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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Foot in Mouth syndrome
It's interesting to see Pres. Obama back-peddling so quickly on the Sgt. Crowley v. Prof. Gates issue. Let's be honest here; Obama made a jack ass of himself by jumping into a small local issue, not knowing the facts, rendering an opinion on the matter -- that the cops "acted stupidly" -- and thinking he would be safe in his position.
You can read the police report for yourself if that helps, but I'll also provide a gracious synopsis since we all know that clicking and reading would be too time consuming for most of us.
So, a nice neighbor of Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard called in a possible robbery in progress, also known as "breaking-and-entering" as she noted two men busting down the front door of her neighbor's house. Upon reaching the residence, Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) was intercepted by Lucia, the neighbor who called in the report, and she told him she saw two black men trying to enter the residence.
Sgt. Crowley then went to the residence, noted then Prof. Gates, and asked for ID to see if there was a correlation to the man in the house and the supposed owner of the place. (Remember, Crowley doesn't know who the owner looks like.) From there, race baiting begins immediately as Gates responds, "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?" He goes on to inform Sgt. Crowley that he "has no idea who [he's] messing with!"
When Crowley asked him to step outside to speak with him, Gates replied, "I'll speak with your mama outside..." Becoming louder and more angry, Sgt. Crowley eventually places Prof. Gates under arrest for disorderly conduct. The charges are quickly dropped, but the media's meat hooks are already deeply in.
Tell me, if you were in a similar circumstance, what would your response had been? If the officer was white, black, brown, or heliotrope? Let's put this into perspective even more: the door to your house is apparently jammed shut. You enlist someone else to help you bust it down. You make a lot of noise, maybe even swear because the friggin' thing won't open, but you finally smash it open. Suddenly, the cops are on the scene because someone reported a possible break-in. And an officer asks you for ID, and you say... Well at least you would be pleasant, right? I mean, it's the cops, with guns, tazers, handcuffs and the ability to haul your butt off to jail where fair beautiful people like me are traded for cheap commodities such as two half-smoked cigarette butts. *shudders*
Why Obama decided to get involved at all is perplexing to me -- it really could have been just a small footnote to an otherwise long day. But, Obama does have reasons to hate the Cambridge police department. While attending Harvard Law, Obama got 17 parking tickets in his 3 years there. He paid only two of them in 1990. He paid, or rather, the state of Illinois paid the remaining 15 a couple of years ago when Obama announced his bid for US President.
But let's get back to the real issue here, and that is one about racism. Prof. Gates had the uncanny luck of running into the police officer in charge of racial training for Cambridge. Not only that, a supporting officer at the scene, who is black, said Gates was acting strangely and that he supports the arrest 100%.
The point is that our president, adrift without facts, made an unnecessary judgment in favor of an apparent racist on an otherwise minor incident and in so doing, made himself out to be a fool now that many of the facts have come to light. Why would someone of paramount example to our nation do such a brash thing? Birds of a feather, perhaps? At first, Prof. Gates said he was going to sue the CPD for racial profiling. Since then, the CPD has come out and said they have the entire arrest on audio file, and not surprisingly, Prof. Gates now isn't so sure about his lawsuit. Not to worry, Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley is considering it for defamation.
And despite all this, Obama still hasn't properly back-tracked yet. Instead, he said that both parties may have "over-reacted" to the situation. The CPD says everything was done "by the book" so what more (or less) could have the police have done? Sure, Obama called Sgt. Crowley and invited him and Gates to the White House "for a beer," but this is way too drawn out. A simple, "my bad" would have sufficed -- end of story. And what I find truly odd is that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson didn't jump on this. Maybe Obama usurped them. I dunno.
You can read an article that holds back no punches on the issue here, that delineates Obama to Gates and ultimately, racism. Worth a glance, if you are looking for a more in depth perspective.
You can read the police report for yourself if that helps, but I'll also provide a gracious synopsis since we all know that clicking and reading would be too time consuming for most of us.
So, a nice neighbor of Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard called in a possible robbery in progress, also known as "breaking-and-entering" as she noted two men busting down the front door of her neighbor's house. Upon reaching the residence, Sgt. Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) was intercepted by Lucia, the neighbor who called in the report, and she told him she saw two black men trying to enter the residence.
Sgt. Crowley then went to the residence, noted then Prof. Gates, and asked for ID to see if there was a correlation to the man in the house and the supposed owner of the place. (Remember, Crowley doesn't know who the owner looks like.) From there, race baiting begins immediately as Gates responds, "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?" He goes on to inform Sgt. Crowley that he "has no idea who [he's] messing with!"
