A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy?

Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.

Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

From youtube comments:
Translation part 1: Referring to remark 6a to chapter 2 of the KN, the coustoms administration has additionally (first laugh)published the? so called swiss explanation (second laugh) to the tariff (repeat). Accordingly certain products get assigned to chapter 2, which has added spice during the production, aslong as the nature of the product is not changed. (third laugh) Open bracket for example Bü- (fourth laugh) for example BÜNDERFLEISCH!

Translation 2: Excluded of this chapter is meat, where spice spread on all surfaces of the product, and visible to the naked eye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzMUWuA-Rq4&feature=player_embedded

A. I am against Federal Government regulations.  States could do whatever they want.

Q. Why are you against the federal regulations?

A. Because if they are wrong (and they often if not always are) they can bring the entire country down.

Q. What is wrong with the current regulation of banks?

A. Money is a product that can be saved, created, bought and sold, the same as potato. We created federal monopoly on production of this particular product and we regulate its price. This way money could be passed to the special interest under the disguise of a loan. If the true price, the market price of the loan is much higher, it’s not as apparent but is equivalent to passing money from taxpayers to special interest for help in reelection, future jobs, and consulting fees for politicians and members of their families. Such practice of legalized theft of taxpayers money  is the main source of politicians power.

Q. But everybody agrees that current regulation will decrease systemic risk?

A. Not everybody. I coauthored a paper that proves that any regulation of risk increases risk.

Q. Maybe we just need global financial regulation?

A. No, global regulation just increases the risk, the same way as federal regulation increased the risk compared to the state regulation. And it also helps politicians to redistribute money from taxpayers to politicians global special interests. This is often done not as a loan but as a swap. We’re making swaps in trillions of dollars for euros. The word “swap”sounds innocently enough, as if it is a fair exchange. Only few people understand that any swap has a price, and because our counterparty enters in a swap with us, it means we offer it for a cheaper price. With this swaps and loans from IMF we are channeling American taxpayers money in 100′s of billions to special interests around the Globe.

But Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. Politically, Rand was committed to the idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization invented or conceivable.

Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done.

So, what do you think capitalism is? Making a buck? Greed is good? Dog eats dog?

The following generally accepted definition, displayed even in Wiki, is equally misleading:

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production also known as the means of production, is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; profits are distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Are you ready for the definition of capitalism? Want to think a little more?
Here it is:
Capitalism is a social system wherein two adults can freely enter into any contract between themselves.

When two people are not able to enter freely into a contract – it’s not capitalism. When one adult can freely pay another willing adult to medically treat him, that’s capitalism. When another person has to be preapproved (licensed) by somebody else, or when the treatment should be preapproved by somebody else (FDA), or when the payment should be received only from another person preapproved by somebody else (insurance), or when either of them has to pay to somebody else for the entering into the contract (taxes), then it is not capitalism.

What Ayn Rand and her publisher did was a true example of capitalistic exchange: both entered freely into a contract. Ayn Rand got something worthy from this contract, otherwise she wouldn’t have entered it. And the publisher did. The idiot who wrote the article doesn’t understand it:

Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done.It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre.

Washington politicians are telling us that the status-quo is not an option, that it’s time for a change, and we should speak if we have a proposal to improve the healthcare. So here it is. This proposal is not as radical as the bill proposed in the Congress, but it’s the only proposal I am aware of that when implemented, will really reduce the price, will really increase the choice and the competition, will really be deficit neutral, will really provide free or almost free cover for all uninsured and all people with preexisting conditions, and will really not raise a penny in taxes on anybody.

The US healthcare is the envy of the world. Most advances in medical technology are made in the US. Most people with the serious illness, if they have a choice and the means, would come to this country for cure. Most Americans are satisfied with the system we have.

Yet, our healthcare has some undeniable problems.

The price of the health insurance is too high and rising too fast.

Tens of millions of people are uninsured. For some people it’s a choice, but many are not able to afford the cost of insurance.

Fear of losing insurance. Many millions of people are fearful of losing their insurance because of the job loss.

Preexistent conditions. It’s hard to get insurance for people with preexistent conditions for a reasonable cost.

Deterioration of services. It’s undeniable that over the years the medical service deteriorated despite the enormous advance of medical technology and computers. Where are the house calls? Where are the family doctors?

Here is a comprehensive plan on how to fix all of these problems.

