I’ve been wanting to get this one out for a while, but due to being out of town, busy schedule, blah blah blah, you’re getting it now. So here goes…
Recently, an item started me to thinking…I heard about Keith Olbermann berating Glenn Beck for not being able to spell “oligarchy.” Actually, watching the Beck segment in question, he did, in fact, forget the the “c” and spelled the word “oligarhy.” It reminded me of the time when then-VP Dan Quayle spelled potato with an extra “e.” It also reminded me of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s recent linguistic foibles…all 5 of them.
Sotomayor: “All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first…”
To be accurate, the questions are in the “province” of Congress, not the “divine guidance or care” of Congress (as much as some members of Congress might like to think they’re God…)
Sotomayor: “They build up a story of knowledge about legal thinking…”Actually, one builds a “store” of knowledge…not a story…unless you’re trying to explain why you’ve got classified government documents stuffed down your pants that you’ve just stolen from the National Archives…
Sotomayor: “Under New York, law if you are being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury…”
Um, the word is “imminent”…unless you’re speaking of a “famous” death…
Sotomayor: “This first seven who are going to be hired, only because of the vagrancies of the vacancies at that moment…”
Not so much, it’s “vagaries” rather than the “homelessness” of the vacancies…
Last but not least, she referred to the “National Labor Relationships Board”…uh…no…that’s the “National Labor Relations Board…”
Why am I even pointing out these petty linguistic missteps? If the truth be known, I really couldn’t care less about Sotomayor’s mistakes…everyone misspeaks from time to time, but after watching those in the media rip both Quayle and Beck apart for SINGLE LETTER mistakes, I find it a little odd that there’s no corresponding outrage from the media over these five WHOLE WORD mistakes on the part of Sotomayor? 1 letter...5 words...aw, it's all the same. Is it really? If your doctor was to miss one letter of a single word in your perscription, would that be the same as misusing 5 words?!? C'mon, you know better than that. If the media wants to be taken seriously, they need to report both sides of the issue…and not just determine whether they’ll report on an issue based on the letter in the parentheses behind the name.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Just Got Back...
Sorry for the hiatus but I was out of town again last week...I'll be posting again this week!
Scott
Scott
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Knock, knock puddin’ head…it's a TAX!
This Sunday, PBO set out on the TV talk show marathon…but one stop in particular is of interest. In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, PBO claimed that the penalty for not carrying insurance is not a tax. PBO even made this statement: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.” Oh, so now the dictionary is a place where we go to “stretch” the truth? WOW! Maybe I missed that day in class…
But let’s take a look at the health care bills to see what they actually say. Huh…it seems that page 29, line 1 of Baucus’ bill disagrees with PBO. “Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax”…seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps PBO was talking about the original HR 3200…let’s take a look. Oh…whoops! I guess not…here on page 110, lines 1-6, there’s a section entitled: “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).” Wait a minute, that amends the tax code…I’d pretty much call that a tax—not to mention that the bill refers to it as a “tax.” And then on page 167, there is an entire section dedicated to just this subject: “SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” Perhaps PBO hasn’t read this bill either…as well as a few hundred other members of congress.
Mr. President, what is being proposed is, indeed, a “TAX” on the American people…that’s an indisputable fact. Is that really the wisest course under our current economic conditions? Raise taxes while the economy is down? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider what the majority of the country (the 90% of us who are not in the $180K and up bracket) would be facing with a tax increase. And then there’s that pesky little statement you made in New Hampshire in 2008: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” What about those who make less than $250K a year and choose (of their own volition) NOT to have health insurance, but to pay for medical costs out of their own pocket—thereby NOT being a drag on the insurance system? There are many people who opt out for one reason or another (somewhere between 9.1 million and 20.8 million if you combine the figures for 18-34 year olds and those who make over $75K per year as reported by FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/) and you propose to sentence them to a tax increase if they don’t get health insurance that the almighty government (I think Orwell called it “Big Brother”) doesn’t like? Sorry, but that flies directly in the face of your pledge!
If you wish to be consistent with your promise on 9/12/2008, you cannot possibly be in favor of any measure that will obligate anyone to enroll in “acceptable” health insurance or face a tax increase. Creating a safety net is for "last resort" NOT as the standard "everyone must measure up to"…there is NO NEED for a health plan that covers everybody…cover those who need it and them ONLY! That is where my bone of contention lies with all of this...I'm not against helping those who need the help; rather, I am against "helping" those who have no need of it and have not asked for it! Forcing those of us who do not "toe the line" with Big Brother into an extra tax IS penalizing our rights as citizens...attempting to control behavior is not what this country is about. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not penalties, proscription, and the limitation of freedoms!
But let’s take a look at the health care bills to see what they actually say. Huh…it seems that page 29, line 1 of Baucus’ bill disagrees with PBO. “Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax”…seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps PBO was talking about the original HR 3200…let’s take a look. Oh…whoops! I guess not…here on page 110, lines 1-6, there’s a section entitled: “TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS NOT OBTAINING ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE. The amounts received in the Treasury under section 59B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirement of health insurance coverage for individuals).” Wait a minute, that amends the tax code…I’d pretty much call that a tax—not to mention that the bill refers to it as a “tax.” And then on page 167, there is an entire section dedicated to just this subject: “SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.” Perhaps PBO hasn’t read this bill either…as well as a few hundred other members of congress.
