As should come as no surprise, I am an avid reader and an avid researcher. I love the idea of e-books and e-book readers. I love the idea of being able to carry around an entire research library in my pocket (admittedly, as over-sized pocket, but you get the idea). However, I think the execution, as it stands now, requires more than a little work.
An e-book reader is, essentially, an mp3 player for books, instead of for music. There are some differences in function and the requirements of that function, obviously, but the similarities are close enough for comparison and are also close enough to raise some serious questions. Both devices are digital media devices intended to allow you to carry entertainment media in much larger volumes than older, more traditional forms would allow, both devices greatly increase the portability of that entertainment, and both devices can use digital standard formats that have been around for some time now and newer, more proprietary formats. The specific file size of the media in question is also relatively tiny in both cases and the software overhead required is also far from extensive (as well as being well established and fairly standardized).
The major difference between the two devices (aside from the obvious function difference) is that the e-book reader actually does less. The average e-book reader displays text and maybe pictures, usually in gray scale only, and that's about it. The average mp3 player today can play songs and videos, display pictures (usually in full color), and many even have limited text functions (though, granted, far less than an e-book reader, even if the mp3 player were of a size to make it comfortable for that use).
So why does the e-book reader cost more? \
I'm going to compare Amazon's Kindle (currently one of the top ranked e-book readers) and Creative Labs' Zen mp3 player (in my opinion, still one of the best mp3 players). The Kindle, as far as I know, is only available through Amazon and costs $259 US. It has 2GB of internal storage, no expansion slot that I can find in the online documentation (if a Kindle owner can correct me on this, please do so), a 6" gray scale only screen, and dedicated wireless access for instant, online purchase of e-books through the Amazon store. I can buy a Zen at virtually any place that sells consumer electronics and the particular model I'm looking at would range in price from $100 to $130, depending on where I bought it ($130 at Amazon, roughly half of their price for the Kindle). That model comes with 8GB of internal storage plus an SD card expansion slot that would allow me to greatly increase that capacity. The Zen only has a 2.5" screen (completely worthless for reading e-books) but it is full color. The Zen plays both music and videos, displays pictures, and has a limited built-in organizer and a built-in radio receiver. The Zen does not come with dedicated wireless access, but I could purchase an appropriate data package from any wireless carrier in the country for considerably less than $100 a month.
Does anyone else find this disparity confusing?
I realize that part of the problem is the fact that there is a much higher demand for mp3 players than for e-book readers and that higher demand can result in a lower price when it isn't combined with product scarcity, but that only accounts for so much. Higher demand, of course, also tends to increase price, so there is some balancing feature to that demand part of the equation. E-book readers are something of a niche market right now, and that tends to equate to a higher price but they will remain a niche market if something isn't done to address this issue. [As a further demonstration of what needs to be addressed, the average price for an e-book at Amazon is $9.99 while the average price for a song in mp3 format is $.99. As a writer, I fully realize that a novel is a larger product than a single song, but compare the price difference between a CD single (roughly average about $500) and a paperback novel (roughly average about $10, and this is in a novel's cheapest non-digital format) and you can easily see that there is a pricing problem here.]
The portability and convenience of e-book readers means that this market has great potential, if that potential is allowed to develop. Part of what took the digital music market so long to grow (and part of the reason it is still behind where technology would allow it to be) can be attributed to the recording industry dragging its collective feet in that market and doing everything it could to prevent the market from getting off the ground. The book publishing industry is now doing the same thing to the digital book market, but they have even less rational for doing so. The recording industry can at least rely on the relative expense of making music to keep artists chained to the industry. Book publishers do not have that luxury. Modern technology, and especially the internet, makes it so that the only serious advantages a traditional publisher gives to a writer are respectability and advertising.
Book publishers have the perfect opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a new and growing market. They should be throwing their weight behind making e-book readers useful and affordable and they should not be letting middlemen like Amazon corner the market and set the rules. The profit potentials are certainly there, if the publishers have the foresight to go after them.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel What???
For anyone who still had doubts that the Nobel Peace Prize has become little more than political grandstanding in recent years, this fact was utterly proven today with the announcement that United States President Barack Obama has been named the winner of this year's award. Liberals across the country are doing a happy dance because this somehow proves them right, but what does it really mean? Absolutely nothing.
