Health Care Hangover

A major Health Bill passes, but few are satisfied. Worse, we see a breakdown in civil discourse, replaced with angry outbursts inside and outside of Congress.

How did we get here? Back a year or two, and the nation was behind some form of health care reform. Be it the ever rising cost of health care, the high cost of insurance if you don’t get it at work, or people dropped from insurance, or others who can’t get it due to “pre-existing conditions.” One bad illness can drive an uninsured family to bankruptcy. Does this make sense in the richest nation on earth?

But now we have a bill that promises many changes: keeping your children on your insurance until 26, preventing rejecting coverage for “pre-existing conditions,” and subsidies for some who can’t afford insurance, among others. Yet, there are so many vocal opponents.

How We Got Here: Three reasons:

1. Politics
2. Politics
3. Politics

Both parties chose to blow this out of proportion. Republicans and many ad-hoc groups (some of which are labeled “tea party” folks) see this as the wedge issue that can unseat many Senators and Representatives. And they hit the issue hard, early and often. They went heavy negative. They got media attention by being loud and to the point. And they gained a lot of support.

On the other side, the Democrats made this a “must pass” bill. Much as I believe G. W. Bush felt he almost had to invade Iraq to finish what his father started, Obama was painted into the corner of getting the bill past somehow, some way, at whatever cost.

With stakes so high and politics ruling the day over the interest of the people, there was zero hope of reasonable bipartisan reform.

Our National Loss: Civility? Have we lost the ability to have a national debate on major issues in a civilized manner? The thing that was great about this wonderful land we live in was our freedom of speech and our ability to have different points of view heard. Back when I was in high school, we had a great 10th grade social studies class where the teacher encouraged the airing of all sides of the issues. We had conservatives, liberals and moderates. And we had some very impassioned, yet civilized, debates on the issues of the day.

Right now, I fear that America may be lost. As a Libertarian and American, I believe we need to have respect for everyone’s Freedom of Speech. I wanted to hear the arguments for and against the bill and the various provisions.

But, what I heard was a lot of bullying: shouting down speakers in town hall meetings, including the epithets used against some representatives. When I wanted to hear the rational reasons why the bill may ill-conceived, I heard too much hyperbole or exaggerated claims (government takeover of health care, “baby killer” and “death panels”), and this strange concept that Obama is a fascist trying to obtain totalitarian power over the nation. Only occasionally, in the mists of the sonic bombardment of the opponents, could I once and a while find some rational substance why provisions of the bill are ill-advised.

Sorting Out Some Perspective: If we can leave the shouting behind, here is my perspective on the bill:

• Some of the desired reforms that will provide one way that more people can obtain health insurance. It’s not the only road to reform, but it is a road that does have the Federal and state governments have a heavier hand in the making it so. (So, as opponents claim, there is an expansion of government’s role in this bill).
  
• I’m glad that something’s being done about “pre-existing” conditions as I have one. I can’t get life insurance anymore (luckily, I bought it when I was young). But the most ridiculous thing about it is my pre-existing condition is a little dot of skin cancer (about the size of the eraser on your pencil) that was removed in a couple of minutes in the doctor’s office. It was truly itsy bitsy, but because it was the BIG “C”, I can’t get insurance. So, I’m inclined to use anything, including the expansion of the Federal government to banish this “existing condition” provision!
  
• It remains to be seen how it will be paid for. Right now I don’t believe a single politician on either side about how the costs will work out. But where there are subsidies, the revenue has to come from somewhere.
  
• I don’t yet see a threat to the typical employer-based health plans like I have. Maybe some union jobs still have “Cadillac” plans (that will be eventually taxed), but not my cheap employer! We pay a lot and have high co-pays, but at least I have insurance! The funny thing was listening to one conservative opposing reform as it might do away with their great employer-based health care plans, as he had really low co-pays and it was about as perfect as it could be. But only 1 1/2 years ago conservative Republican candidate John McCain campaigned on health care reform that would get rid of the employer-based system and we’d all have to compete on the free marketplace to find a plan. Short are some people’s memories!
  
• Notice that the insurance companies are silent. They know there’s more regulation, but there’s more customers coming. I’ve already seen TV ads encouraging people to apply for new plans that will be available under this new bill. The insurance companies will make out on this. First, they get more revenue from customers. But there is little to stop them from frequent increases in premiums, so there is more revenue. So, even if regulation cost them some additional overhead costs (to figure out all this red tape) or some limits on plan costs, they can make it up by increased revenues.
  

