In an interview with ABC Vice President Joe Biden sounds pretty confident. He is confident that the Health-Care takeover will pass. He is confident that, just like Mikey and Life cereal, once we try it we will like it. He is confident that the Democrat congressmen that are being told to vote this in (or else) will be "rewarded" for it come election time. Just for the record, and Democrat congressmen might want to consider this, he was confident that Ireland's PM Brian Cowen's mother was dead.
What is Biden really saying here? It is an old story really, a story of dependence and entitlement. It is the favorite story, and strategy, of the Democrats. Outwardly Democrats are claiming ObamaCare is all about taking care of the down trodden, standing up for those with terminal or chronic illness against the evil, greedy, insurance companies. This of course is the perfect setup for polarizing the debate into those for the innocent (Democrats...unless you are an innocent unborn child) and those who don't care about the woman who is going to lose her house because she has cancer and no insurance (Republicans...even though she probably won't). What Biden is really saying to congress is, "Forgetaboutit, this has worked a thousand times before. All of this will be over soon and we will be making sure the media runs nothing but stories of people getting rescued by ObamaCare. For crying out loud, if an idiot like me can run these plays and rise to Vice President, think what it will do for you!"....or something like that. Rahm would just say, "If I want to know what ya think about Nationalized Health-Care...I'll tell ya...@#$%ing retard! Now unless ya want me to visit you in the shower, go vote yes."
The bottom line is they don't care what is right, they don't care about the constitution, they only care about building a dependent voter base that believes all the propaganda fed to them by the media. It is about creating a perpetual state of "crisis" so that Obama can demand we act now and figure it out later. Obama hasn't been around long enough to be responsible for the sad state of this nation, but if he has his way, he will be responsible for the death blow that will sever the foundational principles of liberty from our national character.
Resources:
Woman with cancer going to lose her home....or not. - Yahoo and FoxNews.com
Biden Interview with ABC - ABCnews.com
Biden eulogizing Ireland PM's mother (while she is still alive) - YouTube.com
1973-1978 Life Cereal "Mikey" Commercial - YouTube.com
Story on Rahm Emanuel naked with Eric Massa - Reuters.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel calling liberal activists "f---ing retarded." - ABCnews.com
Story of Rahm Emanuel selling his mother for a vote - JustKidding.com
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Textbook fate in the hands of just 15 people
Who would have thought that textbooks in Texas would be such a hot topic? Well the beat goes on!
One reason this is seen as more of a national issue has to do with the way the textbook market works. Texas represents a large part (everything is bigger in Texas right?) of the textbook market. It stands to reason that if you make and sell textbooks you would want to be competitive in the Texas market. The fear is that the rest of the nation will have to use whatever standards Texas comes up with because that is what the textbook manufacturers will use when they design their books. This somehow ends up falling into the very wide and very grey "fairness" category for many folks.
The bottom line is that all of the "news" outlets like a good controversy...it is good for business. The reality is that this is the free market working as designed, supply and demand. Texas represents the largest demand therefore the supply is targeted to their standards. Unfair? Nope. If a savvy textbook company wanted to let their competition compete with 90% of other textbook companies, while they pursued the combined remaining textbook market, that sounds like a fair, and good, opportunity. A little innovation in low volume printing and customizable text might be a boon to the industry, but don't look for innovation if we beg our government to regulate textbook manufacturers.
Here are some helpful links if you care to keep up with this issue:
Remember, the fate of your children's education is not in the hands of SBOE, it is in your hands. Take that responsibility serious and your kids will get the education that is best for them. Pawn that responsibility off on the government and your children will be taught the values of the state. The choice is ALWAYS yours.
One reason this is seen as more of a national issue has to do with the way the textbook market works. Texas represents a large part (everything is bigger in Texas right?) of the textbook market. It stands to reason that if you make and sell textbooks you would want to be competitive in the Texas market. The fear is that the rest of the nation will have to use whatever standards Texas comes up with because that is what the textbook manufacturers will use when they design their books. This somehow ends up falling into the very wide and very grey "fairness" category for many folks.
The bottom line is that all of the "news" outlets like a good controversy...it is good for business. The reality is that this is the free market working as designed, supply and demand. Texas represents the largest demand therefore the supply is targeted to their standards. Unfair? Nope. If a savvy textbook company wanted to let their competition compete with 90% of other textbook companies, while they pursued the combined remaining textbook market, that sounds like a fair, and good, opportunity. A little innovation in low volume printing and customizable text might be a boon to the industry, but don't look for innovation if we beg our government to regulate textbook manufacturers.
Here are some helpful links if you care to keep up with this issue:
Remember, the fate of your children's education is not in the hands of SBOE, it is in your hands. Take that responsibility serious and your kids will get the education that is best for them. Pawn that responsibility off on the government and your children will be taught the values of the state. The choice is ALWAYS yours.
It's the Liberty Stupid
"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district, including a crowded town hall gathering where opinions on health care and the abortion issue were plentiful and varied.Repeatedly during Obama's push for nationalized health-care the GOP has made a very public last stand on abortions being covered. I am sure this is welcome news for Obama since it gives him the perfect bone to throw to (or maybe at) the GOP.
"The president says he doesn't want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "That's never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points -- we don't restrict, we don't expand abortion rights? I think we can get there." - FoxNews.com (of course)
The scenario goes something like this:
Obama designs a national health-care plan that includes abortion on demand, along with thousands of pages of other power grabs for the federal government. As various conservative groups sift through the bill they look for hot issues to illuminate. Once they locate the part about abortion they immediately pass this information on to the GOP legislators (who likely haven't read the bill) demanding they stand up for life. Fearing a backlash in the next election, the GOP legislators grandstand on the "abortion issue". This is music to the ears of Obama since he can push the legislators to make a concession to prove he is non-partisan and the GOP has a voice (what a wonderful guy). The liberal legislators grumble a bit and eventually make the concession (as planned from the beginning) prompting Pro-Life groups to shout "Victory!!" Obama moves to "Get this deal done" and if any GOP legislator objects to any other elements in the bill it proves that the GOP are really just a bunch of obstructionists. The bill goes through after much arm-twisting, mud-slinging, and spin. A year later this issue of abortion not being covered is attached to a bill to provide funds to better equip our soldiers in Afghanistan and Obama has his victory.