When Crowley asked him to step outside to speak with him, Gates replied, "I'll speak with your mama outside..." Becoming louder and more angry, Sgt. Crowley eventually places Prof. Gates under arrest for disorderly conduct. The charges are quickly dropped, but the media's meat hooks are already deeply in.
Tell me, if you were in a similar circumstance, what would your response had been? If the officer was white, black, brown, or heliotrope? Let's put this into perspective even more: the door to your house is apparently jammed shut. You enlist someone else to help you bust it down. You make a lot of noise, maybe even swear because the friggin' thing won't open, but you finally smash it open. Suddenly, the cops are on the scene because someone reported a possible break-in. And an officer asks you for ID, and you say... Well at least you would be pleasant, right? I mean, it's the cops, with guns, tazers, handcuffs and the ability to haul your butt off to jail where fair beautiful people like me are traded for cheap commodities such as two half-smoked cigarette butts. *shudders*
Why Obama decided to get involved at all is perplexing to me -- it really could have been just a small footnote to an otherwise long day. But, Obama does have reasons to hate the Cambridge police department. While attending Harvard Law, Obama got 17 parking tickets in his 3 years there. He paid only two of them in 1990. He paid, or rather, the state of Illinois paid the remaining 15 a couple of years ago when Obama announced his bid for US President.
But let's get back to the real issue here, and that is one about racism. Prof. Gates had the uncanny luck of running into the police officer in charge of racial training for Cambridge. Not only that, a supporting officer at the scene, who is black, said Gates was acting strangely and that he supports the arrest 100%.
The point is that our president, adrift without facts, made an unnecessary judgment in favor of an apparent racist on an otherwise minor incident and in so doing, made himself out to be a fool now that many of the facts have come to light. Why would someone of paramount example to our nation do such a brash thing? Birds of a feather, perhaps? At first, Prof. Gates said he was going to sue the CPD for racial profiling. Since then, the CPD has come out and said they have the entire arrest on audio file, and not surprisingly, Prof. Gates now isn't so sure about his lawsuit. Not to worry, Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley is considering it for defamation.
And despite all this, Obama still hasn't properly back-tracked yet. Instead, he said that both parties may have "over-reacted" to the situation. The CPD says everything was done "by the book" so what more (or less) could have the police have done? Sure, Obama called Sgt. Crowley and invited him and Gates to the White House "for a beer," but this is way too drawn out. A simple, "my bad" would have sufficed -- end of story. And what I find truly odd is that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson didn't jump on this. Maybe Obama usurped them. I dunno.
You can read an article that holds back no punches on the issue here, that delineates Obama to Gates and ultimately, racism. Worth a glance, if you are looking for a more in depth perspective.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Getting to the real news
Will it ever end?! Seriously, I gave my tribute to Michael Jackson and the whole world should have taken note of my lead and ended it there. But no! Here we are, still going over every tidbit of his life as if we hadn't already lived it over the past +30 years. Let the dead bury the dead.
A few things have been happening in the world that were not covered enough. First and foremost, the US House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade bill on June 26th. It now heads to the Senate to be voted on in September, and who are currently drafting their own version. What is this bill? Who really knows because it's +1300 pages long, with the last 300 pages added between 12am and 3am that Friday before they voted on it. No one has read the entire bill in Congress! Just like the stimulus bill which was quickly passed which no one had time to read, this bill is in that same boat. I'll tell you what I do know; the Cap-n-Trade is a taxing policy that allows companies to trade carbon credits if they go over their government mandated allowance of CO2. For example, if a certain manufacturer doesn't use up all the carbon credits allocated to them, they can trade them for money (or whatever -- favors?) to, say, a coal burning electric company who would obviously go over their amount. Basically, this would translate to higher electric costs for you, me and every building in this country.
It's a lot more than that as well. Actually, if you want the skinny on it, read this article for a huge enlightenment on this idiotic bill. Do me a favor, at least read the second paragraph of the above reference article. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world [worth ~40 billion dollars], who owns Hathaway Berkshire, stated that if this bill passes the Senate, there will be no economic recovery in the US. None. How scary is that? Obama has already promised to sign it into law, but make no mistake, this bill is about control and power-grabbing. Hopefully people will come to their senses before September, but now that Stuart Smalley - or Al Franken - gives the 60th vote in the Senate, there may be little we can do to stop it. Some estimates of the impact it'll have on the people is as little as $175 a year per family of four, and up to $1600 a year for a family of four. Here's my deal: either is bad during a prolonged recession! How is this going to help move the economy along? Obama stumped the day before that this is a "jobs bill" because alternative energy jobs will sky-rocket. Really? Well how many will lose jobs because of "trickle down" taxation? Idiots!
