Well, the NOW Gang's at it again (National Organization for Women, in case you're wondering)...deriding the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad as something that promotes violence against women. I guess they couldn't come up with anything better than that on short notice. Perhaps they'd like to rethink this one? Especially in light of the Snickers Superbowl ad with Betty White.
Here's the Tim Tebow ad...
According to the LA Times on 2/8/10: "NOW president Terry O'Neill said it glorified violence against women. 'I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,' she said. 'That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.'"
Huh...strange, but I don't remember a similar press release from the president of NOW about the Snickers Superbowl ad...here it is...
Weird...it looks almost the same...I guess I'm missing something. Perhaps NOW is enlightened about the situational ethics of violence against women that I--as an insensitive, hateful, terroristic, right-winger--could never hope to understand. Or...maybe they're just plain WRONG!
Nice try NOW Gang...but next time, try using something that's not so predictable and easy to debunk...
NEXT!
Friday, February 19, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Training Wheels for Adults...
Interesting story in the NY Times on Thursday entitled "Cuomo Sues Bank of America, Even as It Settles With S.E.C." Here's the link... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/business/05cuomo.html
So let me get this straight...NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing Bank of America for the effect that their acquisition of Merrill Lynch had on BofA stock prices as well as BofA’s silence about the deal—this is after BofA had decided they didn't want to acquire Merrill based on what they saw in Merrill’s books but were told BY HANK PAULSEN “acquire Merrill…or ELSE (AND keep your mouth shut about it).”
Not only that, Cuomo is suing them under the Martin Act which means that he doesn’t even have to prove that BofA had any intent to defraud their customers (basically, Cuomo doesn’t have the chops, so he sues ‘em under a statute that says he doesn’t have to DO HIS JOB and prove malfeasance on their part)—not that he could prove it anyhow.
So, Paulsen told BofA to acquire Merrill (which they didn’t want to do) and to shut up about it, BofA begrudgingly does what Paulsen tells ‘em to, and now Cuomo’s suing ‘em for doing what Paulsen told ‘em to do. Shouldn’t Cuomo be suing Paulsen? Of course not, doing that won’t get him in the NY governor’s chair he’s so desperate to get into…Mr. Cuomo is nothing but a transparent, vacuous, political hack. Sorry Mr. Cuomo, the AG post doesn't come with training wheels...you're supposed to be able to put on your big boy pants and do the job all by yourself. Next time, perhaps you should concentrate on someone who wasn't doing what the government told 'em to do...
So let me get this straight...NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is suing Bank of America for the effect that their acquisition of Merrill Lynch had on BofA stock prices as well as BofA’s silence about the deal—this is after BofA had decided they didn't want to acquire Merrill based on what they saw in Merrill’s books but were told BY HANK PAULSEN “acquire Merrill…or ELSE (AND keep your mouth shut about it).”
Not only that, Cuomo is suing them under the Martin Act which means that he doesn’t even have to prove that BofA had any intent to defraud their customers (basically, Cuomo doesn’t have the chops, so he sues ‘em under a statute that says he doesn’t have to DO HIS JOB and prove malfeasance on their part)—not that he could prove it anyhow.
So, Paulsen told BofA to acquire Merrill (which they didn’t want to do) and to shut up about it, BofA begrudgingly does what Paulsen tells ‘em to, and now Cuomo’s suing ‘em for doing what Paulsen told ‘em to do. Shouldn’t Cuomo be suing Paulsen? Of course not, doing that won’t get him in the NY governor’s chair he’s so desperate to get into…Mr. Cuomo is nothing but a transparent, vacuous, political hack. Sorry Mr. Cuomo, the AG post doesn't come with training wheels...you're supposed to be able to put on your big boy pants and do the job all by yourself. Next time, perhaps you should concentrate on someone who wasn't doing what the government told 'em to do...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Even a Blind Squirrel Can Find a Nut Sometimes...
I found these comments regarding the situation in Haiti particularly interesting…
The first few were from a live CNN report from Haiti with Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta…
Anderson Cooper: I do think some of these big organizations, plans are made in some other country—back in Geneva or something—and by the time it gets filtered down and the bureaucracy gets involved and there's a million chiefs(?) involved, days have been wasted, when, you know, you could just get some folks and get out there. Roll up your sleeves and start doing it.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: There were some very critically ill patients there…this is one example, I don’t know if this happens at other times because of the bureaucracy…because lack of common sense.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: People back home who have no idea are making these decisions and they're just not the right decisions sometimes.
Even Katie Couric got in on the action…
Katie Couric: To see that the response was taking so long, it was so frustrating. These big bureaucracies…I just think it takes a while, I guess.