How many times have you heard that the Democrats plan on passing the bill via reconciliation and then amending the bill later to "fine tune it"? When was the last time you heard the federal government say, "This nation program isn't working out so we are going to phase it out"? Obama is employing an incremental strategy to get national health-care established in some form (which will never go away no matter how bad it is) and grow it.
Making the nationalized health-care debate about abortion, or any other issue besides liberty, is just wrong. The root issue of national health-care is that it is completely out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government. As Rep. mike Pence (R - IN) recently said, saying no to bad legislation is underrated in D.C.
More Textbook News
In another FoxNews.com article...what?...Oh, you think I read nothing but FoxNews propaganda and have no mind of my own. Well let me address that real quick. I have found that many (if not most) of the other media outlets (notice nobody calls them news agencies any more) feature and exclude in a very biased way. Take this issue, FoxNews.com picked it up, but I couldn't find it anywhere else in the "Main Stream Media". Don't get me wrong, FoxNews.com has it's share of junk, mostly in the form of celebrity/gossip news and Victoria Secret/FMH advertisements made to look like news, which ticks me off. The difference is that FoxNews.com doesn't ignore news because it doesn't fit their agenda. So....that is enough of that.
As I was saying before I got interrupted, in another FoxNews.com article today there is a bit of controversy in Texas over what should or shouldn't be in their states textbooks. Read it for yourself, I don't want to rehash the details, it is the broader idea I am interested in.
For a very long time liberal interests have worked to be the only voice in education (and their agenda still dominates overall). The questioning of textbooks used to educate our children is a natural result of a sort of awakening that has been (slowly) occurring in the US with regard to conservative values our nation was founded on. When you kids come home and inform you that your conservative ideas are wrong it gets your attention. When you talk about it and they act as if they do not need to discuss anything because their professor/teacher told them your ideas are wrong, and then they point to a page in their textbook that backs it up, it is way past time to question what is going into textbooks.
The "experts" that are interviewed in these articles have opined about the influence of special interests groups inserting their agenda into textbooks. This was fine when it involved inserting Global Warming (like evolution this is taught as a fact, not a theory) into science books, and don't get me started about what is taught about the Civil War. Now when conservatives want to be sure things like the Liberty Bell and Paul Revere are mentioned liberal experts exclaim, "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!"
This level of over sensitivity reveals how the liberals value the ability to control education, and thereby, rewrite history and shape the worldview of the next generation. The tenacity of our effort to reclaim the truth in textbooks will reveal how much we conservatives value truth and our children's grasp of it.
As I was saying before I got interrupted, in another FoxNews.com article today there is a bit of controversy in Texas over what should or shouldn't be in their states textbooks. Read it for yourself, I don't want to rehash the details, it is the broader idea I am interested in.
For a very long time liberal interests have worked to be the only voice in education (and their agenda still dominates overall). The questioning of textbooks used to educate our children is a natural result of a sort of awakening that has been (slowly) occurring in the US with regard to conservative values our nation was founded on. When you kids come home and inform you that your conservative ideas are wrong it gets your attention. When you talk about it and they act as if they do not need to discuss anything because their professor/teacher told them your ideas are wrong, and then they point to a page in their textbook that backs it up, it is way past time to question what is going into textbooks.
The "experts" that are interviewed in these articles have opined about the influence of special interests groups inserting their agenda into textbooks. This was fine when it involved inserting Global Warming (like evolution this is taught as a fact, not a theory) into science books, and don't get me started about what is taught about the Civil War. Now when conservatives want to be sure things like the Liberty Bell and Paul Revere are mentioned liberal experts exclaim, "The Christians are coming! The Christians are coming!"
This level of over sensitivity reveals how the liberals value the ability to control education, and thereby, rewrite history and shape the worldview of the next generation. The tenacity of our effort to reclaim the truth in textbooks will reveal how much we conservatives value truth and our children's grasp of it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The status quo is absolutely broken!
In an article by FoxNews.com Rep. Chris Van Hollen is quoted as saying, "I think the trend is in the right direction because people see that the status quo is absolutely broken," on CNN's "State of the Union" about current Health-Care legislation. Absolutely broken is strong language that recognizes none of the aspects of our current Health-Care system that make it the best in the world.
If I have a car that starts smoking a little, or that pulls to the left when I drive, I do not decide that I need to get a new electric car. Yes, having an electric car would mean that the smoking caused by oil getting into the cylinders would go away, and you could say that is good. A new car would presumably be well aligned when I by it, and not fighting a left steering car is good. The thing is, the new car will have a whole new set of challenges to deal with, maybe more inconvenient than what I am currently dealing with. My point is, if your car is smoking a little bit, you go have a new set of rings put in. If it pulls to the left, you go get an alignment. If the Health-Care system has some problems, you fix the problems individually, you don't nationalize it. What happened to the scalpel Obama talked about during his campaign?
The status quo for US Health-Care is better than most other places in the world. Sure, WE could make it better, and WE should, but WE definitely does not mean having the government do it for us. Obama likes to quote Voltaire saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", he should take his own advice.
If I have a car that starts smoking a little, or that pulls to the left when I drive, I do not decide that I need to get a new electric car. Yes, having an electric car would mean that the smoking caused by oil getting into the cylinders would go away, and you could say that is good. A new car would presumably be well aligned when I by it, and not fighting a left steering car is good. The thing is, the new car will have a whole new set of challenges to deal with, maybe more inconvenient than what I am currently dealing with. My point is, if your car is smoking a little bit, you go have a new set of rings put in. If it pulls to the left, you go get an alignment. If the Health-Care system has some problems, you fix the problems individually, you don't nationalize it. What happened to the scalpel Obama talked about during his campaign?
The status quo for US Health-Care is better than most other places in the world. Sure, WE could make it better, and WE should, but WE definitely does not mean having the government do it for us. Obama likes to quote Voltaire saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good", he should take his own advice.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Top Home-School Texts Dismiss Darwin and Evolution
I read an article on FoxNews.com tonight that I thought was interesting. It was an AP story they ran on how many, if not most, Home-School biology text books present a creationist world view instead of an evolution world view.
