NPR’s All Things Considered had a story about a Minnesota National Guard unit that has been told that their stay in Iraq will be extended, like many other of our deployed forces in the world. One of the soldiers in the unit was given the opportunity to pose a question to President Bush during his interview with NPR’s Juan Williams. The soldier asked whether the President had a plan for Iraq if the troop surge didn’t have the intended effect, to which Bush responded,
Well, I would say to Ryan, I put it in place on the advice of a lot of smart people, particularly the military people who think it will work, and let us go into this aspect of the Iraqi strategy feeling it will work. But I will also assure Ryan that we’re constantly adjusting to conditions on the ground.
Wow. That plays right along with Bush’s idea that everything he does will be successful and that there is no need for backup plans. Thanks for answering that question, next time you can just say “no.” Thankfully, the soldier understood the true meaning of Bush’s response and had this to say upon hearing it:
No, it did not answer my question. I would have liked to know more so that there will be a plan if this does not work. For some of us that are over here, particularly me, my unit, we all feel, what’s the point of us being extended if your initial plan to send more troops over here does not work? What are you going to do, Mr. President?
Will Bush get the troop surge? There really is a good chance (I’d say it’s a forgone conclusion) that the troop surge won’t fix anything. What will happen then?
I just picked up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a book which I’m sure contains numerous interesting quotes. The first chapter focuses on the undue respect afforded to religious beliefs. Dawkins makes the point that, though people can openly argue about politics, economics and warfare, religion gets a pass. Arguing about religion is a way to bring up undue hatred from anyone whose views differ. In concluding the chapter he quotes H. L. Mencken who said, “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” A fitting summarization.
While reading about capsaicin and the Scoville scale on my favorite website, I noticed the Shmidt Sting Pain Index was listed. Like so often happens when browsing Wikipedia, this led me to read about other pain indices. Other than the Wong-Baker scale shown at the top of the page, I didn’t know that there were such defined scales.
In the State of the Union last night, Bush proposed a way to the way health care is taxed. This announcement was something of a surprise — the first I heard of it was Monday morning. It sounds sort of complicated, but once all laid out, it’s fairly straightforward. Currently, if you get health insurance from your employer you don’t pay any tax on the cost of the plan. Similarly, those who are self-employed can deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income. Anyone who pays their own health insurance outright, either because their employer doesn’t offer it or they can’t qualify for the plans that their employer offers, pay that expense after tax.
Under Bush’s new plan, that last group would be allowed to deduct their health insurance cost. The loss in tax revenue would come from a change to the taxation of those in the employer-paid insurance group; their insurance payments would be taxed if they exceed $15,000 for a family or $7,500 for an individual. If your annual healthcare premiums are less than those limits, you would see no change and it would still be tax free. The idea here is that this change covers the lost tax revenue while at the same time discouraging employers from offering overly-generous healthcare coverage and encourage the creation of low-cost plans that don’t currently exist.
In the State of the Union last night, Bush proposed a way to the way health care is taxed. This announcement was something of a surprise — the first I heard of it was Monday morning. It sounds sort of complicated, but once all laid out, it’s fairly straightforward. Currently, if you get health insurance from your employer you don’t pay any tax on the cost of the plan. Similarly, those who are self-employed can deduct the cost of their health insurance from their taxable income. Anyone who pays their own health insurance outright, either because their employer doesn’t offer it or they can’t qualify for the plans that their employer offers, pay that expense after tax.
Under Bush’s new plan, that last group would be allowed to deduct their health insurance cost. The loss in tax revenue would come from a change to the taxation of those in the employer-paid insurance group; their insurance payments would be taxed if they exceed $15,000 for a family or $7,500 for an individual. If your annual healthcare premiums are less than those limits, you would see no change and it would still be tax free. The idea here is that this change covers the lost tax revenue while at the same time discouraging employers from offering overly-generous healthcare coverage and encourage the creation of low-cost plans that don’t currently exist.
Check out how often Nancy Pelosi blinks - about once per second. The president blinks at a more relaxed pace of once every 3-5 seconds and then there’s Cheney, who’s robot eyes never need to be refreshed.
[youtube]YzhJXQLxxZs[/youtube]
If you watched the speech in high-def (wider and more detailed coverage!) then this was pretty obvious throughout the entire speech.
On a somewhat unrelated note, an NPR analyst described the war in Iraq as a morass, which I think is a very appropriate way to characterize the situation.
This week and last, news outlets have mentioned the rising price of tortillas in Mexico. It seems humorous on the surface but tortillas are the staple food of Mexico’s poor and the 14% increase in prices for the commodity in the past year, as compared to the country’s 4% inflation, is significant for many. Tortillas have increased in price because the white corn from which they are made has similarly increased in value due in part to the increased demand for yellow corn that is used to make ethanol.
One of the authors of Freaknomics, Stephen Dubner, recently mentioned in his blog that these increase in corn prices stem from the high price of oil, which bolsters demand for ethanol. Anyone who has read The Omnivore’s Dillema knows that corn is the basis for nearly all industrially produced food in the United States. Could Dubner be right that this oil prices could lead to less obese Americans through a convoluted chain of corn?
