This author does an excellent job of explaining the problems with universal health care.
Health Care Mythology (20 minutes of reading)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Prayer and Politics
We need to pray for those politicians and others who seek to do what is right. They need God's help to be able to anticipate and prepare for the needs of the future. They need His aid to prepare against changes in politics that would destabilize provident and good living. They need our prayers, as well, that they might be able to discern between honest men and deception, and bring dirty politics to light.
In my opinion, our nation needs God's help. We need God's help to understand what to do. I hope we all ask Him to guide us in our decisions, opinions, sources of information, and in who we support.
In my opinion, our nation needs God's help. We need God's help to understand what to do. I hope we all ask Him to guide us in our decisions, opinions, sources of information, and in who we support.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Reasons to oppose government healthcare.
The first article gives three main points:
1) The need for personal responsibility in providing for others.
2) The need for checks and balances to prevent abuse.
3) Hesitance to make irrevocable change.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-conservatives-oppose-universal.html
Another blogger pointed at this site, which collects articles on many aspects of the debate:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
Here is another article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html
For me, what it really comes down to are philosophical and religious in nature, and the opinions I have are based on those principles. Others who share those principles disagree. I think it would take a book to treat the whole issue. I present some principles and subsequent opinions below. For evidences of these things, please read the sources I already gave.
Principle 1: Self-reliance and personal responsibility. One religious leader I respect said he would not do for another man what he could do for himself. Another said that any government aid program should encourage people to become self-reliant. I once heard someone say that discomfort motivates the idle to make something of themselves. Human nature tends to favor reliance on others or the system, and abandonment of responsibility. Also, putting large programs in place tends to quell people's sense of responsibility. A friend of mine who volunteers for emergency services pointed out that since the advent of cell phones, people are less likely to stop and help on an accident scene. I think cell phones are not the cause of this behavior, but an evidence of an increasing attitude that others (read: government) can take care of the problem.
Principle 2: Individuality and Customizability: Governments can either spend a lot of money micromanaging individuals, or spend a lot of money on fraud and getting jipped. I once heard a financial advisor say he believes there's no magic solution to saving, spending, or managing finances: that the individual is the best judge of his own needs.
Principle 3: Choice, aka Freedom, aka Ownership: If government takes responsibility for healthcare, then any failures are the responsibility of government, and government is slow and hard to adapt to new situations. Also, we are hardly taught sacrifice and compassion, nor given the parallel blessings from god for such, by being forced to do charity, nor of giving from the pockets of our neighbors.
Principle 4: Power corrupts. Our nation was founded by men who did not trust power or government--hence the checks and balances. The use of force means that we have no alternatives if anything goes awry. Right now, if you dislike the system, you can change to a different system.
Principle 5: Lawfulness. The US. Constitution currently does not allow government welfare (see the 10th amendment). We should follow the higher law of the land, or amend the constitution. I favor the former, not the latter. Also, Bastiat defined justice and law in his pamphlet "The Law", and explains it very well.
Principle 6: Privacy. In order to grant such comprehensive healthcare, the government must be made much more aware of the details of our lives. Privacy has to do with decisional interference, chilling free speech, and many other things that most people don't consider fall in that realm. Daniel Solove has written books, articles, and papers on the issues of privacy. I also found a book via google on the surveillance of government in the lives of single mothers on welfare in the USA--I didn't read it but its premise was a bit uncomfortable.
Principle 7: If someone is failing, don't give him power to fail bigger. The government health care system isn't working. Giving it more money is a bad idea. Why give someone with a poor track record more power to make a poor track record? Also, refer to previous principles.
Finally, I give a glimpse of evidence. A member of my family has experienced a life under government healthcare. He has seen people become less willing to help, their consciences salved somewhat by the presence of government healthcare. The government help is always insufficient, slow, officious, and expensive in time and effort that one who is sick already has little to spare. It rarely meets all the individual and precise needs, and often requires silly or inapplicable tests or paperwork. It prevents him from saving money and thus becoming self-reliant. The benefits are effectively reduced from year to year despite so-called adjustments for inflation. And so forth...
1) The need for personal responsibility in providing for others.
2) The need for checks and balances to prevent abuse.