It starts describing the experience of Susan Mule, a home school mom, and her daughter Elizabeth:
The article makes it seem as though Susan and her daughter are victims of a hate crime because their ideas on biology were not taught in these books. If they have such a strong faith in evolution, you would think she would put forth more effort to know what text she was using before she used it. How ridiculous is it for her to get mad at the publishers for what they printed in their biology curriculum, when she obviously didn't take the time to preview it to be sure it fit her worldview.
It gets better though. Apparently home-schooling families that do not subscribe to a creation worldview feel "Isolated and frustrated". Many home-schooling families using these text can empathize with this feeling since that is what drove them to home-school in the first place. You see, in public school (and many private schools) a creationist worldview is considered disallowable because it is associated with the Bible. Despite a lack of substantive proof for the theory of evolution and much evidence supporting creation, the politically correct cult of public education insists on pushing it's agenda that science must never have anything in common with Christianity (or in this case Judaism and Islam as well).
Next they accused the two best selling biology textbooks of stacking the deck against evolution. They even quote a scientist (or at least a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago...I am sure he is not at all biased), who said, "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids." Well notice he talks about how he feels, but doesn't mention what even one of these so called lies might be. He must think that it is enough that he is a scientist saying so, because, you know, scientist never lie (especially about science like Global Warming).
Skip a few paragraphs and you are introduced to Mia Perry (aka Mia-Like-to-Whine-a-Lot) another home-school mom being discriminated against by the free market.
Here is her story:
Jerry Coyne (the unbiased Prof. from Chicago) is now joined by Duncan Porter, a biology professor from Virginia Tech, in revealing this crisis of blasphemy against the faith of evolution, giving the 10th grade biology text from Apologia and Bob Jones an F. The open minded Coyne chimes in again saying, "If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology." He is worried that deceiving naive home-schooled students with these lies will steer them away from careers in biology or the study of the earth.
Adam Browns parents disagree:
It starts describing the experience of Susan Mule, a home school mom, and her daughter Elizabeth:
Home-school mom Susan Mule wishes she hadn't taken a friend's advice and tried a textbook from a popular Christian publisher for her 10-year-old's biology lessons.
Mule's precocious daughter Elizabeth excels at science and has been studying tarantulas since she was 5. But she watched Elizabeth's excitement turn to confusion when they reached the evolution section of the book from Apologia Educational Ministries, which disputed Charles Darwin's theory.
"I thought she was going to have a coronary," Mule said of her daughter, who is now 16 and taking college courses in Houston. "She's like, 'This is not true!'"
The article makes it seem as though Susan and her daughter are victims of a hate crime because their ideas on biology were not taught in these books. If they have such a strong faith in evolution, you would think she would put forth more effort to know what text she was using before she used it. How ridiculous is it for her to get mad at the publishers for what they printed in their biology curriculum, when she obviously didn't take the time to preview it to be sure it fit her worldview.
It gets better though. Apparently home-schooling families that do not subscribe to a creation worldview feel "Isolated and frustrated". Many home-schooling families using these text can empathize with this feeling since that is what drove them to home-school in the first place. You see, in public school (and many private schools) a creationist worldview is considered disallowable because it is associated with the Bible. Despite a lack of substantive proof for the theory of evolution and much evidence supporting creation, the politically correct cult of public education insists on pushing it's agenda that science must never have anything in common with Christianity (or in this case Judaism and Islam as well).
Next they accused the two best selling biology textbooks of stacking the deck against evolution. They even quote a scientist (or at least a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago...I am sure he is not at all biased), who said, "I feel fairly strongly about this. These books are promulgating lies to kids." Well notice he talks about how he feels, but doesn't mention what even one of these so called lies might be. He must think that it is enough that he is a scientist saying so, because, you know, scientist never lie (especially about science like Global Warming).
Skip a few paragraphs and you are introduced to Mia Perry (aka Mia-Like-to-Whine-a-Lot) another home-school mom being discriminated against by the free market.
Here is her story:
In Kentucky, Lexington home-schooler Mia Perry remembers feeling disheartened while flipping through a home-school curriculum catalog and finding so many religious-themed textbooks.So what is next, an article about how disheartened Mia was when she looked through a menu at her local Jewish deli only to find only Kosher foods?
"We're not religious home-schoolers, and there's somewhat of a feeling of being outnumbered," said Perry, who has home-schooled three of her four children after removing her oldest child from a public school because of a health condition.
Perry said she cobbled together her own curriculum after some mainstream publishers told her they would not sell directly to home-schooling parents.
Jerry Coyne (the unbiased Prof. from Chicago) is now joined by Duncan Porter, a biology professor from Virginia Tech, in revealing this crisis of blasphemy against the faith of evolution, giving the 10th grade biology text from Apologia and Bob Jones an F. The open minded Coyne chimes in again saying, "If this is the way kids are home-schooled then they're being shortchanged, both rationally and in terms of biology." He is worried that deceiving naive home-schooled students with these lies will steer them away from careers in biology or the study of the earth.
Adam Browns parents disagree:
Adam Brown's parents say their 16-year-old son's belief in the Bible's creation story isn't deterring him from pursuing a career in marine biology. His parents, Ken and Polly Brown, taught him at their Cedar Grove, Ind., home using the Apologia curriculum and other science texts.You see, Adam, and many other home-schoolers are taught both theories, unlike most public schooler who are taught only evolution. It seems that public education and many "scientists" are more interested in dictating what science is, instead of observing and letting the truth be revealed.
Polly Brown said her son would gladly take college courses that include evolution, and he'll be able to provide the expected answers even though he disagrees.
"He probably knows it better than the kids who have been taught evolution all through public school," Polly Brown said. "But that is in order for him to understand both sides of that argument because he will face it throughout his higher education."
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Federal Obesity Dept.
Some quotes from Michelle Obama:
"Most of our kids get the majority of the calories from the meals they eat in schools. We have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how to make those meals healthier..."
"People who make soft drinks, people who make food for school lunches, it's community groups, it's businesses who make decisions about where they're going to locate grocery stores. It's our media. It's Disney, it's Nick TV. It's everyone that has an impact on the health and life of our children, our teachers. So it's all of us..."
