(Mis)educating my way

Proportionate Force?

2008-12-30T11:33:00.000-08:00

Oversimplification is an easy and dangerous thing to do. (That sentence being a perfect example.) So, I'm not going to do that with the current Israeli-Hamas conflict going on in the Middle-East. But I'm confused by statements from the international community and UN representatives like the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, among others, accusing Israel of the "disproportionate use of force" in its retaliation on Hamas's continuing rocket attacks. Nowhere have these experts on International Law and humanitarianism offered up what should be the obvious support for such an accusation: the appropriate proportionate force that Israel should be using against Hamas in Gaza.

The heavily left-leaning, Americans for Peace Now, asked this question in an interesting interview with Yossi Alpher:

Q. Is Israel employing disproportionate force?

A. I know of no way to counter terrorism with "proportionate" force. Should Israel fire rockets at Gazan civilians? Israel's use of massive force against aggression is legitimate under international law. It is more relevant to ask whether it will succeed.

It is far easier to accuse Israel of over-reacting than to suggest to Israel how it should have reacted.

Social Justice and Universal Health Care

2008-12-26T09:11:00.000-08:00

I want to commend Rabbi Josh Yuter at YUTOPIA for an excellent article on the Jewish concept of Social Justice. After reading his article, I did take issue with one, minor, throw-away comment regarding universal healthcare. After taking the time to craft a comment, I figured I'd also post it here:

Excellent and well-written article. However, like the previous commenter, I wanted to nitpick on this one sentence:

"For example, a policy of universal health care may assist some of the currently uninsured but will most likely result in negative unintended consequences for other patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and drug manufacturers."

This is a huge oversimplification of the issues surrounding universal health care, the uninsured, and other affected parties. Universal health care has many iterations as can be seen by the widely varied approaches to universal coverage taken by nearly every other industrialized country in the world. The purpose is not merely to provide insurance, but to make access to affordable and quality healthcare a guaranteed right. Like the rights we have in this country to a free education (at least through high school), or to paved roads, or to 911 summoning emergency personnel to our homes or vehicles as rapidly as possible.

You've correctly pointed out that providing additional coverages for the uninsured will affect other stakeholders in the healthcare arena such as other patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurers (as well as, medical device companies, employers who provide insurance, the expense to government-funded plans, and ultimately the taxpayer too.) But to say the effects to these other parties will "most likely" be "negative", seems to reject the notion that there may be positive effects to those parties that may equal or outweigh any negative effect.

For example, it's true that universal health care often leads to rationing and waiting periods for some procedures. This would be a negative effect for other patients. But it's also true that many so-called insured patients are rationed now, some by HMO approvals, some by excessively high co-insurance payments which makes them hesitate to seek necessary care, and some by provider availability. Yes, even under our current system. Further, a universal health care plan may save current patients thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars in health insurance coverage costs, which they may see as a greater benefit to offset giving up the immediate care they may currently enjoy. Moving further in such analysis, other patients' employers may save significant monies on their own healthcare expenditures, which some studies claim would reflect a dollar-for-dollar increase in employee paychecks.

Doctors? Some may make less money, some may make more money. Some may hate dealing with a new bureaucracy, but others spend all day dealing with existing insurance red tape, and may find a new system less frustrating. Again, not exactly a "most likely" to have "negative" consequences scenario.

Insurance companies? Juries out there too. They may make less money, or they may find it's more cost-effective to get into the health administrator business, or compete for privatized government funded plans like the current Medicare Part C. Drug manufacturers? Look at Medicare Part D. There's no telling what the likely result will be. Besides, I don't think your arguing for the welfare of corporate entities here, I think you're talking about the welfare of the people involved in such entities, and strong arguments can be made that the overwhelming majority of insurance employees and drug manufacturing employees would be better off under another, far less wasteful system.

