"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

So says Helen Thomas, journalist. This actually is true. But, whose position should matter the most?

The other phrase often heard is "might makes right". So, a strong country determines that a freedom fighter who is attacking it is a terrorist. Is there anything wrong with that?

Actually, no.

If one reviews history, the strongest countries have in general moved us closer towards the ideals of civilization: freedom, principled lives, and practical existence. They have moved us towards the goals of knowledge, peace, love, happiness, prosperity, a feeling of meaning and contribution to the world, and freedom from suffering. None has taken us all the way there, but we move closer and closer. Ideas that move us closer may need to be fought for, and countries may move in a zigzag towards the final destination. The mark of a country's rightness is its strength to oppose those who would destroy it by words or deeds. A country that stoops to moral equivalency or moral relativism is losing its direction. It no longer has the conviction to stand up for what it believes. With the loss of belief in rightness will come a loss of power: intellectual, economic, and eventually military.

It is clearly time to decide if our country's precepts are correct or just relatively OK. Should there be the opportunity to fail? Should wrong be based on law or on individual psychology? Should success be allowed? Can the government give happiness?

DocBrain believes that the strengths of a country are in its mission statement and laws. A country that guarantees that it will not take life, liberty or property, that assures freedom, that works to the common good (ie, maintaining courts, highways, and the like), will attract individuals who want to succeed. Failure is not a virtue, nor is success a vice.

O.M.G.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29263781/?GT1=43001

In a previous blog I referred to the old joke about the sex addict and the psychologist. The psychologist shows him Rorsharch ink blots and in each one the sex addict sees a naked woman. When the psychologist points this out to the addict, the addict replies "There your pictures!"

DocBrain was wondering why there were so few cartoons lambasting Obama. This story gives us the answer. The defenders of Obama have their heads clearly in the racist gutter, seeing racism and bigotry in everything.

Six months ago, when I told my aged aunt that I supported McCain, her reply was "Whats the matter honey, are you a racist?"

The one who frames an issue usually wins. Now, the framing is that if you criticize Obama, you must be a racist. So, all criticism must first be couched in the setting of first defending yourself against being a racist. A cartoon about a monkey points to racism only in the most warped of minds. Just as one would give pause to the following headline: "Sex addict accuses psychologist of having sexy pictures", one should certainly be suspicious of Al Sharpton's warped accusations.

787 Billion Dollars is a lot of money!

It is sometimes hard to appreciate big numbers. One billion sounds so much like one million, only a little bigger, but it really is quite a bit more.

Here is one way to think of that number. Don't think of dollars, think of seconds instead. Replace each dollar with one second. So...

78.7 seconds ago, it was just over one minute ago.

787 seconds ago, it was 13 minutes ago.

787 thousand seconds ago, it was 9 days ago.

787 million seconds ago, it was 25 years ago.

787 billion seconds ago, it was 25,000 years ago and the Neanderthals were just dying out.

There otta be a law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary_duty#Conflict_of_interest_and_duty

In some circumstances, we should expect people who oversee our best interests to have only our best interests at heart. They should neither profit from our fortune nor suffer from our misfortune. They should do right by us as their only duty. In exchange, they deserve our respect and a fair wage.

Where should this be applicable?

1. Banking. When a bank takes your money, it should use it in your best interest. When a bank lends you money, the interest you pay should reflect the true value of money. Bankers are entitled to respect and a fair wage, but not to bonuses, as there should be no money left over.
2. Government. Those who vote on laws and enact laws should have no financial benefit from doing what they believe is best for us. This would include paybacks and other personal perks.
3. Health care. Those who insure and provide our health care should not be entitled to bonuses. Physicians, nurses, therapists, and technicians are pretty much paid by the hour or by the work product, so at the present time they meet the criteria for fiduciary. Managed care organizations are often profit centered, with bonuses, charity donations and retained earnings indicating their lack of being centered on the best interests of their insured.
4. Investment organizations. This includes stock brokers, fund and bond managers and the like.
5. Other insurance agencies. Life and property insurance should also be based on the fiduciary principle.
6. Attorneys and the legal system.

I am not saying that fiduciaries do not deserve to make a good income. They are in a position of trust and probably deserve greater pay for that specific reason. They control things that individuals cannot. Without trust in their good intentions on our behalf, our society crumbles.

Docbrain believes there should be a fiduciary law that enforces the choice of duty over personal interest in the above systems. Just as physicians take an oath of duty to their patients' best interests, breach of which is punishable by loss of license, so should there be a similar practice in the areas of banking, government, law, and insurance. None of these fields should be driven by self interest.

What's in your wallet?

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/2007/10/02/579-trillion-american-net-worth/

The net worth of all Americans is 56 trillion. By this standard, the Congress is spending 2% of all the net assets of America on one imperfect roll of the dice. Even with good odds, would you spend that percent of your own money in Vegas on one hand of cards or one slot pull?

If we are in such serious trouble, how can a 2% investment make a difference? If things aren't that bad, why throw good after bad? Shouldn't we try to regain control of the money we already give to the banks (about 1% of the net assets of America) just a few months ago?

Do Something!

When you are young, you believe that if you find a problem, you should do something. As you mature, you realize that doing something often brings it own new set of unforeseen problems, and many times you don't actually solve the original one.

It is often this way in medicine, to the point that one of Docbrain's favorite lines is "No good deed goes unpunished."

