I live in Britain, under the NHS. Now, I want to say this up front in case anyone gets the wrong impression: the NHS is not perfect and no-one should ever claim it is. Having got that established...
I suffer from extremely severe depression and anxiety disorders. As a result of that, I self-harm frequently (please, no lectures). I also have a completely unrelated condition where my stomach produces too much acid and slightly high blood pressure.
Every morning, I take two antidepressents and an acidity regulator. My prescription for these drugs is for two months supply of each and costs me £7 (roughly $15) to get filled. If I was unemployed (which I will be shortly), young or elderly, I would be exempt from that charge. But surely those are pre-existing conditions? Yeah, they are. Makes no difference. Under nationalised healthcare, the only time the words "pre-existing condition" come up is when your doctor is checking that any drugs he prescribes won't conflict with another condition you have. That prescription fee is all my out-of-pocket expenses (oh, and the occasional bottle of asprin or antacids). My doctors visits, medical tests, psychiatric tests and care, the weekly visit from the psychiatric nurse, all of that is covered by the NHS. If I need a hospital stay or an operation, that's covered too. If/when I lose my job, it makes no difference to my healthcare. The only difference from my perspective is that I need to tick another couple of boxes on the back of the prescription. No-one loses their healthcare when they lose their job here, even the (*shock, horror*) unemployed are covered.
As for the government deciding your healthcare? Well, there's two things here. Under the NHS, doesn't happen. My doctor and psychiatrist decide what care I need, they note it down on a computerised system and the NHS reimburses them, the actual exchange of money nevers involves you. The career civil servants who run the NHS don't decide your care, they just direct the resources where they're needed, quickly, quietly and with a minimum of fuss. Admin costs average 6.8% of the budget, including pensions and benefits. Secondly, how is that different from insurance suits deciding your healthcare? Given the choice, I'd rather go with the career civil servants. The insurance industry has a profit motive, they are actively looking to screw you out of your healthcare because the more people they can cut off from care, the more money they make. The civil servants don't care either way, they get paid exactly the same regardless of whether the NHS runs a surplus or a defecit. I could ring my doctor this morning and get an appointment this afternoon. Ah, but perhaps I'm special because I have "SUICIDE RISK" on my file? 'Fraid not. Most people will get an appointment on the same day or, at worst, the following day.
Now, I keep having the sam argument with conservatives who believe the NHS is a failure since it usually runs at a loss. IT'S SUPPOSED TO! Look, healthcare is not a product like a Big Mac, healthcare is a service. The Post Office doesn't make a profit either and it doesn't matter if they do. Their primary purpose is to move the mail about for the mutual benefit of all. The fire service puts out fires for the mutual benefit of all. And that's how the NHS works. They're not a profit driven business, they just treat illnesses for the mutual benefit of all. It is in an insurance industries best interests to deny you care. It is not in the governments best interests to do so because the quicker you get better, the quicker you get back to work and start paying taxes again.
The right keep screaming about waiting lists under the NHS. Yes, there are waiting lists for non-emergency operations. The actual time varies depending on the specific operation needed but they might well be there. Do you really not have waiting lists in the US? You can just walk into a doctor's office any morning, slap the cash on the counter and have the op there and then? Or do you, more likely, have to arrange a mutually convienient time for a consultation, arrange payment and arrange a mutually convienient time for the op? See, you already have waiting times, you just don't call them that. And how long do you have to wait if you don't have the cash to slap on the counter? Waiting lists might be annoying and sometimes painful but you will get the operation eventually and it won't cost you a penny (your employer is legally required to pay you while you recuperate). If you need a non-emergency operation in the US and you don't have the cash, how long do you have to wait? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending waiting times. They're a major flaw in the system and one we're trying to correct but what I am saying is that waiting a short time for care and getting it is better than never getting the care at all. I have been offered an operation to correct the problem with my stomach but I always turn it down. Not because of the waiting times but because stomach operations are fairly major surgery and I'm happy to keep taking the pills.
How about costs? I pay around 22% income tax and about another 8-9% National Insurance (our version of Social Security, there is no such thing as a payroll tax here). That's about average. How much do you pay in taxes? Now, add the cost of your health insurance (assuming you have it) to that figure and work it out again. The NHS running costs work out at just over $2000 per citizen, per year. How much can you get a year's health insurance for? The US spends, on average, $2.3 trillion a year on the combination of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. Assuming the same $2000 per citizen, per year cost, the entire US population could be covered for around $600 billion a year, not counting start-up costs. Yes, some people here choose to take out private insurance anyway, that's their right and they do it for many different reasons. Some want the option of skipping the wait times, some want a more luxurious hospital or brandname drugs (the NHS tends toward functionally spartan and generic drugs to keep costs down), some may have more esoteric reasons but the option is there. Some employers offer it as a perk for their high-value employees. I smoke about a pack a day. Marlboros here cost about $12 a pack, 80% of which is tax. I don't mind paying that because the vast majority of that goes into the NHS. The government takes in about £10 billion annually from tobacco taxes and spends about £6.8 billion treating smoking-related illnesses. Again, I have no problem with paying that. I have a habit which is damaging to my health so I pay extra to cover the extra care which may be required.
A very brief word about abortion: The NHS will pay for abortions which your doctor considers medically necessary for physical or mental reasons. Abortions which are not medically necessary are not covered, they must be paid for privately, albeit at NHS rates. Whether you agree with that stance is up to you but that's the position.
