Primed for a vote on Christmas Eve, the largest monstrosity of a bill, noted as ObamaCare, will drastically change America for the worst. That's right, we're heading straight into business tonight.
I am stark raving mad over this 2100 page "Health Care Reform" currently waiting on the docket in the Senate. I cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would actively support this bill. And I'll tell you why.
First and foremost, how did we get into this mess to begin with? I mean, think back one year. Think of everything you remember. All the talk was about the ailing housing market, the auto magnets going bankrupt, the failing stock markets, the wars, Obama's inauguration coming up, and everything else in the mix, and you still have an acute lack of any issues with the health care industry! No one complaining about their health insurance! Nothing at all. And yet, here we are at the precipice of massive overhaul.
So let's pretend there was a real need for this. Who is to blame? Is it the insurance carriers? Sure, insurance premiums are expensive. But do you know what? Life is the most precious commodity on earth, and so we'll pay whatever fee is necessary to keep that heart beating, and we won't mind too much what the bill is so long as we keep breathing air. But let's get beyond my quasi-philosophical rhapsody.
In 1945, the McCarran - Ferguson bill was passed. This regulated insurance companies from interstate commerce. It was supposed to keep an insurance monopoly from happening. Basically what it did was make it nigh impossible for an insurance company to offer an individual in NEw York City, the same rate as someone in North Dakota. Considering there are 10 times as many people in NYC as compared to all of North Dakota, and people in NYC pay 5 times as high a rate for health insurance, you can see where price fixing would come in handy as a insurance carrier.
I think the next big problem, again introduced by our legislature by Nixon, is the 1973 HMO Act (Health Maintenance Organization). This bill stated that any employer with more than 25 employees had to, by law, offer mandatory HMO insurance enrollment. This Act eventually ended in 1995, but by then, the largess of the market was already dominated by HMO companies. Almost all of the smaller insurance companies had been bought up or went under. Once again, with a few large companies in control of the market, price fixing was afoot. And I don't know if you've ever dealt with an HMO (like Kaiser), but they are retroactive entities, rather than pro-active. Meaning, if you need an MRI, they wait until it is absolutely necessary rather than getting you in immediately. Not only that, but you have to find a doctor on their list -- and every single one of those doctors is bought and paid for by the HMO, so try to remember that when asking for something -- they are shy to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'll just briefly discuss MediCare, as I've already done so before. But in 1965, as part of LBJ's "Great Society" propaganda, he established MediCare. Now, I admit that some people need help, especially as they get older and try to live on a meager Social Security check. But this MediCare states that anyone over the age of 65 can get on it and have, essentially, free health care. Good for them, however, it also eliminated all insurance companies abilities to offer health care because they were undermined by extremely low costs from the government. And MediCare will be broke in a few years because they continue to offer the best deal by breaking the bank (i.e., the tax payers).
So here we have three solid reasons for there to be issues in health care, even though we weren't complaining about it. And all three reasons stem from the government and their unhelpful intervention. And now they want to help us all...
The Heritage Foundation, which is an excellent source of facts, has put together a good report on the two bills. Two bills? Yes, the one which the House passed with Nancy Pelosi at the helm, and the current bill that Harry Reid is pushing to pass. This report states what these bills would do if they pass and consolidate (just read the first 3 paragraphs). Even if the bill passes the Senate, the house will still have to vote on it since the Senate basically rejected the House's version. Anyway, there is nothing positive in these bills. It is all bad. And we still haven't gotten to the part that really pissed me off yet.
As I've stated before, Americans live a long and healthy life, except for the fact that we drive fast and play war. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with how we do our health care system, aside from the aforementioned mingling from the government. The question becomes, then, what is the point of all this? Why does the government need control of our very lives? Call me a nut (preferably a cashew), but doesn't this feel like slavery here? I said in the beginning, people will pay whatever cost to stay alive, and when the bureaucrats have this sort of power, what else should this be called?
And no, still not to the part that ticked me off.
As pointed out on the American Thinker website, this well gifted Health Care Reform bill offers some benefits ... to the trial lawyers as it creates 26 new loopholes for attorneys to file medical malpractice suits against physicians because of the litany of paperwork they will have to plow through to get you the necessary treatment. That will surely increase costs and thus reduce benefits for everyone.
But that didn't make me very mad.
So here's something to consider: in Reid's version of the bill, it is mandatory to have health insurance. If you do not, you are in violation of the law and fined $15,000 and/or punishable up to one year in prison. For not having insurance, or, for not signing up for free insurance. Can you believe the precedence that is setting? Is this even legal?
And here's the part that got me: are you kidding me?
Yep, not only is this 2100 page behemoth the worst bill ever written, Mr. Reid has put in there that this Health Care bill CANNOT BE repealed. Even parts of the Constitution can be repealed or amended if necessary, but this arrogant imbecile is making this law unbreakable, unfixable, or untouchable, for that matter. What if it is a catastrophe? Oh well, what is written is written. We'll live with this tyranny. Watch the video of Senator DeMint on the Senate floor.
And frankly, there is nothing we can do about it except yell. Senators have been bought and paid for, just as the HMOs do for doctors. Senator Nelson of Nebraska got an unmeasurable amount of benefits for his MediCare recipients in his state because they will never face a cut-back, ever. What that means is that there will be rationed care, just not in Nebraska. And he is the 60th vote. Is that legal, what he did? Probably not, because other states could sue Nebraska, maybe even mockingly use the "separate but equal" tag line from Brown v. Board of Education case.
Senator Nelson wasn't the only recipient of bought votes. Apparently Senator Dodd gets a $100 million grant to build a new hospital in his state, listed as a provision within the bill. Isn't that nice of Reid? Politics as usual, I suspect.
There is a small window of hope. Sure, the public polls are overwhelmingly against this, even liberals don't like it. That small glimmer of hope, however, lies with congressmen such as Parker Griffith, a democrat who just changed parties today. As a former physician, he would be one to recognize a bad idea in this field. Since the Senate bill will be remanded back to the House for approval, congressmen jumping ship could be our saving grace. I know, it's a stretch of the imagination, but it is the only shot we have at this point, because there are still 60 Senators in favor of this anti-American bill.
Well, as I stated before, I just cannot understand why anyone would get behind this bill and positively assert that it is for the greater good. If you have something of merit regarding this bill, pass it along. I will look into it with the hopes that there is something of worth, otherwise, the future looks bleak and our health and freedom will play second fiddle in this orchestra of events.
P.S. I wrote this quick and carelessly. I may have made-up a word or two.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
The Last Race
There I go again, being "afk" for long periods of time. It's because I spend so much time researching, that, you know, I just don't have the excess time to post... right.
No politics today, just the realization of life creeping upon me. And by that, I mean a blast from the past recently dying and making the news while doing so. Not in a "shoot-out at local school" sort of way. But rather, in a prevalent manner which is all too akin to where I grew up; at the coast.
I grew up in a small town. Sure, we all pretty much say that, and maybe we pine for pity points with such exclamations, but I graduated high school with 35 other kids. True, it was the smallest graduating class since the 1950s in that school, and true, we started out our senior year with 42 kids, but that half-dozen dropped out for greener pastures. So, in our student body of 250 kids, our small class never won any Spirit Awards because all the other classes were more than twice our size. Hated Spirit week, except for getting to wear hats for one week of the school year.
I went to 4 different grade schools growing up. At the second to last one I met a semi-bratty child named Steve. who was in the 5th grade just like me, but in another class. The reason we knew each other is that his mom was our Den Leader for Webelos Scouts. So we spent a lot of time together. Even then he had a size complex -- a Napoleon in training -- and that would be his issue for the rest of his short life.
During the Pine Wood Derby, he totally trashed my car's design saying it was going to lose. His was this flat, uninspiring gold wedge, while I carved this tall car with a tail fin and ornate flames painted on the side. He had hollowed out the bottom for the 5oz of lead filler, and I opted to have the lead in the front of the car to represent exhaust pipes coming from the engine. Fancy that, the championship race came down to his and my car, and Mr. Trashy-talkie took the long walk home, thank-you-very-much! Of course, it was the cheap year for Pine Wood Derby racing, so instead of a trophy or neat metal, I got a blue ribbon.
After that, I moved further north and into a different school, and lo and behold, Steve shows up one day and we go through high school together. I could get a long with him fine enough, we were friendly towards each other, didn't hang out together, but we hung out with the same people and he seriously dated a friend for years. Uh, not entirely sure if he actually graduated. Hmm.
Well anyway, the point is that after high school, I left the area and hardly maintained contact with any of my fellow graduates. We didn't even have a 10 year reunion. I heard mention that a handful got together and got drunk at the beach, but then this last summer we had a 15 year reunion, and nearly 1/3 came! Yeah, so 11 people showed up. Steve wasn't one of them. Too bad, as I was willing to remind him of the Pine Wood Derby back in the late `80s.
Then, later week, via Facebook (through my wife's account) a post stated that they were still looking for Steve. Apparently he was working on a crabbing vessel when he got tangled in some line that scooped him over board. He was found a few hours later, drowned in the mouth of the Columbia River. There are over 2000 ship wrecks in that area for ~150 years of record-keeping, and half as many claimed lives. It is a treacherous terrain with huge swells and nasty undercurrents. He was aged 32, accordingly. He was a small snip-it in the evening news, an unfortunately segue between other pressing stories. They didn't mention anything about his untenuous Webelos claims on Pine Wood Derby designs (not giving that up just yet...).
This wasn't the first tragedy to befall my small school compatriots. A few years ago Casey was shot through the neck in a drug deal gone sour. While discussing this with one school mate, Casey had made a lot of people miserable, and now lives as a quadriplegic in a special home. You kinda new that would be his fate, or something similar. I didn't feel that strongly about Steve, but I figured at least some highlight of probation therein, since he didn't join the military straight out of high school (7 classmates did, or rather, 1/5 of them).
So there it is, one classmate down, one in a wheel chair, and most of them having had divorces of those that got married. Maybe there was something in the water up there. I wish I had more statistics on my small class, perhaps I could compile some information, see an apparent algorithm and thus warn them all of impending doom. Now that's pessimism, but honestly, for a class this small, they shouldn't be dying off just yet.
I can't say that I will miss Steve, but I would have liked to see him again. If only to say something about my stupid blue ribbon of worth from a cheap Pine Wood Derby year.
No politics today, just the realization of life creeping upon me. And by that, I mean a blast from the past recently dying and making the news while doing so. Not in a "shoot-out at local school" sort of way. But rather, in a prevalent manner which is all too akin to where I grew up; at the coast.
I grew up in a small town. Sure, we all pretty much say that, and maybe we pine for pity points with such exclamations, but I graduated high school with 35 other kids. True, it was the smallest graduating class since the 1950s in that school, and true, we started out our senior year with 42 kids, but that half-dozen dropped out for greener pastures. So, in our student body of 250 kids, our small class never won any Spirit Awards because all the other classes were more than twice our size. Hated Spirit week, except for getting to wear hats for one week of the school year.
I went to 4 different grade schools growing up. At the second to last one I met a semi-bratty child named Steve. who was in the 5th grade just like me, but in another class. The reason we knew each other is that his mom was our Den Leader for Webelos Scouts. So we spent a lot of time together. Even then he had a size complex -- a Napoleon in training -- and that would be his issue for the rest of his short life.
During the Pine Wood Derby, he totally trashed my car's design saying it was going to lose. His was this flat, uninspiring gold wedge, while I carved this tall car with a tail fin and ornate flames painted on the side. He had hollowed out the bottom for the 5oz of lead filler, and I opted to have the lead in the front of the car to represent exhaust pipes coming from the engine. Fancy that, the championship race came down to his and my car, and Mr. Trashy-talkie took the long walk home, thank-you-very-much! Of course, it was the cheap year for Pine Wood Derby racing, so instead of a trophy or neat metal, I got a blue ribbon.
After that, I moved further north and into a different school, and lo and behold, Steve shows up one day and we go through high school together. I could get a long with him fine enough, we were friendly towards each other, didn't hang out together, but we hung out with the same people and he seriously dated a friend for years. Uh, not entirely sure if he actually graduated. Hmm.
Well anyway, the point is that after high school, I left the area and hardly maintained contact with any of my fellow graduates. We didn't even have a 10 year reunion. I heard mention that a handful got together and got drunk at the beach, but then this last summer we had a 15 year reunion, and nearly 1/3 came! Yeah, so 11 people showed up. Steve wasn't one of them. Too bad, as I was willing to remind him of the Pine Wood Derby back in the late `80s.
Then, later week, via Facebook (through my wife's account) a post stated that they were still looking for Steve. Apparently he was working on a crabbing vessel when he got tangled in some line that scooped him over board. He was found a few hours later, drowned in the mouth of the Columbia River. There are over 2000 ship wrecks in that area for ~150 years of record-keeping, and half as many claimed lives. It is a treacherous terrain with huge swells and nasty undercurrents. He was aged 32, accordingly. He was a small snip-it in the evening news, an unfortunately segue between other pressing stories. They didn't mention anything about his untenuous Webelos claims on Pine Wood Derby designs (not giving that up just yet...).
This wasn't the first tragedy to befall my small school compatriots. A few years ago Casey was shot through the neck in a drug deal gone sour. While discussing this with one school mate, Casey had made a lot of people miserable, and now lives as a quadriplegic in a special home. You kinda new that would be his fate, or something similar. I didn't feel that strongly about Steve, but I figured at least some highlight of probation therein, since he didn't join the military straight out of high school (7 classmates did, or rather, 1/5 of them).
So there it is, one classmate down, one in a wheel chair, and most of them having had divorces of those that got married. Maybe there was something in the water up there. I wish I had more statistics on my small class, perhaps I could compile some information, see an apparent algorithm and thus warn them all of impending doom. Now that's pessimism, but honestly, for a class this small, they shouldn't be dying off just yet.
I can't say that I will miss Steve, but I would have liked to see him again. If only to say something about my stupid blue ribbon of worth from a cheap Pine Wood Derby year.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Mean Green Lies
There is so much to talk about right now, more prevalent being those of the new monstrosity of a health bill, and then the "Climategate" evidence that has recently surfaced. Since the health care bill still has some running to do, and the climate scandal has just surfaced, let's go with the latter.