Obviously, I've also engaged in much oversimplification above, but I hope it only helped illustrate my point. These issues are complicated, and there's no obvious winners or losers in universal healthcare nor is there only one flavor. It all comes down to the careful, reasoned analysis of each such proposal that comes under consideration.

To end my comment more positively, I only harped on this point because I enjoyed the rest of your article so much. Keep up the great work!

Two wrongs...

2008-11-06T05:43:00.000-08:00

In light of the timing, the title of this post may be a little misleading, so let me set the record straight on one thing - I am not upset that Barack Obama is our President Elect. Although I did not vote for the man, it was not because I thought he was a terrorist or a Muslim or an anti-Semite or any of the other unsubstantiated (sometimes quite vicious) rumors that hit my inbox on a regular basis. It was because I thought he was a neophyte. As I explained to my daughters on the way home from the polls (one of whom expressed her disappointed that I did not vote for Obama), I thought McCain had the right qualifications and experience to run this country, and I did not know whether the same was true for Obama. (This was an oversimplification for the sake of an 8 year old and 6 year old, my reasons for voting McCain over Obama are deeper and more complex, but since that ship has sailed I'm not going to expand on them here.)

No, the reason for the title has to do with the passage of ballot question 2 in Maryland - slots. Now I'm all for raising money for education, outside of raising our taxes. But is bringing pernicious gambling into our localities the best way, or even an acceptable way, to accomplish this?

Last weekend I got 3 messages from State and County leaders (O'Malley & Leggett, Anthony Brown, and O'Malley again) urging me to vote yes on slots in Maryland and letting me know it would raise 650 million dollars for education without raising taxes. They claimed to do this by keeping Maryland money in Maryland - a reference to all the money Maryland gamblers spend out-of-state like in Charleston and Atlantic City benefitting their states and not ours. So the schools get money, the taxpayers don't have their taxes raised, and gamblers get slots closer to home - seems like a win/win/win doesn't it?

Well, I can tell you something about gambling. It's addictive. It ruins businesses, families and lives. It is arguably worse than any other addiction because the potential for loss is only limited to how fast and how often a gambler can put his money in the little holes. And it does the most harm to the folks who are most apt to do it - poor people.

The thing about gambling is, it's not easy to do it outside a venue. Sure the internet has made gambling available to anyone who really wants it, but for many poor people getting a credit card or bank account, much less a computer with internet access, makes that avenue of gambling pretty much inaccessible. So making slots accessible to all these poor folks? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

"So what?" you ask. "We have the lottery already, how is this any different?" Three ways. First, the lottery is more limiting, the big ones can only be played once a day, and you don't get the same thrill as real gambling. It's the thrill that's addictive - not dreaming about beating the ridiculous odds of the lottery. Second, most of the revenues from lottery go to the state, not the lottery vendors. In slots, half the revenues go to the casino owner/slot purveyors. Half. So we're giving $600 million of Marylander money to these guys. Third, the lottery is wrong too, but it was already here and good luck trying to get rid of something like that. Two wrongs, eh? Now slots are here, and good luck getting rid of them too. And casinos will have a great argument to get another foothold when they point to slots and say, hell you MD folks are already most of the way there.

"So, the people were squandering their money in WV, DE and NJ, let them spend it here in MD." Not so much, folks. Traveling to WV or NJ made gambling there, for any Maryland resident, signficantly less frequent then it will be when the slots are located a 10 - 20 minute drive from one's home. The 650 million dollars that will be (allegedly) raised for MD schools, are not going to come from 650 million dollars less money in the WV, DE and NJ treasuries, no sir. I suspect a small fraction will be lost out of state - no this will be new money that would otherwise have been spent by poor folks on frivoloites like food, clothing, and shelter. Or is their argument, well WV, DE and NJ are doing it so why not us? Two wrongs don't...

"Well, at least the money's going to our education system." Well half the money. And $100 million subsidizes the horse racing industry, annually. Why is this important? Got me. Also, there are no provisions that require the budget for education actually increase, so nothing stops the government from using slot money for education and other monies from the general fund on other things. Result - no net increase in education, and using that old "do it for the children" saw, was just a way to gain additional sympathy for the measure.