A lot of people think the British hate our healthcare system because we bitch about it so much. This is a basic cultural misunderstanding. We bitch about everything, we're a dour people. Complaining is our national hobby, second only to football. This is the same country that had two books called Crap Towns where people were competing to get their town entered. The city where I live, Stoke-On-Trent in the Midlands, was once voted the most depressing place in the nation to live and we're proud of that. Whinging is the British passtime so our complaints about the NHS shouldn't be taken at face value. Rather, look at the fate of the rare politician who proposes abolishing the NHS: They catch hell at their surgeries (a monthly meeting for their constituents), get shouted down and usually booted out of office at the first opportunity.
And how about the charge that government will then tell you how to live your life? Yeah, it's bullshit. Utter bullshit. As mentioned above, I smoke about a pack a day. I don't drink much but I enjoy the odd pint of real ale. The government makes 80% of the price of my smokes in taxes and they skim a couple of pence off the price I pay on a pint but no-one's stopping me indulging those habits (although I can't smoke in pubs anymore). The health impact of fast food is generally dealt with indirectly (by taxing the corporate profits) but we still have plenty of branches of McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Sex is a health issue here, not a moral issue so any doctor will give you a dozen rubbers, free for the asking. The idea is that promiscuity is not a health danger in itself but unprotected promiscuity is. Therefore, provide a means of reducing the risk. It works, sort-of (the high teen pregnancy rate is more to do with them not using contraception in the first place).
Every other nation in the industrialised world manages some form of universal healthcare. It takes many different forms, with varying methods of delivery and paying for it. Since you're coming to this relatively late, there's nothing to stop the US setting up a committee to examine the existing systems and then mix-and-matching the best parts, absorbing Medicare and Medicaid along the way, until you come up with something special and uniquely American. The USA is the richest nation in the world. California alone is the fifth biggest economy on earth and yet, you are the only industrialised nation which doesn't guarentee at least basic healthcare for all of it's citizens. Guys, Italy manages this without it turning into a socialistic nightmare. Are you seriously telling me that US politicians are markedly worse than those of Italy? In most of the civilised world, only a very few unfortunates (mainly homeless people or drug abusers) die for lack of care. That's a tragedy, no questions there but how many people in the US die because they can't afford care? Triage by wallet.
The pressure for healthcare reform has never been higher. In poll after poll, about two-thirds of the USA wants healthcare reform but Congress may bargain away the public option (and let's not forget that the public option was the compromise position in the first place). Write, call, fax or email your CongressCritter. Take the Andy Dufresnes method (watch The Shawshank Redemption): Bug the living piss out of them until they'll do the right thing just to get rid of you. You guys need reform in the worst way and the wind is in your favour. So let's get it done.
Then we'll start on the legal bribery known as "campaign contributions". You grok?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Irregular
The few of you who follow this blog will have noticed that posts have started to become few and far between. After considerable thought, I have decided to explain why.
I suffer from severe depression. Lately, my mental health has begun to deteriorate further, to the point that I have begun self-harming extensively again (please, no lectures) after years. Because mental illness is covered by the NHS here, I am getting doctor's treatment and am awaiting treatment from a professional psychiatrist (I always wondered about that expression; are there amateur psychiatrists?).
However, as a result of that, I've felt unable to update this blog as often as I should. For that, I apologise to everyone who reads it.
I suffer from severe depression. Lately, my mental health has begun to deteriorate further, to the point that I have begun self-harming extensively again (please, no lectures) after years. Because mental illness is covered by the NHS here, I am getting doctor's treatment and am awaiting treatment from a professional psychiatrist (I always wondered about that expression; are there amateur psychiatrists?).
However, as a result of that, I've felt unable to update this blog as often as I should. For that, I apologise to everyone who reads it.
Friday, June 19, 2009
An Immoral Society
No, I'm not talking about abortion.
Most of the USA describe themselves as Christian. I'm not Christian but I am a man of faith and yet, I have to wonder if those calling themselves Christian have actually read the words of Jesus. Mahatma Gandhi once said something to the effect that he would love Christians if he'd ever actually met one. While the right likes to mouth pieties like a drunken televangelist, how many have actually compared their actions to the teachings of Jesus?
For example, Jesus, like many religious figures, had a lot to say about poverty. He said that the poor would always be with us but also that alleviating poverty was a noble calling. Jesus didn't have much to say about economics but what he did say is closest to a form of proto-socialism. So how come so many Americans revile the poor and resent the state making any provision for them? Poverty is a moral issue but while the right seems to interpret that to mean that the poor are poor due to some moral failing, the left tends to interpret it as being our moral duty to help the poverty stricken. So many American Christians seem to believe that the Bible condemns socialism or communism. This proves that not only do they not understand the meaning of the words, they don't understand their own Bible very well either. The Bible doesn't say word one about either (unsurprisingly) but it's very much in favour of sharing one's wealth and goods with the poor.
Or take gay rights. Yes, yes, there's a couple of clobber verses which can be read to apply to homosexuality but none of them come from Jesus, they all come from the Old Testament or Paul. Jesus hung out with moneychangers and hookers, does anyone sane really think he'd have a problem with committed same-sex couples being given some legal rights? And if so, no-one is offering to legislate my religion.
Which brings us onto another point: The frightening number of Christians who honestly believe that the USA is a Christian nation. Firstly, the Founders said pretty much the exact opposite but more to the point of this article, Jesus warned you not to do this! "Render unto Caesar" wasn't just a snappy comeback, it was an endorsement of the separation of church and state. Jesus lived (assuming he existed, naturally) in a society which had no such separation and he personally saw the mess that resulted. He told you not to pray in public as well but you ignore that.