If you haven't heard about this week old Climategate as of yet, there is a pretty good reason. Here's an article talking about how none of the major news agencies are talking about it, save for Fox. Not too surprising, they tried to ignore the ACORN sandal, Van Jones scandal, and anything else that that challenges their M.O. Yet, 11 AP journalists are working overtime to find any disparaging information in the new Sarah Palin book. Too bad we don't have the same thing going on Barak's books...
So, in case you've been gone for the past decade or so, Al Gore and company have been jetting across the globe, promoting world carbon reduction in an effort to save the planet. Originally, it was called global warming, but as just about everyone has noted, it is certainly not getting hotter around here. Thus, more recently, it is monikered, "climate change" which is utterly ridiculous because obviously, the climate does change. It changes a lot, actually. Right now it's friggin' cold and windy.
Climate change is supported by many respected individuals within the scientific community. Accordingly, the data collected over the last several decades has (had?) pointed to a growing trend of earth being heated. In this case, the data suggested that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Since then (and thus the change from "global warming" to "climate change") the global temperatures have declined a bit. Nevertheless, upon the horizon, or so we were informed, it was going to get much warmer, so much so, in fact, that glaciers would melt, deserts would expand, droughts increase, and seas would rise. (see link below)
This ideology of reducing our carbon footprint gained a lot of traction, mainly due to "science," press/propaganda and now, after this scandal emerged, fraud. Of course, there were legitimate scientists debating the actual cause of climate changes even before this scandal emerged, but accordingly, "the debate is over" was the battle cry 4 years ago. As a matter of fact, no vis-a-vis debate ever took place! Instead, the UN jumped on board and the IPCC was more than willing to push data for funding, which is exactly what has come to light with this recent scandal; Climategate.
Enter in a hacker. Typically, hackers can be 'thrown under the bus' as they say all too often these days. A hacker gets into your computer, steals your data, then uses it for ... everything. But in this case, this hacker, perhaps the only good one out there, hacked into CRU, Britain's Climate Research Unit facility. 61 megabytes of information were taken. CRU pushes what is called the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, or in other words, man-made global warming. In this stolen data we have years of email correspondence, research data and manipulated evidence. What's interesting is that in the emails, there appears to be deliberate collusion between these leading scientists to use false information in their concurrent publications. In turn, these reports are used by the IPCC and then, the UN. Of course, Al Gore uses it in his presentations which trickle down into our media and schools.
This information couldn't have come at a better time, however. In December we have the global climate change conference in Copenhagen. Consider this the new version of the overly failed Kyoto Protocol, but on steroids. This conference is armed to the teeth with pro-climate change goons heavily fed on information cooked up by the CRU, IPCC and lobbied by the UN. Ergo, this scandal undermines their standing. Seeing how pleased our current administration is on getting cap-n-trade achieved here, I would not be too surprised if something with our name on it got signed during that conference. But with this new evidence coming to light, and the fact that this scandal is finally getting some traction, perhaps this one false science can be put to rest.
Perhaps calling this a false science is over-simplifying it. There may be climate change, but the relevance of human impact may be so insignificant, that there is very little we can actually do to change it. As I said before, the climate does change, everyday for those outside of the southwest. They recently stated that when Mt. Krakatoa erupted, it affected [cooled] global climates for several months. One volcano erpution.
Let me say, that, from my state, we are conscientious about the environment. And, my goal isn't to make anything less habitable. I'd rather see cities grow-up (high-rises) rather than grow out (expand). But, this climate science is flawed, deliberately. Cars emit 97% less pollution now than 35 years ago. Appliances met energy star requirements to be more efficient. We have better insulation for walls, better windows, furnaces, clean coal plants, and on and on. And we didn't need false science to push for all that. We did it. Made ourselves more efficient through innovation, even capitalism. Besides, when was the last time you heard about acid rain?
While this is good news in terms of commerce and personal freedom, it makes you wonder what other data is being manipulated to push an agenda. Eh? Did you say health care? Yes, yes, I'll get to that topic again, trust me.
If you haven't heard about this week old Climategate as of yet, there is a pretty good reason. Here's an article talking about how none of the major news agencies are talking about it, save for Fox. Not too surprising, they tried to ignore the ACORN sandal, Van Jones scandal, and anything else that that challenges their M.O. Yet, 11 AP journalists are working overtime to find any disparaging information in the new Sarah Palin book. Too bad we don't have the same thing going on Barak's books...
So, in case you've been gone for the past decade or so, Al Gore and company have been jetting across the globe, promoting world carbon reduction in an effort to save the planet. Originally, it was called global warming, but as just about everyone has noted, it is certainly not getting hotter around here. Thus, more recently, it is monikered, "climate change" which is utterly ridiculous because obviously, the climate does change. It changes a lot, actually. Right now it's friggin' cold and windy.
Climate change is supported by many respected individuals within the scientific community. Accordingly, the data collected over the last several decades has (had?) pointed to a growing trend of earth being heated. In this case, the data suggested that 1998 was the hottest year on record. Since then (and thus the change from "global warming" to "climate change") the global temperatures have declined a bit. Nevertheless, upon the horizon, or so we were informed, it was going to get much warmer, so much so, in fact, that glaciers would melt, deserts would expand, droughts increase, and seas would rise. (see link below)
This ideology of reducing our carbon footprint gained a lot of traction, mainly due to "science," press/propaganda and now, after this scandal emerged, fraud. Of course, there were legitimate scientists debating the actual cause of climate changes even before this scandal emerged, but accordingly, "the debate is over" was the battle cry 4 years ago. As a matter of fact, no vis-a-vis debate ever took place! Instead, the UN jumped on board and the IPCC was more than willing to push data for funding, which is exactly what has come to light with this recent scandal; Climategate.
Enter in a hacker. Typically, hackers can be 'thrown under the bus' as they say all too often these days. A hacker gets into your computer, steals your data, then uses it for ... everything. But in this case, this hacker, perhaps the only good one out there, hacked into CRU, Britain's Climate Research Unit facility. 61 megabytes of information were taken. CRU pushes what is called the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory, or in other words, man-made global warming. In this stolen data we have years of email correspondence, research data and manipulated evidence. What's interesting is that in the emails, there appears to be deliberate collusion between these leading scientists to use false information in their concurrent publications. In turn, these reports are used by the IPCC and then, the UN. Of course, Al Gore uses it in his presentations which trickle down into our media and schools.
This information couldn't have come at a better time, however. In December we have the global climate change conference in Copenhagen. Consider this the new version of the overly failed Kyoto Protocol, but on steroids. This conference is armed to the teeth with pro-climate change goons heavily fed on information cooked up by the CRU, IPCC and lobbied by the UN. Ergo, this scandal undermines their standing. Seeing how pleased our current administration is on getting cap-n-trade achieved here, I would not be too surprised if something with our name on it got signed during that conference. But with this new evidence coming to light, and the fact that this scandal is finally getting some traction, perhaps this one false science can be put to rest.
Perhaps calling this a false science is over-simplifying it. There may be climate change, but the relevance of human impact may be so insignificant, that there is very little we can actually do to change it. As I said before, the climate does change, everyday for those outside of the southwest. They recently stated that when Mt. Krakatoa erupted, it affected [cooled] global climates for several months. One volcano erpution.
Let me say, that, from my state, we are conscientious about the environment. And, my goal isn't to make anything less habitable. I'd rather see cities grow-up (high-rises) rather than grow out (expand). But, this climate science is flawed, deliberately. Cars emit 97% less pollution now than 35 years ago. Appliances met energy star requirements to be more efficient. We have better insulation for walls, better windows, furnaces, clean coal plants, and on and on. And we didn't need false science to push for all that. We did it. Made ourselves more efficient through innovation, even capitalism. Besides, when was the last time you heard about acid rain?
While this is good news in terms of commerce and personal freedom, it makes you wonder what other data is being manipulated to push an agenda. Eh? Did you say health care? Yes, yes, I'll get to that topic again, trust me.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Be Vigilant
I have been wondering for the past few weeks about a scenario that would be plausible if, for example, the current administration was, in fact, totally against the current status quo of the United States of America.
As you know, I've opined often enough that I believe the democrats are well intentioned, but that their basis for getting to their utopia is flawed. Giving government handouts and taxing the citizens will never lead to a perfect world. You have to change people's hearts for the good of mankind in order to achieve the perfect world ideology. Giving handouts and taxing the honest workers will only make one class entirely dependent on the government, and another class totally bitter. In essence, class warfare (Gasp! A communist manifesto!).
So let's go to the other side of the coin: Obama and his colleagues are anti-American and eager to destroy this great country.
Looking at Obama's history thus far in the White House, we can certainly conclude that he has least "American" ideology to have occupied the Oval Office. Shall we enumerate a few examples? Of course! From a recent article:
Not to say other presidents were not of the same ideological family, but in this case, he's a compilation of all the center to hard left ideas we've ever seen, and then some. Thus, not in line with former Presidents.
Here is the first problem that I have with Obama waging war against the citizens of the US. The military does not like him, nor respect him for that matter. There is no way the soldiers of this country would gun down their own people. As a matter of fact, military personnel take an oath to protect the Constitution, protecting a President comes secondary. He's cut their funding, reneged on the missile defense for Poland and Czech Republic, and is waffling on the urgent request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. So I wager he has very few friends in the military. Best option would be Marshall Law, and even then I'd bet the military would be hard pressed to shoot upon civilians.
Next is the huge network of Police Officers. Things would have been fine in this camp, except for that asinine comment a few months ago wherein he made a bad decision on labeling police office Crowley as "stupid" for having arrested Professor Gates. Now, if you know a police officer personally, you know it's one big extended family that protects their own. And I've heard plenty of dissension from them regarding Obama these days. Let's not forget the motto, "to serve and protect." After the "beer summit" at the White House, I don't expect many officers to accept any orders from the White house instructing them to do harm against society.
Lastly, the intelligence community of the CIA. The White house has sponsored a special committee to investigate the alleged abuses against terrorist with no rights under the Geneva convention, the Constitution, or even the UN (up to that point). Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder has put together this investigation. Let's not forget Mr. Holder originates from the law firm that represents 18 Guantanamo detainees before being appointed Attorney General. But, again, it would appear that Obama has no friends in the CIA camp either.
So if Obama was going to subvert and "fundamentally change" this country, how is he going to do it with no military, no police, and no CIA/intelligence community willfully backing him up? Honestly, this is an open question, because from here on out, it is hypotheses and conjecture.
First on the list is the supposed personal military defense force that Obama reference to back in July of 2008 in Colorado. A link is provided above in case that doesn't ring a bell with you. Now, it would cost a lot (and we have no money for it) to have another force equivalent to our military, and I think we would have heard more about it since then. To date, nothing. But, this would be the first best option if you were going to undermine the entire social structure of the US, and rebuild it a la USSR in 1919 or China in 1949. Kill millions, re-educate the leftovers. There is a small plausibility of the GIVE Act passed in May as being a part of this force, but again, nothing from the watch dogs about it. Still, with most of our military deployed across seas in the middle east, Germany, South Korea, etc., these Obama para-militaries could get away with a lot, if they existed.
The second option is the more probable way of defeating the core fundamentals of the country. Remember that Obama ran as a centrist? Said he believed in the Second Amendment, etc., and people took him at his word. We're still a rather trusting nation, to a fault it would seem. Well, he isn't a centrist and he doesn't play bi-partisan politics either. He doesn't even like one news station, out of many, to be non-pro Obama. For the most part, Bush didn't have any news stations on his side. Still doesn't, actually!
Sales for guns and ammo are up, way up! Typically, in a given year, between 7-10 billion rounds of ammo are sold in the US. We'll pass 12 billion this year, a record. What is going on here? People are gearing up for something. And I were Obama, the polarising president bent on rebuilding a nation I loath, I'd give them something to build up for. You don't need the military on your side, the CIA, nor the local enforcement, all you need to do is put enough policies in place that undermine the Constitution and then finally someone says "Enough!" and the dominoes start to fall, non-violently at first such as protest (tea parties), but progressively more sinister, maybe even staged, and magnified by an agenda driven media. But, the economy can't be in a good place, because then dissent will be slightly muted. Not only that, but you need people to be edgy, in need of basic human sustenance such as food, water, shelter, money, or whatever. And once you have that, they will go from "enough" to "need to survive" and then they weed each other out, regardless of party affiliation. And after enough have suffered, start the rebuilding process.
I only took one anthropology class in college, and in hindsight, I wish I had taken more. It was about China, and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution they went through. The two books I read were excellent yet highly demoralizing as I read story after story about massive suffering and indignities. I still remember one story about a child finding a half eaten carrot on the ground, and crying because he felt like the luckiest kid in the world for finding it. They starved because the government decided where the food went, and that is entirely plausible if dissidents raised up in this country. I believe you can find that in a book, called "The Spiral Road."
Then the question becomes; how far are we from that last option of self-elimination? We just had a few elections here yesterday. In the areas where Obama went and stumped for the candidates, they lost, by comfortable margins, to Republicans. We are one year from elections in 2010, where all the seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. If we can last that long (due to the economy) and subsequent change is made, then reasonable heads should prevail.
However, before then, one should understand that the federal dollars attached to the "stimulus bill" will be flowing quickly (to date, less than 30% of the $787 billion has been handed out) which is an excellent way to buy votes for politicians. Basically, the more people that are unemployed now, the better come next July when stimulus monies flood into counties creating jobs, and since Republicans didn't support that bill, just say thanks by voting for the local democrat.
Also, watch for "immigration reform" to become a huge topic after January, as Obama seeks amnesty for millions of potential voters to help the politicians as well. This will still lead to the second option, though. How pissed would you be about 15 million new citizens that have done a good job turning parts of the US into mini-Mexicos and enlarging gang populations, drug smuggling, and even murder? Pissed? Gunna march on Washington? Not all of these immigrants are inherently bad, FYI. But they are illegal. I'm for legal residency for them, but not citizenship. And a "three strikes your out" policy too.
Lastly, I want you to pay attention more to people. Can you feel the tension mounting? The division between us citizens is getting stronger; us v. them. It feels like 1938, trouble is brewing but there is time to avoid the huge potential it has to be the worst human catastrophe ever. People are gearing up for something. Food storage sales are up as well. If you have not already done so, better safe than sorry.
So there is my opinion on if the democrats are, in fact, deliberately trying to destroy this country. Because we all can easily surmise that we will not gleefully turn to communism as a potential savior for this country -- at least not with the current population with over 50% claiming to be conservative. And if the last good cop in this world gets into a fight with himself, you can bet the whole world will be hard-pressed to stay inline. And that could be a year away. Election year, 2010!