So, Is It Good or Bad? A pure Libertarian would say it’s inherently bad as it uses government to create reform, thereby expanding the role of government. And it forces people to buy insurance in a nation that should leave everyone alone. (Then again, a pure Libertarian would take us back to the 4 original Federal Departments (Defense, State, Treasury and Justice) and jettison Education, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Environmental Protection, etc.

But I’m not a pure Libertarian. I believe government is a tool. It’s not the solution to all problems, but it can be a good solution to some. For example, who would really propose selling off the nation’s roadway system to private interests because government at any level (federal, state, county, or local) shouldn’t be in the transportation business?

So, what to do about health care? Republicans gave us the health care savings account. They assume we have a crystal ball and know our health care needs for the upcoming year. They like tort reform – always some ridiculous settlements that get any reasonable person to say “enough!” But how much will that really save? They like expanding the sales of insurance across state lines.

But that still doesn’t get to the fact there is not real capitalism (many buyers, many sellers) when it comes to health insurance, as there are too few sellers and any one individual is in a weak negotiating position. It’s not like going to the farmer’s market and bartering for price of 10 pounds of potatoes.

In the absence of true capitalism, often our nation has turned to the power of government regulation to try to level the playing field. This goes back to regulating the railroads when they had the collective monopoly on the nation’s transportation. Then, starting in the 1930s (and again in the '50s and '60s with the interstate system) the government stepped in with the “public option” of the day: federal funding of highways. But I ask you, who among the Republicans, conservatives, or tea party folks want to repeal the “public option” in transportation? Public roads represented a big expansion of government into a sector (transportation) that previously was highly privatized. But were public roads the death of freedom in America? Quite the contrary, as the car commercials portray driving on public roads as “freedom.”

So, I have to say I am not philosophically opposed to the hand of government in health care. I don’t believe it is the “wonder drug” that will make things perfect. But, we still needed to do something. I’m not too happy with the bill that passed, that’s why I’m feeling this health care hangover!

Sarah Palin Joins Fox News

The suspense is over! Looks like Gov. Palin won't be running for President in 2012. Well, not unless she gets out of a mulit-year deal as a new political commentator for Fox News.

Sarah Palin was perhaps the most interesting person to emerge during the 2008 presidential campaign. Hand-picked by John McCain for his vice presidential running mate, the small-town mayor elected governor of Alaska mixed a can-do frontier spirit with a down-home oratory style. Unfortunately, it was soon evident that she lacked an understanding of national and international politics.

In their press release on their web site, Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming for Fox News is quoted: "Governor Palin has captivated everyone on both sides of the political spectrum and we are excited to add her dynamic voice to the FOX News lineup."

It seemed strange why she resigned from governor before her term was up. Most governors will hang on and put in their time during the final "lame duck" months of their term. Was she planning a run for President in 2012? What was she up to?

Now we know!

Health Care - Do What's Best for You

The health care debate goes on and on. Tonight, President Obama spoke to Congress and the nation to describe his proposal. Using a combination of reason and passion, he tried to dismiss the misconceptions and outline what he's really like to see for reform.

Now, overall, I like his proposal for a number of reasons, but the two main reasons are:

1. It leaves in place the existing coverage that many are satisfied with. No one has to change policies or try to get re-insured. So I can keep my good employer-based insurance, unlike a proposal floated by candidate John McCain.
   
   
   
2. It adds a government-run program to compete with private policies. Now, this is excactly the kind of experiment I'm most interested in: direct competition between the public and private sectors. My philosophy about government is that it should do what it can do better than the private sector. So, let's see which approach is more cost-effective in providing health insurance.
   

Here's another interesting perspective (courtesy of Thomas Friedman, New York Times, Sept. 9, 2009): Obama's proposal is largely based on two Republican initiatives, yet it is widely decried by Republicans. The proposal closely resembles the health insurance program put into place here in Massachusetts by Republic Governor Mitt Romney. It adds in an idea for funding taken from John McCain's proposal.

But will the plan pass Congress? And if it does, what will it turn into in the Congress --- will it get overcomplicated, diluted, or heavy with bureaucracy? Even with a Democratic majority in both houses, the necessary compromises may result in a bill that barely resembles Obama's proposal.