Why do so many Christians disregard the teachings of their founder in favour of ultra-right politics? Because for many, they are not Christians. They follow a religion which may be described as the "Cultus Americanus". A religion which grew out of but is distinct from Christianity in the same way as Mormonism. A religion which exists purely to provide divine blessing to ultra-right politics. In Crazy For God, Frank Schaeffer talks candidly about the swift mutation of the Religious Right that he helped create from a religious movement to an extension of the ultra-right wing of the Republican party (Schaeffer now regrets and is trying to make amends for most of what he did during that period). The Cultus Americanus pays lip service to the teachings of Jesus but places the teachings of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh on much the same level. They have their own high priests (Bill O'Lielly, Rush, Grover Norquist); their own devil figure (Clinton although Obama is getting there) and their own set of values. For example, the poor should be left to starve, lying is perfectly acceptable in the service of the faith, blind obedience is preferable to examined faith and it has the same cultish brainwashing tendencies as Scientology.
As a student of history and religion, the emergent faith is fascinating to observe. As someone who has to share the planet with these lunatics, it's terrifying.
Most of the USA describe themselves as Christian. I'm not Christian but I am a man of faith and yet, I have to wonder if those calling themselves Christian have actually read the words of Jesus. Mahatma Gandhi once said something to the effect that he would love Christians if he'd ever actually met one. While the right likes to mouth pieties like a drunken televangelist, how many have actually compared their actions to the teachings of Jesus?
For example, Jesus, like many religious figures, had a lot to say about poverty. He said that the poor would always be with us but also that alleviating poverty was a noble calling. Jesus didn't have much to say about economics but what he did say is closest to a form of proto-socialism. So how come so many Americans revile the poor and resent the state making any provision for them? Poverty is a moral issue but while the right seems to interpret that to mean that the poor are poor due to some moral failing, the left tends to interpret it as being our moral duty to help the poverty stricken. So many American Christians seem to believe that the Bible condemns socialism or communism. This proves that not only do they not understand the meaning of the words, they don't understand their own Bible very well either. The Bible doesn't say word one about either (unsurprisingly) but it's very much in favour of sharing one's wealth and goods with the poor.
Or take gay rights. Yes, yes, there's a couple of clobber verses which can be read to apply to homosexuality but none of them come from Jesus, they all come from the Old Testament or Paul. Jesus hung out with moneychangers and hookers, does anyone sane really think he'd have a problem with committed same-sex couples being given some legal rights? And if so, no-one is offering to legislate my religion.
Which brings us onto another point: The frightening number of Christians who honestly believe that the USA is a Christian nation. Firstly, the Founders said pretty much the exact opposite but more to the point of this article, Jesus warned you not to do this! "Render unto Caesar" wasn't just a snappy comeback, it was an endorsement of the separation of church and state. Jesus lived (assuming he existed, naturally) in a society which had no such separation and he personally saw the mess that resulted. He told you not to pray in public as well but you ignore that.
Why do so many Christians disregard the teachings of their founder in favour of ultra-right politics? Because for many, they are not Christians. They follow a religion which may be described as the "Cultus Americanus". A religion which grew out of but is distinct from Christianity in the same way as Mormonism. A religion which exists purely to provide divine blessing to ultra-right politics. In Crazy For God, Frank Schaeffer talks candidly about the swift mutation of the Religious Right that he helped create from a religious movement to an extension of the ultra-right wing of the Republican party (Schaeffer now regrets and is trying to make amends for most of what he did during that period). The Cultus Americanus pays lip service to the teachings of Jesus but places the teachings of Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh on much the same level. They have their own high priests (Bill O'Lielly, Rush, Grover Norquist); their own devil figure (Clinton although Obama is getting there) and their own set of values. For example, the poor should be left to starve, lying is perfectly acceptable in the service of the faith, blind obedience is preferable to examined faith and it has the same cultish brainwashing tendencies as Scientology.
As a student of history and religion, the emergent faith is fascinating to observe. As someone who has to share the planet with these lunatics, it's terrifying.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Party Platform - Addendum
- Paper Ballots. This should really be a no-brainer. Paper ballots are easily checkable, the error rate is virtually non-existant and everyone knows how to use them: Put your cross in the box. At the end of the evening, dump all the ballots out on a big table and, watched by a rep from each party who can object at any time, they're all counted. This is not rocket science.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Wanna have a party?
No, not that kind of party. The political kind. We could call it the Promethian Party, seizing the political dialogue back for those of us who don't have a dozen lobbyists. Here's what the platform should be:
- Economics. Raise taxes on the right, rising to 50% on amounts above one million dollars a year. Yes, I know the standard talking point that if you do that, all the millionaires will flee the country. Bite me. They didn't flee the country during the Eisenhower era when the top tax rate hovered around 90%. If you want to talk about how Reagan cut the rates and the economy boomed, you can also bite me. Reagan's tax cuts let rich people get much richer but they also caused a recession (no, it wasn't Congress, guess what you can do?) and hammered government revenues. The insane "trickle-down economics" theory is crap, it always has been crap and it's never worked.
Small tax cut for the middle class. Tax credit for the working poor. No need to mess with corporate tax rates, just close the loopholes that let the majority of US corporations avoid paying taxes and institute a law that any profit earned on goods sold in the USA is taxed at USA rates. If you don't want to pay US tax rates, you don't get to sell to US consumers.
- Law & Order. We will not torture. Nor will we quibble about whether techniques classified as torture for five hundred years are really torture. The right laughed hysterically at Clinton quibbling about the meaning of "is" so they do not get to quibble about the meaning of "torture". The UN Declaration on Torture (which the US is a signatory to) expressly state that no special circumstances will excuse torture. While we're on the subject, anyone in custody is either a criminal, a civilian or a PoW and covered by the appropriate schedule of the Geneva Conventions. Since you aren't in a rebellion or invasion, they also have habeus corpus rights and criminals will get a fair trial as soon as is practical (just as the dozens of domestic terrorists already held in Supermax jails did).
