feeling european...

So I don't know how most people get the news - on the internet, reading a real newspaper, watching TV news, via twitter, etc - but I enjoy the feeling of sitting at a table with a cup of coffee and reading a real newspaper. With that said, I usually have quite a stack of newspapers to get through, and I'm usually reading news that is several days to a week old. Interestingly, I recently read that an Amish newspaper called "The Budget" has been doing quite well despite the recession because Amish folks hold the same value of not needing the most up-to-the-minute news and reading the paper version.

Anyway, the main reason for my post tonight is to rant yet again against "stupid" politics. Healthcare reform. I'm for "universal" healthcare in the sense that I do want to have the healthcare industry regulated and accessible to all people (reduced medical costs, reduced premiums, limits on out of pocket expenses, no denying or dropping coverage because of a health condition).

I just read an article from last week's Thursday LA Times that talks about how Congress isn't willing to consider limiting premiums because that "would be meddling too much in the private sector." That's upsetting, because Congress is considering legislation that will require everyone to have insurance and pay those increasing premiums... which won't solve anything because the difference between what the poor can afford and what industry is charging in premiums will just come from tax payer funded subsidies.

while states have long supervised what companies charge for mandated automobile and homeowners insurance, the idea has been largely banished from the healthcare debate.

Nor are lawmakers seriously considering any proposals to regulate what doctors, hospitals, drug makers and other healthcare providers charge -- a strategy used by several European countries to control healthcare spending.

In those systems -- some of which, like the United States, feature a blend of private insurers and government programs -- the government sets prices that providers charge to everyone.

I suppose it'd only be fair at this point to add that I'm a dual citizen of the US and Sweden. So I do have a certain bias toward the more socialist model...

Newsweek: Why Obama Should Learn to Love "The Bomb"

A growing and compelling body of research suggests that nuclear weapons may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous, as Obama and most people assume. The bomb may actually make us safer. In this era of rogue states and transnational terrorists, that idea sounds so obviously wrongheaded that few politicians or policymakers are willing to entertain it. But that's a mistake. Knowing the truth about nukes would have a profound impact on government policy. Obama's idealistic campaign, so out of character for a pragmatic administration, may be unlikely to get far (past presidents have tried and failed).

Essentially, the article makes these points about the impact of nuclear weapons on countries that have the technology:

• there hasn't ever been a war between two nations that possess nuclear weapons.


• "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" - No one goes to war thinking they are going to lose. Nukes make the cost of war obvious, and assuming no one has a death wish, you aren't going to attack a country that might fight back with nukes.


• we've had 64 years of "nuclear peace: the virtually unprecedented stretch since the end of World War II in which all the world's major powers have avoided coming to blows." - smaller wars have erupted, but none on the scale of WWII.


• the Cuban Missle Crisis in October 1962 ended with both the United States and the Soviet Union backing off when they realized "it's impossible to win a nuclear war"


• since India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons in 1998, their behavior toward each other had dramatically mellowed.


• Nuclear weapons are so controversial and expensive that only countries that deem them absolutely critical to their survival go through the extreme trouble of acquiring them.


• terrorists "with no return address" won't get the chance to use nukes because nuclear weapons are too valuable to allow them to fall into the wrong hands, and Washington has said it will treat a terrorist use of nuclear weapons the same as if the country that provided the nukes had used it.


• apparently nuclear weapons are very complex to both maintain and operate, and they can be easily dismantled. so even if a terrorist regime did obtain nukes, it wouldn't be able to use them on their own.

The article then makes these suggestions that we should focus on instead of worrying about nuclear disarmament:

• "the logic of deterrence works only if everybody knows who has a nuclear arsenal and thus can't be attacked. So the United States should make sure everyone knows roughly who has what, to keep anyone from getting dangerous ideas."


• "the United States should put more effort into advancing 'nuclear forensics,' an emerging discipline that would allow scientists to trace any nuclear device exploded anywhere, by anybody back to its manufacturer and point of origin"


• So called "second strike" technology that would allow an attacked country to fire back would further deter any attack in the first place.


• Lastly, Washington should continue to offer assistance to secure nuclear weapons once acquired. This involves both technology and training to make sure the weapons are maintained and guarded safely to prevent theft or accidental launch. This should be offered to both allies and enemies alike, since in this aspect helping our enemies really means helping ourselves.

I certainly don't agree with all the points in this article, but I do like the fact that it took a more realistic perspective on the issue: nuclear weapons aren't going anywhere anytime soon. We live in a nuclear world, so lets look at it and at our best options.