Mr. President, what is being proposed is, indeed, a “TAX” on the American people…that’s an indisputable fact. Is that really the wisest course under our current economic conditions? Raise taxes while the economy is down? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider what the majority of the country (the 90% of us who are not in the $180K and up bracket) would be facing with a tax increase. And then there’s that pesky little statement you made in New Hampshire in 2008: “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” What about those who make less than $250K a year and choose (of their own volition) NOT to have health insurance, but to pay for medical costs out of their own pocket—thereby NOT being a drag on the insurance system? There are many people who opt out for one reason or another (somewhere between 9.1 million and 20.8 million if you combine the figures for 18-34 year olds and those who make over $75K per year as reported by FactCheck.org—http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/the-real-uninsured/) and you propose to sentence them to a tax increase if they don’t get health insurance that the almighty government (I think Orwell called it “Big Brother”) doesn’t like? Sorry, but that flies directly in the face of your pledge!
If you wish to be consistent with your promise on 9/12/2008, you cannot possibly be in favor of any measure that will obligate anyone to enroll in “acceptable” health insurance or face a tax increase. Creating a safety net is for "last resort" NOT as the standard "everyone must measure up to"…there is NO NEED for a health plan that covers everybody…cover those who need it and them ONLY! That is where my bone of contention lies with all of this...I'm not against helping those who need the help; rather, I am against "helping" those who have no need of it and have not asked for it! Forcing those of us who do not "toe the line" with Big Brother into an extra tax IS penalizing our rights as citizens...attempting to control behavior is not what this country is about. It is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...not penalties, proscription, and the limitation of freedoms!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
I'm still waiting...
I’m still waiting to understand why we need Obama Care for EVERY SINGLE US citizen when only a small part of the population is affected…anyone? ANYONE? ANYONE AT ALL?!? Why is it that we have a problem that affects 15-20% of the population (and I’m using PBO’s numbers here—I happen to think that it’s much less than 15-20%—but I’ll use PBO’s numbers for the sake of argument) and the solution that’s being proposed covers 100% of the population? There’s a word that's used for that concept…OVERKILL!
In the 8/3/2009 CNN poll, 83% of respondents said they’re “generally satisfied with the health care they receive”, 74% said they’re “generally satisfied with their health care coverage”, and approximately 59% said they’re satisfied with the cost of their health care coverage. I happen to agree that health care costs a bit too much—but that’s a discussion for a later blog…i.e. taking down state mandated health insurance barriers which allows a person living in MN (for instance) to choose between only 7 or 8 different insurance companies when there are more than 1300 insurance companies in the US (it’s called “competition”)…so I tend to agree that the cost is a bit too much. But back to PBO…
When the Pentagon proposes to spend more money than they NEED, it’s called unnecessary and something that “needs to be corrected” (no argument here)…but when PBO proposes to spend more money than he NEEDS to spend on healthcare, it’s called “critical funding.” WHAT?!? Did someone take just a few too many hits of the happy juice? It’s a “20%” problem people (see my earlier caveat)! Let’s look at a 20% solution for it! Anything else is just plain STUPID!
I have 4 daughters…when we go shopping for shoes, I buy enough shoes for my 4 daughters…I don’t buy 16 extra pairs just for the heck of it! Hello McFly!
I just don't get it...maybe someone can explain it to me...I dunno, maybe PBO’s using the new math…
In the 8/3/2009 CNN poll, 83% of respondents said they’re “generally satisfied with the health care they receive”, 74% said they’re “generally satisfied with their health care coverage”, and approximately 59% said they’re satisfied with the cost of their health care coverage. I happen to agree that health care costs a bit too much—but that’s a discussion for a later blog…i.e. taking down state mandated health insurance barriers which allows a person living in MN (for instance) to choose between only 7 or 8 different insurance companies when there are more than 1300 insurance companies in the US (it’s called “competition”)…so I tend to agree that the cost is a bit too much. But back to PBO…
When the Pentagon proposes to spend more money than they NEED, it’s called unnecessary and something that “needs to be corrected” (no argument here)…but when PBO proposes to spend more money than he NEEDS to spend on healthcare, it’s called “critical funding.” WHAT?!? Did someone take just a few too many hits of the happy juice? It’s a “20%” problem people (see my earlier caveat)! Let’s look at a 20% solution for it! Anything else is just plain STUPID!
I have 4 daughters…when we go shopping for shoes, I buy enough shoes for my 4 daughters…I don’t buy 16 extra pairs just for the heck of it! Hello McFly!
I just don't get it...maybe someone can explain it to me...I dunno, maybe PBO’s using the new math…
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Capitalism vs.(?) Human Nature...
Capitalism, in its most basic form, can be summarized as exchanging one’s goods and services for the greatest possible gain. Sounds pretty selfish, right? Only looking to enrich ourselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else?