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Online Banking Safety Reminder
A friend of mine received an email today that was most certainly a scam. This is an old story and most people should be aware of the problems by now, but it still bears repeating, so I'll repeat it.
The email claimed to be from her bank and claimed that her account had been locked due to too many bad password attempts. Please click on this link to access your account and address this problem. If you receive an email of this sort, never follow it's instructions.
First and easiest thing to notice: the sender's email address was not a bank email address. Red flag! When a bank sends you an email, the email address will include some form of the bank's name and probably the department where the email originated. Banks are very particular about this kind of thing, as well they should be. (You can safely assume that the same rule holds true for almost any other company from whom you might receive questionable emails.)
Do not, however, assume that a correct-looking email address means that you have a safe email. There is no difficulty at all in creating a fake email address that looks right but isn't.
The dead give away, of course, is the link. No reputable bank will ever include a Please Click This Link message in their email. Such a link is a hacker's delight and, if your bank is foolish enough to use one, you need to change banks immediately.
When all else fails, if you think you might have a problem, just pick up the phone and call your bank. They deal with this stuff on a daily basis and they would rather you call them than risk the integrity of both your account and their bank.
Never, ever follow the instructions of such an email, but do let your bank know you received it. If you can, forward the email to your bank's security department. They are probably already aware of the scam going around, but they will thank you anyway because the more information they receive, the more possibility they and the authorities have of stopping and catching the crooks. Also, it is remotely possible that you might be the first person to tell them about this particular threat, and it is your money you're protecting.
Online banking is a perfectly safe and valid way to conduct your business. In truth, it is safer and more secure than the over-the-phone banking and credit card use that many of us have known for years. Despite the scares and threats you hear about from time to time, there is no overwhelming problem and what threat does exist can usually be handled by common sense and a little proactive thinking. Just play safe and remember safety and you'll probably be fine.
When in doubt, never hesitate to ask.
The email claimed to be from her bank and claimed that her account had been locked due to too many bad password attempts. Please click on this link to access your account and address this problem. If you receive an email of this sort, never follow it's instructions.
First and easiest thing to notice: the sender's email address was not a bank email address. Red flag! When a bank sends you an email, the email address will include some form of the bank's name and probably the department where the email originated. Banks are very particular about this kind of thing, as well they should be. (You can safely assume that the same rule holds true for almost any other company from whom you might receive questionable emails.)
Do not, however, assume that a correct-looking email address means that you have a safe email. There is no difficulty at all in creating a fake email address that looks right but isn't.
The dead give away, of course, is the link. No reputable bank will ever include a Please Click This Link message in their email. Such a link is a hacker's delight and, if your bank is foolish enough to use one, you need to change banks immediately.
When all else fails, if you think you might have a problem, just pick up the phone and call your bank. They deal with this stuff on a daily basis and they would rather you call them than risk the integrity of both your account and their bank.
Never, ever follow the instructions of such an email, but do let your bank know you received it. If you can, forward the email to your bank's security department. They are probably already aware of the scam going around, but they will thank you anyway because the more information they receive, the more possibility they and the authorities have of stopping and catching the crooks. Also, it is remotely possible that you might be the first person to tell them about this particular threat, and it is your money you're protecting.
Online banking is a perfectly safe and valid way to conduct your business. In truth, it is safer and more secure than the over-the-phone banking and credit card use that many of us have known for years. Despite the scares and threats you hear about from time to time, there is no overwhelming problem and what threat does exist can usually be handled by common sense and a little proactive thinking. Just play safe and remember safety and you'll probably be fine.
When in doubt, never hesitate to ask.
An Inspirational Performance
Yesterday evening I had the privilege to attend a concert performance by "The President's Own" United States Marine Band. (Before I receive any corrections, I too thought they were called the Marine Corps Band, but the band's official documentation does not use the word "corps", so I am naming them as they name themselves.) We all know that I was Army, not Marines, but I have no problem giving praise where it is due and it is certainly due in this case.
The Marine Band was established by an act of Congress in 1798 and is, thus, the oldest and longest running military and professional musical organization in the country. Their primary mission is to "provide music for the President of the United States and the Commandant of the Marine Corps" and they are the only musical organization, military or otherwise, with such a specific mission. They have performed for every Presidential inauguration since Thomas Jefferson and it was Jefferson, himself, who gave them the additional title "The President's Own".