Do most Marylanders feel differently, they voted for this ballot question didn' they? Ah hell, I don't think most Marylanders know what the heck they're voting for after the President question, and many don't even understand that one either. I also believe in a "yes" inertia - anything a governing body proposes, the body instinctively wants to trust that body and vote yes on it. The same principle applies in the corporate world where boards of directors make proposals to shareholders at large that almost always get approved or ignored in the proxy votes. People are lazy, and going with the opinions of somebody in authority that they trust is easier than having to make up their own minds. Getting strong endorsement calls from Gov. O'Malley, Lt. Gov. Brown, and your local county executive didn't hurt either.

Despite all this, I maintain Marylanders have made a grevious mistake. All the good intentions in the world, all the endorsements from our leadership, all the money for schools, or starving children, or world peace...well that doesn't make it right.

Ah, well.

Sarah Palin, earmarks and bridge to nowhere

2008-09-15T14:03:00.001-07:00

There are a number of very legitimate criticisms of the republican V.P. nominee, most notably, her lack of experience for the position. But I have noticed a lot of focus and attention being given to her claims of her role on the Bridge to Nowhere and being against earmarks. Much of her claims, and the backlash are not entirely accurate. However, after evaluating the facts, I think her claims are, more or less, legitimate, and the backlash is not.

Bridge to Nowhere - This bridge was a $223 million earmark lobbied by the Alaskan delegation under Palin's predecessor, Murkowski. Palin did support the bridge during her campaign, largely because the money had already been earmarked, and it was good for Alaska on the Federal dollar. Remember she was campaigning for Governer of Alaska, and her allegiance was to the people of Alaska, not to the Federal government, or the other 49 states.

Subsequent to her taking office, two things happened. First, the cost of building the bridge skyrocketed from $223 million to nearly $400 million dollars. Second, the congressional earmark was scuttled and Alaska was no longer bound to build the bridge with that money. Now Governer Palin made the choice to reverse course on the bridge and spend the $223 million on transportation and other Alaskan necessities.

Did she say "no" to the Bridge to Nowhere? Technically yes. Despite supporting it during her campaign, when the costs rose and the money became freed up, she said no.

Did she tell congress that if Alaskans wanted a bridge they'd pay for it themselves? Again, techincally yes. Alaska could have taken that money, added the additional cost, and built the bridge. Governer Palin thought it a terrible idea, all things considered, and put a halt to it. And she was right.

So why not return the $223 million to Congress? Palin gets some flack from not returning the money, as if she somehow kept federal money unethically. This is a very stupid notion. State governers do not voluntarily return federal money to the government. Ever. The reason is, state governers serve their states, not the country. Their job is to get as much federal money into the state as possible to provide the most benefits for their constituents. Alaska has no restrictions for residency - anyone is free to move there and take advantage of all the same benefits other Alaskans have. Had Palin "returned" the $223 million instead of spending it on Alaskan needs, she would have committed severe governer malpractice. I would definitely not want someone like that in an executive position for this country.

Earmarks - so Palin claims she's against earmarks but then hires lobbyists to get them for Alaska. This is a bit of a trickier area. Once again, Palin needs to secure federal funding and earmarks as part of her job. She may be against earmarking in principle, but she's not going to hobble her state by not applying for them. On the other hand, she scuttled a lot of wasteful earmarking from her predecessor, applying for 2/3 less funds ($500 million less) then her predecessor did. So she hates earmarks but takes them anyway for the good of her state. Once again, okay by me.

Sarah P. has a number of extreme positions that give me pause. But her stance on the bridge to nowhere and earmarking, along with her history of reforming and eliminating corruption in politics, well they don't pause me at all.

Just plain stupidity...