The USA PATRIOT Act to be repealed in it's entirety and no, that doesn't endanger you in the slightest, STFU. The PATRIOT Act never had anything to do with preventing terrorism, it was about granting intelligence agencies every police-state fantasy they ever had. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and the PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional abomination.
The system of allowing Presidents to nominate judges was intended to insulate judges from political pressure. It has done exactly the opposite, allowing the more authoritarian presidents (*coughBUSHcough*) to enshrine their personal bias to a lifetime appointment. However, allowing judges to be elected by the general public opens them to the same pressures as politicians and the general public don't understand the law anyway. Therefore, judges for the Appeals courts or SCOTUS will now be elected by the ABA (American Bar Association) for fixed terms of ten-years (from which, they may resign at any time) and no-one may stand in those elections until they have at least fifteen years experiance as a lawyer and/or lower court judge. While we're on the subject, anyone complaining about "activist judges" is to be bludgeoned with a large ripe haddock. We will pursue a Constitutional Amendment to this effect.
All "three strikes" laws to be struck down. Also, an inquiry will be convened with regard to the war crimes comitted under the Bush administration.
- Equal Rights. The ERA to be ratified at the first opportunity. Partial Birth Abortion Act repealed. FACE Act to be fully enforced. Federal hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws expanded to cover homosexuals. We will order the military to cease enforcement of DADT on our first day in office and repeal it fully at the first opportunity. DOMA is repealed as an unconstitutional challenge to the "full faith and credit" clause.
With regard to same-sex marriage, we are going to concede the word "marriage" to the collective church. However, that is [i]all[/i] we are conceding. We will enact law to ensure that the package of rights and responsibilities currently known as "marriage" will henceforth be available to any two mentally competent adults who register themselves as a Civil Union. For fairness, anyone already married when this law comes into effect will automatically gain Civil Union status in addition. In other words, if you want to have the legal rights with your partner (of either gender), you have to register as a Civil Union. If you want to take it further and have religious rites, that's fine, it's optional. The entire set of legal rights (such as but not limited to, presumptive inheritence, presumptive child custody, etc) shall now be granted to Civil Unions which shall be considered to take the place of the word "marriage" in all federal laws.
Also, cannabis is legalised for production, private consumption and sale from licensed vendors (i.e. vendors already holding a license to sell alcohol), subject to the exact same retrictions as alcohol (age-restricted and a ban on driving under the influence). If you wish to grow your own, that's the same as brewing one's own beer and none of the state's business. Also legalised federally is gambling (including sports gambling) in licensed premises.
- Religious Rights. All persons have every right to practice their faith and to freely worship as they see fit and our administration will not threaten that. However, your religious freedoms come with the responsibility to respect the religious freedoms of others. You cannot make law on a religious basis and any religious argument in law or public policy can and will be summarily ignored. If you hold an opinion for religious reasons, that's fine but you'll need to come up with a secular argument to justify it. You may not erect religious symbols on public property unless other religious/social groups (including athiests, for the purposes of this discussion) are free to do likewise. To put it another way: Erecting a cross alone on public property, not allowed. However, if a group of Christians wish to take up a collection to erect a cross on public property, they may do so, provided that Jews may put up a menorrah; Hindus may erect a statue of Shiva, Wiccans can erect a monument of the Wiccan Rede; athiests can erect a monument of, say, the "Coexist" logo and so on. The only acceptable reasons for refusing such a display shall be either that it contravenes obscenity laws or that it's physically dangerous.
- Education. No, you cannot teach creationism, cration science, intelligent design or whatever silly name you've come up with now in science class. It's not science. When you come up with a testable hypothesis that survives peer review, we'll talk. Science says that evolution, while incomplete, is the most likely explanation for humanity's current state. Creationism, if it is taught at all, shall be taught in Comparative Religions class. Nor can you have teacher-led prayer. Students may quietly pray whenever they wish so long as they do not endanger the class while doing so. Comprehensive sex education shall be taught, in an age appropriate manner, from the age of 11 onwards. Some children (mainly girls) may have already begun puberty by this point but the law must deal in averages. Machines vending condoms shall also be added to the bathrooms of male and female students (bite me, conservatives, no-one has a shag purely because there are rubbers available). All education shall be based on available evidence and teachers shall get a pay rise to the same level as a civil servant of comparable seniority. In exchange, teachers shall take a short test each year to ensure that they remain up to date on recent developments/discoveries in their field. teachers shall also be exempt from having to repay student loans after completing five years as a public school teacher. Any soft drinks vending machines installed on school grounds shall attract a 5% tax, to be funnelled straight back into education. Pay to play, guys.
- Healthcare. Our administration shall enact, as soon as possible, a system of universal healthcare, funded fom taxes. This shall include prescription drugs although we will ask citizens to pay a $15 charge as a contribution (inflation linked) for each prescription filled. Those below 18, over 60, in full time education, military service or receiving welfare payments shall be exempt fom this charge. Private insurance shall continue to be available for those who wish to pay for it. Medical students shall have their student loans written off after serving five years in the USHS (for lack of a better name). The USHS shall also absorb Medicare and Medicaid in the process of being rolled out. The combination of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance costs you around $2.3 trillion a year. A USHS run along the same lines as the French system (generally accepted as the world's best) would cost less than half of that. Contraception (including, but not limited to, birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, etc) shall be provided free of charge and exempt from prescription charges.
- Defence. A 20% cut in defence spending. America spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined. Last year's budget increase alone was larger than the entire budgets of your nearest four competitors. This isn't a "strong military", this is a mental illness. In terms of value for money, the Pentagon makes Enron look like a paragon of scrupulous accounting. Any person with some knowledge in this area could cut 10% off the budget just by eliminating the programs which are admitted to be obsolete.