The Marine Band is not what one might normally think of when considering a military band. It's members are auditioned in the same way that one would audition for any major symphony or orchestra and with the same rigorous standards. Many band members hold advanced degrees in music and they are recruited into the Marines specifically for service in the band. The Marine Band is, in short, both a prestigious musical organization and a proud symbol of American patriotism.
They did not fall short in either regard last night.
The program was a mixture of patriotic music (mostly composed or arranged by Marine Band alumni, such as "The March King" John Philip Sousa) and works from modern American composers (such as Aaron Copland and John Williams) but I almost feel that I have to say the highlight was the beginning. Believe me, you have never heard The Star-Spangled Banner performed in all it's glory until you have heard it performed by The United States Marine Band. The only thing that could have improved that (which I would not learn was possible until later in the program) was if they had it sung as well as performed. It did turn out that they could have done so. The concert moderator, Gunnery Sergeant Kevin Bennear, sang a patriotic medley with the band toward the end of the program, and his voice was the equal of anything I have ever heard from Broadway. I would loved to have heard his take on the National Anthem.
The band was conducted, for most of the performance, by their senior Director, Colonel Michael J. Colburn, and he was almost as much fun to watch as the band itself. His direction was spirited and precise, with plenty of flair but no wasted movement. The Assistant Director, Captain Michelle A. Rakers, and, though I don't believe she was quite up to the caliber of Colonel Colburn, my opinion might be slightly biased here. Captain Rakers directed the single piece by Copland, and I am just not a big fan of Copland's work. It's too busy with not enough focus.
The final name that must be mentioned individually is Master Sergeant Matthew Harding, the band's trumpet soloist. The band performed the allegro con brio from James Stephenson's Trumpet Concerto which is, essentially, one of the most complex and daring trumpet solos ever written, with orchestral accompaniment. The Master Sergeant proved the first part of his rank with his amazing performance on such a difficult piece.
I have never heard this band perform before and I doubt I will have the opportunity again, but I am grateful for this one chance. It was an evening well-spent and a truly inspirational performance. If you ever get the opportunity to see The United States Marine Band perform, take it. Whether you are a fan of this particular music or not (and, you must be able to tell, I am) you will find the time spent to be uplifting and thoroughly rewarding.
The Marine Band was established by an act of Congress in 1798 and is, thus, the oldest and longest running military and professional musical organization in the country. Their primary mission is to "provide music for the President of the United States and the Commandant of the Marine Corps" and they are the only musical organization, military or otherwise, with such a specific mission. They have performed for every Presidential inauguration since Thomas Jefferson and it was Jefferson, himself, who gave them the additional title "The President's Own".
The Marine Band is not what one might normally think of when considering a military band. It's members are auditioned in the same way that one would audition for any major symphony or orchestra and with the same rigorous standards. Many band members hold advanced degrees in music and they are recruited into the Marines specifically for service in the band. The Marine Band is, in short, both a prestigious musical organization and a proud symbol of American patriotism.
They did not fall short in either regard last night.
The program was a mixture of patriotic music (mostly composed or arranged by Marine Band alumni, such as "The March King" John Philip Sousa) and works from modern American composers (such as Aaron Copland and John Williams) but I almost feel that I have to say the highlight was the beginning. Believe me, you have never heard The Star-Spangled Banner performed in all it's glory until you have heard it performed by The United States Marine Band. The only thing that could have improved that (which I would not learn was possible until later in the program) was if they had it sung as well as performed. It did turn out that they could have done so. The concert moderator, Gunnery Sergeant Kevin Bennear, sang a patriotic medley with the band toward the end of the program, and his voice was the equal of anything I have ever heard from Broadway. I would loved to have heard his take on the National Anthem.
The band was conducted, for most of the performance, by their senior Director, Colonel Michael J. Colburn, and he was almost as much fun to watch as the band itself. His direction was spirited and precise, with plenty of flair but no wasted movement. The Assistant Director, Captain Michelle A. Rakers, and, though I don't believe she was quite up to the caliber of Colonel Colburn, my opinion might be slightly biased here. Captain Rakers directed the single piece by Copland, and I am just not a big fan of Copland's work. It's too busy with not enough focus.
The final name that must be mentioned individually is Master Sergeant Matthew Harding, the band's trumpet soloist. The band performed the allegro con brio from James Stephenson's Trumpet Concerto which is, essentially, one of the most complex and daring trumpet solos ever written, with orchestral accompaniment. The Master Sergeant proved the first part of his rank with his amazing performance on such a difficult piece.