2008-07-16T12:17:00.001-07:00

Last opinion of the day - this morning's hostage swap between Israel and Hezbollah. I must be woefully uneducated on this issue because the more I think about what happened, the more I'm wondering what Olmert or anyone in the Israeli Cabinet is really doing here.

The UN "brokered" this deal between Israel and the terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Hezbollah "captured"/kidnapped Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in July 2006. Hezbollah held these two soldiers as hostages to barter the release of convicted Lebanese prisoners. No other justification has been given for their being held - they were on Israeli territory on the Northern border, and their capture was done during an illegal Hezbollah raid. Yet the UN works tirelessly to "resolve" the issue and "broker" this deal.

Cut to yesterday. Israeli Cabinet approves a swap of the two soldiers for five Lebanese prisoners - at least one of which is a convicted, remorseless killer of an Israeli policeman, a civilian and a 4 year old girl. Hezbollah won't let Israel know whether their soldiers are alive or dead, but the assumption is that they are dead because the Red Cross has not been allowed to see them and there's been no word otherwise. Yet despite the uncertainty, the swap is approved.

Today in Southern Lebanon. Five Lebanese prisoners are given the red carpet treatment in to a cheering mob of people. Liberated. Freed. A hero's welcome for these convicted murderers and felons who were released as the ransom for two Israeli soldiers.

Today in Israel. Two black coffins are released to Israeli authorities. DNA evidence confirms that they contain the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Israel has released terrorist criminals, who will no doubt go on to do greater things in the terror business, for body parts. Israel has shown the world that there's no advantage to keeping Israeli soldiers alive and healthy, when Israel will pay dearly for body parts.

What happened? Israel (or the UN) couldn't insist on knowing whether the soldiers were actually alive before agreeing to the trade? Or are we to accept that in Israel alive or dead soldiers are equally dear? Why? Shouldn't Israel have put a premium on their being alive? Some reason to incentivize, oh I don't know, NOT KILLING ISRAELI SOLDIERS? I'm thoroughly disgusted.

I confess a part of me would not have blamed Israel if, upon discovery of their soldier's nonliving status, Israel had executed the five prisoners scheduled for the swap. I'm not advocating senseless or retaliatory violence. But at least that would have been closer to an even exchange.

Parity...

2008-07-16T12:12:00.000-07:00

I'm a little disturbed by the equal pay issue that's being kicked back and forth between the candidates. Obama supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act and McCain opposes it. The FPRA is Congress's attempt to address last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear where the court, in a 5-4 decision, disallowed a woman's claim for discriminatory pay because it was filed too late. The majority's rationale there was that the discriminatory act occurred when the pay decision was made, and not when each affected paycheck was issued. Ledbetter argued that each paycheck was a discriminatory act and should be actionable under Title VII. Enter the FPRA.

FPRA wants to make each paycheck a discriminatory act regardless of when the original discrimation occurred which resulted in the lower compensation. This would mean an affected party (woman, minority, etc.) could sue an employer at any point, even many years later, as long as her claim is filed within 180 days of picking up her last discriminatorily-lower paycheck.

Now I'm all for equal pay, and I don't know that there's any rational, legitimate arguments not to be for equal pay. (Wingnut opinions that disparate pay is good to encourage women to stay in the home are not being considered.) But calling something a Fair Pay Restoration Act does not magically restore fair pay. (Any more than cleverly named acts determine one's level of patriotism, or that no child will indeed be left behind.) It should really be called an Indefinite Deadline Extension for Challenging Discriminatory Pay Act, because that's all it does. Does extending this deadline make things fairer for women in the workplace?

McCain's position is that this act does way more harm than good, opening up avenues of litigation to disgruntled employees that should have been closed years earlier. This drives up expenses for all businesses, both large and small, and increases, what is often, frivolous lawsuits by employees who, like many employees out there, feel underpaid, underappreciated, and maybe a little vindictive when they are ready to leave a job.

