I found it ironic this morning that during the 'summit' on Healthcare the soundclips were
a) Republicans saying 'this plan is too expensive'
b) Democrats saying 'this is the plan you have for your staffers'
...as if b contradicts a.
The logical conclusion is obvious to anyone NOT one of the elected narcissists in that room: get rid of the luxury plan available to federal employees (including those farkers in congress), and let federal departments compete and buy healthcare plans like ANY OTHER BUSINESS, and allocate for it in their budgets. But oh no, that's inconceivable.
I actually don't mind Germany's healthcare system, but we have to understand that any system that mandates a certain level of care for all will necessarily reduce the incentives to develop the PEAK quality care that is available here in the US (albeit unaffordable to anyone not a Saudi sheik or Canadian PM). If this is acceptable, then let's move that direction.
Unfortunately, I'm more and more convinced that our politicians of all sides are so base and self-obsessed that it's nearly functionally impossible that they actually could accomplish something beneficial to our country; I tend to be obstructionist on structural issues mainly because I can't believe that they won't f*ck it up as they (R or D) try to sell us down the river for their lobbyists.
26 February, 2010
03 February, 2010
Welcome to the start...
We'll see how this goes.
I tend to blather on about random subjects far longer than anyone is willing to listen. So here's a place where I can do just that.
First, let me explain the name. Rithmomachia is a chess-like game that rivalled Chess in popularity through the Renaissance, and then was almost completely forgotten until rediscovered by historians. I think that's kind of neat, it's fun to play, and quite frankly, it's a clever name that wasn't already taken. :\
Wiki link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rithmomachia
java applet that plays it here: http://symbolaris.com/applet/Rhythmomachia.html
Second, my first general post, regarding the US Space program.
Is the US space program in remission? Yep.
Is NASA floundering? Yes, it's overbureacratized but occasionally puts out some astonishingly good science and engineering - witness the Martian rovers, Cassini - so I suspect the talent is there, hiding under an increasing crust of politicized nonsense.
The space shuttle was a horrible design, made by committee.
The ISS is a stupid setpiece project - too low, too small, & too incremental to really advance the concepts of long-term space habitation or construction.
Face it, we have an ever-increasing population here in the US that is less and less technologically oriented in real terms - sure, there are LOTS of 12 yr olds that can run Facebook or whip through the hardest PS3 game without breaking a sweat, but fewer engineers and astronomers. These people are electing representatives that choose to continue to spend a massive % of the Federal purse on:
- medical care for elderly and poor
- taking care of the seniors that didn't save enough for themselves (far longer than the originally-planned what, 6-8 years that were originally envisaged?)
- caring for the unemployed/able
If you were to look at the economics of it rationally, are ANY of those things (representing about 52% of the FY2009 spend) really ever going to benefit the country in general in the longest term?
Basically, having an aggressive space program takes leadership with balls, people willing to accept that astronauts die in a terrifically dangerous job, people willing to accept the guns vs. butter choices economically that will hurt in the short term for a benefit in the longest terms. We tend not to elect them because they aren't willing to pander to US.
Is NASA floundering? Yes, it's overbureacratized but occasionally puts out some astonishingly good science and engineering - witness the Martian rovers, Cassini - so I suspect the talent is there, hiding under an increasing crust of politicized nonsense.
The space shuttle was a horrible design, made by committee.
The ISS is a stupid setpiece project - too low, too small, & too incremental to really advance the concepts of long-term space habitation or construction.
Face it, we have an ever-increasing population here in the US that is less and less technologically oriented in real terms - sure, there are LOTS of 12 yr olds that can run Facebook or whip through the hardest PS3 game without breaking a sweat, but fewer engineers and astronomers. These people are electing representatives that choose to continue to spend a massive % of the Federal purse on:
- medical care for elderly and poor
- taking care of the seniors that didn't save enough for themselves (far longer than the originally-planned what, 6-8 years that were originally envisaged?)
- caring for the unemployed/able
If you were to look at the economics of it rationally, are ANY of those things (representing about 52% of the FY2009 spend) really ever going to benefit the country in general in the longest term?
Basically, having an aggressive space program takes leadership with balls, people willing to accept that astronauts die in a terrifically dangerous job, people willing to accept the guns vs. butter choices economically that will hurt in the short term for a benefit in the longest terms. We tend not to elect them because they aren't willing to pander to US.
__________________
(and maybe this makes me a bit of a Nancy, but I dedicate this place to my mom. She'd always encouraged me to think critically, speak boldly, and suggested many times that I do just this - start a blog where perhaps amongst the volume of chaff, someone might occasionally find a grain of value. I miss you mom.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)