Iraq is handed over the the Iraqi government. However, 50,000 troops shall remain there under the command of the Iraqi government. They shall be rotated out every six months and should the Iraqi government ever ask us to leave, they shall be brought home as quickly as logistically feasable with the exception of the American Embassy's security detail.
- Economics. Raise taxes on the right, rising to 50% on amounts above one million dollars a year. Yes, I know the standard talking point that if you do that, all the millionaires will flee the country. Bite me. They didn't flee the country during the Eisenhower era when the top tax rate hovered around 90%. If you want to talk about how Reagan cut the rates and the economy boomed, you can also bite me. Reagan's tax cuts let rich people get much richer but they also caused a recession (no, it wasn't Congress, guess what you can do?) and hammered government revenues. The insane "trickle-down economics" theory is crap, it always has been crap and it's never worked.
Small tax cut for the middle class. Tax credit for the working poor. No need to mess with corporate tax rates, just close the loopholes that let the majority of US corporations avoid paying taxes and institute a law that any profit earned on goods sold in the USA is taxed at USA rates. If you don't want to pay US tax rates, you don't get to sell to US consumers.
- Law & Order. We will not torture. Nor will we quibble about whether techniques classified as torture for five hundred years are really torture. The right laughed hysterically at Clinton quibbling about the meaning of "is" so they do not get to quibble about the meaning of "torture". The UN Declaration on Torture (which the US is a signatory to) expressly state that no special circumstances will excuse torture. While we're on the subject, anyone in custody is either a criminal, a civilian or a PoW and covered by the appropriate schedule of the Geneva Conventions. Since you aren't in a rebellion or invasion, they also have habeus corpus rights and criminals will get a fair trial as soon as is practical (just as the dozens of domestic terrorists already held in Supermax jails did).
The USA PATRIOT Act to be repealed in it's entirety and no, that doesn't endanger you in the slightest, STFU. The PATRIOT Act never had anything to do with preventing terrorism, it was about granting intelligence agencies every police-state fantasy they ever had. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land and the PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional abomination.
The system of allowing Presidents to nominate judges was intended to insulate judges from political pressure. It has done exactly the opposite, allowing the more authoritarian presidents (*coughBUSHcough*) to enshrine their personal bias to a lifetime appointment. However, allowing judges to be elected by the general public opens them to the same pressures as politicians and the general public don't understand the law anyway. Therefore, judges for the Appeals courts or SCOTUS will now be elected by the ABA (American Bar Association) for fixed terms of ten-years (from which, they may resign at any time) and no-one may stand in those elections until they have at least fifteen years experiance as a lawyer and/or lower court judge. While we're on the subject, anyone complaining about "activist judges" is to be bludgeoned with a large ripe haddock. We will pursue a Constitutional Amendment to this effect.
All "three strikes" laws to be struck down. Also, an inquiry will be convened with regard to the war crimes comitted under the Bush administration.
- Equal Rights. The ERA to be ratified at the first opportunity. Partial Birth Abortion Act repealed. FACE Act to be fully enforced. Federal hate crimes and anti-discrimination laws expanded to cover homosexuals. We will order the military to cease enforcement of DADT on our first day in office and repeal it fully at the first opportunity. DOMA is repealed as an unconstitutional challenge to the "full faith and credit" clause.
With regard to same-sex marriage, we are going to concede the word "marriage" to the collective church. However, that is [i]all[/i] we are conceding. We will enact law to ensure that the package of rights and responsibilities currently known as "marriage" will henceforth be available to any two mentally competent adults who register themselves as a Civil Union. For fairness, anyone already married when this law comes into effect will automatically gain Civil Union status in addition. In other words, if you want to have the legal rights with your partner (of either gender), you have to register as a Civil Union. If you want to take it further and have religious rites, that's fine, it's optional. The entire set of legal rights (such as but not limited to, presumptive inheritence, presumptive child custody, etc) shall now be granted to Civil Unions which shall be considered to take the place of the word "marriage" in all federal laws.
Also, cannabis is legalised for production, private consumption and sale from licensed vendors (i.e. vendors already holding a license to sell alcohol), subject to the exact same retrictions as alcohol (age-restricted and a ban on driving under the influence). If you wish to grow your own, that's the same as brewing one's own beer and none of the state's business. Also legalised federally is gambling (including sports gambling) in licensed premises.
- Religious Rights. All persons have every right to practice their faith and to freely worship as they see fit and our administration will not threaten that. However, your religious freedoms come with the responsibility to respect the religious freedoms of others. You cannot make law on a religious basis and any religious argument in law or public policy can and will be summarily ignored. If you hold an opinion for religious reasons, that's fine but you'll need to come up with a secular argument to justify it. You may not erect religious symbols on public property unless other religious/social groups (including athiests, for the purposes of this discussion) are free to do likewise. To put it another way: Erecting a cross alone on public property, not allowed. However, if a group of Christians wish to take up a collection to erect a cross on public property, they may do so, provided that Jews may put up a menorrah; Hindus may erect a statue of Shiva, Wiccans can erect a monument of the Wiccan Rede; athiests can erect a monument of, say, the "Coexist" logo and so on. The only acceptable reasons for refusing such a display shall be either that it contravenes obscenity laws or that it's physically dangerous.