Obama's position is that this act will make it harder for companies to get away with discriminatory acts. I'm not sure that's even true, but even if it is, making something harder to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. You could force companies to report every pay dollar to a Federal agency by age, sex, race, religion and location. That would make discrimination more difficult, but it would raise tremendous costs for businesses and taxpayers, not to mention civil libertarian issues.

In addition, discriminated parties have less incentive to investigate discriminatory practices, knowing they can wait until they're ready to leave before filing a claim. These claims give them leverage which they can use to milk the company into generous settlements or severances so the company doesn't have to shell out tons of money in litigation expense fees, or insurance policies to cover these types of situations. This may make it less likely that discrimination will decrease, and more likely that the law will be abused.

The media casts this issue as pro-women, like abortion lite. I see it more as pro-plaintiff, not very different from the opposition to tort and medical malpractice reform. The same issues are at play.

Parody...

2008-07-16T10:36:00.000-07:00

So, I have three things on my mind today, and none of them have to do with explaining why I have not blogged for almost a year. I will post them separately so the posts don't run too long.

First, about that infamous New Yorker cover of Barak and Michelle Obama...

You have to wonder what kind of drugs they're doling out in the press room to think this was a good idea. This is cowardly, sensationalist journalism at its worst. There's nothing clever or satirical about drawing a cartoon which depicts the most racist, misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-American, discriminatory drivel which festers around the bottomfeeding rumormongers who spam email inboxes, sell inflammatory T-shirts at GOP events, and otherwise pollute the system through which we choose our next leader. I am probably not voting for Barak Obama, for reasons which I may delineate in a later post. But none of those reasons include the abject stupidity depicted here.

The bigger question is, why does The New Yorker think this cover was, in any way, acceptable? By pointing out a controversy, do you have license to demonstrate it to an extreme? Or create an image that becomes it's own controversy? Case in point, would it have been okay if the New Yorker drew a cartoon of Curious George with Barak Obama's face on it? Perpetrating a controversy is not an effective way to comment, even satirically, on that same controversy. If anything, it has the opposite effect. A writer for the Huffington Post sums it up nicely: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image."

Changes

2007-09-21T08:03:00.000-07:00

Clearly it's been awhile since my last post, so I wanted to post an update on my latest activities. I am currently enrolled in a Masters of Law program (health law) that ends in May, and I am still working at my current job 20-25 hours a week. So it has been a very busy and exciting month for me.

I hope over the next 8 months to post some of my thoughts on the state of healthcare in this country. In many ways, we have one of the most ridiculous, inefficient, and unfair systems of healthcare in the entire civilized world and I will illustrate that with statistics and examples that may shock and amaze you.

Zoo Rabbi and independent thought

2007-07-18T12:34:00.001-07:00

I've been wasting way too much time reading the Zoo rabbi's website and why numerous Orthodox Jewish leaders banned his book which attempt to reconcile science and religion. This ban (AKA the Slifkin affair) is almost 3 years old now, which is why I am just reading about it now.

It does give me a lot to think about, mainly about the pros and cons of independent thought. The argument espoused by many traditionalists is that one should feel free to question and argue within hashkafa but one still must accept certain principles as beyond question. Yet what principles must be accepted as such seems to be under constant debate. Belief in G-d? Belief that the Torah was given by G-d? Belief that the Torah's description of creation is literal, and how literal? Belief that Chazal (the Rabbis of antiquity) are infallible in all matters, even matters of science where they were presumably limited by the accepted thinking of their time? Belief that Rabbis who insist that you must believe in the truth of the matters asserted by Chazal, even if they directly contradict the evidence we have today, are more right than the "minority" opinion that Chazal may have been wrong?

Rabbi Feldman writes a well-written article explaining and supporting the ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books and ideology. But his approach is rooted in a mindset of never questioning the wisdom of the ages, which itself is rooted in never questioning the wisdom of the ages. Logically, we end up with an inverted pyramid of thought, as each new idea has to be made consistent with every old one ever accepted by the old wisdom. His article is also criticized by "halachic" laymen here, here and by Rabbi Slifkin here.