"This is a solvable issue because it's, you know, it's community-based. I said this in my launch speech, this doesn't require new technology, or, you know, new research. We have the solution in our hand. But it takes a coordinated effort."
I am in agreement that our country has an obesity problem. I also agree that the best place we can have the biggest impact is in our children. I absolutely do not agree that the federal government should have anything to do with it.
Mrs. Obama recognizes the undesirable end result of obesity, but, like her husband, mistakenly seeks to use the federal government to solve a community-based problem. The problem of obesity is the consequence of bad choices. We all know how the federal government tries to influence choices we make, raise taxes on certain things, and levy penalties and fines (like they are doing with alcohol, tobacco and firearms).
This problem starts in the smallest of communities, the family. The federal government is already over involved in the family, we do not need more of a bad thing to solve this problem. Should this be part of public school education? Absolutely. Should these public schools negotiate with vendors supplying lunches to increase the nutritional value of the meals? Definitely. This is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I have heard Mrs. Obama talk about the nutritional choices her family makes (having fruits for dessert, etc.) and think that is a great message for her to share with the nation. She seems to know something about good health choices, practices it herself, she is a good spokesperson for this cause. The federal government has no place in this issue.
Now before you start telling me all the things that the federal government has done in the past to promote health and all the benefits that have resulted, let me just say, "I don't care." This is, as Mrs. Obama so accurately stated, a "community-based" issue, not a federal one. It would be wrong for the federal government to expend any amount of budget (and they can do NOTHING without expending budget) on any program trying to reduce childhood obesity.
Maybe some of you are thinking, "What if the federal government got involved by raising nutritional standards for food stamps and WIC? Those people are likely using Medicaid and better health for them would save us money in the long run. How could you be against that?" Well I would liken this line of thinking to that of those who think it is a good idea to give free syringes to heroin addicts. I have no interest in improving federal government programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.
The bottom line is that there are already too many federal programs justified by the incorrect notion that if they do ANYTHING that can be called good, they are a valid. The real solution to childhood obesity, and many other issues, is to reduce the size, impact, and cost of federal government so our local communities have more and better resources to address these issues (with greater success).
"Most of our kids get the majority of the calories from the meals they eat in schools. We have an opportunity to work with the federal government and the school lunch providers to figure out how to make those meals healthier..."
"People who make soft drinks, people who make food for school lunches, it's community groups, it's businesses who make decisions about where they're going to locate grocery stores. It's our media. It's Disney, it's Nick TV. It's everyone that has an impact on the health and life of our children, our teachers. So it's all of us..."
"This is a solvable issue because it's, you know, it's community-based. I said this in my launch speech, this doesn't require new technology, or, you know, new research. We have the solution in our hand. But it takes a coordinated effort."
I am in agreement that our country has an obesity problem. I also agree that the best place we can have the biggest impact is in our children. I absolutely do not agree that the federal government should have anything to do with it.
Mrs. Obama recognizes the undesirable end result of obesity, but, like her husband, mistakenly seeks to use the federal government to solve a community-based problem. The problem of obesity is the consequence of bad choices. We all know how the federal government tries to influence choices we make, raise taxes on certain things, and levy penalties and fines (like they are doing with alcohol, tobacco and firearms).
This problem starts in the smallest of communities, the family. The federal government is already over involved in the family, we do not need more of a bad thing to solve this problem. Should this be part of public school education? Absolutely. Should these public schools negotiate with vendors supplying lunches to increase the nutritional value of the meals? Definitely. This is a state and local issue, not a federal one. I have heard Mrs. Obama talk about the nutritional choices her family makes (having fruits for dessert, etc.) and think that is a great message for her to share with the nation. She seems to know something about good health choices, practices it herself, she is a good spokesperson for this cause. The federal government has no place in this issue.
Now before you start telling me all the things that the federal government has done in the past to promote health and all the benefits that have resulted, let me just say, "I don't care." This is, as Mrs. Obama so accurately stated, a "community-based" issue, not a federal one. It would be wrong for the federal government to expend any amount of budget (and they can do NOTHING without expending budget) on any program trying to reduce childhood obesity.
Maybe some of you are thinking, "What if the federal government got involved by raising nutritional standards for food stamps and WIC? Those people are likely using Medicaid and better health for them would save us money in the long run. How could you be against that?" Well I would liken this line of thinking to that of those who think it is a good idea to give free syringes to heroin addicts. I have no interest in improving federal government programs that shouldn't exist in the first place.
The bottom line is that there are already too many federal programs justified by the incorrect notion that if they do ANYTHING that can be called good, they are a valid. The real solution to childhood obesity, and many other issues, is to reduce the size, impact, and cost of federal government so our local communities have more and better resources to address these issues (with greater success).
Friday, February 19, 2010
New Element Discovered
Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest
element yet known to science. The new element,
Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons,
which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like
particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a
reaction that would normally take less than a second, to
take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of
2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time,
since each reorganization will cause more morons to
become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic
of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium, an element that radiates just as much
energy as Governmentium since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons.
element yet known to science. The new element,
Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant
neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy
neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312
particles are held together by forces called morons,
which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like
particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected,
because it impedes every reaction with which it comes
into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a
reaction that would normally take less than a second, to
take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of
2 - 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a
reorganization in which a portion of the assistant
neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact,
Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time,
since each reorganization will cause more morons to
become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic
of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe
that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a
critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes
Administratium, an element that radiates just as much
energy as Governmentium since it has half as many
peons but twice as many morons.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Under the pretence of taking care of them
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802
When conservatives object to programs run by the government, especially "social" programs, we are often painted as mean and selfish by liberals. The idea that we could possibly be against a program designed to help people that lost their job, women with children, or people that have worked until age 65 seems to be proof that our hearts are hard and we don't care about others. I suppose that some conservatives are mean and selfish people, just like some liberals are, but not all of us, there is another reason for our position.
Really, there are two main reasons conservatives are generally against many government programs; they are out of scope for the responsibilities of the federal government and they don't work. Before I go into more detail on these, let me share something about my perspective. I have been there and seen it myself. I have been a liberal. The quote often attributed to Churchill, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." comes to mind. It is one thing to have a passion to help those in need and another to act on that passion with reckless abandon ignoring the rights of one group in an attempt to restore them to another.