1. Dump the FDA.

Because of the FDA the cost of bringing a new drug is about half -a-billion dollars and the time to bring it to the patient is about 8 years. If, as often proclaimed, hundreds of thousands of people save their lives every year with a new miracle drug, it stands to reason that hundreds of thousands people die each year while the FDA keep the drug off the market. And it’s just for one drug, for one year. So it’s not an exaggeration to say that millions of people die because of the FDA.

This cost and this waiting period have the chilling effect on the development of new drugs. We are probably hundreds years behind in development of new drugs only because of this.

The argument that people would not know which drug to use without the FDA is ridiculous. To get the drug recommended by the doctors, the manufactures would pay a small part of the half-a billion for the drug to be reviewed by the reputable experts.

2. End the war on drugs.

Alcohol prohibition resulted in the same violence as the war on drugs. Any drug should be available at the drug store. It’s absurd to wait for an appointment, pay for a visit to a doctor a few hundred dollars, to get antibiotics at the pharmacy (and to sign that “yes, I know what to do with these pills” form) before you get them. Making any drug available to anybody will bring the cost of the drugs and the entire medical care down.

It also happens to be a moral and practical decision as well. It’s immoral to prevent people from buying any chemical substance that want for their own consumption. After all, we do own our bodies, don’t we? It’s also impractical. Do we want to restrict access to perfume, gasoline, and other substances that could cause harm if swallowed? Do we want doctors to write prescriptions for anything but organic vegetable? There are cases when people dye after drinking a lot of water. Should we regulate the amount of water bought by an individual as well?

3. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid.

Not only it’ll cut about 20% of federal spending, it’ll stop the inflow of extra money and that will cut the cost of the healthcare dramatically. Seniors will get their insurance the same way as everybody else, through private contracts or charity.

4. Remove the doctors/government monopoly on medical services and medical education.

There’s a myth deeply penetrated into the American psyche that doctors and the government should be responsible for the healthcare design of the nation. We all know that most politicians are corrupt and they look for their own interest not for the interest of the people. Yet, the doctor’s profession is so respectful, that it’s not widely understood that they also look for their interest first.

By the way, as opposed to the politicians, I think that’s the way it should be – the doctors should look for their interest first. I want my doctor to be motivated by a good outcome when he is treating me. I want him to know that he might lose his practice if his patients are not happy with his treatments. I would try to avoid a doctor who does not really care about his interest and therefore doesn’t care about success of his practice, which is the case of all government-run and many of not-for-profit companies.

I am also not afraid of a doctor who prescribes me a treatment or surgery that I don’t feel I should have. I can deal with that. People deal with pushy marketers all the time in all other spheres of life. We can consult with others, but it’s up to us to decide what product or service to buy. I’d rather have this problem of making a choice than a system when I am not offered a certain treatment because somebody else made a decision that people of my age or my condition don’t need it. Just tell me all the options that are out there, make the recommendation and let me make the decision.

What I am against is the notion that the doctors should be in charge of our healthcare – we should be in charge.

The American Medical Association was established in 1847. Almost immediately it merged with the government through establishing medical boards at each state. And then the doctors use the government force to fight the market forces: to make sure to kill all the competition and to keep their salaries high. It was done by achieving two goals.
One, through these boards, doctors made sure that only individual licensed by these boards could deliver medical care. If Jesus shows up now and starts curing people, he would be taken to jail because he doesn’t have the license.

Two, American Medical Association has been able to restrict the number of medical schools. Did you know that because of the AMA we have fewer medical schools in the U.S. now than 1oo years ago even though the U.S. population tripled in size?

Anybody should be able to give a medical advice. If I want you to pay you for your medical advice, why anybody on Earth should prevent you from giving me the advice? And any university should be able to hire experts and offer medical degrees. If there’s enough demand for qualified students who want to became doctors, why anybody on Earth should prevent a university to help them achieve their dream?

5. Stop government regulation of health insurance industry.

Some modest proposals of restrainging certain aspects of government regulations are discussed in Congress once in a while. For example, letting people ability to buy out-of-state insurance, or offering multiple year insurances, and so on. Why don’t we let the market come up with whatever product people want? Why do we want to create artificial barriers and then have lengthy discussion which of the thousands of constrains may be released?

And there should be many different options, for a different price of course, from accidental and basic insurances to the most advanced covering everything plans. It’s absurd to think that a single plan should cover everybody. What about organ transplants? What about treatments that cost millions?