It would have been refreshing to hear well-respected Torah scholars who had refused to support the ban speak out against it. But that would violate the "never question the great rabbis" rule that has implicitly driven the whole controversy.

Family Tree

2007-07-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I was talking to a cousin of mine about how I would really like to see a wiki-type family tree website where you can invite contributors to add and edit your tree, put as much information as you like about each person, and maybe, eventually connect the entire world.

A not-too-simple google search later, and I find www.geni.com

This is a sleek, neater, and practical(ler) execution of my basic idea. Cribbing heavily from Linkedin this site allows users to easily (and addictively) add everyone in their family and their family's family to an extremely easy to navigate family tree. I've only played with it for a half hour and it does seem to be defaulted to traditional family mode (i.e. all siblings are assumed to be from same parents, and all parents are assumed to be married or formerly married) but I'm sure they'll improve on that over time. Anyway, I highly recommend trying the site out.

The bad news? I won't be able to sell my idea to Google for 10 billion dollars.

Executive Privilege

2007-07-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

I'm an ignorant bumpkin (today). So the White House signed off on some wrongful terminations of federal prosecutors around the country. Sucks to be in the wrong party. What's the fuss?

Wait, is the Justice Department supposed to be independent? Party-blind? Since when? Like most other agencies its leaders are appointed by the president. Sure in an ideal world the president would pick people solely on merit, but in the real world these jobs have always involved a certain measure of politics. I know some say we have a president who indulges too much in cronyism, but we gave him the reins and we can question his appointments from here to next week but that's not really criminal.

What about the fact that some of those US prosecutors were barking up trees of alleged republican corruption, and that their dismissals were a way of impeding those pursuits? Now we're talking obstruction of justice. Now we're talking criminal investigation. Well not yet. Apparently, Congress is in oversight mode and is simply gathering information to see if there might be criminal charges brought at some point. That's pretty remote from the level of criminal investigation that pierced executive privilege in U.S. v. Nixon (as in Richard) back in 1974.

Bush has asserted executive privilege and has ordered his former attorney (Harriet Miers) and former political director (Sara Taylor) not to testify about the dismissal. Both have been subpoenaed by Congress. Brave or stupid Taylor tries to please all the people by appearing for the subpoena and then refusing to answer any real questions. Miers is purportedly going to skip her session.

Should Bush be able to get away with shutting down Congressional investigations on a whim? Well I guess it's a question of law which is deliberately sketchy when it comes to executive privilege. Neither side wants to go to court but they might have to. Two incredibly potent and ambiguous powers are on the table - executive privilege vs. congressional oversight. And the decider? Well it's that third ambiguous power that nobody even talks about - judicial reluctance.

Politics

2007-07-10T11:46:00.000-07:00

I am often asked whether I am a democrat or republican. I am both and neither. It's not that I can't tell the difference between the two, or that I like straddling the fence. It's that I'm not very good at yeah-saying and every time I think I'm starting to align with a party, they do something so egregiously extreme or objectionable that I find myself running the other way.

Who says we need to be one or the other anyway? Granted as an independent, in most states, you become useless during primary season unable to vote for any candidate until the general election. But is this a bad thing? I suppose if the masses were independents it would make consensing on candidates very difficult. But for the minority, I see some benefit. If your candidate has a shot at the title, he* should be able to convince his chosen party that he's electable whether or not you get to vote for him in the primary or not. So being independent is a way of saying, there's a chunk of us in this country who aren't inclined to join your party but also aren't members of the party that's diametrically opposed to your politics either. Your party has vetted you, now impress us.

Now that I think about it, it would be better if more of us were independents, and we left the vetting to minorities. Or maybe we should do the vetting and not leave it to the masses (who tend to be woefully ignorant). I don't mean this to denigrate any particular socio-economic class, group or demographic. But I stand by that statement, the masses are ignorant. So we (the relatively less-ignorant ones) should vet the would-be-kings before they are presented to the popularity contest that is the general election.