Seeking Fairness
Our federal government has never been responsible for "fairness". Fairness is a liberal PC term meaning so many things that I can't even attempt a definition. This makes it great for politicians wanting to spin either the compassion of their proposed legislation or the callousness of those opposing it. The problem is, without a definition we can't evaluate fairness. Likewise, when we infuse the identity of a bill with "fairness" later evaluation that may reveal anything negative is declared fabricated lies of the mean people of special interest. This is often when you hear all the stories of the oppressed (like this sickening example). There is no right to fairness in this world, and liberals can't create it no matter how many other rights of ours they sacrifice on the PC alter. We should love each other and we should help each other, these are things that the federal government can't do for us. When the Fed tries to do these things, they tax us to support their efforts, taking from those who can (and should) do it better, to fund government operations that can't (and shouldn't) do it.
Government Efficiency - Oxymoron
There is also the argument that because conservatives don't want the federal government to do all these things for us that we are for the "status quo". This bi-polar argument just doesn't work, we can disagree with liberal ideas without proposing an alternative government solution. The solution is usually to keep government out of things and let us take care of each other. Liberals will of course claim this will not work, enter more sad stories of the oppressed, and go back to the "conservatives don't care" attack. The truth is that the government does a few things well, but many others not well at all. Health-Care, Welfare, and Social Security are great examples of this. The thing about those big government solutions, they sure do get a lot of loyalty (and votes) from the entitlement crowd.
Good News and Bad News
The Good news is that the solution is simple, not easy, but simple. We need to reduce the size, scope, and authority or the federal government. There may be some other issues to tackle, like term limits, but if we focus on reducing the Federal government we can fix the vast majority of issues this country is having.
The bad news is that this will take generations to accomplish. Life is not like TV, we don't solve all problems in 20 minutes with two commercial breaks. The issues we face today are born on thousands of bad choices over decades (if not the past century), choices that are contrary to the principles that this country was founded on. These principles gave this nation the tremendous success it has enjoyed, and made it a beacon to people around the world seeking liberty, and thereby, prosperity. The passion for the freedom to seek opportunity, take risks, and earn a better life for us and our children has been replaced by the lie that the government is responsible for insuring our life style is high, our risk is non-existent, and our children will have to pay for it all. Entitlement is the leech sucking out the life blood of liberty, and we will have to burn it off before we can regain our strength.
The solution will require a fundamental shift in ideologies, from entitlement values to opportunity values. We will have to reverse the methods of lowering the ceiling (taking from those who risked to take advantage of opportunity) in an effort to raise the floor (redistributing to those unwilling to take risk to pursue opportunity). The burden of making this shift falls on conservatives. The first thing conservatives need to do is understand their own conservative principles and how they apply to government. As the teachers it is incumbent on us to thoroughly understand before we endeavor to enlighten others. We need not be more intelligent, eloquent, or charismatic than those we share our ideas with. We need only to understand the basic conservative principles that our nation was founded on, employing them in our personal choices, and demanding the same of those who represent us. We need to calmly, but passionately, engage our neighbors, coworkers, and family members discussing issues based on how these principles will work. We must have a grassroots effort to change the hearts and minds of this nation, and let the legislation to correct our mistakes rise up out of this new understanding of liberty.
So where do we start? We start with ourselves, every one of us, learning the foundational conservative principles that are our tools. I do not say this arrogantly, because I need to do the same. I will follow-up with resources that I have found, and hope that you will share yours as well.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Abstinence-Only Approach
In an article from the Associated Press (see sources below):
What we see here is the difference between telling kids facts and having them regurgitate them for a grade on a test, and teaching them how to make logical choices that consider things fully. The biggest difference is that memorizing some facts on condom failure can't translate into anything else, but the skill of making a logical choice that is well informed can be utilized in many other areas. Imagine the social benefit when these kids use the same process to evaluate drug use, shoplifting, gang activity, or education choices. Even better, when we convince ourselves of something (such as sex before marriage is not a good idea) we are more likely to modify our behavior.
We shouldn't be surprised that when schools teach character building in place of static information we see what we should see, better choices. The down side of this is that the same holds true when liberal "safe sex" ideas are taught along with the same "pros and cons" method. When the information provided is biased, it is much harder for the choice to be wise.
How do we battle this? Several ways, those of us who actively parent our children can help them both in character building and getting the facts straight. This might not be as easy as it sounds, sometimes it feels wrong to say that having sex has benefits, but the truth is the truth. You have to have the courage to be frank about the subject or they will stop listening.
As citizens we can insist that our tax payer funded schools present unbiased facts. We can vote in school boards that insist on avoiding agenda based education (whether it is religious or planned parenthood).
We can be frank in discussing things with youth we are around (sports, scouts, church, family, etc.) and encourage responsible choice making, knowing the skill can translate in to other areas of their life.
Sources (take your pick):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584519,00.html?test=latestnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_he_me/us_med_abstinence_education
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml
Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study released Monday differed from traditional programs that have lost U.S. federal and state support in recent years.This is an interesting study, in essence it found that abstinence makes sense when you teach kids how to think through the "pros and cons" instead of telling them how it is. Given some guidance, teens (and younger) can easily see that the benefits of sex (let's be honest, there ARE benefits) carry consequences as well. If they are honest, the consequences are almost completely negative if you are not married and especially if you are a teen (or younger).
What we see here is the difference between telling kids facts and having them regurgitate them for a grade on a test, and teaching them how to make logical choices that consider things fully. The biggest difference is that memorizing some facts on condom failure can't translate into anything else, but the skill of making a logical choice that is well informed can be utilized in many other areas. Imagine the social benefit when these kids use the same process to evaluate drug use, shoplifting, gang activity, or education choices. Even better, when we convince ourselves of something (such as sex before marriage is not a good idea) we are more likely to modify our behavior.
We shouldn't be surprised that when schools teach character building in place of static information we see what we should see, better choices. The down side of this is that the same holds true when liberal "safe sex" ideas are taught along with the same "pros and cons" method. When the information provided is biased, it is much harder for the choice to be wise.