I have never heard this band perform before and I doubt I will have the opportunity again, but I am grateful for this one chance. It was an evening well-spent and a truly inspirational performance. If you ever get the opportunity to see The United States Marine Band perform, take it. Whether you are a fan of this particular music or not (and, you must be able to tell, I am) you will find the time spent to be uplifting and thoroughly rewarding.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Know Why Our Kids Can't Read?
Interesting story in the news over the weekend. A New York mother is fighting with the local school board because they claim their school policy prohibits allowing her 12-year-old son from riding his bicycle to school. We have here the obvious angle of I don't know anything that would give a school board the authority to tell you how your child can and cannot get to school but, believe it or not, there is actually a more interesting (read that as "absurdly stupid") facet to this story. According to Saratoga Springs superintendent Janice White, it's all just a misunderstanding. She says, "The existing policy is worded in such a way that it may lead one to believe that we're prohibiting biking to school."
Is it possible that one of our esteemed public schools has a policy that is so poorly written that such a misunderstanding could happen? Let's look at the policy and find out.
"The riding of bicycles by elementary pupils to and from school is prohibited."
Yep, I can see how such a long and convoluted sentence might lead one to false conclusions. Wait a minute! Ms. White, we seem to have a problem here.
There is no misunderstanding here. This is not a case of "might lead one to believe". That policy expressly states, in words that even a New York politician could understand, that this school board thinks it has the authority to prohibit the riding of bicycles to and from school. I even tried to play lawyer and twist it all around to come up with something else and it can't be done. "The riding of bicycles ... is prohibited."
Do you begin to see the humor here? How about the problem?
How are our children supposed to learn to read if the very people in charge of that education can't read themselves? I'm perfectly familiar with the normal phenomenon of political doubletalk, but that hardly applies here. Someone in charge of teaching young children does not, under any circumstances, get the luxury of claiming that words mean something other than what they do mean!
First of all, kudos to the mom for telling a school board where to stick their arbitrary power grab and for making it public so they couldn't schmarm their was out of it. Those of you in the Saratoga Springs voting district, however, might want to consider finding a new superintendent because this woman is really making you look stupid.
Is it possible that one of our esteemed public schools has a policy that is so poorly written that such a misunderstanding could happen? Let's look at the policy and find out.
"The riding of bicycles by elementary pupils to and from school is prohibited."
Yep, I can see how such a long and convoluted sentence might lead one to false conclusions. Wait a minute! Ms. White, we seem to have a problem here.
There is no misunderstanding here. This is not a case of "might lead one to believe". That policy expressly states, in words that even a New York politician could understand, that this school board thinks it has the authority to prohibit the riding of bicycles to and from school. I even tried to play lawyer and twist it all around to come up with something else and it can't be done. "The riding of bicycles ... is prohibited."
Do you begin to see the humor here? How about the problem?
How are our children supposed to learn to read if the very people in charge of that education can't read themselves? I'm perfectly familiar with the normal phenomenon of political doubletalk, but that hardly applies here. Someone in charge of teaching young children does not, under any circumstances, get the luxury of claiming that words mean something other than what they do mean!
First of all, kudos to the mom for telling a school board where to stick their arbitrary power grab and for making it public so they couldn't schmarm their was out of it. Those of you in the Saratoga Springs voting district, however, might want to consider finding a new superintendent because this woman is really making you look stupid.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Difference Between America and Europe
I want to clear up some thing because many of my recent posts seem to be giving some people a wrong impression. Either that or people are not reading correctly and assuming I mean more than I say. Fair warning for the future: that is never a good idea. Just because common usage tends to place certain ideas together or under the same umbrella does not mean that I will agree with one because I agree with another nor does it mean that I will disagree with one because I disagree with another. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am neither Left nor Right. The Left irritates me more purely because I believe many of their ideas are more dangerous. Most of the Right's truly dumb ideas are ideas with no traction. They'll never pass so they're not a major concern. Most of the Left's dumb ideas, however, are among their most popular ideas, and that makes them more dangerous.