As you know, I've opined often enough that I believe the democrats are well intentioned, but that their basis for getting to their utopia is flawed. Giving government handouts and taxing the citizens will never lead to a perfect world. You have to change people's hearts for the good of mankind in order to achieve the perfect world ideology. Giving handouts and taxing the honest workers will only make one class entirely dependent on the government, and another class totally bitter. In essence, class warfare (Gasp! A communist manifesto!).
So let's go to the other side of the coin: Obama and his colleagues are anti-American and eager to destroy this great country.
Looking at Obama's history thus far in the White House, we can certainly conclude that he has least "American" ideology to have occupied the Oval Office. Shall we enumerate a few examples? Of course! From a recent article:
- He wants to deny individuals access to the marketplace --where they can make their own decisions about their own health care -- and instead put the government entirely in charge.
- He's willing to give government control over American businesses (e.g., the bank takeovers and Government Motors).
- His administration, while on record as opposing the Fairness Doctrine, is aggressively exploring a backdoor regulatory scheme that would have precisely the same practical effect as the Fairness Doctrine: it would impose government restrictions on content, rather than allowing the market (that means us, the consumers) to control content.
- His FCC wants to control the internet, a humming beehive of free speech (much of it critical of Obama).
- As his loud battles with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News illustrate, he desires a single-party press, not a free one.
- He believes that now that he is in power, the opposition should shut up and "get out of the way," a notion that runs directly counter to the First Amendment.
- Although he's mostly erased the record that once existed in cyberspace, his dream is to create a civilian national security force, subordinate to the administration, which would be larger than the American military. The military, please note, is controlled by the Constitution and has traditionally existed separate from, but subordinate to, the rest of the American government.
- He wants to take away the right to bear arms. He'll pay lip service to supporting the Second Amendment, but his fundamental goal is to use government to remove arms from individuals.
- In a stunning blow to the freedom of born alive infants, he is one of a handful of politicians nationwide who believes it is appropriate to leave such infants to die alone and untended. With few exceptions, even those whose politics are entirely colored by a pro-choice viewpoint couldn't swallow this approach.
- Without money, people have no choices. The more money the government siphons to itself, the fewer choices we as individuals have. Although he dresses it as fairness (it's "fair" for the "lucky" to pay substantially more), Obama believes that it's government's role to "spread the wealth." That may be "fair," but it's not consistent with liberty, hard work, and individual choices.
Not to say other presidents were not of the same ideological family, but in this case, he's a compilation of all the center to hard left ideas we've ever seen, and then some. Thus, not in line with former Presidents.
Here is the first problem that I have with Obama waging war against the citizens of the US. The military does not like him, nor respect him for that matter. There is no way the soldiers of this country would gun down their own people. As a matter of fact, military personnel take an oath to protect the Constitution, protecting a President comes secondary. He's cut their funding, reneged on the missile defense for Poland and Czech Republic, and is waffling on the urgent request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. So I wager he has very few friends in the military. Best option would be Marshall Law, and even then I'd bet the military would be hard pressed to shoot upon civilians.
Next is the huge network of Police Officers. Things would have been fine in this camp, except for that asinine comment a few months ago wherein he made a bad decision on labeling police office Crowley as "stupid" for having arrested Professor Gates. Now, if you know a police officer personally, you know it's one big extended family that protects their own. And I've heard plenty of dissension from them regarding Obama these days. Let's not forget the motto, "to serve and protect." After the "beer summit" at the White House, I don't expect many officers to accept any orders from the White house instructing them to do harm against society.
Lastly, the intelligence community of the CIA. The White house has sponsored a special committee to investigate the alleged abuses against terrorist with no rights under the Geneva convention, the Constitution, or even the UN (up to that point). Nevertheless, Attorney General Eric Holder has put together this investigation. Let's not forget Mr. Holder originates from the law firm that represents 18 Guantanamo detainees before being appointed Attorney General. But, again, it would appear that Obama has no friends in the CIA camp either.
So if Obama was going to subvert and "fundamentally change" this country, how is he going to do it with no military, no police, and no CIA/intelligence community willfully backing him up? Honestly, this is an open question, because from here on out, it is hypotheses and conjecture.
First on the list is the supposed personal military defense force that Obama reference to back in July of 2008 in Colorado. A link is provided above in case that doesn't ring a bell with you. Now, it would cost a lot (and we have no money for it) to have another force equivalent to our military, and I think we would have heard more about it since then. To date, nothing. But, this would be the first best option if you were going to undermine the entire social structure of the US, and rebuild it a la USSR in 1919 or China in 1949. Kill millions, re-educate the leftovers. There is a small plausibility of the GIVE Act passed in May as being a part of this force, but again, nothing from the watch dogs about it. Still, with most of our military deployed across seas in the middle east, Germany, South Korea, etc., these Obama para-militaries could get away with a lot, if they existed.
The second option is the more probable way of defeating the core fundamentals of the country. Remember that Obama ran as a centrist? Said he believed in the Second Amendment, etc., and people took him at his word. We're still a rather trusting nation, to a fault it would seem. Well, he isn't a centrist and he doesn't play bi-partisan politics either. He doesn't even like one news station, out of many, to be non-pro Obama. For the most part, Bush didn't have any news stations on his side. Still doesn't, actually!
Sales for guns and ammo are up, way up! Typically, in a given year, between 7-10 billion rounds of ammo are sold in the US. We'll pass 12 billion this year, a record. What is going on here? People are gearing up for something. And I were Obama, the polarising president bent on rebuilding a nation I loath, I'd give them something to build up for. You don't need the military on your side, the CIA, nor the local enforcement, all you need to do is put enough policies in place that undermine the Constitution and then finally someone says "Enough!" and the dominoes start to fall, non-violently at first such as protest (tea parties), but progressively more sinister, maybe even staged, and magnified by an agenda driven media. But, the economy can't be in a good place, because then dissent will be slightly muted. Not only that, but you need people to be edgy, in need of basic human sustenance such as food, water, shelter, money, or whatever. And once you have that, they will go from "enough" to "need to survive" and then they weed each other out, regardless of party affiliation. And after enough have suffered, start the rebuilding process.
I only took one anthropology class in college, and in hindsight, I wish I had taken more. It was about China, and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution they went through. The two books I read were excellent yet highly demoralizing as I read story after story about massive suffering and indignities. I still remember one story about a child finding a half eaten carrot on the ground, and crying because he felt like the luckiest kid in the world for finding it. They starved because the government decided where the food went, and that is entirely plausible if dissidents raised up in this country. I believe you can find that in a book, called "The Spiral Road."
Then the question becomes; how far are we from that last option of self-elimination? We just had a few elections here yesterday. In the areas where Obama went and stumped for the candidates, they lost, by comfortable margins, to Republicans. We are one year from elections in 2010, where all the seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. If we can last that long (due to the economy) and subsequent change is made, then reasonable heads should prevail.
However, before then, one should understand that the federal dollars attached to the "stimulus bill" will be flowing quickly (to date, less than 30% of the $787 billion has been handed out) which is an excellent way to buy votes for politicians. Basically, the more people that are unemployed now, the better come next July when stimulus monies flood into counties creating jobs, and since Republicans didn't support that bill, just say thanks by voting for the local democrat.
Also, watch for "immigration reform" to become a huge topic after January, as Obama seeks amnesty for millions of potential voters to help the politicians as well. This will still lead to the second option, though. How pissed would you be about 15 million new citizens that have done a good job turning parts of the US into mini-Mexicos and enlarging gang populations, drug smuggling, and even murder? Pissed? Gunna march on Washington? Not all of these immigrants are inherently bad, FYI. But they are illegal. I'm for legal residency for them, but not citizenship. And a "three strikes your out" policy too.
Lastly, I want you to pay attention more to people. Can you feel the tension mounting? The division between us citizens is getting stronger; us v. them. It feels like 1938, trouble is brewing but there is time to avoid the huge potential it has to be the worst human catastrophe ever. People are gearing up for something. Food storage sales are up as well. If you have not already done so, better safe than sorry.
So there is my opinion on if the democrats are, in fact, deliberately trying to destroy this country. Because we all can easily surmise that we will not gleefully turn to communism as a potential savior for this country -- at least not with the current population with over 50% claiming to be conservative. And if the last good cop in this world gets into a fight with himself, you can bet the whole world will be hard-pressed to stay inline. And that could be a year away. Election year, 2010!
Friday, October 23, 2009
All the Difference
Hmm, no takers on that last post. I've either offended you (and it had to happen sometime) or, I was preaching to the choir.
I've been considering Robert Frost as of late, and perhaps his most famous poem, "The Road Not Taken." However, instead of personalizing it, I am looking at it from the perspective of our country, good ole' US of A.
At this point, our country is at a fork in the road, and there is a huge impetus to drive it left, while the majority are comfortable staying to the right.
For the past nary 200 years, we molded "progressive" ideology into the nation and more or less, have benefited from that. By more or less, I mean we've established national parks, liberated slaves, gave voting rights to women, civil rights to all, and so on and so forth. Progressive does not mean the modern day liberal we see around us. Yes, that is their new moniker, but back in the day, it meant for the betterment of society. I think we can all agree the above mentioned changes were for the better, and interestingly, it was the Republicans who gave us 3 of those 4.
Looking at another "progressive" standpoint -- the newer version -- we have a myriad of social programs that meant well, but are on the brink of failure. But, before we get into that, we need to look at a bigger picture.
I've spoken about it before, but the Democrats mean well. Or at least I hope they do. They want to help as many people as possible with as many government sponsored projects. That's why we have Social Security, MediCare & MediCaid, Welfare and so on and so forth. In a way, it is good to have these crutches to fall back on in the time of need, just as is unemployment insurance which is something that we pay into every month and then receive when the going gets rough.
The problem is that as Roosevelt set up Social Security, it was supposed to be a retirement plan for everyone that paid into it. On your checks, this is known as FICA, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act passed during the Great Depression. I've said before, and I'll say it again, it is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. A Ponzi Scheme is when you take peoples money, say you'll invest it into stocks, bonds, whatever, and then you use the money for your own hedonistic purposes. When it comes time to pay the piper, you just take other potential investors' monies, and divvy them out. Bernie Madoff had a scheme of nearly $50 billion, but this is peanuts comparatively speaking. Coincidentally, insomuch as Roosevelt started Social Security, he was also the first politician to rob its coffers: $90 million to fund the Manhattan Project. (Some analyst believe Social Security is up to $100 trillion in the red after all governement IOUs are talibrated, but all agree that it is at least several trillion behind.) From their own report, in 2016, the FICA tax will be insufficient to meet recipients. Read this article for a better idea on the matter.
This can be fixed, but not easily. You can raise the age for retirement, make some people grumpy but stave off the inevitable topple. You could raise the taxable amount able to be 'donated' to FICA, currently $108,600 is the maximum the feds can take out -- meaning, there is a cap and eventually the tax does end. Or, just raise the FICA tax altogether. Or, go soylent green. Less people taking out benefits makes it easier. Wow, nice segue into the next social program.
Health care! Honestly, if you have government run health care, people die quicker. I thought this was an ironic thing the other day, but apparently Medicare denies more claims than all the private industries, percentage wise. I've heard arguments about how insurance companies don't offer good rates to the elderly. Well yeah, when the government is giving away insurance coverage, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield wants $300 a month, which would you choose? But, I've already discussed this topic, and as noted in my previous post, MediCare and MediCaid are going down in flames, financially speaking, and they want all of us to join in on that ride. They probably will pass some legislation, whether it be the Baucus bill or some aspect of it, something will be passed just to stroke the ego of The One. (P.S. Don't believe the price tag of this bill, they calculated it from 2010 - 2019, when the actual full coverage doesn't begin until 2015.)
Welfare benefits started with LBJ and his "Great Society" and subsequent "War on Poverty" back in the mid-sixties. Sounds nice, but how about a study from the Heritage Foundation which recently calculated that since Welfare's inception, we've doled out $15.9 trillion dollars in "benefits," which is more than double all of our wars and conflicts combined in price, and adjusted for inflation. And yet, the poor are still among us. You could say we are still at war with poverty, and from the looks of it, reinforcements are headed their way. Does this mean I am against helping the poor? No, I've been there. I lived in a tent for 3 months in a field with cows. I kid you not.
All these programs are/were a step towards a liberal utopia, where everyone has equality. Obviously, with the legislation on the docket these days, we're pushing once again for that utopia. The problem is that they are pushing it. Compelling citizens to accept this dream world fantasy will never work, because it conflicts with our current utopia, i.e., the way of life we've come to accept.
I read an interesting blurb about Arnold Schwartzneggar the other day. I've always been a fan of his -- even wrote a fan letter once (he didn't reply). We also starred in the same movie together, Kindergarten Cop, though I am a mushy background extra.
Anyway, a few days after arriving here from Austria (a German speaking country...), he was watching a debate on television between Nixon and Humphrey. His friend spoke German and English, translated the exchanges for him. As he related the story, he said that Humphrey was repeating socialistic rhetoric, and Arnold having left Eastern Europe, wanted nothing to do with it. Then he heard Nixon talk about free enterprise, lower taxes, and so forth. He asked his friend what party Nixon was, to which he replied, "Republican," and then Arnold stated, "Then I am a republican."
Not to say Republicans are perfect, nor, for that matter, Arnold, but the world has already seen the lackluster performance of socialized countries, and the devastation of communistic ones. These are not utopias, yet it is clear that this is the path 'the Left' is taking us. This is evident with the supposed health care reform, the cap-n-trade law, immigration reform (amnesty for illegals), the Respect for Marriage Act which will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and probably a litany of others that escape me after mid-night.
So here we are, at cross-roads, one leading down a path that Frost described as "fair [a]nd having perhaps the better claim," and another path so well described as "I doubted if I should ever come back." And that's the point if the US becomes even more socialistic. If the Leftist policies that are being put into motion are not stopped, then I think the end of this poem captures the possibility that we should be alarmed about: "I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." Remember, Frost doesn't say it was the right decision, but merely, a choice that "has made all the difference," regardless of whether it was a good idea. Yet, in this case, we even know where that road leads; just ask Arnold.
