HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Mar. 23, 2007 Democratic Senator Barack Obama seems to have mesmerized a legion of naïve dreamers with meaningless platitudes and unattainable wish lists. Reminiscent of some of the great medicine show barkers of a century ago, he speaks in grand terms of concepts that most people would like to see as reality, but in reality most people will never see. A fellow U-K columnist does a great job of identifying several of these issues, although she seems to have guzzled the Kool-Aid herself. (As a side note, I will congratulate her attempt to provide a link to Sen. Obama’s opinions on the On the Issues web site. In the past, she has only provided vague documentation of facts she’s cited. Unfortunately, despite her better intentions, the link did not work. Yet, I found the appropriate pages any way.) According to our columnist, Sen. Obama would like to see 100% of all cargo coming into the U.S. inspected for security purposes. Lofty ideal and certainly admirable, but is it practical or affordable? The answer is clearly “no,” although I recognize that the average naïve citizen would not understand that. There are obvious costs and logistically barriers to implementing such a plan. We spend millions inspecting only 3% - 5% of such cargo today. Those inspections target suspicious cargo or cargo coming from suspicious locations. I doubt it would be as simple as increasing the budget 3300% percent to attain full inspection capability, but even if it were, that’s a lot of money. More importantly, how much would such precautions slow down the import process? And how much would those delays affect the economics of the business transaction behind the importation? Those of us who are not naïve idiots understand the real consequences of such a fantastical proposal. And, is it really worth it? Would a 3300% increase in costs and incalculable damage to the economy result in 3300% more security? Hardly. We’re already inspecting the cargo most likely to hide a threat. We’d be spending billions on a program that is certain to generate diminishing returns. Also, to provide any real security, cargo would have to be inspected at the origination port. For example, if a container contained a WMD and arrived in the U.S., why could not terrorists program it to detonate prior to inspection? A nuke on a boat in New York harbor would still wipe out millions. Even worse, what if it was inspected at origination? What would stop determined terrorists from loading the WMD on the ship while at sea? Obama jumps on the bandwagon for reducing our reliance on oil and developing renewable energy sources. I have no complaint with his proposal. I only note that it is not unique. Can anyone name a politician who does not support that policy? I’m not sure why tax credits should be required to motivate these programs however. At some point, oil will become too expensive and the free market will instigate innovation to make this happen. I would rather just tax the heck out of oil to motivate less use and raise revenues, rather than give away my tax dollars in typical pork barrel fashion. As for banning oil exploration in “eco-sensitive” areas, I’m always amazed when the eco-terrorists make their subjective assessments of which areas are eco-sensitive. I’ve never heard anyone suggest that drilling should be banned along the Texas seashore, but try to drill off of California’s coast and all hell breaks loose. I have new drilling rigs within 15 miles of my home – why isn’t my backyard eco-sensitive, yet some remote patch of desolate, mosquito-infested, uninhabitable tundra in far north Alaska is? Our columnist notes that Americans consume more goods from foreign countries than we export. Yet, she believes that reality does nothing for the people of America. Strange logic. Think about it a second …would you rather be a consumer of goods or a producer of goods? Me, I’d rather be watching my big screen TV rather than building it and shipping it overseas for others to watch. She claims the trade deficit somehow “widens the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” As long as America continues to be the haves, I’m OK with that. When my children have to start working in sweatshops to produce sneakers for Chinese children to wear to the mall, I’ll believe we have a problem. Obama wants to raise taxes on companies in the hopes of forcing them to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Didn’t those jobs leave the U.S. because of high manufacturing costs? How will increasing those costs make them come back? More importantly, how will that make the low-cost overseas producers stop production? Isn’t it common sense that America’s high labor costs cannot compete with lower foreign costs? Obama’s policy wouldn’t bring those jobs back, it would simply cause the American companies to sell off their overseas manufacturing plants and exit that business, or just relocate overseas entirely. Our columnist next addresses a topic near and dear to my heart – education costs. She just spent $50k on a Master’s degree. I have a daughter attending a $32k/year undergraduate program who wants to