Capitalism, at its core, cannot be defined as merely an economic system (that is ignorant of the facts); rather, it is an observation of human nature. When I put my goods and services on the market, I want to find the person who will exchange with me that which is the greatest value to me. And this is where capitalism ceases to be an economic system. I may value the warm feeling I get from volunteering more than I value money…or I may value lollipops more than money—whatever it is, I will seek someone who will give me what is of greatest worth to me for the goods and services I provide—and that doesn’t necessarily have to be money.
Here’s an example…if I, as a professional singer, have two offers to perform a concert—one for the Children’s Hospital and one for the Fine Line, then I have a choice to make. If the Children’s Hospital has offered me $2000 to perform, but the Fine Line has offered me $5000 to perform, now I must decide which of these is of greater value to me. If I decide that $2000 plus the good feeling I get from performing for kids at Children’s Hospital who are very ill is worth more to me than the $5000 that the Fine Line offered, then I choose that which is of the greatest worth to me—the $2000 and good feelings. THAT, my friends, is a textbook description of capitalism!
As I seek to exchange the greatest value for the goods and services I can provide, there is nothing that stipulates that my compensation must be monetary. I may be wholly motivated by volunteering, good karma, or frog pelts. Either way…as long as I seek to get the greatest value (whether it is money or not) for the goods and services I can provide, I have acted as a capitalist…what is exchanged for my goods and services simply doesn’t matter.
Capitalism, at its core, cannot be defined as merely an economic system (that is ignorant of the facts); rather, it is an observation of human nature. When I put my goods and services on the market, I want to find the person who will exchange with me that which is the greatest value to me. And this is where capitalism ceases to be an economic system. I may value the warm feeling I get from volunteering more than I value money…or I may value lollipops more than money—whatever it is, I will seek someone who will give me what is of greatest worth to me for the goods and services I provide—and that doesn’t necessarily have to be money.
Here’s an example…if I, as a professional singer, have two offers to perform a concert—one for the Children’s Hospital and one for the Fine Line, then I have a choice to make. If the Children’s Hospital has offered me $2000 to perform, but the Fine Line has offered me $5000 to perform, now I must decide which of these is of greater value to me. If I decide that $2000 plus the good feeling I get from performing for kids at Children’s Hospital who are very ill is worth more to me than the $5000 that the Fine Line offered, then I choose that which is of the greatest worth to me—the $2000 and good feelings. THAT, my friends, is a textbook description of capitalism!
As I seek to exchange the greatest value for the goods and services I can provide, there is nothing that stipulates that my compensation must be monetary. I may be wholly motivated by volunteering, good karma, or frog pelts. Either way…as long as I seek to get the greatest value (whether it is money or not) for the goods and services I can provide, I have acted as a capitalist…what is exchanged for my goods and services simply doesn’t matter.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Dewey Defeats Truman...
Wouldn't you kind of want to make sure you had the story right before you publish it? That is, unless you're...say...Jayson Blair (or Andrew Malcolm in this instance).
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/healthcare-reform-violence.html
It seems that--contrary to the initial report in the LA Times--the aggressor was actually a supporter of PBO's health care plan and the victim was an opponent of PBO's health care plan. Isn't that particular detail something rather important NOT to screw up--ESPECIALLY if you're the 4th largest paper in the US by circulation (behind USA Today, WSJ, & NYT)? Now granted, the LA Times did offer an update to the story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html) but not before democraticunderground.com jumped on the story too (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8622916) ...but that was before they actually checked the facts as well...DOH!
How did the article about Linda Douglass put it? Facts are stubborn things? YEP...exactly!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/healthcare-reform-violence.html
It seems that--contrary to the initial report in the LA Times--the aggressor was actually a supporter of PBO's health care plan and the victim was an opponent of PBO's health care plan. Isn't that particular detail something rather important NOT to screw up--ESPECIALLY if you're the 4th largest paper in the US by circulation (behind USA Today, WSJ, & NYT)? Now granted, the LA Times did offer an update to the story (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/health-care-activist-bites-off-the-finger-of-a-counter-demonstrator.html) but not before democraticunderground.com jumped on the story too (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8622916) ...but that was before they actually checked the facts as well...DOH!
How did the article about Linda Douglass put it? Facts are stubborn things? YEP...exactly!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Those dang right-wingers...
So I keep hearing about the “right-wingers” who are causing so much trouble these days. Huh…I guess all right-wingers are nothing but trouble.
Take the Obama Joker poster guy…this “right-winger” is a guy named Firas Alkhateeb, a 20-something student from Chicago and a Dennis Kucinich supporter…WAIT! Dennis Kucinich? That’s gotta be wrong…this joker poster HAS TO be the work of some right-wing lunatic, doesn’t it? Oh…well…I guess not. (NOTE: I am only referring to the depiction of Obama as the Joker…the moniker “socialism” was added to the picture at a later date—I am not attributing that to Alkhateeb.)