In this particular context, I'm talking about the healthcare debate. I am not inherently opposed to a state-sponsored healthcare system and, if you pay attention, I've never said otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessarily a bad thing if a wealthy nation chooses to provide healthcare assistance to its citizens and can do so, both financially and within the framework of its own legal system. I am opposed to the lies and hypocrisy that are almost the entirety of the American healthcare debate. I am opposed to the push to ignore the legal framework within which our country is supposed to work. And I am opposed to the level of top-down control that is being pushed on a nation that was not designed for top-down control.
Those last two points are what I want to address here. Whether or not we can financially afford some sort of state-sponsored healthcare system is open to debate but it would be hard to argue that one of the wealthiest nations on the planet can't do it. The sticking point, for that argument, would only be in what changes to current spending would be necessary. Whether or not we can get people to argue rationally instead of spitting and fuming ... Well, unfortunately, I am all too aware that is not likely to happen.
However, the big differences are in our legal framework and our built-in control designs.
For the legal framework, we have the Constitution. Most countries have one, but ours was one of the first of its kind. It has a few flaws because of that, but it has some really great parts too, great parts that later countries didn't always adopt. I freely state that I would have written some things differently, but there is a process for that, if you truly believe that something needs to change and can get enough people to agree with you. Ignoring the Constitution is not an option. When the powers that be wanted to control the behavior of everyone in the country once before, they wrote an amendment (Prohibition). When they realized that was a dumb idea and decided to remove it, they wrote another amendment. That's how this process is supposed to work. You don't just decide to ignore it, you amend it. If you can't get your amendment through the system, you don't get to make the change.
We lost sight of that fact somewhere along the way. I say "somewhere", but I can actually point to the when. It was right around the time FDR essentially declared war on the Supreme Court when they rightly told him that the General Welfare clause wasn't a blank check. That was the first time someone decided that their cause was so just they could just ignore the Constitution and change the entire nature of the nation without bothering with an amendment. Unfortunately, FDR had enough political clout that he was able to pull off that coup, and adherence to the Constitution has suffered since then as a result. The fact that we have forgotten how it legally works, however, doesn't make it right to continue doing it illegally.
The General Welfare clause is not a blank check, any more than the Common Defense clause is a blank check. Both of these clauses are clearly defined in the list of stipulations that immediately follow them. Can the necessities of these clauses change over time? Absolutely! That's what the amendment process is for.
As for top-down control, the United States of America were never meant to be one nation ruled from the top. Notice the word "were" there instead of "was"? That is the proper way to say that phrase because the name, itself, designates the way this country was designed: a collection of sovereign states choosing to act together for specific and well-defined functions. You want the perfect example of what America was intended to be? We created the system of the European Union over 250 years before you did! This is the thing that Europeans and many Left-leaning Americans don't fully understand. America is not a country in the same way that, for example, Germany is. Fashioning a national healthcare system for America would be roughly akin to fashioning a "national" healthcare system for the European Union. I'm sure it could be forced into existence, but how well would the individual member states respond to the Frankenstein's Monster it would be?
It's about population, both demographics and simple numbers. The average European country is about the same size as the Average American state and has about (rough, unscientific approximation here) the same demographic splits. Yes there are demographic differences within a given American state or European country but they are not as pronounced as those differences between different American states or different European countries. Also, what works for one sized population does not necessarily work for a significantly larger population, even if that larger population is made up of the same basic people. When it comes to control of any sort, it is exercised best when it is exercised closest. People tend to not mind so much when their local community tells them that their lawn must be maintained in such-and-such a manner, but let a government official removed by both distance and population make the exact same demand and you'll see people marching in protest. It is a simple and obvious phenomenon. The highest level of control should only be exercised by those people over whom you have the highest level of influence and from whom you can most easily separate yourself if you reach in impasse in what that control should be. If you have a disagreement with your local Community Co-Op or whatever, you can march right up to the director's house and have your argument. Try that with your senator. If your argument fails to achieve a result you can stand, changing communities is infinitely easier (and usually infinitely cheaper) than changing countries.
This is why the United States of America were organized in the way they were and why we, today, have a European Union instead of Europe as one giant nation. The level of governmental control that is taken for granted in Europe simply does not work when you multiple the population 20, 30, 50 times over. Or at least, it doesn't work in any way that we, Americans or Europeans, would accept. Want an example of how it does work? China. Need I continue?
In short, don't assume I stand for anything I haven't said I stand for unless it is an obvious corollary and try to understand that America and Europe are not the same thing. Or maybe they are, just not in the way you're trying to see it.