How do we battle this? Several ways, those of us who actively parent our children can help them both in character building and getting the facts straight. This might not be as easy as it sounds, sometimes it feels wrong to say that having sex has benefits, but the truth is the truth. You have to have the courage to be frank about the subject or they will stop listening.
As citizens we can insist that our tax payer funded schools present unbiased facts. We can vote in school boards that insist on avoiding agenda based education (whether it is religious or planned parenthood).
We can be frank in discussing things with youth we are around (sports, scouts, church, family, etc.) and encourage responsible choice making, knowing the skill can translate in to other areas of their life.
Sources (take your pick):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584519,00.html?test=latestnews
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_he_me/us_med_abstinence_education
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6165752.shtml
More Super Bowl Ads
Who would have thought there would be so much controversy over Super Bowl ads?
Pro-Abortion group Planned Parenthood (Should be named Planned Infanticide) lauched a preemtive YouTube ad to counter a Super Bowl ad by Focus of the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com) featuring Heisman Trophy-winning college star Tim Tebow. From a strategic standpoint PP did well to use the hype ahead of the Focus of the Family ad to get media attention for a fraction of the cost. The message that their "Woman's choice" position accomodates women who do not want to murder their children is old and tired (and a lie). Even better, it backfired on them, showing what an extreme agenda they have, and what little tolerance they have for any who see things differently.
Isn't it amazing that this would get so much attention, epsecially by Planned Parenthood, who is getting investigated for "bending the rules" and allowing under age abortions without parental consent in Alabama? Alabama is giving the abortion clinic until next week to present its plan to correct violations involving minors receiving abortions. This is not an issue where somebody accedentally forgot to fill out a form, this is an example of the agenda of Planned Parenthood. Follow the money, noticed that the worker in the video didn't forget to tell her to bring $100 cash.
Pro-Abortion group Planned Parenthood (Should be named Planned Infanticide) lauched a preemtive YouTube ad to counter a Super Bowl ad by Focus of the Family (http://www.focusonthefamily.com) featuring Heisman Trophy-winning college star Tim Tebow. From a strategic standpoint PP did well to use the hype ahead of the Focus of the Family ad to get media attention for a fraction of the cost. The message that their "Woman's choice" position accomodates women who do not want to murder their children is old and tired (and a lie). Even better, it backfired on them, showing what an extreme agenda they have, and what little tolerance they have for any who see things differently.
Isn't it amazing that this would get so much attention, epsecially by Planned Parenthood, who is getting investigated for "bending the rules" and allowing under age abortions without parental consent in Alabama? Alabama is giving the abortion clinic until next week to present its plan to correct violations involving minors receiving abortions. This is not an issue where somebody accedentally forgot to fill out a form, this is an example of the agenda of Planned Parenthood. Follow the money, noticed that the worker in the video didn't forget to tell her to bring $100 cash.
High Dollar PSAs
The Census bureau is spending $133 million between January and May -- or, more than $13 million for each of the 10 questions they ask, including a $2.5 million Super Bowl ad. This effort is more like Obama's campaign efforts (big surprise, isn't everything he does campaigning?), than a PSA. Instead of "Get out the vote!", it is now, "Get out the census!".
Just a thought, why would this be done? The census is important, but this promotion budget is obscene. This is an obvious attempt to turn the census into a "game changer" for voting districts and representation. Considering that originally ACORN was supposed to help with the census (and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to voter registration....right Mickey Mouse?), it is safe to say that we can count on a very biased liberal slant to this census.
I know, I know, go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam....
Just a thought, why would this be done? The census is important, but this promotion budget is obscene. This is an obvious attempt to turn the census into a "game changer" for voting districts and representation. Considering that originally ACORN was supposed to help with the census (and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to voter registration....right Mickey Mouse?), it is safe to say that we can count on a very biased liberal slant to this census.
I know, I know, go ahead and call me a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Strength vs. Rhetoric
There are many different immpressions people got from the State of the Union address. I would say that few, especially those outside the US, got a sense of a strong union.
Let's face it, the Union is strained, stressed, and stagnate, but not strong. We have traded opportunity for protection and liberty for fairness. Our ideals are lofty, our policies inpractical, and leaders selfcentered and selfserving. We have forgotten the very principles we were founded on.
The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This foundational principle has been forgotten and replaced with something more like, "There is no truth or creator, the federal state is all powerful and will dictate your rights, that amoung these are Life as defined by our limited scientific understanding, Government Regulation to protect you from yourself, and the pursuit of Fairness."
How many people dream of winning the lottery thinking, "If I had that kind of money all my problems would be solved!"? How often have you read the statistics of how quickly the average lottery winner is back where they started? Without the foundational principles of success, a lump sum lottery payout will quickly be wasted in the same way a weekly pay check was. Likewise, how many stories have you heard of folks who, with very little income, have disciplined themselves and lived according to principles to end up attaining a level of success desired by many, but earned by few.
The last Presidential election liberals thought they had won the lottery. They thought all they needed was a radical socialist that could talk smooth and the power of the White House, and all their problems would be solved! What a shock to find out that when you win the lottery everyone and their brother wants a cut. What a surprise that all the same old socialist ideas that have robbed other people of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, are now doing it to us.
I find no comfort in the very liberals that have backed Obama's mantra of "Hope and Change" are now starting to turn on him. By the time liberal idiots realize that Obama and his cronies are not going to be able to give them everything they ever wanted, the damage will be done. Obama won't care what the actual results of his administration are, he will be too busy giving speeches about how he would have been able to do all those things that he promised, but for the horrible mess Bush left him with.
Rhetoric is just talk, results tell the truth. Obama's rhetoric is contrary to the results. I just Hope we can undo the damage of the Change.
Let's face it, the Union is strained, stressed, and stagnate, but not strong. We have traded opportunity for protection and liberty for fairness. Our ideals are lofty, our policies inpractical, and leaders selfcentered and selfserving. We have forgotten the very principles we were founded on.
The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This foundational principle has been forgotten and replaced with something more like, "There is no truth or creator, the federal state is all powerful and will dictate your rights, that amoung these are Life as defined by our limited scientific understanding, Government Regulation to protect you from yourself, and the pursuit of Fairness."
