On vacation...

I'm on vacation this week, so posts will resume after September 1st...

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?

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!

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...

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…

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!!!!

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!

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.

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...

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...