Okay, how about that girl who called Obama’s health care plan a “Nazi plan” at the Barney Frank town hall? Surely, she has to be some right-wing nut! Doesn’t she? She had a picture of Obama as Hitler and everything! Oh wait, that particular picture she had is something used by Linden LaRouche supporters. (For those who don’t know, LaRouche is about 3 tics to the left of Obama and his supporters consider Obama’s health care plan a “Nazi plan.”) DANG! Another “right-winger” that didn’t pan out!
I guess that’s just too bad for Maddow, Olbermann, Daily Kos, HuffPo, ThinkProgress, et al…
However, this poster of Obama as the Joker got me to thinking about a secondary issue. On several occasions, the poster has been referred to as a racist representation of Obama. But wait a minute; I seem to remember hearing that minorities can’t be racist (from the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc…).
SO…either the poster IS racist which would mean that Jackson and Sharpton are WRONG…
OR…the poster IS NOT racist (as is being claimed) because Alkhateeb, a Palestinian, cannot be a racist since he's a minority.
So which is it?!?
Anybody can be a racist…witness Jackson’s “Hymietown” comment and Sharpton’s “Diamond Merchant” comment…seems pretty clear to me. Of course, I’m nothing but an inbred, right-wing, bitter clinger…so what would I know anyway?
Take the Obama Joker poster guy…this “right-winger” is a guy named Firas Alkhateeb, a 20-something student from Chicago and a Dennis Kucinich supporter…WAIT! Dennis Kucinich? That’s gotta be wrong…this joker poster HAS TO be the work of some right-wing lunatic, doesn’t it? Oh…well…I guess not. (NOTE: I am only referring to the depiction of Obama as the Joker…the moniker “socialism” was added to the picture at a later date—I am not attributing that to Alkhateeb.)
Okay, how about that girl who called Obama’s health care plan a “Nazi plan” at the Barney Frank town hall? Surely, she has to be some right-wing nut! Doesn’t she? She had a picture of Obama as Hitler and everything! Oh wait, that particular picture she had is something used by Linden LaRouche supporters. (For those who don’t know, LaRouche is about 3 tics to the left of Obama and his supporters consider Obama’s health care plan a “Nazi plan.”) DANG! Another “right-winger” that didn’t pan out!
I guess that’s just too bad for Maddow, Olbermann, Daily Kos, HuffPo, ThinkProgress, et al…
However, this poster of Obama as the Joker got me to thinking about a secondary issue. On several occasions, the poster has been referred to as a racist representation of Obama. But wait a minute; I seem to remember hearing that minorities can’t be racist (from the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc…).
SO…either the poster IS racist which would mean that Jackson and Sharpton are WRONG…
OR…the poster IS NOT racist (as is being claimed) because Alkhateeb, a Palestinian, cannot be a racist since he's a minority.
So which is it?!?
Anybody can be a racist…witness Jackson’s “Hymietown” comment and Sharpton’s “Diamond Merchant” comment…seems pretty clear to me. Of course, I’m nothing but an inbred, right-wing, bitter clinger…so what would I know anyway?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Canada's impending implosion
According to Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian health care system is "imploding"...not "having difficulties", or "needing some adjustment", or even "in need of an overhaul"...but "imploding." Implosion is pretty serious...in fact, that's the same process that, in astronomical terms, describes the birth of a black hole--in other words: a MAJOR occurrence. She also mentions that they're "all running flat out" and "just trying to stay ahead of the day-to-day demands."
Now, if we take a look at what she's says, she's describing a health care system that is slightly smaller (33.6 million) than the "hole" in the health care system that AfterDowningStreet mentioned in their blog even IF we get Obama Care passed in the US (36 million). So, with even a smaller system than those who would be without if we passed this legislation, it is still unsustainable. The other angle to look at is that the proposed health care system would, theoretically, be available to the entire US population (notice I didn't say "imposed upon"...so let's not go there) of roughly 305 million people (or just over 9 times the size of Canada's population).
In essence, even those who are currently "without adequate health care"--that 45 million figure that we keep hearing about (a figure which is still highly debatable)--are almost 1 1/2 times the size of the current Canadian system. So, even if we decide to pursue a public option for those citizens, the current situation in Canada should give us pause!
Here's the article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
I am still not in support of universal health care because of its all-encompassing nature, but if we need to establish a public option for those who are in need of one (and ONLY for them), we must take Canada's current situation to heart and realize just how tenuous this proposal can be. We must be careful not to simply throw out the suggestion without realizing the gravity of the proposal. It can very easily debilitate our economy. If you are on a ship that is sinking and make it to a lifeboat, what happens when you overload the lifeboat? It sinks and everyone aboard is back to square one. Similarly, we must let our zeal outdistance our abilities...to do so will result in certain failure!
Now, if we take a look at what she's says, she's describing a health care system that is slightly smaller (33.6 million) than the "hole" in the health care system that AfterDowningStreet mentioned in their blog even IF we get Obama Care passed in the US (36 million). So, with even a smaller system than those who would be without if we passed this legislation, it is still unsustainable. The other angle to look at is that the proposed health care system would, theoretically, be available to the entire US population (notice I didn't say "imposed upon"...so let's not go there) of roughly 305 million people (or just over 9 times the size of Canada's population).