I've been considering Robert Frost as of late, and perhaps his most famous poem, "The Road Not Taken." However, instead of personalizing it, I am looking at it from the perspective of our country, good ole' US of A.
At this point, our country is at a fork in the road, and there is a huge impetus to drive it left, while the majority are comfortable staying to the right.
For the past nary 200 years, we molded "progressive" ideology into the nation and more or less, have benefited from that. By more or less, I mean we've established national parks, liberated slaves, gave voting rights to women, civil rights to all, and so on and so forth. Progressive does not mean the modern day liberal we see around us. Yes, that is their new moniker, but back in the day, it meant for the betterment of society. I think we can all agree the above mentioned changes were for the better, and interestingly, it was the Republicans who gave us 3 of those 4.
Looking at another "progressive" standpoint -- the newer version -- we have a myriad of social programs that meant well, but are on the brink of failure. But, before we get into that, we need to look at a bigger picture.
I've spoken about it before, but the Democrats mean well. Or at least I hope they do. They want to help as many people as possible with as many government sponsored projects. That's why we have Social Security, MediCare & MediCaid, Welfare and so on and so forth. In a way, it is good to have these crutches to fall back on in the time of need, just as is unemployment insurance which is something that we pay into every month and then receive when the going gets rough.
The problem is that as Roosevelt set up Social Security, it was supposed to be a retirement plan for everyone that paid into it. On your checks, this is known as FICA, or Federal Insurance Contributions Act passed during the Great Depression. I've said before, and I'll say it again, it is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. A Ponzi Scheme is when you take peoples money, say you'll invest it into stocks, bonds, whatever, and then you use the money for your own hedonistic purposes. When it comes time to pay the piper, you just take other potential investors' monies, and divvy them out. Bernie Madoff had a scheme of nearly $50 billion, but this is peanuts comparatively speaking. Coincidentally, insomuch as Roosevelt started Social Security, he was also the first politician to rob its coffers: $90 million to fund the Manhattan Project. (Some analyst believe Social Security is up to $100 trillion in the red after all governement IOUs are talibrated, but all agree that it is at least several trillion behind.) From their own report, in 2016, the FICA tax will be insufficient to meet recipients. Read this article for a better idea on the matter.
This can be fixed, but not easily. You can raise the age for retirement, make some people grumpy but stave off the inevitable topple. You could raise the taxable amount able to be 'donated' to FICA, currently $108,600 is the maximum the feds can take out -- meaning, there is a cap and eventually the tax does end. Or, just raise the FICA tax altogether. Or, go soylent green. Less people taking out benefits makes it easier. Wow, nice segue into the next social program.
Health care! Honestly, if you have government run health care, people die quicker. I thought this was an ironic thing the other day, but apparently Medicare denies more claims than all the private industries, percentage wise. I've heard arguments about how insurance companies don't offer good rates to the elderly. Well yeah, when the government is giving away insurance coverage, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield wants $300 a month, which would you choose? But, I've already discussed this topic, and as noted in my previous post, MediCare and MediCaid are going down in flames, financially speaking, and they want all of us to join in on that ride. They probably will pass some legislation, whether it be the Baucus bill or some aspect of it, something will be passed just to stroke the ego of The One. (P.S. Don't believe the price tag of this bill, they calculated it from 2010 - 2019, when the actual full coverage doesn't begin until 2015.)
Welfare benefits started with LBJ and his "Great Society" and subsequent "War on Poverty" back in the mid-sixties. Sounds nice, but how about a study from the Heritage Foundation which recently calculated that since Welfare's inception, we've doled out $15.9 trillion dollars in "benefits," which is more than double all of our wars and conflicts combined in price, and adjusted for inflation. And yet, the poor are still among us. You could say we are still at war with poverty, and from the looks of it, reinforcements are headed their way. Does this mean I am against helping the poor? No, I've been there. I lived in a tent for 3 months in a field with cows. I kid you not.
All these programs are/were a step towards a liberal utopia, where everyone has equality. Obviously, with the legislation on the docket these days, we're pushing once again for that utopia. The problem is that they are pushing it. Compelling citizens to accept this dream world fantasy will never work, because it conflicts with our current utopia, i.e., the way of life we've come to accept.
I read an interesting blurb about Arnold Schwartzneggar the other day. I've always been a fan of his -- even wrote a fan letter once (he didn't reply). We also starred in the same movie together, Kindergarten Cop, though I am a mushy background extra.
Anyway, a few days after arriving here from Austria (a German speaking country...), he was watching a debate on television between Nixon and Humphrey. His friend spoke German and English, translated the exchanges for him. As he related the story, he said that Humphrey was repeating socialistic rhetoric, and Arnold having left Eastern Europe, wanted nothing to do with it. Then he heard Nixon talk about free enterprise, lower taxes, and so forth. He asked his friend what party Nixon was, to which he replied, "Republican," and then Arnold stated, "Then I am a republican."
Not to say Republicans are perfect, nor, for that matter, Arnold, but the world has already seen the lackluster performance of socialized countries, and the devastation of communistic ones. These are not utopias, yet it is clear that this is the path 'the Left' is taking us. This is evident with the supposed health care reform, the cap-n-trade law, immigration reform (amnesty for illegals), the Respect for Marriage Act which will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and probably a litany of others that escape me after mid-night.
So here we are, at cross-roads, one leading down a path that Frost described as "fair [a]nd having perhaps the better claim," and another path so well described as "I doubted if I should ever come back." And that's the point if the US becomes even more socialistic. If the Leftist policies that are being put into motion are not stopped, then I think the end of this poem captures the possibility that we should be alarmed about: "I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." Remember, Frost doesn't say it was the right decision, but merely, a choice that "has made all the difference," regardless of whether it was a good idea. Yet, in this case, we even know where that road leads; just ask Arnold.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Unachievement Award
Friday mornings are typically pretty good. It's the last work day of the week; the weekend, regardless of plans, is a welcoming event from the usual mundane train we ride week after week. This last Friday was even better -- I didn't have to work due to flexing of hours. I was planning to sleep in.
Then at 7:48 in the morning, I get a text message from a good friend that said, "Obama wins Noble Peace prize -- ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOL!" Sounded like a joke to me, so I tried to sleep some more, but that just doesn't happen with 2 kids. Oh well. And then the news finally does validate itself; Oslo has awarded Barak Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. I still think it is a joke.
Now, in all honesty, I haven't taken the Nobel Peace prize seriously since I started tracking it. And that disappointment stems all the way back to the 1940s, when Mahatma Gandhi was denied the prize 5 different times between 1937 and 1948, even in his year of assassination, the Nobel administrators came out and said there would be no award winners because there were "no suitable" valid candidates. Gandhi, the king of non-violence who inspired MLK, Mandela, even Barak Obama & the Lama, didn't get the award, yet they all did.
Others that would have been meaningful recipients would have been Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. All passed over, and others such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter & Yassir Arafat have gotten it. Maybe next year Michael Moore could win? Or Polanski! So, thus you see why I don't particularly care who wins it anymore. Oh, but I do care, because others put stock into it.
Let's just look at what it takes to win an award, any award, in "normal life" perspective. You have to do something beyond expectations, or meet a measurable criteria, and just be better than average. For the rest of us, we get that annoying green ribbon that states we were a participant -- the "everybody is a winner" badge. Boy don't those just pump you up!
For the Nobel Peace prize, put forth by Swedish dynamite and smokeless powder inventor Alfred Nobel, the premise to such award is, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." And from the front page of the Nobel prize website regarding Obama's win, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Not only this, but in order to be considered for the award, you have to be nominated before February 1st of the same year, with the award being handed out in October of the same year. You cannot self -nominate and, unfortunately for the rest of us, the names of the nominees will not be released for 50 years. So we do not even get to know the competition for a half decade, which in this case, was over 200 nominations. But, there is a handful of deserving individuals we could come up with and assume they were part of the peace prize nomination. Wouldn't make a difference at this point, however.
Nonetheless, the point is that 11 days into Barak's Presidency (after the inauguration) someone nominated him for the Nobel Peace prize. Presumptuous? Nah, destined for greatness as we all know which shone forth 11 days into his reign and got him nominated.
Anyway, going with the above explanation for awards and this award in particular, the question becomes: how on earth did Obama win this "prestigious" award?
The Nobel administrators say "for his extraordinary efforts," I take issue with that immediately. Why? Because, how many times have we said to each other, "you get an 'E' for effort" when someone tries but fails? This is exactly the same as the green participation ribbon! Good attempt, so close, you'll be okay, better luck next time. We're all recipients of those platitudes. So the fact that Obama has made "efforts" but hasn't received any results, how does that qualify him for this award over anyone else? We're all making efforts here, why should one failure get an award over the rest of us?
"[T]o strengthen international diplomacy" is the next supposed qualifier, and I'm having a hard time finding where he was successful there. Tensions are increasing in the middle east, not getting better. North Korea is still "rogue" and Iran is gearing up to produce a nuclear bomb. Maybe Obama going around apologizing for everything is what they mean, but how is that good for diplomacy? I don't remember who said it, but, "Weakness is provocative." When you see a weakness, you exploit it. And far be it for me to assume that many other nations don't perceive this. Name one major foreign policy win this man has negotiated?
The last part is "cooperation between peoples." It's part of the above paragraph, but what, exactly, is Obama doing for that? Sure, he suggested we be a nuclear bomb free world, but he's not the first to say that, and frankly, we still have nukes, and as do all the other countries, and then some that are trying to get them. Honestly, looking around, would you want the US to be without nukes right now? Through he did cancel our missile defense shield, much to the chagrin of Poland, et al. I guess we'll just accept whatever nukes fly overhead towards us. Not to mention running two wars of our own, and one that apparently needs 40,000 more troops... Oh the irony of this award, especially after that SNL skit!
Some people have opined that this is the "thanks for not being Bush" award. In that case, anyone that replaced Bush would have won this award, and that makes it even more worthless. I've read others lauding his "vision," but again, that's not complete (whatever that is) and thus, not applicable to the winners' circle. Others have said this is a consolation prize for being hugely snubbed on the Olympic bid. Could be a hundred reasons, even political aggrandizement, but we have to take the official explanation at face value.
Here's what Obama said regarding the honor,“I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." So he believes he still needs to earn this award. He also said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformational figures who have been honored by this prize." I agree.
But, I can't blame Obama personally. You can't self-nominate, and the committee in Oslo decided he was the winner. But if I were in his inner circle, I would cordially admonish him to respectfully decline the offer. He does not deserve it. At this point, he is a talking head with no accomplishments aside from ascending to the office of US President. And there is still plenty of time for things to go awry, nationally to globally. This award, like all others, is one that you are supposed to earn. Plus, by accepting it, you're just amping up the pathological narcissism and cult of personality that is becoming all to apparent. Declining this would be therapeutically beneficial.
Looking at it from the Nobel Prize committee perspective -- what exactly are they trying to do here? Perhaps this is their means to help him push his agenda? I feel there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about. Clear partisan politics, except, not so clear. But otherwise, why choose someone with such a short resume on actual peace progress? Yeah, a little bit of a conspiracy theory there. Bah, what is politics without conspiracy? They are being criticized immensely, and it's funny!
I don't think I have much more on the matter, except, that, once again, the US won the Nobel Prize for Medicine. In the last 30 awards given for medicine, the US has won 19 of them. Who needs socialized medicine, again?
Then at 7:48 in the morning, I get a text message from a good friend that said, "Obama wins Noble Peace prize -- ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOL!" Sounded like a joke to me, so I tried to sleep some more, but that just doesn't happen with 2 kids. Oh well. And then the news finally does validate itself; Oslo has awarded Barak Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. I still think it is a joke.
Now, in all honesty, I haven't taken the Nobel Peace prize seriously since I started tracking it. And that disappointment stems all the way back to the 1940s, when Mahatma Gandhi was denied the prize 5 different times between 1937 and 1948, even in his year of assassination, the Nobel administrators came out and said there would be no award winners because there were "no suitable" valid candidates. Gandhi, the king of non-violence who inspired MLK, Mandela, even Barak Obama & the Lama, didn't get the award, yet they all did.
Others that would have been meaningful recipients would have been Eleanor Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. All passed over, and others such as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter & Yassir Arafat have gotten it. Maybe next year Michael Moore could win? Or Polanski! So, thus you see why I don't particularly care who wins it anymore. Oh, but I do care, because others put stock into it.
Let's just look at what it takes to win an award, any award, in "normal life" perspective. You have to do something beyond expectations, or meet a measurable criteria, and just be better than average. For the rest of us, we get that annoying green ribbon that states we were a participant -- the "everybody is a winner" badge. Boy don't those just pump you up!
For the Nobel Peace prize, put forth by Swedish dynamite and smokeless powder inventor Alfred Nobel, the premise to such award is, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." And from the front page of the Nobel prize website regarding Obama's win, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Not only this, but in order to be considered for the award, you have to be nominated before February 1st of the same year, with the award being handed out in October of the same year. You cannot self -nominate and, unfortunately for the rest of us, the names of the nominees will not be released for 50 years. So we do not even get to know the competition for a half decade, which in this case, was over 200 nominations. But, there is a handful of deserving individuals we could come up with and assume they were part of the peace prize nomination. Wouldn't make a difference at this point, however.
Nonetheless, the point is that 11 days into Barak's Presidency (after the inauguration) someone nominated him for the Nobel Peace prize. Presumptuous? Nah, destined for greatness as we all know which shone forth 11 days into his reign and got him nominated.
Anyway, going with the above explanation for awards and this award in particular, the question becomes: how on earth did Obama win this "prestigious" award?
The Nobel administrators say "for his extraordinary efforts," I take issue with that immediately. Why? Because, how many times have we said to each other, "you get an 'E' for effort" when someone tries but fails? This is exactly the same as the green participation ribbon! Good attempt, so close, you'll be okay, better luck next time. We're all recipients of those platitudes. So the fact that Obama has made "efforts" but hasn't received any results, how does that qualify him for this award over anyone else? We're all making efforts here, why should one failure get an award over the rest of us?
"[T]o strengthen international diplomacy" is the next supposed qualifier, and I'm having a hard time finding where he was successful there. Tensions are increasing in the middle east, not getting better. North Korea is still "rogue" and Iran is gearing up to produce a nuclear bomb. Maybe Obama going around apologizing for everything is what they mean, but how is that good for diplomacy? I don't remember who said it, but, "Weakness is provocative." When you see a weakness, you exploit it. And far be it for me to assume that many other nations don't perceive this. Name one major foreign policy win this man has negotiated?