And probably for the worst, it will receive no Republican support. This is highly unfortunate. With a greater balance in power in Congress, a more bipartisan bill might have emerged. Maybe on that would be more effective in addressing the full range of needed reform.

But, to me, it is clear that the key to the Republican strategy for gains in the 2010 midterm elections is to ensure the Obama health plan fails, or if it passes, that it is widely disliked by the public. So, I'm not optimistic about the success of true health care reform.

So, we may all still be where we are now: some of us will have decent employer-provided insurance. The elderly and disabled will have Medicare. Many will try to get individual policies. And many will remain uninsured.

If reform fails, health care will amount to doing what's best for yourself (if you can)!

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 5 – What Next?

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. What should he do?

In Volume 4, I stated my conclusions about the reality that must be faced in Iraq. No matter how one defines “victory,” one can’t reach it working through preconceptions or through the lens of think-tank neo-conservative theories.

I have read analyses of Iraq from many perspectives. I have heard interviews with soldiers and officers who had been in Iraq. I have heard from others who have been in Iraq for humanitarian purposes.

While I can't claim to be an expert on Iraq, I do have a vision of the what the US should do next. I believe the path ahead in Iraq must be:

1. Grounded in the reality of Iraq in 2008
2. Founded on the islands of hope within Iraq
3. Multi-national
4. Involve all factions within Iraq

1. The path ahead must be fully grounded in the reality that is Iraq in 2008.

One must admit the chaos of competing factions and militias; the conflicting viewpoints of Shia, Sunni and Kurds; and the fact that all these groups shift alliances from time to time. We need to know the factions "on the ground" by making contact with these groups.

2. The path ahead must be founded on the island of hope within and without Iraq.

Equal in importance to understanding the chaos of competing factions is to understand the islands of hope. These are the foundations for a future characterized by a stable social order and the cessation of factional violence.

I believe that these are some of islands of hope:

• The people long for the “normal life” of working and living daily in peace.
  
• The Iraqi people don’t hate each other as much as it is made out to be. Yes, the militias compete for position and influence, but that is a reflection of the vacuum of social order, not entirely of deep-seated hatred between factions.
  
• Many of Iraq’s neighbors desire a stable and peaceful Iraq.

These islands are within Iraq – even within the hearts of the majority of the citizenry – and outside Iraq, particularly in many of the neighboring nations.

How do we proceed?

3. The path ahead must involve all factions within Iraq.

The US and the Iraqi government must reach out to all the factions within Iraq. These factions and militia must become engaged in some form of nation-building instead of destructive violence.

We know that these groups shift alliances, when it is to their benefit. We know that the success of the so-called “2007 Surge” is in no small part due to redirecting militias (e.g., getting the Awaking [Sunnis] to help expel the foreign forces of al-Qaeda in Iraq) or achieving cease fires (e.g., Mahdi Army).

These are the kinds of successes that need to be multiplied.

Here there are 2 choices for the future: either the various Iraqi factions can be marginalized as “the enemy” or a way can be found to engage them constructively.

Clearly, the McCain vision of another 100 years of occupation in Iraq follows a path where the militia and other violent factions are treated as the “enemy.” This is never a winning strategy. Any nation will come to hate a foreign occupying, no matter how benign – this has been true for millennia.

4. The path ahead must be multi-national.

Engaging all the various factions in Iraq may be better accomplished with the help of some of Iraq’s neighbors. Many factions don’t trust either the US or the current Iraqi government. Other nations (including Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia) may be able to aid in bringing some factions to the table or, at least, understanding their position.

Equally important is that the occupying forces must become more multi-national. While US troupes remain “lighting rods” for attacks by any disgruntled insurgent group, a more multi-national peace-keeping force, with a strong contribution from Middle Eastern nations, may facilitate the creating of a more stable and non-violent order in Iraq.

Granted, this approach runs counter to the neo-conservative theories that got us into this mess. The Republicans still criticize any approach that involves talking with Iran and Syria. Sen. McCain frequently cites Sen. Obama’s suggestion of talking with Iran as evidence of his lack of qualifications for understanding international affairs.

Still, I believe the Republicans are wrong. The US must proceed on a path that engages the Middle Eastern nations that desire a stable Iraq. Together, the path ahead must be a process that turns the various factions from violence to coming to the table to discuss peaceful coexistence.