In essence, even those who are currently "without adequate health care"--that 45 million figure that we keep hearing about (a figure which is still highly debatable)--are almost 1 1/2 times the size of the current Canadian system. So, even if we decide to pursue a public option for those citizens, the current situation in Canada should give us pause!
Here's the article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
I am still not in support of universal health care because of its all-encompassing nature, but if we need to establish a public option for those who are in need of one (and ONLY for them), we must take Canada's current situation to heart and realize just how tenuous this proposal can be. We must be careful not to simply throw out the suggestion without realizing the gravity of the proposal. It can very easily debilitate our economy. If you are on a ship that is sinking and make it to a lifeboat, what happens when you overload the lifeboat? It sinks and everyone aboard is back to square one. Similarly, we must let our zeal outdistance our abilities...to do so will result in certain failure!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Facts ARE stubborn things...
Wow! I never thought I'd use something Hillary said in my blog...but in light of the current healthcare debate...
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I can do it myself...
A friend of mine recently wrote in a post on FB: “The health care debate is a great example. So many fighting against health care being provided for the masses.”
I, for one, will not allow someone to dictate my own position to me…my position is that we should provide for THOSE WHO NEED IT and not for those who have no need. To do so is nothing short of wasteful and irresponsible. Yes, establish insurance for those who need it…and even establish emergency funds for those who may not know they need it until they come to a situation that threatens their life savings or home…but DON’T foist it on EVERYONE. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS IT! So let’s be done with this inane accusation that I am against healthcare for the masses when I have said that it SHOULD be provided for those who need it! I simply will not acknowledge this absurd attempt to dictate to me what my own argument is.
I do not support universal health care because it is being proposed for everyone…not just those who need it. Offer it for THOSE WHO NEED IT…is that so confusing?!?
Imagine a small town in which there are only 10 cars between all of the residents. 2 of these cars are in dire need of brakes…they’ll fail very soon…and the other 8 cars do not need brakes…in fact, the brakes on these other 8 cars range from brand new to good condition. Why in the world would this small town issue an edict that ALL 10 cars need to have new brakes put on within the next week if only 2 of the cars actually need it. And then imagine that someone raised that very question at the city council meeting—and then someone else stood up and said that they are against putting new brakes on *all* the cars…WRONG! This first person stood up to say that they are absolutely in agreement with putting new brakes on the 2 cars in need of brakes, but that they are against forcing new brakes on the cars that do not need the new brakes. To claim that the first person is against all new brakes is laughable at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst, plain and simple.
In a similar manner, I simply will not accept those on the other side of the healthcare issue who choose to paint me as someone who opposes healthcare for the masses…I do not! I do, however, oppose healthcare proscribed for those who don’t need it, but by all means, find a way to provide for those who do need it!
If you remember, this same tactic was employed in the stem cell research debate as well. I as well as many others do not support embryonic stem cell research but we DO support the other 3 types of stem cell research…and yet, we’ve been accused of not supporting stem cell research full stop. Since when is someone who supports a medical initiative 75% of the time considered to be against that medical initiative? In a word—ridiculous!
I’m tired of being told what I believe…ESPECIALLY when it doesn’t square with what I actually do believe. So, for those of you who want to TRY to paint me into a corner philosophically in a way that does not agree with my stated views, I reject you out of hand! Let’s have a debate on the issues rather than simply devolve into name calling, unsupported sweeping generalizations, and character assassination. I welcome any and all intelligent debate, but let’s leave the name calling and unsubstantiated accusations back in the 3rd grade where they belong…
I, for one, will not allow someone to dictate my own position to me…my position is that we should provide for THOSE WHO NEED IT and not for those who have no need. To do so is nothing short of wasteful and irresponsible. Yes, establish insurance for those who need it…and even establish emergency funds for those who may not know they need it until they come to a situation that threatens their life savings or home…but DON’T foist it on EVERYONE. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS IT! So let’s be done with this inane accusation that I am against healthcare for the masses when I have said that it SHOULD be provided for those who need it! I simply will not acknowledge this absurd attempt to dictate to me what my own argument is.
I do not support universal health care because it is being proposed for everyone…not just those who need it. Offer it for THOSE WHO NEED IT…is that so confusing?!?
Imagine a small town in which there are only 10 cars between all of the residents. 2 of these cars are in dire need of brakes…they’ll fail very soon…and the other 8 cars do not need brakes…in fact, the brakes on these other 8 cars range from brand new to good condition. Why in the world would this small town issue an edict that ALL 10 cars need to have new brakes put on within the next week if only 2 of the cars actually need it. And then imagine that someone raised that very question at the city council meeting—and then someone else stood up and said that they are against putting new brakes on *all* the cars…WRONG! This first person stood up to say that they are absolutely in agreement with putting new brakes on the 2 cars in need of brakes, but that they are against forcing new brakes on the cars that do not need the new brakes. To claim that the first person is against all new brakes is laughable at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst, plain and simple.
In a similar manner, I simply will not accept those on the other side of the healthcare issue who choose to paint me as someone who opposes healthcare for the masses…I do not! I do, however, oppose healthcare proscribed for those who don’t need it, but by all means, find a way to provide for those who do need it!