The last part is "cooperation between peoples." It's part of the above paragraph, but what, exactly, is Obama doing for that? Sure, he suggested we be a nuclear bomb free world, but he's not the first to say that, and frankly, we still have nukes, and as do all the other countries, and then some that are trying to get them. Honestly, looking around, would you want the US to be without nukes right now? Through he did cancel our missile defense shield, much to the chagrin of Poland, et al. I guess we'll just accept whatever nukes fly overhead towards us. Not to mention running two wars of our own, and one that apparently needs 40,000 more troops... Oh the irony of this award, especially after that SNL skit!
Some people have opined that this is the "thanks for not being Bush" award. In that case, anyone that replaced Bush would have won this award, and that makes it even more worthless. I've read others lauding his "vision," but again, that's not complete (whatever that is) and thus, not applicable to the winners' circle. Others have said this is a consolation prize for being hugely snubbed on the Olympic bid. Could be a hundred reasons, even political aggrandizement, but we have to take the official explanation at face value.
Here's what Obama said regarding the honor,“I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century." So he believes he still needs to earn this award. He also said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformational figures who have been honored by this prize." I agree.
But, I can't blame Obama personally. You can't self-nominate, and the committee in Oslo decided he was the winner. But if I were in his inner circle, I would cordially admonish him to respectfully decline the offer. He does not deserve it. At this point, he is a talking head with no accomplishments aside from ascending to the office of US President. And there is still plenty of time for things to go awry, nationally to globally. This award, like all others, is one that you are supposed to earn. Plus, by accepting it, you're just amping up the pathological narcissism and cult of personality that is becoming all to apparent. Declining this would be therapeutically beneficial.
Looking at it from the Nobel Prize committee perspective -- what exactly are they trying to do here? Perhaps this is their means to help him push his agenda? I feel there is more going on behind the scenes than we know about. Clear partisan politics, except, not so clear. But otherwise, why choose someone with such a short resume on actual peace progress? Yeah, a little bit of a conspiracy theory there. Bah, what is politics without conspiracy? They are being criticized immensely, and it's funny!
I don't think I have much more on the matter, except, that, once again, the US won the Nobel Prize for Medicine. In the last 30 awards given for medicine, the US has won 19 of them. Who needs socialized medicine, again?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Final Closure
Skipping politics oh so briefly, I felt compelled to go with this story because it literally hits close to home.
In February of 2004, we packed up and left my wife's home town and place of my collegial career. I had a new job that I had been commuting to and from since December, and to cut back on the hour long drive, we moved closer to work and coincidentally, closer to my wife's future work. Usual story for folks just out of college.
Three months later, an attractive, young college student was abducted not far from our previous residence. It was a huge surprise. Sure, it is a college town, but in many regards, a sleepy college town compared to other universities, especially the more infamous red-headed step-sister college 50 miles south and on the wrong side of the tracks. Filthy beast it is.
Anyway, a kidnapping that took the community by surprise and for over five years, hung over the head of this town like an ever present haze. Collectively, we all knew she was dead. After all, she was a pious person, and not prone to such shenanigans of taking off and showing up months later with a new tatoo and grizzled boy friend while sharing wild tales of Vegas and cops. Those of you not in the know, I am speaking of Brooke Wilberger.
For years, here in my town, there was a billboard in the north end of town citing a "reward" for any information on her whereabouts. I hated looking at it, because again, I knew where she wasn't: alive and well. And when I worked for the state, I drove by it every day. Such a pretty girl, but such a loss too.
Now, I don't mean to say that ugly girls are not such a loss either. But this was a good girl, insofar as I've heard and read. And honestly, let's be honest here, those types of girls are a rarity in today's age.
And then, less than a week ago, it finally comes out: Joel Courtney confesses to posing as a FedEx delivery man, pitting himself between her and a wall, then coursing her by knife point into his green minivan. There, she was bound, and after getting himself high, getting hungry, and traveling out deep into the forest, kept her for 24 hours in which he raped, sodomized and eventually bludgeoned her head in because she "fought too much."
It is a terrible, but all too often, a repeated story these days.
I seem to imagine myself in the woods there too. In one vision, I am a hunter and thus, a hero thereafter because of unloading a full magazine into Mr. Courtney. But the pragmatic person in me says that it was May, and therefore, not hunting season unless I was a poacher and thus, not the hero, but a criminal thrust into a situation of fight or flee.
The other visual I have is one of mercy. I'm there, but in spirit, and she's already in the final grasps of life, and I just want to be there on the other side waiting for her to return, to ease the pain, to tell her it'll be okay, justice will be served, and everything will be made whole once again. I just didn't want her to die alone, in the middle of no where, after all that transpired. Least of all die with just the perpetrator standing nearby.
Now granted, I will not pretend to know the grand scheme of things, and maybe there were angels on hand to welcome her back, but for my sake, I do need a sense of closure. Which is what brings me to the crux of this post.
This whole story concluded because a certain coward, fearing for his own life, cut a deal with the Wilberger family and the District Attorney. In exchange for not seeking the death penalty, he would let them know where she was laid to rest (and that doesn't seem like the right words for this). The family, interested in having a final closure, coupled with a proper burial, agreed. Ergo, Mr. Coward will live out the rest of his days in New Mexico (rape charges there) and Oregon, with no chance of parole. But is that good enough... for me?
In many regards, I am old school notion: eye for an eye. Yeah, I've read the nifty left-leaning bumper stickers that purport; "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind." But, that's missing the point and assuming that everyone is a willful law-breaking jerk. Let's break it down so we can get back to the story.
What many incompetent bumper stickering fools fail to realize is that 'an eye for an eye' is the first notable attempt at juris prudence for man. What that means is, a law of equivalency for the people. An eye for an eye means that you cannot over punish someone for a crime -- if they steal an apple, you cannot cut off their hand. That is too harsh a penalty for such a crime. If you steal an apple, then it is required of you to repay the debt to equal terms. So, willfully killing someone should mean that you are killed, unless suitable recompense can be met. But what could replace a life? Nothing in my book.
Looking at Joel Courtney, however, instead of having to feel remorse for his crimes, he gets to plea-bargian his way out, and not worry about much of anything for the rest of his life. But, we need to look at this another way. We're a third party looking in, and that's a shallow aspect. We'll skip Mr. Courtney's perspective -- I'm not psychologist so I could only assume his position. So, that leaves us with the Wilbergers.
Unfortunately, this does not seem too out of context for me to presume, but if my daughter was kidnapped and missing for over 5 years, and one day the DA calls and says, "He'll tell you where you can find the remains of your daughter if you agree to not seek the death penalty..." my response is ... I just don't know. The "justice is served" part of me says that I drop a litany of swear words and let him hang. But then, my daughter is out there somewhere, in a shallow, unmarked grave. No place to mourn her. And further, perhaps no true sense of closure, either.
I know there are lessons in forgiveness, but this country is too soft on crime already. And letting one more get off the hook of true justice just emboldens another to copy him.
I have friends who actively went out searching for Brooke, and no doubt if a similar situation arouse with my daughters, they'd all do it all over again. Brooke was one of our own, from a town in my state, abducted not far from my previous home -- a place I knew, no less! And so, I feel a bit of kinship and even responsibility on the matter. True, it was entirely out of my control, but the feeling is still there.
In my mostly vague attempts to be more empathetic, I need to come to a conclusion on this matter. Now, I figure my wife would want full closure, but I want full justice. The quick end to this argument is that my wife would win. That seems like a cheap way out of this debate, but it is the most truthful as well. But I'll add this; after the guilty confession, burial, and proper mourning, said criminal would be dead. Stabbed to death, in the shower, for however amount of cigarettes it would take to achieve such solutions. I can live with that.
The sad part is, I want some sort of epiphany in this. I don't want this death to have been in vain. Something has to be learned here! And yet, I can't figure it out. Why not? I know vengeance is suppose to be in God's hands, but let's look at his time frame: it sucks! It's like he's part of the government or something. "Uh, yeah, I'll have to get back to you on that..." I know, begging for a lightening bolt here. Meh, nothing new in that regard, no?
Maybe I've posted too soon on this issue, but I also felt compelled to say something. Anyway, perhaps my shower wish will come true. But until then, there is no end to this story for me.
***
Just some additional notes; 75% of criminals are repeat offenders and Courtney was one of them having already spent time in prison for attempting to rape his own sister. This tells me that jail is not an effective means of changing behavior. Maybe it's too easy in there these days.
Last May, I attended the Child Abuse Summit. It was awesome, information wise. Child porn has risen 1480%* in a decade. 30 years ago, when there was an abduction, local police and FBI would wait for a ransom note and go from there. Now, only 10% are for ransom, the rest of kidnappings are used for self-gratification. Clinically proven, there are no differences between your brain, and those of pedophiles or people with sexual fetishes. This means that it is a learned behavior, which may start as early as 3 years of age. They are not born with it ingrained into their heads.
So now you know. Be on the look-out and implant a GPS into your kid.
*You're going to have to take my word on this percentage -- I heard it from a presenter who works for Interpol on child trafficking. I tried to google for this statistic, but google pretty much shuts down when you type "child porn" into the search engine -- and I was just looking for statistics. Bet I just showed up on some government radar... whoops.
In February of 2004, we packed up and left my wife's home town and place of my collegial career. I had a new job that I had been commuting to and from since December, and to cut back on the hour long drive, we moved closer to work and coincidentally, closer to my wife's future work. Usual story for folks just out of college.
Three months later, an attractive, young college student was abducted not far from our previous residence. It was a huge surprise. Sure, it is a college town, but in many regards, a sleepy college town compared to other universities, especially the more infamous red-headed step-sister college 50 miles south and on the wrong side of the tracks. Filthy beast it is.
Anyway, a kidnapping that took the community by surprise and for over five years, hung over the head of this town like an ever present haze. Collectively, we all knew she was dead. After all, she was a pious person, and not prone to such shenanigans of taking off and showing up months later with a new tatoo and grizzled boy friend while sharing wild tales of Vegas and cops. Those of you not in the know, I am speaking of Brooke Wilberger.
For years, here in my town, there was a billboard in the north end of town citing a "reward" for any information on her whereabouts. I hated looking at it, because again, I knew where she wasn't: alive and well. And when I worked for the state, I drove by it every day. Such a pretty girl, but such a loss too.
Now, I don't mean to say that ugly girls are not such a loss either. But this was a good girl, insofar as I've heard and read. And honestly, let's be honest here, those types of girls are a rarity in today's age.
And then, less than a week ago, it finally comes out: Joel Courtney confesses to posing as a FedEx delivery man, pitting himself between her and a wall, then coursing her by knife point into his green minivan. There, she was bound, and after getting himself high, getting hungry, and traveling out deep into the forest, kept her for 24 hours in which he raped, sodomized and eventually bludgeoned her head in because she "fought too much."
It is a terrible, but all too often, a repeated story these days.
I seem to imagine myself in the woods there too. In one vision, I am a hunter and thus, a hero thereafter because of unloading a full magazine into Mr. Courtney. But the pragmatic person in me says that it was May, and therefore, not hunting season unless I was a poacher and thus, not the hero, but a criminal thrust into a situation of fight or flee.
The other visual I have is one of mercy. I'm there, but in spirit, and she's already in the final grasps of life, and I just want to be there on the other side waiting for her to return, to ease the pain, to tell her it'll be okay, justice will be served, and everything will be made whole once again. I just didn't want her to die alone, in the middle of no where, after all that transpired. Least of all die with just the perpetrator standing nearby.
Now granted, I will not pretend to know the grand scheme of things, and maybe there were angels on hand to welcome her back, but for my sake, I do need a sense of closure. Which is what brings me to the crux of this post.
This whole story concluded because a certain coward, fearing for his own life, cut a deal with the Wilberger family and the District Attorney. In exchange for not seeking the death penalty, he would let them know where she was laid to rest (and that doesn't seem like the right words for this). The family, interested in having a final closure, coupled with a proper burial, agreed. Ergo, Mr. Coward will live out the rest of his days in New Mexico (rape charges there) and Oregon, with no chance of parole. But is that good enough... for me?
In many regards, I am old school notion: eye for an eye. Yeah, I've read the nifty left-leaning bumper stickers that purport; "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind." But, that's missing the point and assuming that everyone is a willful law-breaking jerk. Let's break it down so we can get back to the story.
What many incompetent bumper stickering fools fail to realize is that 'an eye for an eye' is the first notable attempt at juris prudence for man. What that means is, a law of equivalency for the people. An eye for an eye means that you cannot over punish someone for a crime -- if they steal an apple, you cannot cut off their hand. That is too harsh a penalty for such a crime. If you steal an apple, then it is required of you to repay the debt to equal terms. So, willfully killing someone should mean that you are killed, unless suitable recompense can be met. But what could replace a life? Nothing in my book.
Looking at Joel Courtney, however, instead of having to feel remorse for his crimes, he gets to plea-bargian his way out, and not worry about much of anything for the rest of his life. But, we need to look at this another way. We're a third party looking in, and that's a shallow aspect. We'll skip Mr. Courtney's perspective -- I'm not psychologist so I could only assume his position. So, that leaves us with the Wilbergers.
Unfortunately, this does not seem too out of context for me to presume, but if my daughter was kidnapped and missing for over 5 years, and one day the DA calls and says, "He'll tell you where you can find the remains of your daughter if you agree to not seek the death penalty..." my response is ... I just don't know. The "justice is served" part of me says that I drop a litany of swear words and let him hang. But then, my daughter is out there somewhere, in a shallow, unmarked grave. No place to mourn her. And further, perhaps no true sense of closure, either.
I know there are lessons in forgiveness, but this country is too soft on crime already. And letting one more get off the hook of true justice just emboldens another to copy him.
I have friends who actively went out searching for Brooke, and no doubt if a similar situation arouse with my daughters, they'd all do it all over again. Brooke was one of our own, from a town in my state, abducted not far from my previous home -- a place I knew, no less! And so, I feel a bit of kinship and even responsibility on the matter. True, it was entirely out of my control, but the feeling is still there.