- Education. No, you cannot teach creationism, cration science, intelligent design or whatever silly name you've come up with now in science class. It's not science. When you come up with a testable hypothesis that survives peer review, we'll talk. Science says that evolution, while incomplete, is the most likely explanation for humanity's current state. Creationism, if it is taught at all, shall be taught in Comparative Religions class. Nor can you have teacher-led prayer. Students may quietly pray whenever they wish so long as they do not endanger the class while doing so. Comprehensive sex education shall be taught, in an age appropriate manner, from the age of 11 onwards. Some children (mainly girls) may have already begun puberty by this point but the law must deal in averages. Machines vending condoms shall also be added to the bathrooms of male and female students (bite me, conservatives, no-one has a shag purely because there are rubbers available). All education shall be based on available evidence and teachers shall get a pay rise to the same level as a civil servant of comparable seniority. In exchange, teachers shall take a short test each year to ensure that they remain up to date on recent developments/discoveries in their field. teachers shall also be exempt from having to repay student loans after completing five years as a public school teacher. Any soft drinks vending machines installed on school grounds shall attract a 5% tax, to be funnelled straight back into education. Pay to play, guys.
- Healthcare. Our administration shall enact, as soon as possible, a system of universal healthcare, funded fom taxes. This shall include prescription drugs although we will ask citizens to pay a $15 charge as a contribution (inflation linked) for each prescription filled. Those below 18, over 60, in full time education, military service or receiving welfare payments shall be exempt fom this charge. Private insurance shall continue to be available for those who wish to pay for it. Medical students shall have their student loans written off after serving five years in the USHS (for lack of a better name). The USHS shall also absorb Medicare and Medicaid in the process of being rolled out. The combination of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance costs you around $2.3 trillion a year. A USHS run along the same lines as the French system (generally accepted as the world's best) would cost less than half of that. Contraception (including, but not limited to, birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, etc) shall be provided free of charge and exempt from prescription charges.
- Defence. A 20% cut in defence spending. America spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined. Last year's budget increase alone was larger than the entire budgets of your nearest four competitors. This isn't a "strong military", this is a mental illness. In terms of value for money, the Pentagon makes Enron look like a paragon of scrupulous accounting. Any person with some knowledge in this area could cut 10% off the budget just by eliminating the programs which are admitted to be obsolete.
Iraq is handed over the the Iraqi government. However, 50,000 troops shall remain there under the command of the Iraqi government. They shall be rotated out every six months and should the Iraqi government ever ask us to leave, they shall be brought home as quickly as logistically feasable with the exception of the American Embassy's security detail.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Rules
Never Trust A Politician - That's Rule 1. There might once have been a time when politicians were honest, noble creatures who laboured for the good of their constituents but that time has long passed, especially in the USA (with the legal bribery you refer to as "campaign contributions"). All politicians, with the possible exceptions of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (who I think is batshit but at least honest), will lie to you. They will do so shamelessly, convincingly and whenever it is convienient. The only difference is what they lie about. Currently, Democrats tend to lie about personal matters like extramarital affairs while Republicans tend to lie about policy things like reasons for starting wars, torture and the economy. Note that this can change and often does.
When George W Bush lied, it was easy to tell: His lips moved. Dick Cheney didn't bother lying, he just said "What the fuck are you going to do about it?" and then shot people. Their entire administration lied to torture people, essentially because they wanted to; shred the Constitution, essentially because they wanted to; avoid responsibility, essentially because they could and invade Iraq, essentially for the loot. Obama will lie to you if he's not doing so already. His lies will probably be smaller because Democrats tend to lack the same bully-boy bravado.
Rule 2 - Democracy Is Wasted On The People. There's this wonderful idea among political scientists that voters calmly take stock of the party positions before rationally casting a vote for the candidate who most closely reflects their own views. It's complete horseshit. People, as a mass, are dumb, stupid, panicky, not very intelligent, distrustful of intelligence, spiteful, greedy and vicious. As proof, I present Prop 8. A ballot initiative that might as well have been subtitled "let's stick it to the queers" and yet, the whim of the mob made it law and the California Supreme Court, in a decision I think is legally dubious and morally repugnant, said they could vote away people's rights by simple majority.
I'm not a big believer in democracy. During the 2008 campaign, much hay was made of the "elitist" label. The charge being that an elitist thought they were better than you and they knew how to run your life better than you did. Now, firstly, that's a misuse of the term and secondly, they probably could run your life better than you do. A fifth of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth, most than half don't accept evolution, a frightening number think your Founders were all Christians intending to create a Christian nation, Fox News is "fair and balanced" and more people follow American Idol than the nightly news. This is a people too stupid to be governed. And I'm not suggesting the British are much better. If there is a difference at all, it's only of tiny degrees. The national IQ of any nation is the IQ of it's dumbest resident divided by the number of people in the country.
I actually am an elitist. I believe nations should be run by their best and brightest citizens (which, I hasten to add, doesn't include me), not simply by their most typical. Democracy is, when applied as literally as the California Supreme Court did, simply a more organised system of mob rule and the mob are too damn stupid to rule themselves. They want government services but don't want to pay taxes, they want to smoke dope but don't want gay people to get hitched, they think global warmings a hoax and evolution never happened. If the British public can be represented by a braces and bowler hat commuter, the USA can be represented by an armed soccer hooligan.
So, I don't believe in democracy. It's a bad, fundementally flawed system but, as Sir Winston said, it's the best one we've yet come up with. Actually, one that works, at least for a while, is benevolent dictatorship. But the problem with that is that the dictator eventually dies and his successor may turn out to be Caligula.
When George W Bush lied, it was easy to tell: His lips moved. Dick Cheney didn't bother lying, he just said "What the fuck are you going to do about it?" and then shot people. Their entire administration lied to torture people, essentially because they wanted to; shred the Constitution, essentially because they wanted to; avoid responsibility, essentially because they could and invade Iraq, essentially for the loot. Obama will lie to you if he's not doing so already. His lies will probably be smaller because Democrats tend to lack the same bully-boy bravado.
