As a follow-up on my last post, I've done a little research and some rough calculations here to put things into a clearer perspective. Someone, please correct me if my math is in error.
George Bush's US federal budget request for FY2008 was US$2.9 trillion, US$627 billion of which were to be allocated to defence spending and the War on Terror*. Since 2001, the government has borrowed US$1.3 trillion to pay for "tax breaks, new Medicare drug benefits and the war in Iraq."** I will assume that this borrowing has been constant to suggest that the federal government will borrow US$163 billion in FY2008. Let's assume only US$80 billion of this is actually borrowed for the Iraq War. The actual total FY2008 federal spending then becomes US$3.06 trillion and the actual spending for defence and the War on Terror becomes US$707 billion. Therefore, if my estimates are reasonable, roughly 25% of the US federal government's spending of borrowed and budgeted funds right now is going towards defence and the War on Terror.
I personally believe there is still hope to turn this around. Adding the US$163 billion estimate of borrowed money to the US$240 billion budgeted net deficit for the year, the United States federal government has a total spending/earning FY2008 deficit of roughly US$403 billion. Therefore, if the spending for defence and the War on Terror were greatly reduced, the government could potentially begin to operate at a surplus.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget%2C_2008 (ultimately gathered from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html)
**http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheFinancialTrapFacingTheUSChina.aspx
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Socialised Medicine in the United States
With health care being a big issue in the current American political scene, I thought I would throw out a few ideas here and see if I could start a discussion. I suspect most Americans agree that the US health care system is in dire need of reform. I would also venture to say that the majority of American antagonism against socialised medicine is probably a result of fears that our economy could not foot the bill. After all, if money were not an issue, wouldn't most Americans agree that having the option of free health care for everyone, even if it were known to be of lesser quality than privately run health care, would be better than nothing for those who cannot afford health care or insurance coverage on their own? I am not talking about a system like Canada's where privately funded clinics are illegal, but rather a system similar to the American primary and secondary education system where free public education is available to everyone everywhere but privately funded education is an option for those who wish to (and can afford to) pay for it; a system like England's health care system where competition-driven private medicine sets the standard for quality and provides for those who can afford it, but for those who cannot or do not wish to pay for it the state-run, tax-funded NHS provides free health care.
As for myself, I tend to agree with the libertarian viewpoint that a smaller government is better and that privately run enterprises are more efficient and approach higher quality of service than similar socialised enterprises. It is a proven fact that economic competition provides the stimulus to move forward and increase quality of goods and services. As a result, for the rich, health care in the United States is probably the best in the world. However, for the poor, most agree that the system fails. In a Laissez-faire economy, where is the incentive for private health care clinics to provide anything to those who cannot pay?
But where is the money for universal health care in the United States? Hillary Clinton's plan would cost an estimated US$110 billion*. According to the American Medical Student Association, universal health care would cost at least US$34 billion to US$69 billion.** I am not purporting to have a solution for the problem but I can state some figures to put things into perspective.
It is my personal belief that government should exist for one singular purpose: to protect rights. I believe this grand purpose should be broken down into three specific purposes (in decreasing order of importance): to protect the rights of its citizens, to protect the rights of humanity, and to protect the rights of animals. If it were my choice, I would re-evaluate every programme funded by the US government, and either abolish or downsize any programme which did not blatantly fulfill this grand purpose, and I would start with the Iraq War. According to The Washington Post (quoting the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service), the Iraq War was costing the US government US$10 billion per month (US$120 billion budget) in 2007, following the troop surge***. As of February 2008, the US is spending an estimated US$16 billion per month (US$192 billion budget) for the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan**** which is now largely being borrowed with interest from other nations, such as China. In a CBS News/New York Times Poll of American adults from 25 April to 29 April 2008, 62% would prefer the next president to try to end the Iraq War in two years no matter what*****. I won't go into an in-depth discussion about the Iraq War here as it deserves its own post. However, it is certainly something to think about every time we say our country doesn't have the money to provide free health care for our people. I do not know about others but personally, I would much rather know that the money I am giving to the government is helping support programmes like a free health care system for those who cannot afford it, than a foreign war which is, for the most part, not approved of by the international community, was never actually approved of by Congress, has cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives overseas, is increasing our national debt each day, and gives the terrorists more reason to hate America.