That’s pretty much what conservatives have been trying to say about Universal Health Care all along. If you need to do it for those who NEED it, then do it…but for those of us who DON’T NEED it, leave it alone. By forcing everyone onto UHC, you only increase the bureaucracy…and look where that gets you…even CNN and CBS were able to stumble onto the truth…
The first few were from a live CNN report from Haiti with Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta…
Anderson Cooper: I do think some of these big organizations, plans are made in some other country—back in Geneva or something—and by the time it gets filtered down and the bureaucracy gets involved and there's a million chiefs(?) involved, days have been wasted, when, you know, you could just get some folks and get out there. Roll up your sleeves and start doing it.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: There were some very critically ill patients there…this is one example, I don’t know if this happens at other times because of the bureaucracy…because lack of common sense.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta: People back home who have no idea are making these decisions and they're just not the right decisions sometimes.
Even Katie Couric got in on the action…
Katie Couric: To see that the response was taking so long, it was so frustrating. These big bureaucracies…I just think it takes a while, I guess.
That’s pretty much what conservatives have been trying to say about Universal Health Care all along. If you need to do it for those who NEED it, then do it…but for those of us who DON’T NEED it, leave it alone. By forcing everyone onto UHC, you only increase the bureaucracy…and look where that gets you…even CNN and CBS were able to stumble onto the truth…
Friday, January 8, 2010
Remedial Math Lessons & Baseless Scare Tactics...
Sorry for the unexpected hiatus…I’ve been unable to post, but I’ve had lots going through my mind during my absence. So, I will begin posting again, but you may notice some of the blogs are in reference to news that is a few weeks old…anyway, here goes…
A number of years ago, when I was in college, I remember talking with a teenager who told me how his dad had been killed in the Vietnam War before he was born. Judging from his age, I didn’t see how this was really possible…so I asked him when he was born. “1971” he said. “When was your dad killed?” was my reply. His answer was “1968.” Huh…must be that new math.
A similar situation has occurred recently. An ad about children’s health care has come out that has some similarly significant arithmetical errors.
"1 year from now", "3 months from now", "2 years from now"…uh, sorry, all of these children—even under the proposed health legislation—would not be helped at all. Under the current bills, the tax increases start right away, but the health care doesn’t kick in until at least 2013—and more likely, 2014. Nice try on pulling the heartstrings, but this ad truly lacks substance. Health care legislation will do NOTHING for the children in these ads.
Now, I know some of my friends on the left will say that the message of the ad is germane once the healthcare proposals kick in—kids should never be without health care. In response, I took a look at some government literature regarding the current CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) legislation that is already in effect:
“Check out the new income guidelines in effect for CHIP enrollments and renewals. No family makes too much money for CHIP! All uninsured children and teens not eligible for Medical Assistance have access to health insurance. It doesn’t matter how much money your family makes.”
Huh, kinda sounds to me like “all uninsured children and teens” are already eligible no matter “how much money [their] family makes.” Did I read this correctly? “No family makes too much money for CHIP!” Perhaps I’ve “taken this out of context” somehow…or maybe I haven’t!
Sorry guys, kids are already covered by legislation already in force…nice try on the baseless scare tactics though…oh yeah, and next time you make a video about something like this, you may want to have your math teacher take a look at your numbers to make sure they match up…
A number of years ago, when I was in college, I remember talking with a teenager who told me how his dad had been killed in the Vietnam War before he was born. Judging from his age, I didn’t see how this was really possible…so I asked him when he was born. “1971” he said. “When was your dad killed?” was my reply. His answer was “1968.” Huh…must be that new math.
A similar situation has occurred recently. An ad about children’s health care has come out that has some similarly significant arithmetical errors.
"1 year from now", "3 months from now", "2 years from now"…uh, sorry, all of these children—even under the proposed health legislation—would not be helped at all. Under the current bills, the tax increases start right away, but the health care doesn’t kick in until at least 2013—and more likely, 2014. Nice try on pulling the heartstrings, but this ad truly lacks substance. Health care legislation will do NOTHING for the children in these ads.
Now, I know some of my friends on the left will say that the message of the ad is germane once the healthcare proposals kick in—kids should never be without health care. In response, I took a look at some government literature regarding the current CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) legislation that is already in effect:
“Check out the new income guidelines in effect for CHIP enrollments and renewals. No family makes too much money for CHIP! All uninsured children and teens not eligible for Medical Assistance have access to health insurance. It doesn’t matter how much money your family makes.”
Huh, kinda sounds to me like “all uninsured children and teens” are already eligible no matter “how much money [their] family makes.” Did I read this correctly? “No family makes too much money for CHIP!” Perhaps I’ve “taken this out of context” somehow…or maybe I haven’t!
Sorry guys, kids are already covered by legislation already in force…nice try on the baseless scare tactics though…oh yeah, and next time you make a video about something like this, you may want to have your math teacher take a look at your numbers to make sure they match up…
Friday, October 16, 2009
To "e" or not to "e"...
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