In my mostly vague attempts to be more empathetic, I need to come to a conclusion on this matter. Now, I figure my wife would want full closure, but I want full justice. The quick end to this argument is that my wife would win. That seems like a cheap way out of this debate, but it is the most truthful as well. But I'll add this; after the guilty confession, burial, and proper mourning, said criminal would be dead. Stabbed to death, in the shower, for however amount of cigarettes it would take to achieve such solutions. I can live with that.
The sad part is, I want some sort of epiphany in this. I don't want this death to have been in vain. Something has to be learned here! And yet, I can't figure it out. Why not? I know vengeance is suppose to be in God's hands, but let's look at his time frame: it sucks! It's like he's part of the government or something. "Uh, yeah, I'll have to get back to you on that..." I know, begging for a lightening bolt here. Meh, nothing new in that regard, no?
Maybe I've posted too soon on this issue, but I also felt compelled to say something. Anyway, perhaps my shower wish will come true. But until then, there is no end to this story for me.
***
Just some additional notes; 75% of criminals are repeat offenders and Courtney was one of them having already spent time in prison for attempting to rape his own sister. This tells me that jail is not an effective means of changing behavior. Maybe it's too easy in there these days.
Last May, I attended the Child Abuse Summit. It was awesome, information wise. Child porn has risen 1480%* in a decade. 30 years ago, when there was an abduction, local police and FBI would wait for a ransom note and go from there. Now, only 10% are for ransom, the rest of kidnappings are used for self-gratification. Clinically proven, there are no differences between your brain, and those of pedophiles or people with sexual fetishes. This means that it is a learned behavior, which may start as early as 3 years of age. They are not born with it ingrained into their heads.
So now you know. Be on the look-out and implant a GPS into your kid.
*You're going to have to take my word on this percentage -- I heard it from a presenter who works for Interpol on child trafficking. I tried to google for this statistic, but google pretty much shuts down when you type "child porn" into the search engine -- and I was just looking for statistics. Bet I just showed up on some government radar... whoops.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Change I could believe in
I appreciate the nice comments from a couple of you about spreading the, or rather, my word, out to more people. Well, this isn't a private blog so anyone that wishes to see my ranting can give it a look-see whenever they want. However, I already feel guilty when I fail to update this blog for the scant 4 of you that frequent here. Imagine how I'd feel if that doubled overnight? Yeah, a bit overwhelmed. So, feel free to tell anyone about this dusty place, but I don't have the time to put in real journalistic standards and as you know, there is a bit much opinion laced in every post.
So, what brings me here today? Same thing as you. Ha! Yeah, I guess we get bored often, eh?
Okay, moving on here...
I read a lot. Used to be books I read. I like books; tangible goods that I can carry around and just look smart because I am holding a book. I wish I had to wear glasses more often just to finish off that presumption.
But these days, I read a lot online. As most of you know, I spend a bit of time at conservative websites such as AmericanThinker, AIM.org, Drudgereport, wnd, and then other places such as CNN, Reuters, politico, factcheck and so on and so forth (I look for the meta-story within the "news"). And after reading so much over the course of the summer, I've come to the conclusion that I no longer care about political parties. That's it. I'm done. Sure, by default I am conservative and as such, align with the republicans because they espouse the closest ideals to the conservative agenda and are able to wield influence because of their power. According to wiki, I am actually a conservative libertarian. But that party will never make it off the ground, especially with the two parties choking anything that even dares to rear it's head towards power.
The problem I have with democrats is that about 40 years ago, they were high-jacked. It happened under the banner of "liberalism" which is now called progressivism. Both are lies. The real agenda is called socialism, communism, even fascism and pretends to be a method of social justice.
Hold on, before we move forward, we need to discuss government ideology before we get to my conclusion about political parties.
For the most part, people tend to agree that the political spectrum is a circle. Or maybe you have heard of the Nolan Chart? Kinda the same... meh, maybe. Anyway, on one end of the cycle you have freedom, and on the other is tyranny or often called its softer form, totalatarianism. Tyranny is utter control by the government. In the vapid sense, you can say anarchy proceeds freedom as anarchy would be completely free of any laws whatsoever. I remember talking in high school about how cool it would be to live in anarchy. Of course, had that happened then, I am sure I would have been subjugated by someone with more power and guns. Quickly. Thus, I have come to appreciate laws and law abiding citizenry as a manner of self preservation.
I said it was typically thought of as a circle because once the house of oppressive cards falls (fascism, communism), anarchy ensues and then, at least in the case of the US, a great nation is formed on the basis of conservative beliefs and values. It was liberating! It took liberal thinkers based on God-given conservative foundations to make it happen. But like I said, the liberals of old are not related to today's people of the same name.
Side note: some often state that socialism/communism is on the left whereas fascism is on the right. That doesn't really make sense, however. The spectrum is based on freedom, and fascism offers about as much freedom as communism. And both employ the ideology that the state knows best, or rather, that the state in its infinite wisdom is infallible.Ergo, in this topic, such things are on the same end of the spectrum.
So here we have today's liberals/progressives/socialist/closet communists all claiming to be Democrats when in fact, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. I've already shown in a previous post that Obama ran on the Socialist Democrat ticket ["New Party"] in Chicago for the state senate. And this past Sunday, Van Jones the "Green Czar", a communist, 9/11 truther (i.e., someone who believes the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks), resigned after a myriad of outings and blunders. Do you know who originally outed him? Trevor Loudon of New Zealand back in April! Then WND picked up the story and Glenn Beck ran with it over the summer. You would think the White House would know the history of birds they flock with, right? Oh yes, they do. And the White House didn't ask for his resignation either, which tells you a lot about the people they want to associate with. Interesting to note that the main stream media didn't mention a flippin' thing about it until Jones resigned Sunday morning. Then it was news...
So the democrats are not the good party they used to be.
As Obama would say, "on the other hand" we have the republicans. Used to be a good group of people. Had their morals, their financial position, and our trust. They emancipated the slaves and sponsored the Civil Rights Act (which Al Gore's father, a democrat, vehemently refused to pass as a Senator). But, in the last 20 years, something happened between "read my lips: no new taxes" and John McCain's liberal republican policies. They are called "RINO's" now, or, "Republican In Name Only" and there are a few of them in Congress, saying one thing and voting another. Sen. Collins, Snow, McCain, and former RINO now (D) Specter to list a few. It has come to a point where I cannot trust any of them at all regardless of the letter following their name, (R) or (D).
So this is where you come into play. Yeah, that's right, I need your help to get me into power. We'll start with the US and then the world. One of you needs to be called "pinky" just for nostalgia sake.
I used to think I would start a third political party and gain influence that way, but lately, I think I've come up with a better idea. I am going to abolish all political parties. Forever. Let's face it, they run on a ticket of being a democrat or republican, and this immediately conjures up beliefs in those parties; pro-abortion, anti-gun, fiscally responsible, national health care advocate, anti-cap-n-trade, immigration reform, etc. And then they get into office and we get screwed because they aren't exactly what we anticipated nor towing a party line.
Look at it this way, I just want candidates to say exactly what they believe in on every issue. No glossing over or ambiguity. Just honest to goodness truth from every one of them. And then we all go home, support the one we like, and then vote on it. That way there is no confusion on what we get. It's all on the table or s/he will lose votes. And if they lie about it, we'll all know.
And there's a bonus! By doing this, we abolish the electoral college! How about that!? We, the people, finally get to elect the president that we voted for, and not these silly redrawn voting districts that cater to voting blocks instead of the masses. It'll also remove the voting blocks for congressmen as well, because once there are no drawn districts, it'll be a crap-shoot for them on guessing where they are likely to get votes from since they'll have to be honest about their personal policies henceforth.
Seriously though, looking at the past few decades, a lot of politics has been self-service rhetoric that has undermined this country. Look at AIG, also known as "too big to fail." Yet Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. So why did we pump $170 billion into one and not the other? Because Federal Pensions aren't carried by Lehman Brothers, but AIG does. And who knows the amount of suffering these poor politicians would endure if they had to go through what the rest of us already have. Same goes for healthcare. You think the politicians will be on the "public option" they are pushing for the rest of us? Think again. You're not special. Makes you wonder about it if they have no faith in being treated on that plan.
Obama says he's going to "fundamentally transform" this country. That tells me he plans to destroy the foundation this country was built upon -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With Obamacare, there goes the 'life' aspect. With cap-n-trade, immigration reform, hate laws, etc. takes out 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness' could be all that and more, such as higher taxation or lower standards of living.
It isn't too much of a shock to us, after all, we've been in this pot of heated frogs for a while, but will we jump when it starts to boil? There should have been something preventing this from happening all along, which is why I propose the abolishment of the parties now. Too many have hid under a cloak without scrutiny. They served their purpose back in the day, but they have grown fat and useless, spineless, and worse, corrupted by the very enemy we helped defeat 20 years ago. Correlation? Why not...
Granted, there are no promises with my plan, and parties are bound to evolve once again. Still, an honest fresh start would be a welcomed event. I could make parties illegal...
Vote for me! I offer hope and cha-- erm, challenges! All I want is more truthiness, followed by cow bell!
So, what brings me here today? Same thing as you. Ha! Yeah, I guess we get bored often, eh?
Okay, moving on here...
I read a lot. Used to be books I read. I like books; tangible goods that I can carry around and just look smart because I am holding a book. I wish I had to wear glasses more often just to finish off that presumption.
But these days, I read a lot online. As most of you know, I spend a bit of time at conservative websites such as AmericanThinker, AIM.org, Drudgereport, wnd, and then other places such as CNN, Reuters, politico, factcheck and so on and so forth (I look for the meta-story within the "news"). And after reading so much over the course of the summer, I've come to the conclusion that I no longer care about political parties. That's it. I'm done. Sure, by default I am conservative and as such, align with the republicans because they espouse the closest ideals to the conservative agenda and are able to wield influence because of their power. According to wiki, I am actually a conservative libertarian. But that party will never make it off the ground, especially with the two parties choking anything that even dares to rear it's head towards power.
The problem I have with democrats is that about 40 years ago, they were high-jacked. It happened under the banner of "liberalism" which is now called progressivism. Both are lies. The real agenda is called socialism, communism, even fascism and pretends to be a method of social justice.
Hold on, before we move forward, we need to discuss government ideology before we get to my conclusion about political parties.
For the most part, people tend to agree that the political spectrum is a circle. Or maybe you have heard of the Nolan Chart? Kinda the same... meh, maybe. Anyway, on one end of the cycle you have freedom, and on the other is tyranny or often called its softer form, totalatarianism. Tyranny is utter control by the government. In the vapid sense, you can say anarchy proceeds freedom as anarchy would be completely free of any laws whatsoever. I remember talking in high school about how cool it would be to live in anarchy. Of course, had that happened then, I am sure I would have been subjugated by someone with more power and guns. Quickly. Thus, I have come to appreciate laws and law abiding citizenry as a manner of self preservation.
I said it was typically thought of as a circle because once the house of oppressive cards falls (fascism, communism), anarchy ensues and then, at least in the case of the US, a great nation is formed on the basis of conservative beliefs and values. It was liberating! It took liberal thinkers based on God-given conservative foundations to make it happen. But like I said, the liberals of old are not related to today's people of the same name.
Side note: some often state that socialism/communism is on the left whereas fascism is on the right. That doesn't really make sense, however. The spectrum is based on freedom, and fascism offers about as much freedom as communism. And both employ the ideology that the state knows best, or rather, that the state in its infinite wisdom is infallible.Ergo, in this topic, such things are on the same end of the spectrum.
So here we have today's liberals/progressives/socialist/closet communists all claiming to be Democrats when in fact, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. I've already shown in a previous post that Obama ran on the Socialist Democrat ticket ["New Party"] in Chicago for the state senate. And this past Sunday, Van Jones the "Green Czar", a communist, 9/11 truther (i.e., someone who believes the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks), resigned after a myriad of outings and blunders. Do you know who originally outed him? Trevor Loudon of New Zealand back in April! Then WND picked up the story and Glenn Beck ran with it over the summer. You would think the White House would know the history of birds they flock with, right? Oh yes, they do. And the White House didn't ask for his resignation either, which tells you a lot about the people they want to associate with. Interesting to note that the main stream media didn't mention a flippin' thing about it until Jones resigned Sunday morning. Then it was news...
So the democrats are not the good party they used to be.
As Obama would say, "on the other hand" we have the republicans. Used to be a good group of people. Had their morals, their financial position, and our trust. They emancipated the slaves and sponsored the Civil Rights Act (which Al Gore's father, a democrat, vehemently refused to pass as a Senator). But, in the last 20 years, something happened between "read my lips: no new taxes" and John McCain's liberal republican policies. They are called "RINO's" now, or, "Republican In Name Only" and there are a few of them in Congress, saying one thing and voting another. Sen. Collins, Snow, McCain, and former RINO now (D) Specter to list a few. It has come to a point where I cannot trust any of them at all regardless of the letter following their name, (R) or (D).
So this is where you come into play. Yeah, that's right, I need your help to get me into power. We'll start with the US and then the world. One of you needs to be called "pinky" just for nostalgia sake.
I used to think I would start a third political party and gain influence that way, but lately, I think I've come up with a better idea. I am going to abolish all political parties. Forever. Let's face it, they run on a ticket of being a democrat or republican, and this immediately conjures up beliefs in those parties; pro-abortion, anti-gun, fiscally responsible, national health care advocate, anti-cap-n-trade, immigration reform, etc. And then they get into office and we get screwed because they aren't exactly what we anticipated nor towing a party line.
Look at it this way, I just want candidates to say exactly what they believe in on every issue. No glossing over or ambiguity. Just honest to goodness truth from every one of them. And then we all go home, support the one we like, and then vote on it. That way there is no confusion on what we get. It's all on the table or s/he will lose votes. And if they lie about it, we'll all know.
And there's a bonus! By doing this, we abolish the electoral college! How about that!? We, the people, finally get to elect the president that we voted for, and not these silly redrawn voting districts that cater to voting blocks instead of the masses. It'll also remove the voting blocks for congressmen as well, because once there are no drawn districts, it'll be a crap-shoot for them on guessing where they are likely to get votes from since they'll have to be honest about their personal policies henceforth.
Seriously though, looking at the past few decades, a lot of politics has been self-service rhetoric that has undermined this country. Look at AIG, also known as "too big to fail." Yet Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. So why did we pump $170 billion into one and not the other? Because Federal Pensions aren't carried by Lehman Brothers, but AIG does. And who knows the amount of suffering these poor politicians would endure if they had to go through what the rest of us already have. Same goes for healthcare. You think the politicians will be on the "public option" they are pushing for the rest of us? Think again. You're not special. Makes you wonder about it if they have no faith in being treated on that plan.
