This week’s Aggregate includes only one political article (I was highly tempted to include the ridiculous Politico piece about Matt Drudge being responsible for the dollar’s decline), but instead focuses more on science & technology. However, with Congress inching closer to a vote on ObamaCare, next week is likely to include more political content.
1
A finely toned sense of pattern recognition is the perfect compliment to a thorough understanding of history: while the latter provides the context, the former provides insight to the current, as well as the future. This article, much like the bestselling Liberty & Tyranny, describes our current state in the context of the past. The paragraph about future politicians being forced to support Universal Healthcare the way that Social Security is now supported was particularly insightful.
2
In the age of Google, and Wikipedia, much of the debates around the kitchen table end prematurely when someone whips out their iPhone in search of getting it right. New research in the Scientific American suggests that and getting it wrong the first time, and only then looking it up will lead to better comprehension. This research is particularly interesting in light of the American educational system's focus on giving away answers for fear of diminishing a student's self esteem. Looks like failing a few times really does help drive a point home.
3
Speaking of failing, Microsoft released Windows 7 this week, which caused a bit of reflection as to why Vista was such a problem. This blog post by the very talented Marco Arment looks beyond Vista's technological blunders to the bigger picture, and the computer industry's current approach to its customers.
4
Just a few minutes after finishing my laundry last week, I happened upon this Popular Science article about the latest advancements in clothes washing. While the technology seems impressive (it comes out of Xerox no less), I'd like to see how clean it actually gets clothes comparing to conventional machines. Also intriguing is the article on that same page about energy efficient appliances.
5
Lastly this week is not so much an article but a new feature from AT&T called A-List, which allows you to talk to 5 of your contacts for as much as you want without it counting against your monthly minute allowance. I hadn't seen much publicity for this feature, probably due to the fact that it is free for AT&T customers with cell phone plans that cost $59 and above, meaning that almost all iPhone customers are eligible. Combined with Rollover minutes, this almost makes up for AT&T's notorious lack of service coverage.
The article "When Tyranny Calls" clearly has a very distinct slant and goal to it. However I feel that it especially misses the point in a number of areas: 1) I would argue that politicians in general, not just the far left, seek office, "only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently". Candidates from both parties once elected immediately begin to try and figure out how to be re-elected. 2) I found the poll from Fox to be misleading at best. After only a very quick search I found, "Fifty percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday morning say they support the president's plans, with 45 percent opposed." Almost the exact opposite statistics that Fox sites.
I guess my overall problem with the article comes down to a difference in philosophy of the role of government: I feel that government should be there to protect, insure, and if necessary, provide for the fundamental rights of its citizens. Versus a belief that the role of government should be to provide a framework for the free market to function. Leaving such important things, such as healthcare, to the free market however inevitably leads to the people with the least being further marginalized which we can see just by looking at the current system in place.
First off, thanks for commenting – the precise purpose of these posts is to inspire conversation among those that read them. Let me reply to your points in the order you made them:
First of all, short of watching CSPAN (as our good friend Jyot does), there are little-to-no articles which are written without explicit slant and goal to them. That said, everyone reads (and in this case shares) the articles that resonate with them, regardless of slant.
Second, your point about the reasons that politicians seek office is completely correct – its not about right or left – all politicians fight for reelection the minute they get into office. The article, if you look again, is making this very point – "No longer do politicians seek office as protectors of life, liberty and property — they seek only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently." It is stating that this is not a partisan problem but a problem with the system in general, and the point of the statement is that the author (and I), lament the current state of affairs where term limits have given way to the ego-stroking despotism of the career politician, on both sides of the aisle.
Third, the poll, as with the article, is a matter of personal preference. As we all know, polling is about as reliable as the statistics they produce (just look at polling of likely voters vs registered voters, and you'll get more confused the more information you get).
Your final point about the differences in the role of government is also completely correct – what exactly this role should be is the wedge which divides the conservative and the liberal. You state that the government should provide for A, B, and C. The problem is in that one word: should. In reality, when has the government efficiently done anything on this scale? The key is to look to history once again, and you'll see the government's track record. Social security – on its way to devastating bankruptcy. Medicare – on its way to bankruptcy. Education – consistently below average worldwide rankings. I mean even on a much smaller scale – take Cash for Clunkers – it cost the taxpayers $24,000 per car, and that's reported by the consistently 4th place (and White House favorite) CNN news.