The next thing that happened was a "coup d'etat" in Honduras. The media has deliberately downplayed the real story here, and it is a story about people standing up for democracy. President Jose Manuel Zelaya was serving in his legally elected office when he decided the State Constitution didn't suit him anymore. He wanted to be elected into a 3rd term which is specifically illegal and immutable. The Supreme Court told him as much, as did their congress, and even then, the President does not have the authority to change the Constitution. But, he went ahead and tried to get new ballots printed up with his option. No one in the country would do it, but dictator for life Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was willing and did so, sent the newly minted ballots to Honduras. The Honduran Military got ahold of the shipment and held it captive. The President broke into the warehouse to get them. He then dismissed the head General of the military and started handing out the ballots. It was then that he was removed from office, put on a plane in his pajamas, and sent to Costa Rica. After that, the military immediately handed the officiating powers back to the people and elected officials. Not exactly a real coup d'etat in the strictest sense.
What happened then? The whole world denounced Honduras for standing up to a soon-to-be tyrant, and we [Obama and Sec. of State Clinton] sided with Castro and Chavez that President Zelaya should be reinstated. Ridiculous! The US, the bastion of freedom, chiding a country for upholding their near-identical Constitution to ours, because they over-threw a wannabe tyrant. What's the matter, Obama, afraid we're taking notes from our brave neighbors to the south?
Well, considering it is after 1:30 in the morning (I got up late and then took a nap...) I should probably be heading to bed. I did want to say that this week, gas prices actually went down. Somewhat good news, though the influx of extra money still hasn't flooding in yet either. Sure, that drop was .03 cents around here, and the Oregon congress just passed a bill increasing gas tax by .06 cents, so we'll lose that small perk anyway. Still, good news, and again, hopefully things will turn around so I can stop being an alarmist and go back to criticizing The Little Mermaid, which I saw again today, not surprisingly. Yes, I still hate that little hedonistic redhead. Meanwhile, my daughter adores her.
A few things have been happening in the world that were not covered enough. First and foremost, the US House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade bill on June 26th. It now heads to the Senate to be voted on in September, and who are currently drafting their own version. What is this bill? Who really knows because it's +1300 pages long, with the last 300 pages added between 12am and 3am that Friday before they voted on it. No one has read the entire bill in Congress! Just like the stimulus bill which was quickly passed which no one had time to read, this bill is in that same boat. I'll tell you what I do know; the Cap-n-Trade is a taxing policy that allows companies to trade carbon credits if they go over their government mandated allowance of CO2. For example, if a certain manufacturer doesn't use up all the carbon credits allocated to them, they can trade them for money (or whatever -- favors?) to, say, a coal burning electric company who would obviously go over their amount. Basically, this would translate to higher electric costs for you, me and every building in this country.
It's a lot more than that as well. Actually, if you want the skinny on it, read this article for a huge enlightenment on this idiotic bill. Do me a favor, at least read the second paragraph of the above reference article. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world [worth ~40 billion dollars], who owns Hathaway Berkshire, stated that if this bill passes the Senate, there will be no economic recovery in the US. None. How scary is that? Obama has already promised to sign it into law, but make no mistake, this bill is about control and power-grabbing. Hopefully people will come to their senses before September, but now that Stuart Smalley - or Al Franken - gives the 60th vote in the Senate, there may be little we can do to stop it. Some estimates of the impact it'll have on the people is as little as $175 a year per family of four, and up to $1600 a year for a family of four. Here's my deal: either is bad during a prolonged recession! How is this going to help move the economy along? Obama stumped the day before that this is a "jobs bill" because alternative energy jobs will sky-rocket. Really? Well how many will lose jobs because of "trickle down" taxation? Idiots!
The next thing that happened was a "coup d'etat" in Honduras. The media has deliberately downplayed the real story here, and it is a story about people standing up for democracy. President Jose Manuel Zelaya was serving in his legally elected office when he decided the State Constitution didn't suit him anymore. He wanted to be elected into a 3rd term which is specifically illegal and immutable. The Supreme Court told him as much, as did their congress, and even then, the President does not have the authority to change the Constitution. But, he went ahead and tried to get new ballots printed up with his option. No one in the country would do it, but dictator for life Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was willing and did so, sent the newly minted ballots to Honduras. The Honduran Military got ahold of the shipment and held it captive. The President broke into the warehouse to get them. He then dismissed the head General of the military and started handing out the ballots. It was then that he was removed from office, put on a plane in his pajamas, and sent to Costa Rica. After that, the military immediately handed the officiating powers back to the people and elected officials. Not exactly a real coup d'etat in the strictest sense.