If you remember, this same tactic was employed in the stem cell research debate as well. I as well as many others do not support embryonic stem cell research but we DO support the other 3 types of stem cell research…and yet, we’ve been accused of not supporting stem cell research full stop. Since when is someone who supports a medical initiative 75% of the time considered to be against that medical initiative? In a word—ridiculous!
I’m tired of being told what I believe…ESPECIALLY when it doesn’t square with what I actually do believe. So, for those of you who want to TRY to paint me into a corner philosophically in a way that does not agree with my stated views, I reject you out of hand! Let’s have a debate on the issues rather than simply devolve into name calling, unsupported sweeping generalizations, and character assassination. I welcome any and all intelligent debate, but let’s leave the name calling and unsubstantiated accusations back in the 3rd grade where they belong…
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
DailyKos, HuffPo, et al... OOOOOOOOOOOPS!!!!
It seems that the pictures of Obama as Hitler--which was reported on by DailyKos, HuffPo, and others--was actually being held by a John Dingell supporter (he was handing out Dingell literature at the end of the rally)! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!!!!
Furthermore, if you look at the bottom of the poster, you can pretty easily see the link listed there: http://www.larouchepac.com ...now there's a right-wing organization (NOT!). So I went to the website...front page, upper right corner--"Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan"--wow! So I clicked on that button...and hey, look at that, a button for the "I've Changed! Obama Poster"...it's the same picture! But wait, what do LaRouche and his supporters really stand for anyway? Digging a little deeper, LaRouche has not only been affiliated with the US Labor Party (once), but also with the Democratic Party (seven times) in his bids for president. And not only that, his approach to health care is this...
1. abolish HMO's (BTW, given to us by Ted Kennedy in the 60's--THANKS TEDDY!)
2. revive the 1946 Hill-Burton Act
3. institute a single-payer system
WOW, this guy is full of right-wing talking points! Or not so much...
So, DailyKos, HuffPo, etc...why dontcha return to Journalism 101 and cross-check stories before you post 'em! Why dontcha try not to simply jump to a convenient conclusion that is not supported by the facts! And please stop taking every single opportunity to abdicate your responsibility as journalists and conveniently lay the blame at the feet of right-wingers no matter how thin the evidence. In this particular instance, YOU CHOKED! Nice try, though.
NEXT!!!!
Furthermore, if you look at the bottom of the poster, you can pretty easily see the link listed there: http://www.larouchepac.com ...now there's a right-wing organization (NOT!). So I went to the website...front page, upper right corner--"Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan"--wow! So I clicked on that button...and hey, look at that, a button for the "I've Changed! Obama Poster"...it's the same picture! But wait, what do LaRouche and his supporters really stand for anyway? Digging a little deeper, LaRouche has not only been affiliated with the US Labor Party (once), but also with the Democratic Party (seven times) in his bids for president. And not only that, his approach to health care is this...
1. abolish HMO's (BTW, given to us by Ted Kennedy in the 60's--THANKS TEDDY!)
2. revive the 1946 Hill-Burton Act
3. institute a single-payer system
WOW, this guy is full of right-wing talking points! Or not so much...
So, DailyKos, HuffPo, etc...why dontcha return to Journalism 101 and cross-check stories before you post 'em! Why dontcha try not to simply jump to a convenient conclusion that is not supported by the facts! And please stop taking every single opportunity to abdicate your responsibility as journalists and conveniently lay the blame at the feet of right-wingers no matter how thin the evidence. In this particular instance, YOU CHOKED! Nice try, though.
NEXT!!!!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Universal Health Care...just like Canada...?!?
I live in a suburb of Minneapolis...and this winter, during one of our 20 below weather patterns (yes, we had more than one--and yes, it was actual temperature BEFORE windchill) I was thinking to myself, y'know, there's an entire country north of us! What the heck are they thinkin'?!? It's cold enough here in the winter, and it's even colder in International Falls, MN (the icebox of the USA--officially), but I don't even want to think about the country that's to our north! Then I started poking around, doing some research on Canada...and I found some interesting information. One of the most interesting facts about Canada is that the entire population of the country of Canada is about 33.6 million...right now, the population of the Los Angeles Area is about 18 million...so, the entire *country* of Canada has a population that is less than twice the population of one of our most populous cities! Wow...that puts it in perspective. I guess there aren't as many crazy people in the Great White North as I thought...phew! Case closed...out of sight; out of mind.
Until this summer...
The healthcare debate has heated up this summer, which got me to thinking about the much vaunted Canadian Health Care system. I can't count the number of times that Canada's health care system has been praised. But wait a minute...this entire country is not even twice the size of Los Angeles...and they can't even handle it! What makes us think we could do it with a population that is, right now, around 305 million?
I was sent this video from a guy who was raised in Canada and now lives in the US, but his friends still live in Canada. So they decided to give the good ol' CHS a try.
BTW...Note to Michael Moore: if you want to get the actual truth about something, it's usually best to go in with *hidden cameras* (a la Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, ABC Primetime, et al) and not let them know you're there rather than going in with a large crew and announcing your presence. But that's just me...and Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes and ABC Primetime and...you get the point.