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
**http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900957.html
****http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
*****http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
As for myself, I tend to agree with the libertarian viewpoint that a smaller government is better and that privately run enterprises are more efficient and approach higher quality of service than similar socialised enterprises. It is a proven fact that economic competition provides the stimulus to move forward and increase quality of goods and services. As a result, for the rich, health care in the United States is probably the best in the world. However, for the poor, most agree that the system fails. In a Laissez-faire economy, where is the incentive for private health care clinics to provide anything to those who cannot pay?
But where is the money for universal health care in the United States? Hillary Clinton's plan would cost an estimated US$110 billion*. According to the American Medical Student Association, universal health care would cost at least US$34 billion to US$69 billion.** I am not purporting to have a solution for the problem but I can state some figures to put things into perspective.
It is my personal belief that government should exist for one singular purpose: to protect rights. I believe this grand purpose should be broken down into three specific purposes (in decreasing order of importance): to protect the rights of its citizens, to protect the rights of humanity, and to protect the rights of animals. If it were my choice, I would re-evaluate every programme funded by the US government, and either abolish or downsize any programme which did not blatantly fulfill this grand purpose, and I would start with the Iraq War. According to The Washington Post (quoting the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service), the Iraq War was costing the US government US$10 billion per month (US$120 billion budget) in 2007, following the troop surge***. As of February 2008, the US is spending an estimated US$16 billion per month (US$192 billion budget) for the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan**** which is now largely being borrowed with interest from other nations, such as China. In a CBS News/New York Times Poll of American adults from 25 April to 29 April 2008, 62% would prefer the next president to try to end the Iraq War in two years no matter what*****. I won't go into an in-depth discussion about the Iraq War here as it deserves its own post. However, it is certainly something to think about every time we say our country doesn't have the money to provide free health care for our people. I do not know about others but personally, I would much rather know that the money I am giving to the government is helping support programmes like a free health care system for those who cannot afford it, than a foreign war which is, for the most part, not approved of by the international community, was never actually approved of by Congress, has cost thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives overseas, is increasing our national debt each day, and gives the terrorists more reason to hate America.
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296997,00.html
**http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900957.html
****http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan
*****http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Monday, April 21, 2008
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
I recently read this passage in the Book of Isaiah and felt compelled to copy it here. The general consensus among scholars today is that the Book of Isaiah was written by more individuals than simply Isaiah himself, and that chapters 40-55, which include the passage below, were penned by an anonymous poet during the latter part of the Babylonian exile (c. 545-540 BC)*. It is very interesting to me how well this passage parallels the writings about Jesus' life, death, and purpose by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul hundreds of years later.
"See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness—so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Book of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (NIV translation)
*http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/isaiah.htm
"See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him—his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness—so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -- Book of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (NIV translation)
*http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/isaiah.htm
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Negative One Equals One
My friend showed this to me a few days ago...
-1 = -1
-1/1 = 1/-1
sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
-1 = 1
In case you are wondering, there is in fact an error in the proof. The operation done between the third and fourth lines is not possible.
-1 = -1
-1/1 = 1/-1
sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1)
sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)*sqrt(1)
-1 = 1
In case you are wondering, there is in fact an error in the proof. The operation done between the third and fourth lines is not possible.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Martyrs: Food for Thought
I find religions to be interesting social institutions. I was raised Christian but see nothing wrong with questioning one's beliefs and searching for the truth with an open mind. I have a lot of respect for René Descartes and his method of attempting to prove philosophical truths by first removing all biased assumptions. Although ultimately I do accredit my belief in Jesus and the Bible to faith, I am interested in examining the evidence in order that it may not be a blind faith.