How many people dream of winning the lottery thinking, "If I had that kind of money all my problems would be solved!"? How often have you read the statistics of how quickly the average lottery winner is back where they started? Without the foundational principles of success, a lump sum lottery payout will quickly be wasted in the same way a weekly pay check was. Likewise, how many stories have you heard of folks who, with very little income, have disciplined themselves and lived according to principles to end up attaining a level of success desired by many, but earned by few.
The last Presidential election liberals thought they had won the lottery. They thought all they needed was a radical socialist that could talk smooth and the power of the White House, and all their problems would be solved! What a shock to find out that when you win the lottery everyone and their brother wants a cut. What a surprise that all the same old socialist ideas that have robbed other people of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, are now doing it to us.
I find no comfort in the very liberals that have backed Obama's mantra of "Hope and Change" are now starting to turn on him. By the time liberal idiots realize that Obama and his cronies are not going to be able to give them everything they ever wanted, the damage will be done. Obama won't care what the actual results of his administration are, he will be too busy giving speeches about how he would have been able to do all those things that he promised, but for the horrible mess Bush left him with.
Rhetoric is just talk, results tell the truth. Obama's rhetoric is contrary to the results. I just Hope we can undo the damage of the Change.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Voluminous and Incoherent
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow."
Federalist No. 62
With ObamaCare having thousands of pages is it reasonable that the average citizen could understand the bill? It is bad enough that a large majority of our representatives are lawyers, but when you have to be a lawyer to understand what proposed legislation means, is there a problem?
Ignorance is no excuse for the law, which you may have learned if you were pulled over because you didn't notice that the speed limit changed from 70 to 55 on that section of highway. Maybe you missed one of the hundreds of hoops that a new business must jump through because you didn't know you needed to, will the IRS care? We are held accountable to the law regardless of our understanding of it. The prevents continual claims of ignorance as legitimate defense to habitual crime, which makes sense.
If we are going to be held accountable to the law, shouldn't we demand laws that we have a reasonable expectation to understand? What is reasonable? Well I would think that we shouldn't have to invest more than a few evenings studying the bill to read and understand it's impact. We shouldn't have to have a law degree to understand the language of the Bill. Bills should deal with individual issues and not be "Omni" in nature (deal with multiple unrelated other legislations).
Would these requirements for reasonable expectation of understanding make it harder to write legislation? Maybe, or it might make it easier, it doesn't matter. The point is that these representatives and the legislation they produce are supposed to serve us citizens. We must be able to evaluate legislation, without specialized education or an unreasonable amount of time, in order for us to judge our representatives efforts on our behalf.
In the end we are a Democratic Republic, not a true Democracy, and so our representatives should do what they believe is best for the country as a whole, while protecting the interest of their constituency. I do not propose that all citizens should vote on all legislation directly, but we MUST have a reasonable ability to evaluate the results of our representation.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Time to set them to rights
"It is to me a new and consolatory proof that wherever the people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
--Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Parasites
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Ludlow, 1824
Monday, January 18, 2010
The System is broken, we need the federal government to step in!
Our federal government has responsibilities to the citizens of this country. The system is obviously broken and many of our family, friends and neighbors pay the price for continued inaction in the face of this crisis. The stories of those who have suffered and died because our elected officials refuse to address the problem are heart breaking. Some may want things to stay the same because they take advantage of the predicament of others to further their own personal profit or political agenda, but most of us want change. Money and power, isn't that what it always comes to?
No, I am not talking about healthcare, I am talking about securing our borders. Unlike healthcare, securing our borders is a constitutionally valid area for our federal government to be involved.
Many like to try and make this issue about workers rights, human rights, or that PC favorite called fairness. Let's take them one at a time.
Workers rights, or more accurately, illegal immigrant workers rights, make no sense since it is not legal for them to be here in the first place. The fact that they are not citizens of this country means that the right of citizens does not extend to them. Many try to claim that because they are working and we benefit from it they should be allowed to continue their illegal activities and even extended all the benefits of citizenship. Well, prostitutes work hard, so I guess it is wrong to round them up. Many drug dealers work hard to distribute their product, should we have a rally to protest how local police interfere with their efforts to support their families?
Human rights is another favorite. If you stand for deporting those who have entered the country illegally, you don't care about people. This is a ridiculous position. To claim that the many human traffickers working the borders of this country are like the underground railroad is ludicrous. The US has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, immigrants should be required to adhere to it, 100% of the time. There is no good reason, humanitarian or otherwise, why we should fail to enforce our own laws.
Fairness, whatever that means, in fact, the reason liberals love this one so much is that it means whatever they say it means. As far as I can tell it is something along the lines of, "I risked all kinds of dangers to get here, work for less doing the jobs you don't want to, all to take care of my family because I am such a good person....etc., so it is unfair to deport me." Illegal immigrants and their proponents often reject that they are illegal, claiming that because they are hard working and not pursuing other crimes, they are not illegal. Well, they may not be illegal, but their action of entering the country outside of our immigration laws is. That makes them criminals, maybe likeable, hard working criminals, but still criminals.
So why don't we fix the system and secure our borders? There are several reasons for that.
Political pressure is a big reason. You have all kinds of business owners that benefit from illegal immigrants, and they at best ignore the law, and worse encourage their representatives to make the laws less effective.
Follow the money. The cost of enforcing immigration law is often offered as a reason why we can't do it. What a waste of money to deport people who just want to work hard doing the things most Americans don't want to do. The truth is we can't afford not to enforce them any longer.
The United Sates has always welcomed immigrants. We are characterized as the melting pot of cultures from around the world. I embrace this because I believe that all cultures have good people who can add to our great nation. We must be in control of how we accommodate those immigrants though, and if they ignore our laws in order to get here, it seems fair to assume they will ignore any other laws that may interfere with their desires.
No, I am not talking about healthcare, I am talking about securing our borders. Unlike healthcare, securing our borders is a constitutionally valid area for our federal government to be involved.
Many like to try and make this issue about workers rights, human rights, or that PC favorite called fairness. Let's take them one at a time.
Workers rights, or more accurately, illegal immigrant workers rights, make no sense since it is not legal for them to be here in the first place. The fact that they are not citizens of this country means that the right of citizens does not extend to them. Many try to claim that because they are working and we benefit from it they should be allowed to continue their illegal activities and even extended all the benefits of citizenship. Well, prostitutes work hard, so I guess it is wrong to round them up. Many drug dealers work hard to distribute their product, should we have a rally to protest how local police interfere with their efforts to support their families?