In this particular context, I'm talking about the healthcare debate. I am not inherently opposed to a state-sponsored healthcare system and, if you pay attention, I've never said otherwise. I do not believe that it is necessarily a bad thing if a wealthy nation chooses to provide healthcare assistance to its citizens and can do so, both financially and within the framework of its own legal system. I am opposed to the lies and hypocrisy that are almost the entirety of the American healthcare debate. I am opposed to the push to ignore the legal framework within which our country is supposed to work. And I am opposed to the level of top-down control that is being pushed on a nation that was not designed for top-down control.
Those last two points are what I want to address here. Whether or not we can financially afford some sort of state-sponsored healthcare system is open to debate but it would be hard to argue that one of the wealthiest nations on the planet can't do it. The sticking point, for that argument, would only be in what changes to current spending would be necessary. Whether or not we can get people to argue rationally instead of spitting and fuming ... Well, unfortunately, I am all too aware that is not likely to happen.
However, the big differences are in our legal framework and our built-in control designs.
For the legal framework, we have the Constitution. Most countries have one, but ours was one of the first of its kind. It has a few flaws because of that, but it has some really great parts too, great parts that later countries didn't always adopt. I freely state that I would have written some things differently, but there is a process for that, if you truly believe that something needs to change and can get enough people to agree with you. Ignoring the Constitution is not an option. When the powers that be wanted to control the behavior of everyone in the country once before, they wrote an amendment (Prohibition). When they realized that was a dumb idea and decided to remove it, they wrote another amendment. That's how this process is supposed to work. You don't just decide to ignore it, you amend it. If you can't get your amendment through the system, you don't get to make the change.
We lost sight of that fact somewhere along the way. I say "somewhere", but I can actually point to the when. It was right around the time FDR essentially declared war on the Supreme Court when they rightly told him that the General Welfare clause wasn't a blank check. That was the first time someone decided that their cause was so just they could just ignore the Constitution and change the entire nature of the nation without bothering with an amendment. Unfortunately, FDR had enough political clout that he was able to pull off that coup, and adherence to the Constitution has suffered since then as a result. The fact that we have forgotten how it legally works, however, doesn't make it right to continue doing it illegally.
The General Welfare clause is not a blank check, any more than the Common Defense clause is a blank check. Both of these clauses are clearly defined in the list of stipulations that immediately follow them. Can the necessities of these clauses change over time? Absolutely! That's what the amendment process is for.
As for top-down control, the United States of America were never meant to be one nation ruled from the top. Notice the word "were" there instead of "was"? That is the proper way to say that phrase because the name, itself, designates the way this country was designed: a collection of sovereign states choosing to act together for specific and well-defined functions. You want the perfect example of what America was intended to be? We created the system of the European Union over 250 years before you did! This is the thing that Europeans and many Left-leaning Americans don't fully understand. America is not a country in the same way that, for example, Germany is. Fashioning a national healthcare system for America would be roughly akin to fashioning a "national" healthcare system for the European Union. I'm sure it could be forced into existence, but how well would the individual member states respond to the Frankenstein's Monster it would be?
It's about population, both demographics and simple numbers. The average European country is about the same size as the Average American state and has about (rough, unscientific approximation here) the same demographic splits. Yes there are demographic differences within a given American state or European country but they are not as pronounced as those differences between different American states or different European countries. Also, what works for one sized population does not necessarily work for a significantly larger population, even if that larger population is made up of the same basic people. When it comes to control of any sort, it is exercised best when it is exercised closest. People tend to not mind so much when their local community tells them that their lawn must be maintained in such-and-such a manner, but let a government official removed by both distance and population make the exact same demand and you'll see people marching in protest. It is a simple and obvious phenomenon. The highest level of control should only be exercised by those people over whom you have the highest level of influence and from whom you can most easily separate yourself if you reach in impasse in what that control should be. If you have a disagreement with your local Community Co-Op or whatever, you can march right up to the director's house and have your argument. Try that with your senator. If your argument fails to achieve a result you can stand, changing communities is infinitely easier (and usually infinitely cheaper) than changing countries.
This is why the United States of America were organized in the way they were and why we, today, have a European Union instead of Europe as one giant nation. The level of governmental control that is taken for granted in Europe simply does not work when you multiple the population 20, 30, 50 times over. Or at least, it doesn't work in any way that we, Americans or Europeans, would accept. Want an example of how it does work? China. Need I continue?