Just thought I'd share a little thought exercise here:
Several weeks ago I got to thinking about the Muslim extremists who have given their lives for their beliefs in the last few years. This strikes me as a great proof of faith, and begs the question "if they can believe in their religion so strongly that they are willing to give their lives for it, is that evidence for some truth behind it?" Of course many have given their lives for their beliefs. Jim Jones comes to mind as well as numerous reported Christians in states where Christianity is illegal and punishable by death. I think religious martyrs can be categorised into two main groups: those who have given their lives following a belief they were taught or raised with, and those who have given their lives following a religion which they had a role in the formation of. To make a legal metaphor, the first category parallels people with hearsay, and the second parallels people with primary evidence. Obviously the first category should be thrown out in this exercise because it is known that the human mind is manipulable to such an affect that some will give their lives for beliefs they have been taught. That leaves a category of religious martyrs such as Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and Jesus: people who gave their lives knowing at the times of their deaths (because they were initial propagators of the religions) whether their beliefs were true or false. In my opinion, the suicides of the single-person religious leaders such as Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite are somewhat convincing, but the affect is lost when one realises the great possibility that, because they were singularly responsible for their groups' existences, they possibly gave their lives purely out of psychological illness and/or hope for fame. In the case of Jesus' martyrdom, he died before his twelve apostles, not with them. They had been in close contact with him and in my opinion, after his death, would have known whether his beliefs and teachings were true or not. Eleven of the twelve (as Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus) became the leaders of the Christian movement, and ultimately died as martyrs, in the name of Christianity. Did they give their lives out of a pursuit of fame, out of ironically mutual mental illness, out of being brainwashed by Jesus to the point that his death did not stop their faith, or were Jesus' teachings and their accounts of Jesus' life actually true?
Just thought I'd share a little thought exercise here:
Several weeks ago I got to thinking about the Muslim extremists who have given their lives for their beliefs in the last few years. This strikes me as a great proof of faith, and begs the question "if they can believe in their religion so strongly that they are willing to give their lives for it, is that evidence for some truth behind it?" Of course many have given their lives for their beliefs. Jim Jones comes to mind as well as numerous reported Christians in states where Christianity is illegal and punishable by death. I think religious martyrs can be categorised into two main groups: those who have given their lives following a belief they were taught or raised with, and those who have given their lives following a religion which they had a role in the formation of. To make a legal metaphor, the first category parallels people with hearsay, and the second parallels people with primary evidence. Obviously the first category should be thrown out in this exercise because it is known that the human mind is manipulable to such an affect that some will give their lives for beliefs they have been taught. That leaves a category of religious martyrs such as Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and Jesus: people who gave their lives knowing at the times of their deaths (because they were initial propagators of the religions) whether their beliefs were true or false. In my opinion, the suicides of the single-person religious leaders such as Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite are somewhat convincing, but the affect is lost when one realises the great possibility that, because they were singularly responsible for their groups' existences, they possibly gave their lives purely out of psychological illness and/or hope for fame. In the case of Jesus' martyrdom, he died before his twelve apostles, not with them. They had been in close contact with him and in my opinion, after his death, would have known whether his beliefs and teachings were true or not. Eleven of the twelve (as Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus) became the leaders of the Christian movement, and ultimately died as martyrs, in the name of Christianity. Did they give their lives out of a pursuit of fame, out of ironically mutual mental illness, out of being brainwashed by Jesus to the point that his death did not stop their faith, or were Jesus' teachings and their accounts of Jesus' life actually true?
My Cambridge Who's Who Story
I should preface this blog post with the disclaimer that it is a direct, legal exercise of my first amendment right to freedom of speech. I am authorised as a citizen of the United States of America to speak freely about my experience with the Cambridge Who's Who organisation and will not refrain from doing so here, despite legal actions the company has taken against individuals who have done the same, including one individual who has been sued by Cambridge Who's Who for US$7,000,000 after making a web page about the company. I am, however, watching my words as I write this so that I may not be guilty of defamation, or "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." Instead of making any conclusions about the company myself, I am simply stating the facts and sharing my story. I will let you, the reader draw your own conclusions. Furthermore, in case I have accidentally mis-stated a number or other detail, I will make no claims to the authenticity of this blog post.
As an engineering student aspiring to attend a graduate school and/or enter the workforce within the next 12-24 months I understand the importance of social networking, and as a former member of an accelerated high school academic programme I have heard the hype about Who's Who organisations. So when I received a message in the mail not long after the new year which stated that I may be eligible for admittance into 'Cambridge Who's Who among Executives, Professionals, and Entrepreneurs' and that there would be "no cost to be included in the Registry," I quickly returned my contact information.