Obama says he's going to "fundamentally transform" this country. That tells me he plans to destroy the foundation this country was built upon -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With Obamacare, there goes the 'life' aspect. With cap-n-trade, immigration reform, hate laws, etc. takes out 'liberty' and the 'pursuit of happiness' could be all that and more, such as higher taxation or lower standards of living.
It isn't too much of a shock to us, after all, we've been in this pot of heated frogs for a while, but will we jump when it starts to boil? There should have been something preventing this from happening all along, which is why I propose the abolishment of the parties now. Too many have hid under a cloak without scrutiny. They served their purpose back in the day, but they have grown fat and useless, spineless, and worse, corrupted by the very enemy we helped defeat 20 years ago. Correlation? Why not...
Granted, there are no promises with my plan, and parties are bound to evolve once again. Still, an honest fresh start would be a welcomed event. I could make parties illegal...
Vote for me! I offer hope and cha-- erm, challenges! All I want is more truthiness, followed by cow bell!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
In Failing Health
Summer supposedly is officially over 3 weeks into September, but let's be honest, internally we all consider September 1st as the real end of summer, and Labor Day as the last good day to relax, which is odd considering its name.
Coming in September, Congress will reconvene after the mandatory month long vacation. It's actually a nice reprieve to have Congress cease to sell-off our rights one month a year.
With Congress back in action, we have the newly named KennedyCare on the docket, formerly ObamaCare, formerly ClintonCare, et cetera. Of course, we already have MediCare and Medicaid, which marginally address the health issues for the elderly and those who are too poor to have their own insurance.
Well, let's start with the new suggested name, KennedyCare, named after the "Lion of the Senate," which I did not look up as to why he was called that -- I was happier assuming it meant he pounced unsuspecting innocent victims.
Teddy Kennedy, recently portrayed as some sort of hero despite a long history of events that are, at least to me, the antithesis of being a hero. Hmm, looking at the wiki page on him, it says he was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on his Spanish test, let back in after being a good person, wound up killing a girl named Mary Jo Kopechne but only faced a 2 month suspension for doing so, lived a hedonistic life, worked with the KGB against Reagan, helped his nephew get acquitted of rape in 1991, co-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and The Freedom of Information Act. I approve of that last one, and by default, I have to despise NCBL because my wife teaches.
Because of a small plane accident in the 1960s, Kennedy has had back pains ever since then (err, up until August 25th that is) and as such, has been a strong proponent of nationalized health care. So now that he is gone, many politicians are calling for it to be called KennedyCare in an effort to put an emotional emphasis on passing it. Win one for the gipper, I suppose.
Good luck. And I mean that as insincerely as possible.
Let's look at Nationalized health care. I briefly talked about this a few months ago when I was rallying against socialism as a whole. Honestly, we've been steadily cruising that way since Woodrow Wilson made the Federal Reserve in 19... uhm, 1917? Meh, go back and read it if the date is that important to you. We're just missing a few more pieces before we're totally socialized: 1st amendment, 2 amendment and nationalized health care. It ultimately about controlling your populace.
House Bill 3200 has been the main focus thus far. There has been ample information and misinformation about it. So much so, that the White House asked people to narc on those spreading "disinformation" that seemed "fishy." Disinformation is deliberate wrong information -- happens all too often in campaigns. However, what the White House asked was illegal by the Privacy Act of 1974, and they are now being sued for it.
Let's look at the merits of passing health care reform. As claimed, there are 47 million people in the US without health care coverage, or roughly 18% of "Americans." This number includes several million illegal aliens (9.73 million), people who are able to afford health care but opt not to (9.1 million), people in-between health care coverages, people who are in college, and a myriad of other individuals. In short, it actually isn't as high as reported above (and that website debunks the 47 million claim anyway, which Obama cited).
Next, how much clamoring did you hear from the US citizens begging for Health care reform anyway? None? I worked at the Oregon Health Plan for a bit, and believe you me, just about anyone can get health care coverage. Not only that, it is illegal for hospitals to turn people away and Ted Kennedy also passed the COBRA laws to protect uninsured you. Now then, the US government, on the the other hand, isn't fairing too well with Medicare and Medicaid. They plan to go broke soon. Here's the quote from the top of that link: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care." So the federal government is in financial trouble for the health care it already provides, and now they want to cover more people as well. Yeah, that sounds like a swell idea...
Meanwhile, of the 1300 health insurance companies in the US, the top 10 posted a combined $13 billion dollar profit last year overall. Excessive? Well, maybe. But at least they aren't running in the red like the multi-trillion dollar government. This is one element that we need to be wary of with the government -- they aren't making money on taking over health care, they're just creating new debt for us and our children (and their children) to assume at a later date. Here's what I mean: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that to cover 16 million people for ten years, it'll cost over $1 trillion dollars. Uh, we don't have that laying around anywhere...
Above all, there are the political by-words of "single payer system" and what does that mean, really? It means one option. No shopping around between BlueCross/BlueShield, Providence, Kaiser, or what have you. It is a one stop health care coverage and no Slurpee-for-you station. And we specifically do not want that. Americans like options. We're a picky folk and we like it that way. If it takes 1 trillion to cover 16 million over ten years and the US earns 14 trillion a year in GDP, how much would it cost us to cover everyone for that same time. Meh, too late to do math. Of course, some one could just pony up more money to cover us all. "Single payer system" rhetoric has been dropped since the first month it was mentioned.
Going back to why this is necessary. Is it? I mean, this is a really bad recession, and we've already spent too much money on the economy trying to mitigate the effects of a recession. Shouldn't this sort of idea come up when the economy is doing well, and we have a surplus to pay for such benefits? Or maybe we should fix the bankrupt Medicare/caid and Social Security (which is the biggest ponzi scheme in the world). I just do not get the need to rush this through, regardless of who dies in the Senate.
Let's discuss just how bad (or good) or medical coverage is. First, no other country in the world matches our superior care or innovation in medicine. It is a business and we drive it forward. I've heard made mention that US citizens actually do have the longest life spans in the world, but because we drive fast and play war, it shortens the overall life span. But, regardless of that, the average life span is rising in the US anyway.
Remember how long you waited at the ER last time? 2 hours? Yeah, you were furious, but here's Canada's average: + 20 hours. How many of us can stay up that long? Here's the most recent famous claim that over 4,000 UK women had given birth in hallways because there weren't enough beds. You stay classy, England!
Logistically speaking, however, we do not have enough doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc., to help the supposed 47 million uninsured or even half that. Also, the government would determine the pay rate for visits, surgeries, therapies, and I believe there would be a professional revolt to that. Plus, the government is chronically slow on payment as well.
So, what to do... Well, if we had to do something just to save what programs the government already runs in health care, here is an idea that really needs to be addressed: tort reform. Just a snobby lawyer way of saying curbing medical malpractice law suits. Texas recently did it, and their results are astounding! This was on the ballot a couple of years ago here in Oregon, and I voted it down, but this was due to one story (oh boy, here we go -- side tangent) about a guy who had testicular cancer in the lefty, and the doctor accidentally removed the righty, and ultimately he was left with a scholarship to eunuch school. In all honesty, you couldn't offer me the annual US GDP for my boys. Yeah, that's right, they are priceless! So there'd have to be an asterisks for me to approve of Texas' system, but the results are undeniable there.
What we do need is health insurance reform. [Read that link written by a doctor here in Oregon -- it will give you the best insight.] I don't want to regulate it any more like the power companies who's profits are capped by legislation. And I certainly do not want the government coming in, under-cutting the competition, and forcing employers to abandon private coverage which would dump people into the government care. If I were an employer, I would. After all, you'll be paying higher taxes for this public option to exist, so why bother paying private insurance premiums as well?
So in my opinion, we don't need a federal government oversight health care option. What we do need is tort reform with a "save the nads" clause for people who have that concern. Deregulation would be nice, because people who pay for insurance in middle-America pay less than those on the east coast, yet they cannot (by law) get the same coverage in other regions.
But realistically, in one of those links above, 9.1 million people chose not to have health care and earn over $75,000 a year. They don't want it! If we're going to expand government health care, let's do it for those under a set amount of income that do want it, and they can pay a subsidized premium for it. If they sign up for it, they agree to caps on potential law suits, and have mandatory health screenings for preventative measures -- medical, dental and vision. The premuims have to be comparable to other companies so people don't flock to it and overwhelm the system.
And no, illegals do not get this option. Call it racism if you must, but I call it 'the law.'
And lastly, it should be a state matter. There's nothing in the constitution that says the government should have a role in health care. It might even be illegal -- you're health records in a data base controlled by government bureaucrats. Super. Well, at least they could verify that FAFSA form for my Eunuch University application.
You'll note that I haven't talked about, "death panels," "assisted suicide," "paid abortions," "free sex changes," "coverage for illegals," and a litany of other topics. Truth is, the bill isn't finalized as lots of things could change before it gets voted on. I'll probably have to revisit this topic once again. Hopefully it will not be so scatter-brained as this post. I've been working on this for too long, and I am anxious to move on. Not the lack of links in the latter half?
And yes, I will miss Michael Jackson more than Ted Kennedy.
Coming in September, Congress will reconvene after the mandatory month long vacation. It's actually a nice reprieve to have Congress cease to sell-off our rights one month a year.
With Congress back in action, we have the newly named KennedyCare on the docket, formerly ObamaCare, formerly ClintonCare, et cetera. Of course, we already have MediCare and Medicaid, which marginally address the health issues for the elderly and those who are too poor to have their own insurance.
Well, let's start with the new suggested name, KennedyCare, named after the "Lion of the Senate," which I did not look up as to why he was called that -- I was happier assuming it meant he pounced unsuspecting innocent victims.
Teddy Kennedy, recently portrayed as some sort of hero despite a long history of events that are, at least to me, the antithesis of being a hero. Hmm, looking at the wiki page on him, it says he was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on his Spanish test, let back in after being a good person, wound up killing a girl named Mary Jo Kopechne but only faced a 2 month suspension for doing so, lived a hedonistic life, worked with the KGB against Reagan, helped his nephew get acquitted of rape in 1991, co-sponsored No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and The Freedom of Information Act. I approve of that last one, and by default, I have to despise NCBL because my wife teaches.
Because of a small plane accident in the 1960s, Kennedy has had back pains ever since then (err, up until August 25th that is) and as such, has been a strong proponent of nationalized health care. So now that he is gone, many politicians are calling for it to be called KennedyCare in an effort to put an emotional emphasis on passing it. Win one for the gipper, I suppose.
Good luck. And I mean that as insincerely as possible.
Let's look at Nationalized health care. I briefly talked about this a few months ago when I was rallying against socialism as a whole. Honestly, we've been steadily cruising that way since Woodrow Wilson made the Federal Reserve in 19... uhm, 1917? Meh, go back and read it if the date is that important to you. We're just missing a few more pieces before we're totally socialized: 1st amendment, 2 amendment and nationalized health care. It ultimately about controlling your populace.
House Bill 3200 has been the main focus thus far. There has been ample information and misinformation about it. So much so, that the White House asked people to narc on those spreading "disinformation" that seemed "fishy." Disinformation is deliberate wrong information -- happens all too often in campaigns. However, what the White House asked was illegal by the Privacy Act of 1974, and they are now being sued for it.
Let's look at the merits of passing health care reform. As claimed, there are 47 million people in the US without health care coverage, or roughly 18% of "Americans." This number includes several million illegal aliens (9.73 million), people who are able to afford health care but opt not to (9.1 million), people in-between health care coverages, people who are in college, and a myriad of other individuals. In short, it actually isn't as high as reported above (and that website debunks the 47 million claim anyway, which Obama cited).
Next, how much clamoring did you hear from the US citizens begging for Health care reform anyway? None? I worked at the Oregon Health Plan for a bit, and believe you me, just about anyone can get health care coverage. Not only that, it is illegal for hospitals to turn people away and Ted Kennedy also passed the COBRA laws to protect uninsured you. Now then, the US government, on the the other hand, isn't fairing too well with Medicare and Medicaid. They plan to go broke soon. Here's the quote from the top of that link: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of the rising cost of health care." So the federal government is in financial trouble for the health care it already provides, and now they want to cover more people as well. Yeah, that sounds like a swell idea...
Meanwhile, of the 1300 health insurance companies in the US, the top 10 posted a combined $13 billion dollar profit last year overall. Excessive? Well, maybe. But at least they aren't running in the red like the multi-trillion dollar government. This is one element that we need to be wary of with the government -- they aren't making money on taking over health care, they're just creating new debt for us and our children (and their children) to assume at a later date. Here's what I mean: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that to cover 16 million people for ten years, it'll cost over $1 trillion dollars. Uh, we don't have that laying around anywhere...
Above all, there are the political by-words of "single payer system" and what does that mean, really? It means one option. No shopping around between BlueCross/BlueShield, Providence, Kaiser, or what have you. It is a one stop health care coverage and no Slurpee-for-you station. And we specifically do not want that. Americans like options. We're a picky folk and we like it that way. If it takes 1 trillion to cover 16 million over ten years and the US earns 14 trillion a year in GDP, how much would it cost us to cover everyone for that same time. Meh, too late to do math. Of course, some one could just pony up more money to cover us all. "Single payer system" rhetoric has been dropped since the first month it was mentioned.
Going back to why this is necessary. Is it? I mean, this is a really bad recession, and we've already spent too much money on the economy trying to mitigate the effects of a recession. Shouldn't this sort of idea come up when the economy is doing well, and we have a surplus to pay for such benefits? Or maybe we should fix the bankrupt Medicare/caid and Social Security (which is the biggest ponzi scheme in the world). I just do not get the need to rush this through, regardless of who dies in the Senate.
Let's discuss just how bad (or good) or medical coverage is. First, no other country in the world matches our superior care or innovation in medicine. It is a business and we drive it forward. I've heard made mention that US citizens actually do have the longest life spans in the world, but because we drive fast and play war, it shortens the overall life span. But, regardless of that, the average life span is rising in the US anyway.
Remember how long you waited at the ER last time? 2 hours? Yeah, you were furious, but here's Canada's average: + 20 hours. How many of us can stay up that long? Here's the most recent famous claim that over 4,000 UK women had given birth in hallways because there weren't enough beds. You stay classy, England!
