposed. Thus, while technically only incorrect in how it understands the mechanics of the government, it is also disengenuous or mathematically irresponsible in attributing a percentage. A percentage must deal with all available cases, or it means nothing to approach 100%. What is 90% of 1% is different from 90% of 99%. Do you know what percentage of congress-proposed bills make it to the president's desk? I don't, and it's always changing. With a democratic controlled congress, and the only evidence available to us on this proposed McCain/Bush synergy being bills passed by said democratic congress, it tells me something else: either the democrats seem to vote with Bush a lot (unlikely, but possible, see next paragraph), or both Bush and McCain think the stuff trying to pass right now is pork barrel or commie-socialist extremist B.S. and McCain can spot it roughly 10% more or less often than Bush. Or something inbetween. If you're a disparager of Bush (you shouldn't be, but history will rebuff you so I needn't at this time) you'll probably say he'll pass anything he's told to by Dick Cheney, but recognize that not everything makes it to their allegedly conjoined, irresolute desk. But a Presidency does more than just monitor the legislature and mispronounce important words. The Judiciary also can see their judgements reversed with pardons, which I suppose could be considered like the above supervotes. So quite often Bush "votes" on things McCain never does, and vice versa.

Now, a final point, assuming a bill passes congress and McCain votes identically with Bush's "vote," ask yourself, what is the likelyhood that that particular bill was in any way controversial? A great deal of the business of our government is day-in, day-out, ho hum business: good, bad and ugly pandering. Have you ever watched C-Span for more than two hours without falling asleep? If you have, I applaud you. If you haven't, understand that most of the time it will be a vote on something "boring" like renewals on old budgets, committees about committees, or proposed bills and endless amendments and addendums and posing and overexagerated railing concerning things like Girlscout cookie subsidies, aid for impoverished Africa, bridges to nowhere, that sort of uninteresting crap. Often it's stuff that's being dragged up as an issue by the elderly (moneyed) constituents of the politicians. You'll find the pet project trappings of sad, cat-owning shut-ins who actually take the time to write their congressmen, or are trying to make up for a lifetime void of humanitarian actions by advocating the expenditure of everyone else's money. Generally, though, it's marked by the votes going nearly all one way or the other. Often either the senators and representatives decide, "No, that's anarchy and dangerous, Ron Paul," or, "Man, I'll look like a jerk if I don't pass this one: it proposes funding aid to orphans of crackbabies who've lost limbs in service to mothers against drunk school lunches."

Anyway, a percentage of the time, Barack Obama votes with Bush, too. It's certainly not zero, unless he's also vindictive and fluent in weasel, as I believe Joe Biden to be (did anyone WATCH the Judicial Committee's Advise and Consent showboating witchhunts with Alito and Roberts? What an ass. I knew he was creepy long before he kissed Michelle, and his poor grimacing granddaughter on the mouth, for that matter).

The only real way I can see other people seeing the President's position as a "voting" position is if they simply have a larger picture than the rest of us. Perhaps they are Freudian speaking of that nebulous Star-Trekish high council, the esteemed United Nations, wherein the United States is seated with one vote alongside the rest of its proportionally wise and powerful affiliates, states with equal stakes, like Liechtenstein. Perhaps under a President with a better world approval rating, future Saddam Hussein types (i.e. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) will willingly allow full-disclosure nuclear non-proliferation inspection, should the UN votes go against them. Maybe after numerous instances of the votes going against them. Or maybe at the intimidating threat of potentially recieving the frowning of a lifetime.

Oh, by the way, do you know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's campaign motto was during his Iranian election?

"It's doable and we can do it."

Very vague statement. Sound familiar? Yes, yes it does. The real question to ask ones self; however, isn't "Can we?" but "Should we?" The answer today is, no. We shouldn't. Sometimes change is bad. Changing a kid's dirty diaper is good; exchanging it for another old dirty diaper is hardly a visionary dynamic worth sipping latte head nods to. For example, if the guarantee of socialized medicine is such a great idea, why haven't the states legislated it individually? I'll answer that rhetorical, it's because they would rot from the inside and the people would flee the sinking ship. Conversely, if it works like they propose it will, seniors, artists, philosophers, satyrs, dryads and fauns will all flock under it this innovative state's banner of freedom and free medicine for all. If it flat doesn't work at the state level, (or county or city, I'm not picky, just as long as it's balanced and attempted for a long enough duration to judge) why would anyone want to impose it on yet more people in what is simply the next tier larger political scale? I have an answer for that. It's so its failure can be masked behind a myriad of other ideological failures that were likewise never attempted at the state level (or attempted once and proven rotten as policy). People think it's working in Canada, but then, they don't have another, more prosperous Canada to compare it to. Let one half of an experimentally expendable state like Kansas add it to their system and the other half not and we'll see if there isn't an eventual prosperity contrast reminiscent of east and west Germany. You want socialized universal medicine? Let me see a state (not the federal state) successfully implement it without everything getting far, far worse (real costs through the roof, service noteable for the length of its lines and lists). If it truly worked, I'd get behind it. But it doesn't work. They all know it. We all know it.

Boring as it may be, the best way for all to get medical care (and good medical care, not Russian needle-stabbing immunization cattlechutes) is through individual integrity. I suggest voting on the "moral" issues and let economics follow helter skelter. Right makes might, eventually. The best way to make healthcare available to all is to continue to break down the legislative lockjaw that pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies (who are a p[owerful force behind this new socialized medicine push) and even trial lawyer lotteries have imposed on government and inhibited free market. This should be done T. R. style. Oh, and either shut down the freeloader spigot or graft them in. Invoke a quasi-socialist system before these elements are rooted out and you insure deeply buried corruption for generations. For when they have the taxpayer funding them, the lobbyist dollar influx can be more cyclical, Rockefellerian influence spiralling faster yet. Hello European New World! There's always a cost, a reaction to any action in economics. Weigh carefully. If a policy cannot stand alone, it certainly cannot stand when it's hidden in the bottom of an expenditure renewal bill every term fraught with baseline budgeting and distantly administered, greased palm accountability. Which is exactly the system being proposed here.

But back to Ahmadinejad and Obama having the same campaign motto. Tisk, tisk. You know, one wonders if they aren't taking similar cues, or using similar coaching.

And no, I'm certainly not implying Obama is a closet Islamist trying to weasel in by lying through his teeth! Of course, I'm not actively dispelling the rumor either (how would I know either way? - know is 100% certainty for you non-math types) I'm not in anyone's head but my own. Speaking of in my head, did you know that I vetoed the same way as Obama 30 percent of the time, 100 percent of the time, it works every time?