If I had to sum up my politics, I'm a realist. Sometimes this means I like conservative ideas, sometimes liberal ones, sometimes neither. It would take too long to give every one of my (current) political stances but I will take a few minutes to comment on something almost everyone has some opinion about: the war.

I think war sucks. It's unpleasant, tragic, regrettable, and leads to the untimely deaths of our own brave young men and women along with those of innocents in wherever the war-torn territory happens to be. Nobody but the "bad guys" deserve to die, and collateral damage should be avoided if feasible (but not at all costs). Yet sometimes war is necessary and a strong leader must be willing to go to war in those situations.

Our war is not like that. The current war was begun under ignominious circumstances, and continues to be handled very poorly. I was uncomfortable with the evidence presented to go into war, the vague claims of WMD, and the general feeling of the righteousness of kicking arab butt in the region because of 9/11. I particularly hated having my intelligence insulted with the insinuation that we were fighting in Iraq to retaliate for 9/11. Now we're in, and I would like us to leave the region better than we found it, you know with some dignity, but even that seems more and more remote.

The war is also a huge drain on our economic resources and will continue to be for years to come, and rather than bolster our effectiveness at fighting terrorist and/or nuclear regimes by showing "them" not to push us or we will get medieval on their a$$es, it has had the opposite effect - weakening our defensive and offensive capabilities in every other region of the world. It is now common knowledge that we are short on personnel, in debt up to our eyeballs, and seriously out of confidence in our ability to fight this "new" kind of enemy quickly, and effectively - like we did in the first gulf war. In other words, we prematurely blew our wad.

Does my lack of support for the decision under which we went to war and its subsequent mismanagement make me a dovish peace-mongerer? If you think that, you're as guilty of group-think as the rest of the ignorant masses. Contrary to the hippie bumper-slogans, war can be the answer and sometimes you cannot afford to give peace a chance or you'll end up dead. But let's go to war when necessary and only for the right reasons.

Well, that's a sample of my politics in a very large and rambling nutshell. As always, I reserve the right to change everything, including this sentence, on a whim.

*The gender preferences here are used solely for convenience and not because I am opposed to the concept of a female president.

Caveat Lector

2007-07-10T08:58:00.000-07:00

For a very long time I've thought about writing a blog because I love sharing my opinions with people. On the other hand, I'm a person of flexible convictions, and am willing to change my opinions when new and persuasive evidence is introduced. So what I write as my opinion today may not be the same tomorrow. Is this a bad thing?

The talmud uses the term L'Shitoso (according to his opinion) when attempting to discern whether a statement made by a talmudic rabbi is consistent with prior statements he has made. This tests the authenticity of the subsequent statement and the accuracy of the understanding of the prior statements. Yet talmudic rabbis changed their opinions all the time when presented with challenges and proofs. Apparently, when the talmudic rabbi is no longer around, he leaves a legacy of consistent opinions which can then be used as a litmus test on purported statements, but during his life he constantly evaluates evidence to discern what his own true opinion is. (In this two cent analysis, the talmudic rabbi treats what he learned from his teachers, i.e. his mesorah, as evidence to be given great deference but not absolute closed-eyed obedience.)

I guess I like to approach things the same way. There's no absolute truth or absolute right in this world, it's all shades of grey. Yes I know this statement is then a paradox because the absence of an absolute is an absolute in itself. I also believe that the existence of G-d is an absolute, unprovable, truth, which also tends to be an undisprovable truth, however I am happy to discuss this point as I take nothing for granted. With the possible exception of the existence of G-d.

The title of this blog is a play on the Hebrew phrase "Chanoch L'Naar Al Pi Darko" which means educate the child according to his ways. My way may be an education or a miseducation, depending on the day and your (the reader's) perspective. I plan to do a lot of blathering on about stuff on my mind, and (in typical lawyer fashion), I disclaim any of these opinions as subject to change without notice. Caveat Lector - Reader Beware.