Rule 2 - Democracy Is Wasted On The People. There's this wonderful idea among political scientists that voters calmly take stock of the party positions before rationally casting a vote for the candidate who most closely reflects their own views. It's complete horseshit. People, as a mass, are dumb, stupid, panicky, not very intelligent, distrustful of intelligence, spiteful, greedy and vicious. As proof, I present Prop 8. A ballot initiative that might as well have been subtitled "let's stick it to the queers" and yet, the whim of the mob made it law and the California Supreme Court, in a decision I think is legally dubious and morally repugnant, said they could vote away people's rights by simple majority.
I'm not a big believer in democracy. During the 2008 campaign, much hay was made of the "elitist" label. The charge being that an elitist thought they were better than you and they knew how to run your life better than you did. Now, firstly, that's a misuse of the term and secondly, they probably could run your life better than you do. A fifth of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth, most than half don't accept evolution, a frightening number think your Founders were all Christians intending to create a Christian nation, Fox News is "fair and balanced" and more people follow American Idol than the nightly news. This is a people too stupid to be governed. And I'm not suggesting the British are much better. If there is a difference at all, it's only of tiny degrees. The national IQ of any nation is the IQ of it's dumbest resident divided by the number of people in the country.
I actually am an elitist. I believe nations should be run by their best and brightest citizens (which, I hasten to add, doesn't include me), not simply by their most typical. Democracy is, when applied as literally as the California Supreme Court did, simply a more organised system of mob rule and the mob are too damn stupid to rule themselves. They want government services but don't want to pay taxes, they want to smoke dope but don't want gay people to get hitched, they think global warmings a hoax and evolution never happened. If the British public can be represented by a braces and bowler hat commuter, the USA can be represented by an armed soccer hooligan.
So, I don't believe in democracy. It's a bad, fundementally flawed system but, as Sir Winston said, it's the best one we've yet come up with. Actually, one that works, at least for a while, is benevolent dictatorship. But the problem with that is that the dictator eventually dies and his successor may turn out to be Caligula.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Words Mean Things
In my other life, I am a wrestling fan. Joey Styles, the former "Voice of ECW" managed to make himsel look incredibly silly a few days ago by describing Obama as a Marxist (Jim Cornette then gloriously pwned him on Jimbo's podcast). So, in the interest of advancing the education of (mostly) Americans, let's talk about what a few words mean:
Socialism - Socialism is a left-wing theory of economics, probably rating about a 6 on a ten-point political scale (with the centre at 0). It's main feature is that it proposes state ownership of the means of production and distribution and it is explicitely a class-based theory. The idea is that the ownership class uses and abuses it's ownership to surpress the working class. Therefore, if the state owns the means of production and distrbution, it can ensure fair recompence for labour and purchase, thereby creating a fairer society. You may or may not agree with the theory but there it is.
Here is what socialism is NOT: Spending on social programs, raising taxes on the rich, universal healthcare. None of those things are part of socialism. The right are simply lying about that. Attempting to create a fairer society is not, in and of itself, socialism. Nor is socialism some kind of virus where, if you allow the tiniest hint of socialism, you wake up in 1959 Moscow. It doesn't work like that. Here in Britain, we have had Socialist governments (Labour was an outright socialist party for most of it's existance). Some were good, some were bad, one was a disaster but none turned the nation into the UKSR, came anywhere near or even tried to do so. Universal healthcare is socialised, not socialist. Clear?
Marxism/Communism - Marxism is another left-wing ideaology, rating probably about an 8 or 9. Marxism is an extension of the pre-existing theory of socialism into the political arena which socialism has little to say about. Essentially, the idea can be summed up as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" i.e. that the state would take control of any produce beyond that required by the producer for their needs and redistribute that according to the needs of others. Over time, the state would become less and less involved in this movement of produce and eventually wither away entirely, creating a form of communalist anarchist utopia. So there's the theory.
It's worth noting that not one country which has ever attempted Marxism has ended up with Communism as Marx envisioned it. In the opinion of many (including myself), that's because Marx's vision, while noble, was unworkable. Communism as Marx envisioned it requires humans to be a great deal nicer than humans actually are. It doesn't account for the greed endemic in human nature. Nor does it provide any incentive for producers to produce beyond their needs other than the vagaries of human nature. If you have the same opinion of human nature as myself, that would explain why it's unworkable.
What enforced Communism actually produces in the real world is Soviet Communism (note that, despite the name, this is used to cover Cuba, Yugoslavia, China and so on, despite the forms being slightly different and China having this really weird hybrid). You all know about Soviet Communism so there's no need to examine it in great detail except to point out that it was a million miles from Marx's intentions but probably the closest anyone could come in the real world. So, Marx took the already existing theory of socialism, expanded it into Communism, Russia (and other nations) aimed for Communism and ended up with Soviet Communism. Clear?
Fascism - Fascism is probably the most abused word in political history. The name comes from the fasces, a bundle of rods carried by the Roman Lictors, bodyguards to the elected leaders of Rome, the Consuls (note, this does NOT make the fasces the symbol of fascism). Fascism is an extreme-right theory, around a 9 or 10 which presupposes the pre-eminence of the state, that all individual interests should be sublimated to the interests of the state. In the early 20th century, it was a fashionable theory and several countries adopted it to various degrees, most notoriously Nazi Germany.
Now, fascism has various features, some of which are disputed but the ones which are generally agreed are prominent and continuing nationalism; near-worship of the military; some degree of fusion between the state and corporate worlds; retreat from pre-existing democratic ideals and the designation of certain groups (often, but not necessarily, racial groups) as semi-official scapegoats. "Fascism" is NOT a synonym for "authoritarian" although fascist nations almost always are authoritarian in practice in the same way that racism is not necessarily a requirement of fascism but fascist regimes are almost always racist. "Authoritarian" simply indicates any state which abuses human rights, "fascism" is a specific set of reasons for doing so.