What happened then? The whole world denounced Honduras for standing up to a soon-to-be tyrant, and we [Obama and Sec. of State Clinton] sided with Castro and Chavez that President Zelaya should be reinstated. Ridiculous! The US, the bastion of freedom, chiding a country for upholding their near-identical Constitution to ours, because they over-threw a wannabe tyrant. What's the matter, Obama, afraid we're taking notes from our brave neighbors to the south?
Well, considering it is after 1:30 in the morning (I got up late and then took a nap...) I should probably be heading to bed. I did want to say that this week, gas prices actually went down. Somewhat good news, though the influx of extra money still hasn't flooding in yet either. Sure, that drop was .03 cents around here, and the Oregon congress just passed a bill increasing gas tax by .06 cents, so we'll lose that small perk anyway. Still, good news, and again, hopefully things will turn around so I can stop being an alarmist and go back to criticizing The Little Mermaid, which I saw again today, not surprisingly. Yes, I still hate that little hedonistic redhead. Meanwhile, my daughter adores her.
Friday, June 26, 2009
A missing piece of culture
Well, you and the rest of the world should be informed by now that Michael Jackson, the World popstar and "King of Pop" died Thursday afternoon from cardiac arrest. He was 50 years old.
Few people are global icons. It takes a tremendous amount of talent, or power, to become a global icon, especially to the status attained by MJ, who really was talented in both catchy music and dancing abilities.
Lets be honest here, though, the last 15 years haven't been very good for him in terms of legalities and popularity. Twice he was hit with law suits alleging misconduct with underage boys, and he even admitted a few things that just weren't right, such as sleeping in a bed with young boys. Though never convicted, he was permanently tainted because of these issues. I'm not going to opine on whether he was a pedophile or not. But I will say that the US as a whole just lost a valid piece of Americana. Culturally we died a little today with MJ. It kinda feels like we can't have cheese burgers any more. Or maybe a tall glass of Coca-Cola. Gone. No more.
I guess what I am saying is that although he was weird, got caught up in lawsuits, was mostly plastic, and had more nose jobs than Mr. Potatohead, he was, in essence, an extension of the American Dream or Story -- going from relatively nothing, to proving his abilities, and then rising to the highest eschelon in human achievement by becoming a global super star. And even though I do not listen to his music (any more) nor have I ever bought any of his records, I do feel a sense of loss just because of his artistic abilities and the paramount that he achieved. Maybe it's calling to my artistic bones. I dunno. But for a moment, when I read the headline on CNN, it became a surreal moment for me, something I hadn't felt since 9/11. Maybe I just need to sleep on the matter.
Still, odd week no doubt. Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and then MJ. Deadpool, anyone?
Few people are global icons. It takes a tremendous amount of talent, or power, to become a global icon, especially to the status attained by MJ, who really was talented in both catchy music and dancing abilities.
Lets be honest here, though, the last 15 years haven't been very good for him in terms of legalities and popularity. Twice he was hit with law suits alleging misconduct with underage boys, and he even admitted a few things that just weren't right, such as sleeping in a bed with young boys. Though never convicted, he was permanently tainted because of these issues. I'm not going to opine on whether he was a pedophile or not. But I will say that the US as a whole just lost a valid piece of Americana. Culturally we died a little today with MJ. It kinda feels like we can't have cheese burgers any more. Or maybe a tall glass of Coca-Cola. Gone. No more.
I guess what I am saying is that although he was weird, got caught up in lawsuits, was mostly plastic, and had more nose jobs than Mr. Potatohead, he was, in essence, an extension of the American Dream or Story -- going from relatively nothing, to proving his abilities, and then rising to the highest eschelon in human achievement by becoming a global super star. And even though I do not listen to his music (any more) nor have I ever bought any of his records, I do feel a sense of loss just because of his artistic abilities and the paramount that he achieved. Maybe it's calling to my artistic bones. I dunno. But for a moment, when I read the headline on CNN, it became a surreal moment for me, something I hadn't felt since 9/11. Maybe I just need to sleep on the matter.
Still, odd week no doubt. Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and then MJ. Deadpool, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)