This path to peace is the only path to “victory” for the US.

Who can accomplish this?

On this issue, I think the choice of candidate is clear. John McCain clearly thinks as a warrior; but the war in Iraq is over. The factional violence must come to an end. A warrior cannot lead us in that direction.

Now is the time to wage peace. The Iraqi people have longed for it for 5 long years, but the Bush Administration could not provide it. Barack Obama is a leader who operates in ways that facilitate the multi-national process of engagement and discussion that I have outlined.

But, will he have the patience to take the time needed? He has a stated commitment to a timetable for withdrawal. He will be tempted to reduce troupes so he can redirect spending to urgent domestic needs. Still, he remains our best hope.


Comments and Discussion

I don’t believe any presidential candidate has outlined such a detailed path to peace and US withdrawal in Iraq. What do you think?

The Redistribution of Income

In the discussion between Sen. Obama and Joe the Plumber, the Senator mentions spreading the wealth around. Joe was concerned that if he successfully bought the business and did well, his reward should be keeping this newly earned wealth.

Sen. McCain and other Republicans pounced on this, hinting that Sen. Obama was suggesting the socialist principal of The Redistribution of Income. (Heaven forbid!!!)

Now, up to this point, I've reflected on much of the libertarian side of my views, but not the socialist side. I have to come clean and say it proudly:

I believe in the Redistribution of Income!

You see, part of my beliefs come from what may be called a Christian Socialist view. If we go to the Bible in the Acts of the Apostles, we read how the early community cared for each other and distributed the proceeds of their wealth according to each one's needs (Acts 2:45). This is my basis for my belief that I am called to redistribute portions of the income I receive, being a fairly well-paid professional, for others with needs greater than my own.

I have come to believe that my earthly things are not ultimately mine to possess. Rather, they are gifts given that I might use for myself and others.

Now, most Libertarians may think I'm crazy believing it this. Many who call themselves Libertarian are attracted to this political viewpoint because they don't want government telling them what to do, they don't want to pay taxes (or pay as little as possible), and their possessions (home, land, wealth, etc.) are theirs and no one should tell them what to do with it.

To that I have three replies:

1) Though I believe in the Redistribution of Income, as a Libertarian, I don't believe that the government or anyone else should force anyone to follow this course of action. My belief comes from faith and only those so called through their own faith or beliefs should follow in the path of Redistribution of Income.

2) Not all Libertarians are of a self-centered view that precludes caring for others. For example, the "Libertarian Girl" (http://www.libertariangirl.com/) cares for people and hopes for an end to poverty.

3) Finally, if one really believes in the fullness of liberty, then each of us are entitled to our own views. And in a free society, those who wish to voluntarily redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate, should be free to do so.

So, in conclusion, as a Libertarian and Christian Socialist, I proudly admit: I Believe in the Redistribution of Income!

Guilt by Association?

In the last weeks we hear both Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin trying to paint Sen. Obama "guilty by association" because of his association with Bill Ayers, former leader of the militant Weather Underground in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

But let's compare the Obama-Ayers association to the associations of a well-know person whom Gov. Palin truly admires, even adores.

Seems there is little know about this person's first 30 years of life (what's he hiding). But we do know this:

• He was born while his parents were traveling (why would they travel when expecting?)
• Shortly after he was born, his father insisted the family flee to another country (what were they fleeing?)
• Rumor was that his mother's husband was not his biological father
• His family was visited by an unspecified number of visitors from the vicinity of Iraq (where the visitors related to a terrorist group?)
• At about 12 years old, he escaped for a few days from his parents while the family was traveling (they only had one son, how could they loose him for 3 days?)

After 30, it seems he left his work as a carpenter and traveled about with 12 other men of questionable backgrounds:

• One was known for extorting payments from his own people on behalf of the occupying forces (collaborating with "the enemy?")
• Another was associated with nationalist insurrectionists (this group would stab their victims during crowded public assemblies in city plazas and the like)
• A pair of brothers who had a make-shift fishing business, but left their nets and boats followed this charismatic character (losers?)

With this band of characters (and often other followers), he proceeded to associate with some of the "worst" elements of society, even prostitutes, criminals, and tax collectors who were know to collaborate with "the enemy."

