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.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Just plain stupidity...
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.
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...
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.
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...
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."
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."
Friday, September 21, 2007
Changes
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Zoo Rabbi and independent thought
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.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Family Tree
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)