Also, a single, universal health insurance plan will stiffen medical advance. Who eill be interested in developing new and expensive treatments if there’s no chance for them to became a part of the universal plan?

And any new treatment is expensive at the beginning.

Uh, but what about preexisting conditions and uninsured… That brings us to the last step of this program.

6. Make medical insurance charity 100% deductible.

The effect will be immediate. People will gladly allocate their taxes to private charity. It’ll be enough money to provide basic insurance to those who need it and to the people with preexisting condition.

The facts

Obama released the Torture Memo and said that those who designed the rules for torture may face criminal charges.
It was reported most recently here, here, and here. Watch Obama talk about it here.

Counterarguments

His opponents (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Really) argue that:

1. This is a politically motivated witch hunt.
2. Obama flipped-flopped on that decision in 24 hours.
3. Torture was supported by the congressional Democrats.
4. Torture was supported by the majority of Americans.
5. Torture produced the results and saved American lives.
6. It wasn’t torture.
7. It was perfectly legal.
8. Our enemies will use the Torture Memo as a recruiting and educational tool against America for years to come.
9. In the future, people will be afraid to give advice to the President because of the risk of criminal charges brought by the next administration.

My thoughts

1. So what if it is politically motivated? Why don’t we judge an argument on its face regardless of the motivation of the messengers? Very often the discussions of issues in the media and the blogosphere deteriorates into the pissing match on motivations of people making arguments. I’d rather listen to a true message by a bad person than to a false message by a good person.
2. I don’t care. For the topic we are discussing, it doesn’t matter.
3. Yes, and they are immune from the prosecution by our laws. They might have been wrong also, so what? If the torture is wrong, we shouldn’t prosecute the responsible officials because the people who are calling for prosecution supported the torture when it was enabled? If the torture is wrong, we should go ahead with the prosecution, regardless of how inconsistent the politicians are.
4. This is completely irrelevant. We are a republic, not a democrathy. If anything, it’s good to punish once in a while politicians who blindly follow the majority of population instead of following the law. Next time, it’ll help them to keep their heads cool when the mob insists on doing something illegal.
5. This is probably the main argument. Cheney wants Obama to release other memos proving that the torture saved lives. I don’t mind releasing all the relevant information, but the argument itself is bogus. Here’s the question to see this in the proper light: If by cutting the terrorist’s genitals, poking his eyes with a screwdriver, and breaking his knees with a hummer, we could save lives, should we do it?
   My answer is no. If your answer is yes, then we should have a completely different discussion on a completely different topic whether the end always justifies the means. And even if you are right and I am wrong, and the end does justifies the means at least on the question of torture, and if you win and I lose, than you should run the risk that I would be allowed to make my case in court against you.
6. I can hear the response to my previous point: It wasn’t a torture and it saved lives. If it wasn’t a torture then it’s ok and enough by itself even if it didn’t save a single life. If it was a torture, then it is bad even if it saved lives. So saving the life is irrelevant for our discussion.
   Now, maybe it wasn’t a torture. I think it was, and I have no doubt that from the common sense point of view it was a torture. It might have been a relatively soft kind of torture in the entire range of possible tortures developed by the people through centuries, but it is up there (cont.)
7. On the other hand, I understand that from the legal point of view, it might not be a torture. Based on the legal arguments of both sides, one thing is clear: it’s not absolutely accepted that it wasn’t a torture. So let this legal question be tested in courts where the defense and the prosecution are able to prepare and advance their best arguments. We’ll all benefit by getting better legal understanding on where the robust interrogation ends and the torture begins.
8. We can’t make our decisions based on what our enemies will say about it. It’s safe to assume that they’ll hate us regardless of what we do. I could make a point that releasing a memo like this shows American resolve in adherence to the Rule of Law to many potential terrorist recruits and may prevent them from participating in illegal activities against America, but it’s as irrelevant as the other argument.
9. I will be happy if the politicians are afraid to do something illegal regardless of how supportive for their ideas the current President or the Congress is. For example, I’ll be happy if the future administration will sue Obama’s administration for financially ruining the USA with extreme borrowing and taxing, and for the war in Afghanistan. I think it’s healthy to instill fear in the politicians for their actions. It’s healthy for the nation to know that when the politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and then act against it, their greatest risk is not just they may not be reelected. They might end up in prison.

This article was also published on OpEdNews.