But unclenching the rusty fist of government from major elements of the economy (take then internet for example with the passage of the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act in 1992) allows the free market to work more efficiently. Therefore, what we need is the government to back off, permit interstate insurance markets, allow employer created health savings accounts, enact tort reform, etc.
Even if we ignore the (historical) fact that large entitlement programs always bankrupt our economy, hurt the very people they're intended to help (look at LBJ's Great Society and its effects on the African American family), and burden our children with empty promises in exchange for some feel-good politics, we still have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Where in the Constitution (or even the Declaration of Independence) does it say that healthcare is a fundamental right?
Trying to redistribute anything (including healthcare) will result not in "the people with the least" getting healthcare but instead everyone getting some shoddy form of rationed medicine – take it from someone who is the product of a socialist country and whose parents don't hesitate to share the greatness of a system which provides its citizens nothing in exchange for all they have.
And that's despite the fact that we don't even have enough doctors for everyone. So the solution is to lower wages for doctors? Lower Medicare and Medicaid payments? Your school loans are going to love that when you get out, and so are everyone else's.
Would love to hear what you think!
First off, thanks for commenting – the precise purpose of these posts is to inspire conversation among those that read them. Let me reply to your points in the order you made them:
First of all, short of watching CSPAN (as our good friend Jyot does), there are little-to-no articles which are written without explicit slant and goal to them. That said, everyone reads (and in this case shares) the articles that resonate with them, regardless of slant.
Second, your point about the reasons that politicians seek office is completely correct – its not about right or left – all politicians fight for reelection the minute they get into office. The article, if you look again, is making this very point – "No longer do politicians seek office as protectors of life, liberty and property — they seek only to run the oppressive bureaucratic state more efficiently." It is stating that this is not a partisan problem but a problem with the system in general, and the point of the statement is that the author (and I), lament the current state of affairs where term limits have given way to the ego-stroking despotism of the career politician, on both sides of the aisle.
Third, the poll, as with the article, is a matter of personal preference. As we all know, polling is about as reliable as the statistics they produce (just look at polling of likely voters vs registered voters, and you'll get more confused the more information you get).
Your final point about the differences in the role of government is also completely correct – what exactly this role should be is the wedge which divides the conservative and the liberal. You state that the government should provide for A, B, and C. The problem is in that one word: should. In reality, when has the government efficiently done anything on this scale? The key is to look to history once again, and you'll see the government's track record. Social security – on its way to devastating bankruptcy. Medicare – on its way to bankruptcy. Education – consistently below average worldwide rankings. I mean even on a much smaller scale – take Cash for Clunkers – it cost the taxpayers $24,000 per car, and that's reported by the consistently 4th place (and White House favorite) CNN news.
But unclenching the rusty fist of government from major elements of the economy (take then internet for example with the passage of the Scientific and Advanced Technology Act in 1992) allows the free market to work more efficiently. Therefore, what we need is the government to back off, permit interstate insurance markets, allow employer created health savings accounts, enact tort reform, etc.
Even if we ignore the (historical) fact that large entitlement programs always bankrupt our economy, hurt the very people they're intended to help (look at LBJ's Great Society and its effects on the African American family), and burden our children with empty promises in exchange for some feel-good politics, we still have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Where in the Constitution (or even the Declaration of Independence) does it say that healthcare is a fundamental right?
Trying to redistribute anything (including healthcare) will result not in "the people with the least" getting healthcare but instead everyone getting some shoddy form of rationed medicine – take it from someone who is the product of a socialist country and whose parents don't hesitate to share the greatness of a system which provides its citizens nothing in exchange for all they have.
And that's despite the fact that we don't even have enough doctors for everyone. So the solution is to lower wages for doctors? Lower Medicare and Medicaid payments? Your school loans are going to love that when you get out, and so are everyone else's.
Would love to hear what you think!