He often spoke in ways that angered the leaders of his people. Eventually he came to an unfortunate end, sentenced to death and executed at the young age of 33.

Yes, this was Jesus Christ. Christians like Gov. Palin (and me) worship and adore Him as God's Son.

Yet, during His life on earth, there was a lot of fodder for those who might wish to paint Him "guilty by association."

I don't believe it is right to paint anyone guilty by association. Period.

Who is Joe the Plumber?

John McCain mentioned this "Joe the Plumber" (someone at one of Obama's rallies) during the debate, saying he can't buy the plumbing business if Obama's tax plan is enacted.

But who is this Joe the Plumber?

What does he really think?

How much do we really know about him?

Has he associated with any known terrorists or radical preachers?

Why, only 30 min. after the debate ended, is Joe the Plumber already in Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber#October_15:_Third_presidential_debate_.28Hofstra_University_.E2.80.93_Hempstead.2C_New_York.29

America demands answers and we want them now!

I hope he makes the circuit: Saturday Night Live, the Daily Show, Colber Report, Letterman, Leno, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. etc.

Forget Sarah Palin! America wants to meet Joe the Plumber!

Addendum: Update Oct. 19, 2008
As it turns, Joe is an unlicensed, non-union plumber with a modest income, but is hard working, puts in long days on the job, and shares in the American dream of advancing himself by acquiring the business. Not surprising, his views are moderate to conservative. And he was mentioned on all of the above!

Maybee after a week of fame, he might eventually return to some sense of a normal life!

Why Kill Employer-Based Health Benefits?

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a popular, common-sense expression that summarizes why the McCain health proposal lacks common sense!

One of the strangest proposals from the McCain team is the plan to substitute a $5,000 tax break for employees for the current tax break for employers who offer health benefits.

A majority of the middle class in our nation receives health care benefits through their employer. It’s not always perfect, but it does cover a lot of people at a far more reasonable price then if each of us were to get a plan by ourselves.

But that’s what McCain wants us to do. Without the tax incentive, employers would drop the offering of group health care programs (and the cost to administer them) and each of us would be on our own, trying to buy a very expensive individual policy that would cost far more than the $5,000 tax break.

Maybe the tax break is a good idea for those without employer-based health benefits. But not for those of us who have these benefits.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!!!

I bet even Gov. Sarah Palin has that one in her folksy vocabulary!

So, I can’t figure out why this other wise common-sense Governor from Alaska signed onto the McCain health plan disaster.

This plan really will be bad for the Republican base and swing voters – the conservative and middle-of-the-road working and middle class folks who actually work for a living and probably get their health care at work!

Let me count the ways that the McCain plan is bad:

1. Instead of buying into group coverage with low rates, each person is on their own and the rates will be higher.


2. Employees that are older or who have pre-existing conditions (e.g., heart problems, cancer, etc.) may not be able to get coverage at all.


3. Employees lucky enough to get new coverage may be with a new carrier or HMO and therefore have to choose new doctors and specialists instead of the ones who know them and their health issues.


4. Younger folks who are healthy may opt out of getting coverage.


5. Those who are financially strapped may not be able to afford coverage.
   
6. When the uninsured have untreated symptoms that grow into a serious medical condition, they end up at the Emergency Room, costing more money than if they had preventive care covered by a health plan.

I could go on, but the point is this plan is bad for all workers. And it’s especially bad for the very political base of conservative folks who work for a living that McCain needs to win.

Sen. McCain: Employer-based health care ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it!

Eve of Destruction?

I’ve read so much about the economic crisis I can’t remember which writer used the words “eve of destruction.” As a music junkie, it reminded me of the song "Eve of Destruction" sung by Barry McGuire. (words and music at http://www.brownielocks.com/eveofdestruction.html)

Written in 1965 by P. F. Sloan, the chorus of the song goes:

“But ya tell me
Over and over and over, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve of destruction.”

At the time, the US was in the midst of the Vietnam War, a cold war with the Soviet Union and China, race riots in the cities, and protests on college campuses. But with the market in free fall, banks failing around the world, the rings haunting true today.

Then I see some European blogs (like Euro Yank’s http://euroyank.blogspot.com/) predicting the imminent fall of the American economy and maybe Europe, too. (Not to mention a prediction that the chaos will lead to Bush declaring marshal law and postponing the elections. Well, Euro Yank's got a apocalyptic blog, so he's been long predicting the outbreak of fascism in the US.)