A few days ago I received a phone call from a "withheld" number. The lady on the other end informed me that she would need to ask me a series of interview questions to determine whether or not I would be eligible for acceptance into the registry. After the interview, without consulting a committee or reviewing the interview with anyone else, she told me that I had been accepted into the Who's Who database. She then went on to state the fees for membership (US$700 for lifetime membership, US$200 for 2-year membership, US$100 for 1-year membership). I explained that I would need some time to make a decision about a financial commitment and she replied stating that in order to accept my invitation into the registry I would need to make the decision during that phone call. Because it had been several weeks between when I returned the message in the mail and when I received this phone call, and under pressure of the moment I failed to remember that the initial contact information form stated that there were no fees for enrollment, and agreed to pay the fee for one year of membership, which would also give me one year to decide whether or not I wanted to upgrade my membership for a longer period of time. At the end of the phone call she mentioned that there were 250,000 members in the registry.
That night I visited Wikipedia to find that there had been no article written for Cambridge Who's Who. After Googling Cambridge Who's Who I found many blogs suggesting that the organisation is a scam. When I remembered that enrollment into the database was supposed to be free, I first notified my bank and then began calling Cambridge Who's Who to request a refund. After several phone calls and conversations with different employees I was able to speak with the man who handles cancellation requests. He told me that he had discussed the issue with the lady who initially entered me into the registry and they had come to the agreement that because I was a college student and probably did not have the financial stability to seriously commit to the programme, he would be able to offer me lifetime membership (which I had originally been told was a US$700-value and which he stated was a US$2000-value) for the US$100 that I had already paid. I told him that I greatly appreciated the offer but wished to cancel my membership nonetheless. After several more phone calls and conversations with many different employees I was able to get an e-mail stating that my membership would be canceled and my payment fully refunded. That weekend I received the reimbursement to my bank account.
As an engineering student aspiring to attend a graduate school and/or enter the workforce within the next 12-24 months I understand the importance of social networking, and as a former member of an accelerated high school academic programme I have heard the hype about Who's Who organisations. So when I received a message in the mail not long after the new year which stated that I may be eligible for admittance into 'Cambridge Who's Who among Executives, Professionals, and Entrepreneurs' and that there would be "no cost to be included in the Registry," I quickly returned my contact information.
A few days ago I received a phone call from a "withheld" number. The lady on the other end informed me that she would need to ask me a series of interview questions to determine whether or not I would be eligible for acceptance into the registry. After the interview, without consulting a committee or reviewing the interview with anyone else, she told me that I had been accepted into the Who's Who database. She then went on to state the fees for membership (US$700 for lifetime membership, US$200 for 2-year membership, US$100 for 1-year membership). I explained that I would need some time to make a decision about a financial commitment and she replied stating that in order to accept my invitation into the registry I would need to make the decision during that phone call. Because it had been several weeks between when I returned the message in the mail and when I received this phone call, and under pressure of the moment I failed to remember that the initial contact information form stated that there were no fees for enrollment, and agreed to pay the fee for one year of membership, which would also give me one year to decide whether or not I wanted to upgrade my membership for a longer period of time. At the end of the phone call she mentioned that there were 250,000 members in the registry.
That night I visited Wikipedia to find that there had been no article written for Cambridge Who's Who. After Googling Cambridge Who's Who I found many blogs suggesting that the organisation is a scam. When I remembered that enrollment into the database was supposed to be free, I first notified my bank and then began calling Cambridge Who's Who to request a refund. After several phone calls and conversations with different employees I was able to speak with the man who handles cancellation requests. He told me that he had discussed the issue with the lady who initially entered me into the registry and they had come to the agreement that because I was a college student and probably did not have the financial stability to seriously commit to the programme, he would be able to offer me lifetime membership (which I had originally been told was a US$700-value and which he stated was a US$2000-value) for the US$100 that I had already paid. I told him that I greatly appreciated the offer but wished to cancel my membership nonetheless. After several more phone calls and conversations with many different employees I was able to get an e-mail stating that my membership would be canceled and my payment fully refunded. That weekend I received the reimbursement to my bank account.
new blog
I am hereby replacing my old blog with this new one. I hope to keep this one up-to-date a little better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
