How Do You Pass A Stimulus?

Well, the answer the first time around was: Load it with Pork and grab a couple of Republicans to join in the fun.

The answer the second time is: Load it with Pork and grab a couple of Republicans to join in the fun.

And who makes out? The National Institutes of Health, to the tune of 6.5 billion. Great cause, led by Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA). Because the health of our economy lies with the health of our people. Hopefully some of this money will be used to stimulate the economy in a timely manner.

Some of the other Pork? The Washington Post has a great graphic here describing the basic spending areas, but doesn't really get into the overall Pork nature of the funding. But the question I have is, if this is all being divided up amongst different branches of the Government as spending, then why not just do it in Budget?

And, why is the Real Issue not being addressed? What is causing this collapse? Are we witnessing the end of our economic system? Is this just a massive, worldwide market adjustment? Did we finally build enough stuff and now we have enough? Did a massive population of people die off somewhere that we aren't aware of? Can the whole world economy collapse this quickly because a couple trillion dollars worth of bad assets were created in unregulated trading environments?

Is this the beginning of the end of the USA, and the world governments?

Obama upholds Faith Policy

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-faith6-2009feb06,0,2126007.story

So is this good or bad? What does it say about our new President? Has he broken a campaign promise for political purposes, or is it more than that? Was there actually a campaign promise regarding this?

Or, was it an informed decision that changed from the campaign trail to the White House, with new information at his (Obama's) disposal? It seems like this can be viewed a number of ways. On the one hand, it leaves a program in place that George W. put into place, which means that any number of Republicans, especially religious leaders, should applaud him for. On the other hand, Democrats are angry with him about this as they believe Federal funds should not go to any organization that sets hiring criteria based on religion (which opens the door to discriminate against certain sub groups, namely gays, lesbians).

However, he has left himself an out:
"In essence, the executive order, which did not specifically mention discrimination, gives the White House the option to review a specific grant for legal reasons but does not overturn Bush's broader policy."

So on a case by case basis, Obama could theoretically suspend funding if a church was to be deemed discriminatory against the policy of law. Leaving the door wide open for a targetted, specific purge of funds against churches that don't get along with the Administration.

So, good deed, or good way of controlling the churches?

Rod Blagojevich Impeachment Trial

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-trial,0,6323910.story

The thing that strikes me about this whole trial, both the impeachment portion as well as the future criminal trial, is the presumption of guilt. While the Governor did himself no favors by not attending the majority of his trial, it still seems like most of the Senators have already made up their minds. Guilty, and must be removed. Same with Rod's adoring public.

So what happened to the presumption of Innocence? What is going to happen if Rod is removed from office in a trial where he could not adequately defend himself (according to his media blitz, he was not being allowed to call witness to defend him if the information would taint the Federal criminal trial)? What if he is exonerated in the criminal trial, found innocent on all counts, and has been banned permanently from politics in Illinois for life?

Maybe Illinois needs to re-work their laws on impeachment. I don't see how Rod could have mounted any sort of defense with the rules the way they are being portrayed as. Maybe I'm just cynical and think that all Illinois politicians are corrupt, and that this is nothing but a Mickey Mouse trial for political reasons.

Ah well. Good luck, Rod, if you are innocent.

What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us?

Well, not us, but the Jews. In Monthy Python's Life of Brian, this is a great scene where rabble rousing is going on, without much success.





Which my fellow blogger victorsleeps will probably appreciate as a perfect example of why big government is doomed to fail. No matter how much is provided, some people will never be content and always want more.

The Communitarian Party

Based on the idea of Communitarianism, The Communitarian Party is dedicated to a balance of civic society and individual rights. I like the philosophical portion of the idea,
"Communitarian philosophers are primarily concerned with ontological and epistemological issues, as distinct from policy issues."
I think this is one of the things that always gets me intangled in arguments - I like to look at the overall picture and explore the boundaries of the argument, but in doing so inevitably get tagged as being on one side or the other. Getting out of the mire of that is a difficult and usually impossible effort.

Back to the Communitarians:
"Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution."

And here is where they will find themselves opposed. They are going to have a really hard time explaining why they aren't just liberals dressed up in another set of clothes. It has been described as being a radical centrist point of view. This might be a difficult concept to swallow, but the theory behind it is very intriguing.