I don’t know if how far things will fall, but it can be scary times. Clearly the 3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse (Bush, McCain and Obama) are clueless. Bush parrots Secretary of the Treasury Paulson’s recommendations for a socialist-style intervention of unprecedented proportions. Our candidates are reluctantly behind this recommendation. But, with widespread public outrage at the idea of bailing out Wall Street fatcats, the Congress voted down a bill today. (From verse 3, the prophetic words: "handful of senators can't pass legislation")

So, ya tell me over and over and over again, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction?

Extraordinary Rendition

Extraordinary Rendition: the apprehension of a person on suspicion of charges and deportation to another country, typically without any trial or finding of guilt.

Since 9/11, the CIA has been linked to the rendering of hundreds of incidents of extraordinary rendition. Individuals suspected either of being terrorists or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations were deported to countries including Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, and Uzbekistan.

Two weeks ago, a story of one such case was featured on Fresh Air (on NPR). An innocent man, Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer with dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was deported to a Syrian prison on suspicion of being connected with terrorism. His crime: he had rented an apartment listing as a reference a person allegedly linked to a terrorist group.

Thanks to extraordinary rendition, the government, like Pontius Pilate, can keep its hands clean. Leave it to the Republicans to outsource torture!

There is a time, not so long ago, when it would be unheard of that America would deport someone to a foreign nation to be imprisoned and tortured.

In the case of Mr. Arar, he was tortured and imprisoned for nearly one year. He was released due protests by his wife and a Canadian government determination that he was not connected with any terrorists.

We’ve seen the Bush administration after 9/11 use fear of terrorism to enact erosion of our constitutional rights. Now even American citizens making international calls may find there conversations being listed to by the Feds on an unwarranted wiretap. And God help you if you are an American citizen of Middle Eastern background and your name is the same as, or similar to, someone on the “no fly” list.

But of all these attacks on the constitution, which is no less than the erosion of what our nation once stood for as a beacon of freedom, extraordinary rendition is perhaps the most grievous offence.

For anyone who loves liberty, the preservation of basic human rights is utmost. And the depravation of life or liberty without due process of law violates basic human rights. On this point, I believe that Libertarians and other who cherish freedom should never have to apologize.

Also, it is a clear violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The Administration talks about how Saddam was evil for using torture and imprisonment. They say the same about Iran, Syria, North Korea and other nations who “support the terrorists.” Yet the same Administration is responsible for exporting someone merely suspected of being a terrorists to one of the very nations they condemn.

Yes, at the RNC, speakers made fun of those who would grant due process to suspected terrorists. But we must reply that the Republicans are simply wrong on this point. No threat is so great that we should sanction torture by our forces or by others through extraordinary rendition.

What of our presidential candidates?

The “old” John McCain -- himself tortured as a prisoner of war -- used to speak boldly against any use of torture, and he did recommit to rejecting torture in last night's presidential debate. Still, after the RNC rhetoric, I can’t be sure that the “new” McCain still talks the talk. Barack Obama has also opposed torture, but does not have the gut distaste of torture that the "old" McCain had.

But with either candidate, change is likely.

The Change We Need

Our next President must reject the Bush administration’s actions that permitted imprisonment without charges, torture and extraordinary rendition. With these policies, we have become that which we most deplore! How can the US differentiate itself from the terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism if the US allows these practices?

Granted, the terrorists’ threat is real. As I write, there are those that would attack us here at home or abroad. But in our efforts to stop the terrorists, our government cannot stoop to violating human rights. Period.

For an overview of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

The Economy Today

While we remain teetering on the brink of who’s knows what, we can watch the candidates in action.

McCain Jumps into Inaction

John McCain, our "man of action," stops campaigning, suggests delaying the debate, rushes to Washington to save the economy. But after the summit with President Bush, he has little to offer. He’s caught between the Administration’s proposal and Republican senators and representatives who don’t want to sign on (at least in an election year).

Obama Wants to Debate

Barack Obama, the "man of concensus" (let's get everyone at the table), meanwhile, sees no reason not to debate, and reluctantly returns to Washington for the meeting with the President. But like, McCain, is vague and uncommitted.