attend law school next. My son wants to follow her to that same school and there’s no telling how much it will cost when he gets there in the fall of ’08. It would appear that our family will have invested somewhere between $300,000 and $600,000 in education costs before they both graduate. Is there a solution to this insanity? Obama would like to guarantee an affordable education to all students that maintain a B average. Our columnist agrees and complains that educational costs “hinder many people from entering into the world of academia, thus depriving them of an education or better jobs.” As admirable as these dreams are, and I agree with them in principle, I am wise enough to know that it won’t make a real difference in terms of societal stratification. Once anything is made available to everyone, it’s value and quality decreases. Open education to the masses, and you will get the same pitiful education that we see today in our public school systems. For the most part, that has happened to colleges today – the quality of education has steadily eroded while costs have increased. And above that morass of substandard universities, there will still exist the quality schools. They will still charge huge sums and attendance at those schools will still open doors that none of the inferior, assembly line schools can offer. Yes, cheaper education is better for America overall, but better education is also worthwhile, and that’s not going to happen in the public arena because liberal educators are loathe to demand accountability from teachers and students. Yes, “education should be a right of all American people,” but there will always be schools that offer a “privilege for the few who can afford it.” It seems that Obama supports stem cell research and the woman’s right to choose. Our columnist calls him a “realist,” because “he wants to help reduce teen pregnancy by supporting educational outreach endeavors and contraceptive availability to all teens.” It seems to me that a “realist” would admit the connection between the sex act and pregnancy. A “realist” would admit that no contraceptive is infallible. At the same time, a “realist” would admit that the desire to have sex is strong in one’s teens. How does one balance these contradictory “realities”? It seems obvious to me. First, teach teens about sex. Make sure they understand how pregnancy occurs and what acts can lead to it. Teach them that contraceptives are not 100% reliable. Teach them about the consequences of sex – its emotional consequences, its health consequences, and its potential for life-altering consequences for themselves, their partner, and potential child. Then, most importantly, teach them about alternatives. Eliminate the guilt associated with masturbation. Explain the satisfaction that can be had from mutual masturbation and oral sex. It seems that the last thing that should be encouraged, even tacitly, is to have intercourse. Nor should we be encouraging the use of fallible contraceptives. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t teach the “potential” benefits of contraceptives, but encouragement should be relegated to those sexual activities that pose no threat. I suspect that the stem cell issue will disappear soon as alternative sources for those cells have been identified. Our columnist believes that “many” Americans “consider healthcare a prized privilege of which should not be affordable or offered to the masses.” I know of no one that believes that and can’t imagine to whom she refers. Obama believes “healthcare for all can be achieved by balancing costs against taxes on a nationwide basis.” Obviously that is a true statement and is an example of the meaningless platitudes he dishes out to the naïve. The disagreement around this issue is in determining who pays those taxes and how much the taxes are. There are many people who endure great personal sacrifice and maintain tremendous self-discipline to maintain their health. Others seemingly ignore all dangers from harmful activity, dietary habits, drug abuse, sexual proclivities, etc., causing huge health problems for themselves and others they infect and affect. Is it fair to make these people pay the same costs for healthcare? Not surprisingly, I expect one would also find that latter group is, in general, undisciplined in their financial health as well and would not have the funds available to pay even an equal share of those costs. The net effect, like so many things in our corrupt society, is that those who do right would end up supporting those who do wrong. If a national healthcare system does not recognize these realities, it will just be one more factor in America’s demise as more and more people give up on being productive, ambitious citizens because they realize the sloth can be an option. Obama does seem to have all the answers – answers for naïve, do-gooders without a real stake in the solutions. I have a great idea – why doesn’t he just turn over his paychecks to me, as he basically wants me to do to the government? I’d make sure it was spent on healthcare and education for some needy people. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