Here is a list of what "Radical Centrists" might believe:

• Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential
• Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referenda)
• Being of concrete help to those in the developing world
• Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality
• Build character by promoting conscious moral choices
• Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships
• Possess a foundation of traditional values and common sense
• Enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism

It actually sounds like a good thing, going down the middle of the path and taking the best ideas of both extreme Left and Right and combining them into a cohesive set of principles that seeks the balance. But it also sounds like there are some who are opposed to this seemingly idealistic political movement as another tool of a sinister One World Government.


At least one blogger is pointing out how Communitarianism is part of a vast network of change that is striving for the collapse of civilized governments as we know them and replace them with a single, global political state. Churches with communitarian themes are to avoided as nothing more than brainwashing camps to enable the OWG (One World Government) to take over.

It looks like the anti-conspiracy side has it's heros, though, that oppose this benevolent sounding message. Take this about the president of the Czech Republic.

"Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, can drive communists, leftists, Greens, and one-world globalists to near apoplectic fury. However, the popular Czech statesman (finance minister, 1989-1992; prime minister, 1992-1997; president since 2003, reelected 2008) has become a hero to a growing tide of Europeans from Prague to London who are resisting the increasingly oppressive rule by the European Union’s bureaucrats in Brussels and the socialist-dominated European Parliament in Strasbourg."

Not all Communitarians believe this, surprisingly. Check out this blog by Niki Raapana, who talks extensively about Communitarians.

"But, and here's the real kicker, many people I know have completely embraced communitarian values! I am hearing more communitarian double-speak every day, and it's beyond bizarre to listen to it. I am beginning to wonder seriously about my choice to remain in the US and to reject the new requirements for global citizenship here where I was born with the right and the responsibility to resist tyranny. Now I can plainly see it, my countrymen will turn on me next time for not wearing the new shackles we all have to volunteer to wear under my grandious, insane delusion that there is a whole new system of government called communitarianism."

An interesting philosophy, nonetheless. Might bear some looking into.

Links
The Communitarian Party Blog
An Interesting Communitarian Blogger, Niki Raapanaort

PETA Sexy Ad Banned

http://www.ireallyshouldstudy.com/entertainment/2009/01/28/peta-ad-is-just-too-sexy-for-the-super-bowl/

So NBC finds this ad too sexy, and will not air it during the Super Bowl. I wonder if the execs over there have ever seen a beer commercial. It also makes me wonder about the current lineup on TV overall. Too much sex, too much violence. But people have been saying that since I was a kid, and I don't see that much has changed. Sure, you can say some "dirty" words on Network TV that I never heard as a kid, but I sure as heck heard those words outside the TV.

And I grew up on violent movies. They've been around since well before I was even born. Yet I have been in one fight in my adult life, at age 18.

So explain, please, why some commercials should be allowed to be "sexy" and some should not? Is it the content of the message? The innuendos? Or is it the PETA that is being discriminated against?

I think it is hyprocrisy to ban a commercial like this, that utilizes sex to sell something ostensibly good, i.e. vegetarianism, while they allow commercials that utilize sex to sell something destructive, i.e. beer. Why is it OK to sexualize addictive drinks, but not healthy food?

The Next Bail-Out (Part 1)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2738007120090127?pageNumber=1

"An $825 billion economic stimulus bill advanced another step on Tuesday, as the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $365.6 billion portion of it as President-elect Barack Obama met with Republican lawmakers in an attempt to broaden support."

So we spend 700B on the first bail out, to fix the financial industry. That doesn't work, and the economy is still shedding jobs. The bottom still hasn't been found. Noone can seem to explain why the economy is in such shambles. "It's the real estate market." "It's the financial speculation market." "It's the auto industry." Whatever the current "reason" is for the economy being in such poor shape, it doesn't seem like pouring money into a broken system has done much to stem the tide.

So let's pour some more.

Now granted, this new bailout (actually being called a stimulus package) is geared more towards actually getting money into the hands of people to do some work. A blogger I know posted a while back about the proposed stimulus. Now this seems to be proceeding and will end up passing. So we just need to build some roads, and all our economic woes will be over? Hardly.

So what should we be pouring?

I think the the economy is in shambles, yes. But the key to moving forward is not to stimulate it artificially. It is not to bail out all the failed actors who are causes or victims of it. People will survive. The smart will have planned ahead, and will be able to weather it. The not so smart will be lean and hungry for a long time, but hopefully will come through. The dumb? That is the real problem, isn't it?

People who have been responsible and didn't over spend, and socked away during the good times, will now suffer and have to expend their savings, and cut back. The ones who didn't will get help from the government. It is still not decided, apparently, what kind of help. But you can't just let people starve to death, can you?

The government has to fix it, don't they?