But back to my original thought...in this video, we see a health care system that is overloaded, inefficient, and clumsy...and it only has 33.6 million enrolled! When compared to the US, it's kinda apples & oranges...take a look at the video...
Right now, in the US, there is a proposal for Universal Health Care, but according to the story on AfterDowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43668), the CBO says that 36 million will still remain uninsured even with the most aggressive plan out there. 36 million? That's more than the entire population of Canada! WHA?!?!?
Now, I do not, nor have I ever made the claim that the health system in the US is flawless, but if 15% of the US population is without adequate coverage (and that figure is debatable), that still leaves 85% that DO have adequate coverage. Universal Health Care is not the answer...not in Canada...and not here...and especially if our best plan STILL leaves more people without insurance (in the US) than live in the entire country of Canada!
We must focus on those who are without adequate coverage and propose a solution for THEM...not everyone. If we propose a solution for the 45 million without insurance (and for the sake of argument, I'll even stipulate to that 45 million figure...even though it's definitely on the high side), then we can do better than leaving 36 million out in the cold. It's like a blanket on a cold Minnesota (or Canadian) winter night: 85% of your body is covered, but instead of finding a smaller blanket to warm the 15% of your body that is not covered, you opt for an entirely new blanket that will only cover 90% of your body...10% is still not covered...that solution stinks!
Trying to cover the entire US population (305 million) while leaving 36 million uncovered (even with the most aggressive plan out there right now) is foolhardy. We need to focus on those without coverage and leave those with adequate coverage alone! Questions about large-scale government run health care? Ask a veteran! They *LOVE* the VA (tongue firmly planted in cheek)!
Oh yeah...and if this health coverage proposal is SOOOOOOO good, then I want to see a 10 year trial run involving the president and Congress before the American people are saddled with it!
Until this summer...
The healthcare debate has heated up this summer, which got me to thinking about the much vaunted Canadian Health Care system. I can't count the number of times that Canada's health care system has been praised. But wait a minute...this entire country is not even twice the size of Los Angeles...and they can't even handle it! What makes us think we could do it with a population that is, right now, around 305 million?
I was sent this video from a guy who was raised in Canada and now lives in the US, but his friends still live in Canada. So they decided to give the good ol' CHS a try.
BTW...Note to Michael Moore: if you want to get the actual truth about something, it's usually best to go in with *hidden cameras* (a la Dateline NBC, 60 Minutes, ABC Primetime, et al) and not let them know you're there rather than going in with a large crew and announcing your presence. But that's just me...and Dateline NBC and 60 Minutes and ABC Primetime and...you get the point.
But back to my original thought...in this video, we see a health care system that is overloaded, inefficient, and clumsy...and it only has 33.6 million enrolled! When compared to the US, it's kinda apples & oranges...take a look at the video...
Right now, in the US, there is a proposal for Universal Health Care, but according to the story on AfterDowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43668), the CBO says that 36 million will still remain uninsured even with the most aggressive plan out there. 36 million? That's more than the entire population of Canada! WHA?!?!?
Now, I do not, nor have I ever made the claim that the health system in the US is flawless, but if 15% of the US population is without adequate coverage (and that figure is debatable), that still leaves 85% that DO have adequate coverage. Universal Health Care is not the answer...not in Canada...and not here...and especially if our best plan STILL leaves more people without insurance (in the US) than live in the entire country of Canada!
We must focus on those who are without adequate coverage and propose a solution for THEM...not everyone. If we propose a solution for the 45 million without insurance (and for the sake of argument, I'll even stipulate to that 45 million figure...even though it's definitely on the high side), then we can do better than leaving 36 million out in the cold. It's like a blanket on a cold Minnesota (or Canadian) winter night: 85% of your body is covered, but instead of finding a smaller blanket to warm the 15% of your body that is not covered, you opt for an entirely new blanket that will only cover 90% of your body...10% is still not covered...that solution stinks!
Trying to cover the entire US population (305 million) while leaving 36 million uncovered (even with the most aggressive plan out there right now) is foolhardy. We need to focus on those without coverage and leave those with adequate coverage alone! Questions about large-scale government run health care? Ask a veteran! They *LOVE* the VA (tongue firmly planted in cheek)!
Oh yeah...and if this health coverage proposal is SOOOOOOO good, then I want to see a 10 year trial run involving the president and Congress before the American people are saddled with it!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Just say "no"
As a conservative, over the past few years, I have been faced with a choice to either refrain from voting for an particular candidate with whom I do not agree (but who has the party endorsement and the ability to win--practically speaking) or to vote for someone who shares my values much more closely but who has a slim chance of winning--thereby making it much easier for the opposing candidate (with whom I disagree on just about everything) to win. This struggle, then, becomes not so much a matter of voting "for" one candidate as much as voting "against" the other candidate. So, here's my idea...
Why not make it possible to simply vote "no" on a candidate without necessarily voting "yes" on his/her opponent? So, the "no" vote would count against the candidate by subtracting from their vote tally, but it would not automatically throw support to the other candidate (as is the case now). You could still only make one vote (i.e.--you could not simultaneously vote "yes" for one and "no" for the other)--voting "yes" for either candidate (thereby adding to their vote tally) or "no" for either candidate (thereby subtracting from their vote tally). Either way, it would certainly make my dilemma easier.