Logistically speaking, however, we do not have enough doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc., to help the supposed 47 million uninsured or even half that. Also, the government would determine the pay rate for visits, surgeries, therapies, and I believe there would be a professional revolt to that. Plus, the government is chronically slow on payment as well.
So, what to do... Well, if we had to do something just to save what programs the government already runs in health care, here is an idea that really needs to be addressed: tort reform. Just a snobby lawyer way of saying curbing medical malpractice law suits. Texas recently did it, and their results are astounding! This was on the ballot a couple of years ago here in Oregon, and I voted it down, but this was due to one story (oh boy, here we go -- side tangent) about a guy who had testicular cancer in the lefty, and the doctor accidentally removed the righty, and ultimately he was left with a scholarship to eunuch school. In all honesty, you couldn't offer me the annual US GDP for my boys. Yeah, that's right, they are priceless! So there'd have to be an asterisks for me to approve of Texas' system, but the results are undeniable there.
What we do need is health insurance reform. [Read that link written by a doctor here in Oregon -- it will give you the best insight.] I don't want to regulate it any more like the power companies who's profits are capped by legislation. And I certainly do not want the government coming in, under-cutting the competition, and forcing employers to abandon private coverage which would dump people into the government care. If I were an employer, I would. After all, you'll be paying higher taxes for this public option to exist, so why bother paying private insurance premiums as well?
So in my opinion, we don't need a federal government oversight health care option. What we do need is tort reform with a "save the nads" clause for people who have that concern. Deregulation would be nice, because people who pay for insurance in middle-America pay less than those on the east coast, yet they cannot (by law) get the same coverage in other regions.
But realistically, in one of those links above, 9.1 million people chose not to have health care and earn over $75,000 a year. They don't want it! If we're going to expand government health care, let's do it for those under a set amount of income that do want it, and they can pay a subsidized premium for it. If they sign up for it, they agree to caps on potential law suits, and have mandatory health screenings for preventative measures -- medical, dental and vision. The premuims have to be comparable to other companies so people don't flock to it and overwhelm the system.
And no, illegals do not get this option. Call it racism if you must, but I call it 'the law.'
And lastly, it should be a state matter. There's nothing in the constitution that says the government should have a role in health care. It might even be illegal -- you're health records in a data base controlled by government bureaucrats. Super. Well, at least they could verify that FAFSA form for my Eunuch University application.
You'll note that I haven't talked about, "death panels," "assisted suicide," "paid abortions," "free sex changes," "coverage for illegals," and a litany of other topics. Truth is, the bill isn't finalized as lots of things could change before it gets voted on. I'll probably have to revisit this topic once again. Hopefully it will not be so scatter-brained as this post. I've been working on this for too long, and I am anxious to move on. Not the lack of links in the latter half?
And yes, I will miss Michael Jackson more than Ted Kennedy.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Skeptically intrigued
Heavens to Betsy! It's been 3 weeks since I posted last. And how on Earth did Betsy get Heavens? Doesn't seem fair in a socialized world... Someone ought to create a government department to regulate that Betsy gal and spread the wealth. Hmm, may need some more taxes to fund said department. Not it!
Bah! What to talk about today...
So, a couple of weeks ago the "mainstream media" reported on the whole "birther" movement, a moniker that they so aptly applied to those that have questions about whether or not the current President of the United States (POTUS) has an actual long form birth certificate. The term "birther" is meant to ridicule those that espouse this notion. It is much easier to ridicule than come up with solid, factual answers. I do it all the time, add humor, and the issue becomes a moot point.
Well, let's dive in and see what we can find, shall we?
First and foremost, the Certification of Live Birth was released to the intertubes. It is not a COLB form, which is an actual birth certificate that states all the details; the doctor, the hospital, etc. Also of note, it is a 2007 reprint, not issued back in August 4, 1961 when Barak Obama was born. The problem with this form is that it lists his race as "African" when in 1961, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all colored people were lised as "Negro." Odd, but maybe Hawaii was pro-active. Secondly, the above data (doctor, hospital) are missing. Thirdly, getting a Hawaiian birth certificate like the one above wasn't too hard to do as the government of Hawaii was engaged in amping up their population count to cook the books for more funding for Welfare, and representation in Congress. So, there are some fishy things about the scanned internet version, let alone that Hawaii's own Department of Health will not comment on the authenticity of that document (but say they've seen the original).
Okay, these two issues do not overlap well. We have documentation that when Barak was born, a couple of announcements were made in the local paper about the birth. Both list his residence as 6085 Kalanieloae Hwy. Interesting to note, they never lived there (instead, Waikiki, same city as the University they attended). This residence belonged to Prof. Orland Lefforge who taught at the University of Hawaii who had bought the house in the 1950s and died there in 1973. Not only that, there are 4 people who say they saw Barak being born, all 4 of which live in Kenya and are under a gag order by the Kenyan Government which is controlled by Prime Minister Odinga, Obama's cousin. But you can hear his grandma speak about it on YouTube. So, notices in the local papers with wrong address, witnesses in Kenya under gag order. Take your pick.
One thing the media did with their label was pin the argument down on one specific point, when in fact, the "birther" movement encompasses a lot more than that. After birth, Barak's mom "Stanley" married Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia, and they moved there as a family. At that time in Indonesia, just as today, you cannot have dual citizenship and go to school, and you have to be adopted. We have "Barry Soetoro's" grade school report from Indonesia, so we know he attended -- aside from the fact he mentions it in his book "Dreams of my Father". So, in order to do that, he would have had to declare himself a citizen of Indonesia, probably through adoption. This would make him, according to law, ineligible for POTUS. Remember, not my rules, but those of our country.
Let's look at the stipulations for being president: must be 35 years of age, natural born citizen, and have resided in the US for the last 14 years. He definitely has 2 of the 3.
He comes back to Hawaii after the marriage dissolves. He attends Occidental College in California, Columbia, and then Harvard. You know, we have all of Bushes and Kerry's college records -- it's public knowledge. Obama attended 3 schools of higher education. Do you know how many grades we have? None. Furthermore, his roommates were all Muslim foreign exchange students. Why? Was he purporting to be an exchange student too? Getting government grants to get the money to do so? And then there's that 1981 trip to Pakistan during a US ban to travel there because the country was under Marshall law. How did he do that on a US passport? How about his State Senate record? All locked and sealed with the supposed COLB form.
Not to mention the blatant forgery of Barak's Selective Service card. Read it all, there is no way around the intention there -- a 1990's form with a 2008 seal with a 1970's stamp when he should have done it on his 18th birthday in 1979. Forgery, fruad, whatever.
So that is the "birther" movement in a nutshell. And quite frankly, people have a right to know that their current president is legally and lawfully able to serve in that capacity -- it's in the Constitution and we're obligated to uphold it, lest we be criminals ourselves. Perhaps these are the negative rights Obama referred to in the Constitution -- it bars outsiders from serving in the Presidency. Rightfully so, we don't want foreign policy on our soil.
But here's the kicker, if Obama isn't born in the US, then what? He steps down and we get Biden? Ugg. Or worse, Pelosi? And what if Obama says he's not stepping down? Tyranny? After all, the majority did elect him... And even if 10% are willing to fight/be violent to keep him in office, that's millions of people willing to lay down their lives for this hope and change.
With that in mind, color me skeptical of the whole thing because if it ever does come to a head, I'll be waiting for a major shake-up to occur; either the issue will be dead and proven that he is an American citizen, and we can finally get over this mess, or we'll see something we've never even considered before. And that is more scary than anything to me.
The officiators at the Department of Health for Hawaii say they have seen the real long form birth certificate. Release the damn thing already! Otherwise, why is Obama spending $1.4 million in legal fees trying to stop the courts from making a decision on his Birth Certificate? One soldier has already gotten out of serving in Iraq by bringing up a lawsuit against the legitimacy of Obama.
Oh, and then this shows up: Barak Obama Facebook says he's 52, not 48! Sure, maybe it was hacked, or not his "official" official page, or just riling up the masses again. Ridiculous at any rate. If he were 52, then the 2007 birth reprint is a fake, Hawaii was still a territory, his mom was 14, and we have even more issues to discuss. Most likely a typo. Better be anyway...
And if this still hasn't piqued your interest, perhaps this article will. Short and sweet, so it'll take you less than 5 minutes to read. Note the amount of comments.
You have a right to be skeptical, this is your country and it works because we follow laws, even if they are 232 years old. I'd prefer that Obama be a real US citizen, but I would like to have that proven beyond doubt, and currently, there is too much doubt. I shall remain skeptical on the matter, hoping that it's just another conspiracy theory like so many others; Roswell, JFK, moon landing, big foot, 9/11, and so on and so forth. The proof is in the pudding, so give us the pudding.
Bah! What to talk about today...
So, a couple of weeks ago the "mainstream media" reported on the whole "birther" movement, a moniker that they so aptly applied to those that have questions about whether or not the current President of the United States (POTUS) has an actual long form birth certificate. The term "birther" is meant to ridicule those that espouse this notion. It is much easier to ridicule than come up with solid, factual answers. I do it all the time, add humor, and the issue becomes a moot point.
Well, let's dive in and see what we can find, shall we?
First and foremost, the Certification of Live Birth was released to the intertubes. It is not a COLB form, which is an actual birth certificate that states all the details; the doctor, the hospital, etc. Also of note, it is a 2007 reprint, not issued back in August 4, 1961 when Barak Obama was born. The problem with this form is that it lists his race as "African" when in 1961, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that all colored people were lised as "Negro." Odd, but maybe Hawaii was pro-active. Secondly, the above data (doctor, hospital) are missing. Thirdly, getting a Hawaiian birth certificate like the one above wasn't too hard to do as the government of Hawaii was engaged in amping up their population count to cook the books for more funding for Welfare, and representation in Congress. So, there are some fishy things about the scanned internet version, let alone that Hawaii's own Department of Health will not comment on the authenticity of that document (but say they've seen the original).
Okay, these two issues do not overlap well. We have documentation that when Barak was born, a couple of announcements were made in the local paper about the birth. Both list his residence as 6085 Kalanieloae Hwy. Interesting to note, they never lived there (instead, Waikiki, same city as the University they attended). This residence belonged to Prof. Orland Lefforge who taught at the University of Hawaii who had bought the house in the 1950s and died there in 1973. Not only that, there are 4 people who say they saw Barak being born, all 4 of which live in Kenya and are under a gag order by the Kenyan Government which is controlled by Prime Minister Odinga, Obama's cousin. But you can hear his grandma speak about it on YouTube. So, notices in the local papers with wrong address, witnesses in Kenya under gag order. Take your pick.
One thing the media did with their label was pin the argument down on one specific point, when in fact, the "birther" movement encompasses a lot more than that. After birth, Barak's mom "Stanley" married Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia, and they moved there as a family. At that time in Indonesia, just as today, you cannot have dual citizenship and go to school, and you have to be adopted. We have "Barry Soetoro's" grade school report from Indonesia, so we know he attended -- aside from the fact he mentions it in his book "Dreams of my Father". So, in order to do that, he would have had to declare himself a citizen of Indonesia, probably through adoption. This would make him, according to law, ineligible for POTUS. Remember, not my rules, but those of our country.
Let's look at the stipulations for being president: must be 35 years of age, natural born citizen, and have resided in the US for the last 14 years. He definitely has 2 of the 3.
He comes back to Hawaii after the marriage dissolves. He attends Occidental College in California, Columbia, and then Harvard. You know, we have all of Bushes and Kerry's college records -- it's public knowledge. Obama attended 3 schools of higher education. Do you know how many grades we have? None. Furthermore, his roommates were all Muslim foreign exchange students. Why? Was he purporting to be an exchange student too? Getting government grants to get the money to do so? And then there's that 1981 trip to Pakistan during a US ban to travel there because the country was under Marshall law. How did he do that on a US passport? How about his State Senate record? All locked and sealed with the supposed COLB form.
Not to mention the blatant forgery of Barak's Selective Service card. Read it all, there is no way around the intention there -- a 1990's form with a 2008 seal with a 1970's stamp when he should have done it on his 18th birthday in 1979. Forgery, fruad, whatever.
So that is the "birther" movement in a nutshell. And quite frankly, people have a right to know that their current president is legally and lawfully able to serve in that capacity -- it's in the Constitution and we're obligated to uphold it, lest we be criminals ourselves. Perhaps these are the negative rights Obama referred to in the Constitution -- it bars outsiders from serving in the Presidency. Rightfully so, we don't want foreign policy on our soil.
But here's the kicker, if Obama isn't born in the US, then what? He steps down and we get Biden? Ugg. Or worse, Pelosi? And what if Obama says he's not stepping down? Tyranny? After all, the majority did elect him... And even if 10% are willing to fight/be violent to keep him in office, that's millions of people willing to lay down their lives for this hope and change.
With that in mind, color me skeptical of the whole thing because if it ever does come to a head, I'll be waiting for a major shake-up to occur; either the issue will be dead and proven that he is an American citizen, and we can finally get over this mess, or we'll see something we've never even considered before. And that is more scary than anything to me.
The officiators at the Department of Health for Hawaii say they have seen the real long form birth certificate. Release the damn thing already! Otherwise, why is Obama spending $1.4 million in legal fees trying to stop the courts from making a decision on his Birth Certificate? One soldier has already gotten out of serving in Iraq by bringing up a lawsuit against the legitimacy of Obama.
Oh, and then this shows up: Barak Obama Facebook says he's 52, not 48! Sure, maybe it was hacked, or not his "official" official page, or just riling up the masses again. Ridiculous at any rate. If he were 52, then the 2007 birth reprint is a fake, Hawaii was still a territory, his mom was 14, and we have even more issues to discuss. Most likely a typo. Better be anyway...
And if this still hasn't piqued your interest, perhaps this article will. Short and sweet, so it'll take you less than 5 minutes to read. Note the amount of comments.
You have a right to be skeptical, this is your country and it works because we follow laws, even if they are 232 years old. I'd prefer that Obama be a real US citizen, but I would like to have that proven beyond doubt, and currently, there is too much doubt. I shall remain skeptical on the matter, hoping that it's just another conspiracy theory like so many others; Roswell, JFK, moon landing, big foot, 9/11, and so on and so forth. The proof is in the pudding, so give us the pudding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)