3) Hesitance to make irrevocable change.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-conservatives-oppose-universal.html
Another blogger pointed at this site, which collects articles on many aspects of the debate:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
Here is another article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html
For me, what it really comes down to are philosophical and religious in nature, and the opinions I have are based on those principles. Others who share those principles disagree. I think it would take a book to treat the whole issue. I present some principles and subsequent opinions below. For evidences of these things, please read the sources I already gave.
Principle 1: Self-reliance and personal responsibility. One religious leader I respect said he would not do for another man what he could do for himself. Another said that any government aid program should encourage people to become self-reliant. I once heard someone say that discomfort motivates the idle to make something of themselves. Human nature tends to favor reliance on others or the system, and abandonment of responsibility. Also, putting large programs in place tends to quell people's sense of responsibility. A friend of mine who volunteers for emergency services pointed out that since the advent of cell phones, people are less likely to stop and help on an accident scene. I think cell phones are not the cause of this behavior, but an evidence of an increasing attitude that others (read: government) can take care of the problem.
Principle 2: Individuality and Customizability: Governments can either spend a lot of money micromanaging individuals, or spend a lot of money on fraud and getting jipped. I once heard a financial advisor say he believes there's no magic solution to saving, spending, or managing finances: that the individual is the best judge of his own needs.
Principle 3: Choice, aka Freedom, aka Ownership: If government takes responsibility for healthcare, then any failures are the responsibility of government, and government is slow and hard to adapt to new situations. Also, we are hardly taught sacrifice and compassion, nor given the parallel blessings from god for such, by being forced to do charity, nor of giving from the pockets of our neighbors.
Principle 4: Power corrupts. Our nation was founded by men who did not trust power or government--hence the checks and balances. The use of force means that we have no alternatives if anything goes awry. Right now, if you dislike the system, you can change to a different system.
Principle 5: Lawfulness. The US. Constitution currently does not allow government welfare (see the 10th amendment). We should follow the higher law of the land, or amend the constitution. I favor the former, not the latter. Also, Bastiat defined justice and law in his pamphlet "The Law", and explains it very well.
Principle 6: Privacy. In order to grant such comprehensive healthcare, the government must be made much more aware of the details of our lives. Privacy has to do with decisional interference, chilling free speech, and many other things that most people don't consider fall in that realm. Daniel Solove has written books, articles, and papers on the issues of privacy. I also found a book via google on the surveillance of government in the lives of single mothers on welfare in the USA--I didn't read it but its premise was a bit uncomfortable.
Principle 7: If someone is failing, don't give him power to fail bigger. The government health care system isn't working. Giving it more money is a bad idea. Why give someone with a poor track record more power to make a poor track record? Also, refer to previous principles.
Finally, I give a glimpse of evidence. A member of my family has experienced a life under government healthcare. He has seen people become less willing to help, their consciences salved somewhat by the presence of government healthcare. The government help is always insufficient, slow, officious, and expensive in time and effort that one who is sick already has little to spare. It rarely meets all the individual and precise needs, and often requires silly or inapplicable tests or paperwork. It prevents him from saving money and thus becoming self-reliant. The benefits are effectively reduced from year to year despite so-called adjustments for inflation. And so forth...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Creativity and Math
I am listening to an interview on http://radio.lds.org/mc/eng/ of a professor (Mark Henderson?) from weber state university--a conversation about creativity. People tend to be suspicious of, or judge as weird, those who are creative. They also point out that teachers struggle to encourage students to take risks. They talked about how when the wall came down in Germany, students who were asked to draw a picture did not draw because they were not told what to draw--they were told to draw what they wanted--and they didn't get it.
President Uchtdorf said that it is part of our nature to be creative. To improvise. It is part of who we are.
I think I realized something during this. Most people dislike math; I love math (not as much as many, but it's great). I think I began to love math when I saw it as an outlet for creative thought. Even though math is very restrictive with rigid rules, there comes a point where concepts can be applied in new ways. You may be restricted by the rules, but you can still create a proof or a problem, then solve it. I also loved math because I was thinking about how I would teach it to someone else. It might have started as a study technique, or not. Teaching is also a creative activity. For me, math came alive when I was able to exercise my creativity with it--especially in problem solving, especially in Algebra and Geometry. I think of the analogy of the kite--the string both restricts it and holds it up. In the same way, creativity in mathematics and any other field must be held up by the very rules which restrict it. Without those rules, whatever they are, I believe there could be no creative endeavor.