I know it's not terribly practical...and it has just about as much chance of being implemented as Congress NOT voting themselves a pay raise...but I think it's food for thought all the same.
Why not make it possible to simply vote "no" on a candidate without necessarily voting "yes" on his/her opponent? So, the "no" vote would count against the candidate by subtracting from their vote tally, but it would not automatically throw support to the other candidate (as is the case now). You could still only make one vote (i.e.--you could not simultaneously vote "yes" for one and "no" for the other)--voting "yes" for either candidate (thereby adding to their vote tally) or "no" for either candidate (thereby subtracting from their vote tally). Either way, it would certainly make my dilemma easier.
I know it's not terribly practical...and it has just about as much chance of being implemented as Congress NOT voting themselves a pay raise...but I think it's food for thought all the same.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Just one more crack in the armor...
Interesting article on 60 more European scientists that dissent with global warming...particularly interesting is the fact that many of these scientists are UN IPCC scientists (scroll down to the end of the letter for the list of signers and their qualifications). Also, pay attention to the other article links below the list of signers.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/BREAKING-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Psuedo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-viewsDeveloping
One particularly interesting link is this one from the US Senate...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=7439532&CFTOKEN=19604971
Man-Made Global Warming is something that could not prevail in a court of law...there are too many holes. Likewise, "consensus" is something that scientist do not deal in. Is there a "consensus" on gravity? Or on the sun being at the center of our universe? Or on any number of other things? No...consensus has NO place in science...disagreement about observed phenomena--yes...but "consensus" that dictates the direction of science--no. The physical world that we can observe is larger than us...we merely observe, hypothesize, and experiment...we do not have the privilege (or the ability, for that matter) to force the physical world as a whole to behave in a way that is consistent with our every desire or whim.
BTW...I keep hearing that these temperature fluctuations are consistent with MMGW...where else in science is that phenomenon observable? I'm pretty sure I remember from HS science class that if water is heated, it heats up...or if air is heated, it heats up...I don't remember that the temperature of the water or air fluctuated wildly.
Pay attention to both the diversity of the scientists as well as the diversity of sources linked at the end of the article. To simply dismiss all of the scientists (the 60 as well as the 650) as well as the linked articles as merely "bought and paid for" oil company shills (and that would include the UN IPCC) assumes just a bit too much power on the part of the oil companies, I think. The diversity of informational sources strengthens the corroboration of the information itself...really, this information is much bigger than the oil companies. But believe what you must...I just don't buy it.
A Proud Member of the MMGW Loyal Opposition...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/BREAKING-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Psuedo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-viewsDeveloping
One particularly interesting link is this one from the US Senate...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9&CFID=7439532&CFTOKEN=19604971
Man-Made Global Warming is something that could not prevail in a court of law...there are too many holes. Likewise, "consensus" is something that scientist do not deal in. Is there a "consensus" on gravity? Or on the sun being at the center of our universe? Or on any number of other things? No...consensus has NO place in science...disagreement about observed phenomena--yes...but "consensus" that dictates the direction of science--no. The physical world that we can observe is larger than us...we merely observe, hypothesize, and experiment...we do not have the privilege (or the ability, for that matter) to force the physical world as a whole to behave in a way that is consistent with our every desire or whim.
BTW...I keep hearing that these temperature fluctuations are consistent with MMGW...where else in science is that phenomenon observable? I'm pretty sure I remember from HS science class that if water is heated, it heats up...or if air is heated, it heats up...I don't remember that the temperature of the water or air fluctuated wildly.
Pay attention to both the diversity of the scientists as well as the diversity of sources linked at the end of the article. To simply dismiss all of the scientists (the 60 as well as the 650) as well as the linked articles as merely "bought and paid for" oil company shills (and that would include the UN IPCC) assumes just a bit too much power on the part of the oil companies, I think. The diversity of informational sources strengthens the corroboration of the information itself...really, this information is much bigger than the oil companies. But believe what you must...I just don't buy it.
A Proud Member of the MMGW Loyal Opposition...
A Mob? Really?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/dnc-goes-all-in-takes-on_n_251438.html
So let me get this straight...people expressing their opinion by shouting at town hall meetings are a "mob", but people at the RNC expressing their opinion by shouting as well as trying to *bodily* prevent delegates from making it to the RNC are "protesters." Huh...I haven't yet seen any reports of people at these town hall meetings doing anything but talking (or shouting)... Really? A "mob"? You're serious? I guess I'd better spend some time figuring out what a "mob" really is...
So let me get this straight...people expressing their opinion by shouting at town hall meetings are a "mob", but people at the RNC expressing their opinion by shouting as well as trying to *bodily* prevent delegates from making it to the RNC are "protesters." Huh...I haven't yet seen any reports of people at these town hall meetings doing anything but talking (or shouting)... Really? A "mob"? You're serious? I guess I'd better spend some time figuring out what a "mob" really is...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