Conclusion
No news today. But the debate is on tonight!

3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse?

With the US economy teetering on the brink of depression or collapse, most US papers were leading with Bush, McCain and Obama. None of the above convince me they have a clue on how to solve the situation.

Are we looking at the 3 Horseman of the Economic Apocalypse?

The chorus of nations responds: “God help us; God help us all!”

Time to Choose a Candidate for President

Well, the Sarah Palin frenzy is dying down and time is ticking until we have to choose a candidate. No matter what your politics, it generally boils down to a choice of the big two. Yep, there are the minor party candidates including Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. But most will choose between McCain and Obama.

So, what’s the view of this New Libertarian Socialist on the candidates?

It’s time to dedicate a few blogs to looking at the issues, positions, experience and my expectations of the candidates.

So here’s my method:

• Look at the major issues of international and national importance, with emphasis on the preservation of liberty at home.
  
  
• Look at the candidate’s baggage (their party’s advisors, platform positions, campaign contributors, and others with an insider’s influence)
  
  
• Look at the candidate’s experience in and our of office:
  
  o How competent is the candidate as a decision maker?
  o Have the candidate’s actions in office been consistent with the campaign promises?
  o Does the candidate work “across the aisle” to get things done?
  
  
• Think about what it would be like to have this candidate in office.

On this last point, I’ve used the example of buying a dress. See http://rachy-viewsofalibertariansocialist.blogspot.com/2008/07/choosing-candidate.html. (Sorry, guys, if you don’t understand this example, but it’s not the same for guys buying a suit.)

Even after you’ve thought about what you’d like to buy (style, color, length, etc.) and you’re lucky enough to find a dress that you think you’d like, you may try it on you say “I’m not going out in public in this!” Then, you might stumble upon a dress you didn’t expect, and try it on and like it.

It’s the same with a candidate. They may say everything you want them to say and you might like their record. But when you take all this together with their personality, judgment, and interactions with others, you realize “I don’t want this person as President representing my nation to the world.”

How many Presidents have acted differently in office compared to their campaign promises and rhetoric? Who would have expected the anti-communist Nixon to open up normal relations with China? Who would believe that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most fiscally conservative President of the last 20 years? The office of President can produce surprising results. This is why the final and deciding factor needs to be this unquantifiable quality.

The Sarah Palin Chronicles – Volume 2

This was the Week of Sarah Palin and I think I’m coming off a sugar high!

I couldn’t believe it that the party of conservatives would do something both bold and interesting!

They picked this woman – I think that’s quite something in itself! And she actually looks and talks like she could be your neighbor– a regular, middle class working mom. Only thing she’s been a mayor and a governor. And being from Alaska (a place I’d love to visit), there’s this kind of frontier woman side to her – she’s accomplished at hunting and fishing. Then she comes out of virtually no where and is standing in front of nearly 40 million viewers, taking it in stride and talking to the nation with poise and confidence.

And, even in full “attack mode” she’s just so not Bush/Cheney/Rove/etc. She’s actually likeable,

And she’s got a very handsome looking family. Certainly things aren’t perfect in the family (one case of pre-marital pregnancy), but no one is covering it up or denying anything (as the Nixon era Republicans would do) – the family is simply doing the right thing and moving on.

And she’s got that cute little daughter Piper. With a name line Piper Palin how could she not be cute!

But at some point, we have to come down from this sugar high and get back to making the choice of McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden.

The first downer was thinking back on McCain’s acceptance speech where he’s acting like the outsider and the maverick instead of the Senator who came to Washington 25 years ago as a Congressman.

It got me thinking if the whole RNC was not a “bait and switch” sales pitch where they sell McCain-Palin as the mavericks of change for the elections only to get 4 more years of same conservative Republican policies. Here’s my unanswered questions:

• If McCain voted over 90% of the time in line with the Bush administration, where’s the policy change?


• How can you want to cut taxes more when already we in deficit spending to pay for the war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan?
  
  
• What specific government spending does he want to cut?


• How effective could McCain be with what looks like a Democrat majority in the House and Senate?

These McCain promises are little more than the sugar candy that conservative feast on. Reality is sometimes a big downer. But once you’re back down, you can really see that, in the big picture, little has changed in the course of this week.

If the Republicans win, expect 4 more years of Republican policy. The management may change, but the menu will be the same.