Perhaps students fail at math, and dislike math because they are not shown or taught how to be creative. They are given rules and problems, and they do the homework. They either get the answers right or wrong. They are rewarded for conforming to rules like everybody else. They are being acted upon, more than they are acting. The only things they can create are a correct answer. They are rarely if ever rewarded for an original approach, an original solution, and even less common is to ask students to create a problem or teach.
For any teachers out there--is there something new students could do, to learn how to be creative and free because of math?
President Uchtdorf said that it is part of our nature to be creative. To improvise. It is part of who we are.
I think I realized something during this. Most people dislike math; I love math (not as much as many, but it's great). I think I began to love math when I saw it as an outlet for creative thought. Even though math is very restrictive with rigid rules, there comes a point where concepts can be applied in new ways. You may be restricted by the rules, but you can still create a proof or a problem, then solve it. I also loved math because I was thinking about how I would teach it to someone else. It might have started as a study technique, or not. Teaching is also a creative activity. For me, math came alive when I was able to exercise my creativity with it--especially in problem solving, especially in Algebra and Geometry. I think of the analogy of the kite--the string both restricts it and holds it up. In the same way, creativity in mathematics and any other field must be held up by the very rules which restrict it. Without those rules, whatever they are, I believe there could be no creative endeavor.
Perhaps students fail at math, and dislike math because they are not shown or taught how to be creative. They are given rules and problems, and they do the homework. They either get the answers right or wrong. They are rewarded for conforming to rules like everybody else. They are being acted upon, more than they are acting. The only things they can create are a correct answer. They are rarely if ever rewarded for an original approach, an original solution, and even less common is to ask students to create a problem or teach.
For any teachers out there--is there something new students could do, to learn how to be creative and free because of math?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
We plan to bait and switch you. Click here to agree.
Why is it that so many privacy policies and EULA's state that they can change whenever the site or publisher has a whim to do so? I might quote some examples later, but I don't have time right now.
Well, I got to thinking: why do people even put up with that kind of nonsense? What happened to loyalty? I think it's a reciprocal relationship. If you find businesses that are dedicated to serving their customers (read: they won't change their promised contractual relationship on you) you can give them your loyalty. But why do so many customers give their loyalty to companies who have long drawn out agreements only half of us really could understand--if we tried really hard.
Well, I guess I just remembered my earlier post about mozy. I found a worse agreement recently, where basically the site said they could change the agreement--and they would only post a notice on their site for a day. They just keep pushing the limits. Well, there are online services out there that can watch for changes on a webpage. So if you presuppose that the privacy agreement won't move to a new webpage, you can set up a service to notify you whenever one of your many favorite sites changes their agreement.
One of the great things about del.icio.us and google is that they make sure you can take your personal information away from them, and still have it. Del.icio.us lets you download a backup of your bookmarks that can be imported to firefox or internet explorer; google will allow you to delete your browsing and search histories, download your email, download your rss feed lists, and so on. In other words, they won't bind you to using their services. That means if they change their privacy policies in a bad way, you have a mechanism to leave them in the dust--to choose somebody else. There are other search engines out there, other free email providers, other social bookmarking sites.
Part of the problem is some of the social capital certain sites have. For mozy online backups, it's not very strong. You can buy another backup solution anytime. But facebook? Your friends are all there. You can't move your profile elsewhere--not very easily anyway. However, even on facebook the problem of social assets (your friends all being there) can be mitigated. Facebook petitioners have stopped several stupidities (some involving privacy violations) -- and the company has shaped up. After all, if people leave en masse, they lose a lot of revenue (advertising, I think, mostly). How can the problem be mitigated--or how can you leave facebook and take your personal information with you, even your friends list? Well, you can't, but most of the applications are from other sites anyway. I have a family tree application, a goodreads account, a pandora account, and a few other applications going. There are a couple that are exclusive to facebook I am sure. But if I leave facebook, I still have my pandora.com account, I still have my reading list and history on goodreads... It wouldn't be a total loss. And it's not like facebook doesn't have competitors. Facebook might not die a sudden and horrible death if you and your friends leave, and maybe they won't even feel a pinch (especially if you lot never click on their ad links). But you can give your business to someone else who does treat you better. You can help decent businesses grow. And you can establish quality relationships with a higher degree of trust. When you invite new friends to join a social network, or when they are considering joining one, guess who has already done some homework for them? You. So help good businesses thrive.