While one can commend President Obama and the Congress for doing something (the Stimulus Bill), the question arises as to whether doing something is the right thing to do. Perhaps, doing nothing or something completely different would be better approaches. Much better approaches.

President Obama has already said that the package is not perfect. This, of course, will lead to doubts of its ability to be successful among the public, thereby decreasing its effectiveness in jump starting the economy. But that is not the main problem.

The problem is immaturity coupled with power. It is not the courage to intervene, but the courage to refrain from intervention except at the proper times that marks a truly great leader. If the stimulus package doesn't work, people will give Obama credit for "at least he tried". The problem is that the treatment may be for the wrong diagnosis, given at the wrong time, and given in the wrong way. One trillion dollars of debt will make the patient sicker, even if it makes those who prescribe it feel good that they have "done something".

One Trillion Dollars

Exactly what is $1,000,000,000,000? What could you buy with this amount of money?


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/715/how-much-would-the-24-paid-for-manhattan-be-worth-in-todays-money

In 1975, it would have bought nearly all the land in the USA.
In 1991, it would have bought slightly less than half of all the land.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/78908

In 2004, it would have purchased all the land in Manhattan, with over 800 billion left over. Assuming some value for the structures on the land, it would clearly have bought all of Manhattan.

One trillion is a lot of money! Stacked in a pile, they would stretch around the earth at the equator. Three times! Laid end to end, they would stretch to the sun, with 3 million miles to spare!

Now that there is a compromise in place with some programs cut, who will take the heat if the stimulus program is not a success? The democrats who lobbied so hard for it? Or the Republicans who forced "key elements" out of the bill? You just know how the press will spin this one! Obama will not be allowed to have a failure. It will be due to the cuts insisted upon by the Republicans. Republicans are allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Confidence in the economy is the key element that keeps things going. It is not money. An administration that talks doom and gloom to get its wish list approved is playing on the emotions of the American people. This is a disaster!

Lastly, the concept that a tax cut would not do the trick is based on more opinion than fact. While there is some data that a tax cut for individuals might lead to increased savings rather than spending, there is no such data concerning businesses. To the contrary, there is almost universal data that as soon as companies get free money from the government, they spend it.

The inability of President Obama to encourage Americans to work hard, pull together and have faith in the future and our power as individuals to make it better indicates a person who values power. Power is nothing without fear, and fear of financial ruin is a strong motivator.

Hmmm

I am having more trouble with my alter ego.

http://thegreatestpresident.blogspot.com/

The posts there are becoming harder to write because of the increasing idiocy of the current administration.

I have not written any blogs here for awhile, waiting to see what happens, but some things need to be said. The massive spending bill is soon going to have a twin brother, as a new spending bill is about to be introduced by the treasury secretary.

We have become a spending society. What about working, saving, and investing? What about bottom up rather than top down? Even Hollywood movies glorify the people who work for little or nothing to get ahead, not those who sit on their dupas waiting for the government to come and help. (example: Pursuit of Happyness).

Ask not what your government can spend for you, ask what you can do for yourself.

Stimulus shimulus!!

The Stimulus Package

142 billion for education / 50 million students (age 5-17) = 2840/student.

90 billion for road and bridge construction. A percent of which goes for raw materials such as steel. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/08/news/economy/stimulus_jobs/index.htm?postversion=2009010815Steel from foreign countries. Also, will all the laborers be US citizens, or will some be illegal aliens?

54 billion for renewable energy. If it is cost effective to create renewable energy, the private sector will do it, and do it better and cheaper than the government. If not, the money will be wasted as there will be no legs. Some of the money will go to weatherizing (i.e., insulating) low income homes, a boon for insulation companies. Perhaps time to get back into that business? I cannot argue with modernizing the electical grid, but perhaps this also can be done by providing tax incentives for the major power companies to modernize?

20 billion to update the health care system. If computerizing was cost effective, it would already have been done. Every major health care system that has done this has spent millions. As technology is a moving target and health care information is so tightly regulated, this is extremely complex. A better approach is to develop national standards and let the private sector solve this. The government can help by establishing a common standard in conjunction with the software manufacturers and health informatics experts. That would take a few million, not billions.

16 billion for science and research. Back in the day, the NIH was big in research. Just fund that again, with NIH grants and similar grants to basic science research.

87 billion for medicaid.

4 billion for law enforcement.

43 billion for unemployment benefits

39 billion for cobra

20 billion for food for the poor

145 billion tax cut for individuals making <75k or couples making <150k (most a couple could get = 1000)

8 billion refund in taxes for the working poor.

18 billion additional tax credit for dependent children (about 300/child for 1 year?)

Changes in tax laws that would allow businesses with bad years to offset this against good years for up to 5 years instead of 2 years. Could save businesses up to 17 billion.

Stimulus definition: influence the direction of the economy or create incentives.

My OpinionWith a few exceptions, nothing in this bill will influence the direction of the economy. There are a few short term incentives (ie, have more children to get another 300/yr; if you are married and one earns 76-149k, stay married; get into the highway construction or the insulation business, at least for the short term). This package represents big government spending, which as democrats, is what they do, but is not a stimulus package by definition. As the largest spending bill by a government in the history of the world, this is certainly a landmark.

When the chickens come home to roost, when we the people have to pay for this bill, you will see a very heated psychological response. In that respect, it is a stimulus package!