All clear? Good (and you should now know why "Islamofascism" is a nonsense word).
Having read this far, you can probably see why the Obama Administration is none of these things. Raising taxes on the richest by 3-4% is not socialism or communism and the idea that a Marxist would want to expand government is laughable. During the Eisenhower era, the top tax rate hovered between 85% and 91%. Was he a socialist or a communist?
"Tax-and-Spend" - One of the great myths of politics is that only liberals tax and spend. Taxing and spending is kinda what all governments require; in a very real sense, it's the definition of what governments do: Taking money from some (in the form of taxes) and then spending it on, say, an army. All governments do this. The reason the right hurls the insult at liberals is the difference in what the taxes are being spent on. Conservatives (or people who call themselves conservative anyway) spend them on the military (and the US has a massively bloated military budget for that reason) and on tax cuts for the very richest. Liberals spend them on trying to provide for the poorest and can therefore be demonised for it (the entire US political arena having swallowed Ayn Rand's batshit theories whole). Both sides spend money on earmark projects, most (but not all) of which are unnecessary.
Socialism - Socialism is a left-wing theory of economics, probably rating about a 6 on a ten-point political scale (with the centre at 0). It's main feature is that it proposes state ownership of the means of production and distribution and it is explicitely a class-based theory. The idea is that the ownership class uses and abuses it's ownership to surpress the working class. Therefore, if the state owns the means of production and distrbution, it can ensure fair recompence for labour and purchase, thereby creating a fairer society. You may or may not agree with the theory but there it is.
Here is what socialism is NOT: Spending on social programs, raising taxes on the rich, universal healthcare. None of those things are part of socialism. The right are simply lying about that. Attempting to create a fairer society is not, in and of itself, socialism. Nor is socialism some kind of virus where, if you allow the tiniest hint of socialism, you wake up in 1959 Moscow. It doesn't work like that. Here in Britain, we have had Socialist governments (Labour was an outright socialist party for most of it's existance). Some were good, some were bad, one was a disaster but none turned the nation into the UKSR, came anywhere near or even tried to do so. Universal healthcare is socialised, not socialist. Clear?
Marxism/Communism - Marxism is another left-wing ideaology, rating probably about an 8 or 9. Marxism is an extension of the pre-existing theory of socialism into the political arena which socialism has little to say about. Essentially, the idea can be summed up as "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" i.e. that the state would take control of any produce beyond that required by the producer for their needs and redistribute that according to the needs of others. Over time, the state would become less and less involved in this movement of produce and eventually wither away entirely, creating a form of communalist anarchist utopia. So there's the theory.
It's worth noting that not one country which has ever attempted Marxism has ended up with Communism as Marx envisioned it. In the opinion of many (including myself), that's because Marx's vision, while noble, was unworkable. Communism as Marx envisioned it requires humans to be a great deal nicer than humans actually are. It doesn't account for the greed endemic in human nature. Nor does it provide any incentive for producers to produce beyond their needs other than the vagaries of human nature. If you have the same opinion of human nature as myself, that would explain why it's unworkable.
What enforced Communism actually produces in the real world is Soviet Communism (note that, despite the name, this is used to cover Cuba, Yugoslavia, China and so on, despite the forms being slightly different and China having this really weird hybrid). You all know about Soviet Communism so there's no need to examine it in great detail except to point out that it was a million miles from Marx's intentions but probably the closest anyone could come in the real world. So, Marx took the already existing theory of socialism, expanded it into Communism, Russia (and other nations) aimed for Communism and ended up with Soviet Communism. Clear?
Fascism - Fascism is probably the most abused word in political history. The name comes from the fasces, a bundle of rods carried by the Roman Lictors, bodyguards to the elected leaders of Rome, the Consuls (note, this does NOT make the fasces the symbol of fascism). Fascism is an extreme-right theory, around a 9 or 10 which presupposes the pre-eminence of the state, that all individual interests should be sublimated to the interests of the state. In the early 20th century, it was a fashionable theory and several countries adopted it to various degrees, most notoriously Nazi Germany.
Now, fascism has various features, some of which are disputed but the ones which are generally agreed are prominent and continuing nationalism; near-worship of the military; some degree of fusion between the state and corporate worlds; retreat from pre-existing democratic ideals and the designation of certain groups (often, but not necessarily, racial groups) as semi-official scapegoats. "Fascism" is NOT a synonym for "authoritarian" although fascist nations almost always are authoritarian in practice in the same way that racism is not necessarily a requirement of fascism but fascist regimes are almost always racist. "Authoritarian" simply indicates any state which abuses human rights, "fascism" is a specific set of reasons for doing so.
All clear? Good (and you should now know why "Islamofascism" is a nonsense word).
Having read this far, you can probably see why the Obama Administration is none of these things. Raising taxes on the richest by 3-4% is not socialism or communism and the idea that a Marxist would want to expand government is laughable. During the Eisenhower era, the top tax rate hovered between 85% and 91%. Was he a socialist or a communist?
"Tax-and-Spend" - One of the great myths of politics is that only liberals tax and spend. Taxing and spending is kinda what all governments require; in a very real sense, it's the definition of what governments do: Taking money from some (in the form of taxes) and then spending it on, say, an army. All governments do this. The reason the right hurls the insult at liberals is the difference in what the taxes are being spent on. Conservatives (or people who call themselves conservative anyway) spend them on the military (and the US has a massively bloated military budget for that reason) and on tax cuts for the very richest. Liberals spend them on trying to provide for the poorest and can therefore be demonised for it (the entire US political arena having swallowed Ayn Rand's batshit theories whole). Both sides spend money on earmark projects, most (but not all) of which are unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