Don't give business to businesses who basically declare they have no respect for your original terms and agreements--that they reserve the right to switch the rules on you, even without notifying you.
But if you do feel a need to use such sites, make sure to google the phrase monitor web page for changes; 15 million searches on that phrase have already been made, after all. Then, point whichever service you choose at your EULAs and privacy agreements. Then stay loyal to the online businesses you choose until they prove they don't deserve it.
On another note, do some googling on a site before establishing a business relationship with them.
google for "somesite.com security OR privacy violations OR vulnerabilities"
Well, I got to thinking: why do people even put up with that kind of nonsense? What happened to loyalty? I think it's a reciprocal relationship. If you find businesses that are dedicated to serving their customers (read: they won't change their promised contractual relationship on you) you can give them your loyalty. But why do so many customers give their loyalty to companies who have long drawn out agreements only half of us really could understand--if we tried really hard.
Well, I guess I just remembered my earlier post about mozy. I found a worse agreement recently, where basically the site said they could change the agreement--and they would only post a notice on their site for a day. They just keep pushing the limits. Well, there are online services out there that can watch for changes on a webpage. So if you presuppose that the privacy agreement won't move to a new webpage, you can set up a service to notify you whenever one of your many favorite sites changes their agreement.
One of the great things about del.icio.us and google is that they make sure you can take your personal information away from them, and still have it. Del.icio.us lets you download a backup of your bookmarks that can be imported to firefox or internet explorer; google will allow you to delete your browsing and search histories, download your email, download your rss feed lists, and so on. In other words, they won't bind you to using their services. That means if they change their privacy policies in a bad way, you have a mechanism to leave them in the dust--to choose somebody else. There are other search engines out there, other free email providers, other social bookmarking sites.
Part of the problem is some of the social capital certain sites have. For mozy online backups, it's not very strong. You can buy another backup solution anytime. But facebook? Your friends are all there. You can't move your profile elsewhere--not very easily anyway. However, even on facebook the problem of social assets (your friends all being there) can be mitigated. Facebook petitioners have stopped several stupidities (some involving privacy violations) -- and the company has shaped up. After all, if people leave en masse, they lose a lot of revenue (advertising, I think, mostly). How can the problem be mitigated--or how can you leave facebook and take your personal information with you, even your friends list? Well, you can't, but most of the applications are from other sites anyway. I have a family tree application, a goodreads account, a pandora account, and a few other applications going. There are a couple that are exclusive to facebook I am sure. But if I leave facebook, I still have my pandora.com account, I still have my reading list and history on goodreads... It wouldn't be a total loss. And it's not like facebook doesn't have competitors. Facebook might not die a sudden and horrible death if you and your friends leave, and maybe they won't even feel a pinch (especially if you lot never click on their ad links). But you can give your business to someone else who does treat you better. You can help decent businesses grow. And you can establish quality relationships with a higher degree of trust. When you invite new friends to join a social network, or when they are considering joining one, guess who has already done some homework for them? You. So help good businesses thrive.
Don't give business to businesses who basically declare they have no respect for your original terms and agreements--that they reserve the right to switch the rules on you, even without notifying you.
But if you do feel a need to use such sites, make sure to google the phrase monitor web page for changes; 15 million searches on that phrase have already been made, after all. Then, point whichever service you choose at your EULAs and privacy agreements. Then stay loyal to the online businesses you choose until they prove they don't deserve it.
On another note, do some googling on a site before establishing a business relationship with them.
google for "somesite.com security OR privacy violations OR vulnerabilities"
Saturday, October 25, 2008
News as Research
I grew up learning that good essayists challenges their own ideas by reading sources that oppose their own view, and even presenting their arguments in their own essay. People expect responsible journalists to give both sides of the issue.