In short, don't assume I stand for anything I haven't said I stand for unless it is an obvious corollary and try to understand that America and Europe are not the same thing. Or maybe they are, just not in the way you're trying to see it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Talking Points And Debate
One of the most repeated accusations from the Left against the Right today claims that the Right has no ideas, only talking points. If you'd like, I can show you a list of at least half-a-dozen Republican-sponsored healthcare bills that the Left is making certain you don't see as argument against this accusation, but that isn't the point of this post. I want to talk about talking points and hypocrisy. Is the Left really innocent of the talking points over debate idea? Stroll through any comments section on this debate (and do so honestly) and you'll certainly have to wonder this yourself.
The two statements you will see most often are the already mentioned "no ideas, just talking points" claim that is patently false and ignores an avalanche of evidence against it and the point of this post: "Without a strong public option, there is no healthcare reform."
Seriously? If that isn't an empty talking point then we really need to discuss redefining that phrase.
Not one country that uses the type of healthcare system we are supposedly moving toward uses a public option, whether strong, weak, or otherwise. None of them! Obviously the "a public option is mandatory" idea isn't quite so universal in those countries actually using these ideas. Where did we come up with the idea that it is a must-have deal breaker?
I would seriously like an answer to a few questions on this subject:
1. Why is a public option necessary to healthcare reform if no one else is using it?
2. How is a public option going to affect the cost controls that are its supposed bright light? Keep in mind that official estimates only put enrollment at around 8 million people. Really? In a country of over 300 million people, a program with a whopping 8 million people in it is going to affect overall pricing how, exactly?
3. Assuming that a public option actually can have a positive impact on healthcare pricing, what makes it unique? Why is a public option the only idea that can accomplish this?
Seriously, if you're right then these are easy questions to answer. If you can't answer them then all you are doing is spouting talking points and really need to shut up about other people doing the same.
I am sick and tired of the blatant, over the top hypocrisy from the Left on this debate. Pelosi tells people that their rhetoric is risking violence after she called people Nazis. Grayson makes an ass of himself on the Senate floor almost immediately after the Democrats virtually crucify a Republican for doing the same thing (and by the way, folks, Wilson did apologize almost immediately and his fellow Republicans called him out for his behavior). Obama chides people for scaremongering while maintaining that we can't fix a recession (that had nothing to do with healthcare) without fixing healthcare. And of course, the Left screeching about talking points when all they are doing is screaming talking points.
Talk about children running the orphanage!
The two statements you will see most often are the already mentioned "no ideas, just talking points" claim that is patently false and ignores an avalanche of evidence against it and the point of this post: "Without a strong public option, there is no healthcare reform."
Seriously? If that isn't an empty talking point then we really need to discuss redefining that phrase.
Not one country that uses the type of healthcare system we are supposedly moving toward uses a public option, whether strong, weak, or otherwise. None of them! Obviously the "a public option is mandatory" idea isn't quite so universal in those countries actually using these ideas. Where did we come up with the idea that it is a must-have deal breaker?
I would seriously like an answer to a few questions on this subject:
1. Why is a public option necessary to healthcare reform if no one else is using it?
2. How is a public option going to affect the cost controls that are its supposed bright light? Keep in mind that official estimates only put enrollment at around 8 million people. Really? In a country of over 300 million people, a program with a whopping 8 million people in it is going to affect overall pricing how, exactly?
3. Assuming that a public option actually can have a positive impact on healthcare pricing, what makes it unique? Why is a public option the only idea that can accomplish this?
Seriously, if you're right then these are easy questions to answer. If you can't answer them then all you are doing is spouting talking points and really need to shut up about other people doing the same.
I am sick and tired of the blatant, over the top hypocrisy from the Left on this debate. Pelosi tells people that their rhetoric is risking violence after she called people Nazis. Grayson makes an ass of himself on the Senate floor almost immediately after the Democrats virtually crucify a Republican for doing the same thing (and by the way, folks, Wilson did apologize almost immediately and his fellow Republicans called him out for his behavior). Obama chides people for scaremongering while maintaining that we can't fix a recession (that had nothing to do with healthcare) without fixing healthcare. And of course, the Left screeching about talking points when all they are doing is screaming talking points.
Talk about children running the orphanage!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)