Now that the US is considered an Empire the United States is being compared with Ancient Rome. While I won't say that this comparison is wrong, I think the better analogy is to the English Civil War.
OK, this one isn't taught in the American school system so I won't make the usual complaints about Americans not knowing any history. But this is history we might want to know.
The trouble was that the king thought he had extensive powers and the Parliament and a chunk of the public did not agree. Sound familiar?
What is interesting is that the average Englishman chose sides based on religion. Puritans for Parliament and Conservative Protestants for the King. Just like today, negotiation towards a political settlement was hampered by religiousity.
The king ends up getting his head cut off by the Army, which by the way is why to this day there is a Royal Air Force and a Royal Navy but no Royal Army. The British Army STILL has not been forgiven.
Anyway, the other issue that makes The English Civil War Stand out is the death toll. You need to remember that we are talking about the middle of the 1600s. There ARE firearms but they were extremely expensive and lucky to get off three rounds a minute. Most casualties were accomplished either face to face with hand weapons, or via disease. The death toll for the English Civil War hovers is around 500,000. That is roughly equivalent to the death toll for the American Civil War which happened two centuries later with much more efficient killing technology.
But the American Civil War wasn't religious. It was political.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, August 31, 2007
THE VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING REPORT-THE NEGATIVE LOTTERY
They got it wrong. To be fair, they were too close to the problem. They were so busy trying to figure out where the dots were supposed to be connected that they could not see the obvious.
The system worked exactly the way it is supposed to. Moreover, the majority of people like it that way.
I say that because Mental Health in the United States is run on the principle of a negative lottery.
In a positive lottery, lots of people pay in and only a few benefit. There are quite a few low level winners and then a very few jackpot winners.
But in a negative lottery nobody pays in and a few people pay the price. If you have mental health issues that limit your income or happiness, you can be considered a low level winner. If the pain becomes so unendurable that you check out early, then you are a jackpot winner. Of course if you are shot, stabbed, pushed in front of a train or otherwise crippled or killed by someone with mental health issues, well then, your a jackpot winner too.
I said before that people like it this way, and the proof will be in the actions that come from this tragedy. Will a single new psychiatist, psychologist or social worker be hired anywhere in the system? Will any new money go into treatment of people fighting their demons? I doubt it, the consensus seems to be that if there were more computers and information managers, potential shooters won't end up on campuses and there will be better alarm systems for when they somehow get there anyway.
No mention was really made about where the shooters will go instead. The shooter at Virginia Tech had been in and out of treatment for ten years before he finally gave in to the demons. I wonder sometimes how long I would last under similar circumstances. Have you ever wondered how long YOU could take it?
On the other hand, what are the odds that I specifically, will be a jackpot winner? Astronomical really. Why would I pay more taxes to deflect a fate I am unlikely to experience? Like I said, the system works just fine the way it is. There will be no rocking of the boat any time soon.
Of course, if I take my chances of being a mental health jackpot winner, and add that to my chances of being a collapsing-bridge jackpot winner, and add it to the uninspected/poisonous-food jackpot, it really starts to add up.
How many negative lotteries do I belong to?
The system worked exactly the way it is supposed to. Moreover, the majority of people like it that way.
I say that because Mental Health in the United States is run on the principle of a negative lottery.
In a positive lottery, lots of people pay in and only a few benefit. There are quite a few low level winners and then a very few jackpot winners.
But in a negative lottery nobody pays in and a few people pay the price. If you have mental health issues that limit your income or happiness, you can be considered a low level winner. If the pain becomes so unendurable that you check out early, then you are a jackpot winner. Of course if you are shot, stabbed, pushed in front of a train or otherwise crippled or killed by someone with mental health issues, well then, your a jackpot winner too.
I said before that people like it this way, and the proof will be in the actions that come from this tragedy. Will a single new psychiatist, psychologist or social worker be hired anywhere in the system? Will any new money go into treatment of people fighting their demons? I doubt it, the consensus seems to be that if there were more computers and information managers, potential shooters won't end up on campuses and there will be better alarm systems for when they somehow get there anyway.
No mention was really made about where the shooters will go instead. The shooter at Virginia Tech had been in and out of treatment for ten years before he finally gave in to the demons. I wonder sometimes how long I would last under similar circumstances. Have you ever wondered how long YOU could take it?
On the other hand, what are the odds that I specifically, will be a jackpot winner? Astronomical really. Why would I pay more taxes to deflect a fate I am unlikely to experience? Like I said, the system works just fine the way it is. There will be no rocking of the boat any time soon.
Of course, if I take my chances of being a mental health jackpot winner, and add that to my chances of being a collapsing-bridge jackpot winner, and add it to the uninspected/poisonous-food jackpot, it really starts to add up.
How many negative lotteries do I belong to?
Friday, August 24, 2007
A BAD DAY FOR THE VULTURE
Well, think I got scooped. I had this great idea to focus on just one pundit and totally review everything they say as a means to creating better pundits. David Brin in his book The Transparent Society suggested that in time all these pundits and bloggers would be put up to a Bullshine detector by the fact of all their previous predictions would be on line and there might even be a rating service to help readers spot the best prognosticators.
Can't come soon enough for me. In fact I had already picked out Rich Lowry and John Podhoretz as being so incredibly poor predictors that even I could keep their feet to the fire part time. The one I would really like to work on is Paul Krugman just because his assertions are just so much more reasonable on their face that someone really does have to go back and see what his prediction-come-true ratio is.
Well anyway, someone really layed into Lowry this week and I can't find the link.
Maybe tommorrow will be better
Can't come soon enough for me. In fact I had already picked out Rich Lowry and John Podhoretz as being so incredibly poor predictors that even I could keep their feet to the fire part time. The one I would really like to work on is Paul Krugman just because his assertions are just so much more reasonable on their face that someone really does have to go back and see what his prediction-come-true ratio is.
Well anyway, someone really layed into Lowry this week and I can't find the link.
Maybe tommorrow will be better
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)