I see too much of biased journalism. I also see too much misrepresenting the other side of the issue, or cases where there are many sides of an issue.
I think the real problem is not just with news agencies. It is with people who don't seek alternative viewpoints that challenge their own ideas. This is at the core of real science--testing your own hypothesis means challenging it with any alternatives you can dream up.
It's time to start doing real research, people. It's time to start verifying sources, to start seeking out opposing viewpoints and subscribing to them (even if you don't agree, you are better informed if you read them).
Of course, nobody can afford to read every story in triplicate (their favorite journalist/news source, an opposing viewpoint, and an alternative third viewpoint). I think this is what the scriptures mean when they say every man ought to be engaged in a good cause. But I think it behooves us, when questions of national importance come up, or when we have an opportunity to vote with either ballots, donations, or our time--it behooves us to be informed. That means learning two other viewpoints, and questioning whether another viewpoint might exist. That means praying for help to see what is right, and then: "It becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor."
Sometimes (or often) you won't agree with friends on what you've learned. So learn to be able to peaceable disagree, and learn to exchange research sources rather than emotional exchanges of words.
This I tell myself. Now off I go to read the other presidential candidate's site. And a third presidential candidate's website.
-----
Articles that triggered this blog post include Orson Scott Card's essays on the current election situation. He's a democrat, but he opposes Obama. I oppose obama, but I am not a democrat. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think his essays have a lot of good to say.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html
I see too much of biased journalism. I also see too much misrepresenting the other side of the issue, or cases where there are many sides of an issue.
I think the real problem is not just with news agencies. It is with people who don't seek alternative viewpoints that challenge their own ideas. This is at the core of real science--testing your own hypothesis means challenging it with any alternatives you can dream up.
It's time to start doing real research, people. It's time to start verifying sources, to start seeking out opposing viewpoints and subscribing to them (even if you don't agree, you are better informed if you read them).
Of course, nobody can afford to read every story in triplicate (their favorite journalist/news source, an opposing viewpoint, and an alternative third viewpoint). I think this is what the scriptures mean when they say every man ought to be engaged in a good cause. But I think it behooves us, when questions of national importance come up, or when we have an opportunity to vote with either ballots, donations, or our time--it behooves us to be informed. That means learning two other viewpoints, and questioning whether another viewpoint might exist. That means praying for help to see what is right, and then: "It becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor."
Sometimes (or often) you won't agree with friends on what you've learned. So learn to be able to peaceable disagree, and learn to exchange research sources rather than emotional exchanges of words.
This I tell myself. Now off I go to read the other presidential candidate's site. And a third presidential candidate's website.
-----
Articles that triggered this blog post include Orson Scott Card's essays on the current election situation. He's a democrat, but he opposes Obama. I oppose obama, but I am not a democrat. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think his essays have a lot of good to say.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html
Friday, October 10, 2008
End User License Agreements.
Okay, I realize people tend not to read license agreements. But when I see things like this in a EULA, I think "Did anyone review this?" and I realize these people have little respect for their customers:
Mozy.home's license agreement has the phrase: "Do not taunt happy fun ball." No kidding. And here's the scary part: the license also says they can modify it anytime, and will only post a notice on their website for 15 days. Moreover, they reserve the right to delete your data, and claim absolutely no liability for loss of data, etc. There's nothing about privacy, so even though data is encrypted, who knows if they don't also have the key? Bleh. Forget mozy online backups--I have no confidence in the security of putting my data on their servers.
If you want something worth having, pay for it. I think I'm going to buy Norton Ghost or SyncbackSE.
Mozy.home's license agreement has the phrase: "Do not taunt happy fun ball." No kidding. And here's the scary part: the license also says they can modify it anytime, and will only post a notice on their website for 15 days. Moreover, they reserve the right to delete your data, and claim absolutely no liability for loss of data, etc. There's nothing about privacy, so even though data is encrypted, who knows if they don't also have the key? Bleh. Forget mozy online backups--I have no confidence in the security of putting my data on their servers.
If you want something worth having, pay for it. I think I'm going to buy Norton Ghost or SyncbackSE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