Human rights is another favorite. If you stand for deporting those who have entered the country illegally, you don't care about people. This is a ridiculous position. To claim that the many human traffickers working the borders of this country are like the underground railroad is ludicrous. The US has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, immigrants should be required to adhere to it, 100% of the time. There is no good reason, humanitarian or otherwise, why we should fail to enforce our own laws.
Fairness, whatever that means, in fact, the reason liberals love this one so much is that it means whatever they say it means. As far as I can tell it is something along the lines of, "I risked all kinds of dangers to get here, work for less doing the jobs you don't want to, all to take care of my family because I am such a good person....etc., so it is unfair to deport me." Illegal immigrants and their proponents often reject that they are illegal, claiming that because they are hard working and not pursuing other crimes, they are not illegal. Well, they may not be illegal, but their action of entering the country outside of our immigration laws is. That makes them criminals, maybe likeable, hard working criminals, but still criminals.
So why don't we fix the system and secure our borders? There are several reasons for that.
Political pressure is a big reason. You have all kinds of business owners that benefit from illegal immigrants, and they at best ignore the law, and worse encourage their representatives to make the laws less effective.
The ever increasing population of illegal immigrants, and the sympathetic legal immigrants, now work to influence immigration policy by dangling the carrot of their votes. They march in protest when communities attempt to enforce immigration law, wielding signs proclaiming "We Are Human!" (Maricopa County Arizona) or demanding workers rights.
It is an uncomfortable issue for many. The poster child for illegal immigrants is the downtrodden family trying to make a better life for themselves with hard work and sacrifice. The same thing many of us seeks for ourselves. How can we in good conscience deny them of the same thing we want for ourselves? The short answer is we aren't. Having immigration laws, and enforcing them (no matter how unpleasant) is not being mean, it is being kind. Many emotionalize the issue and demonize those who insist on a rule of law, but that doesn't help create good law.
Follow the money. The cost of enforcing immigration law is often offered as a reason why we can't do it. What a waste of money to deport people who just want to work hard doing the things most Americans don't want to do. The truth is we can't afford not to enforce them any longer.
The United Sates has always welcomed immigrants. We are characterized as the melting pot of cultures from around the world. I embrace this because I believe that all cultures have good people who can add to our great nation. We must be in control of how we accommodate those immigrants though, and if they ignore our laws in order to get here, it seems fair to assume they will ignore any other laws that may interfere with their desires.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Strike a compromise
House and Senate leaders, along with union bosses and White House officials, have been meeting all week in a hard push to strike a compromise on the health care package. The White House reached a breakthrough in talks with House Democrats and union leaders Thursday, agreeing to scale back plans for a tax on high-value insurance plans. - FoxNews.com
A few observations here:
Why are Union bosses involved in these secret talks in the White House? How is it that a public process is not allowed, but the Union special interest is invited to participate? This is change? Sounds like the same kind of partisan agenda that Obama said Bush was guilty of and his new admin. would not have. Despite claims of transparency, eliminating special interest influence, and reaching out across the aisle, Obama has shown that he is all talk (as long as the teleprompter is working).
The breakthrough on the "Cadillac" insurance plans is based on how much they cost. Obama's rationalization of taxing these plans is they do not make anyone healthier. I am wondering how they can determine the health benefit of a plan based on the price? At $24,000 per year (the point that an insurance plan looses it's benefits and becomes a luxury vehicle) that is $2000 per month. I knew of a couple 5 years ago that had to pay $3000 per month for insurance for a few years until they could qualify for Medicare. It is interesting that we had to redefine what a Cadillac is to suit the Unions, but not the rest of us.
For those who have eyes to see, this is just more of the eternal campaign mode that Obama operates in. First the push was to have healthcare reform complete in his first year. Now he is postponing his state of the union address so he can claim a victory in that. Just look at the way he ties his policy ideas to his plug for Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley's bid for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, "In Washington, I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care, and it's clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United State Senate." Let me translate, "The reason you should vote for her has nothing to do with her ability to represent you, it has to do with me being able to do whatever I want using the super majority."
Strike a compromise? I would say that is the last thing on Obama's mind. Rest assured that in those secret meetings with Union leaders there was the same kind of vote buying we saw with anyone else who has dared to suggest they might not back Obama's healthcare agenda....oh, unless you happen to be a Republican, they don't count.
A few observations here:
Why are Union bosses involved in these secret talks in the White House? How is it that a public process is not allowed, but the Union special interest is invited to participate? This is change? Sounds like the same kind of partisan agenda that Obama said Bush was guilty of and his new admin. would not have. Despite claims of transparency, eliminating special interest influence, and reaching out across the aisle, Obama has shown that he is all talk (as long as the teleprompter is working).
The breakthrough on the "Cadillac" insurance plans is based on how much they cost. Obama's rationalization of taxing these plans is they do not make anyone healthier. I am wondering how they can determine the health benefit of a plan based on the price? At $24,000 per year (the point that an insurance plan looses it's benefits and becomes a luxury vehicle) that is $2000 per month. I knew of a couple 5 years ago that had to pay $3000 per month for insurance for a few years until they could qualify for Medicare. It is interesting that we had to redefine what a Cadillac is to suit the Unions, but not the rest of us.
For those who have eyes to see, this is just more of the eternal campaign mode that Obama operates in. First the push was to have healthcare reform complete in his first year. Now he is postponing his state of the union address so he can claim a victory in that. Just look at the way he ties his policy ideas to his plug for Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley's bid for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, "In Washington, I'm fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care, and it's clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United State Senate." Let me translate, "The reason you should vote for her has nothing to do with her ability to represent you, it has to do with me being able to do whatever I want using the super majority."
Strike a compromise? I would say that is the last thing on Obama's mind. Rest assured that in those secret meetings with Union leaders there was the same kind of vote buying we saw with anyone else who has dared to suggest they might not back Obama's healthcare agenda....oh, unless you happen to be a Republican, they don't count.
Friday, January 8, 2010
I am for the public option
I am for a public option on the current health care bill. No, not the one where the government provides health care insurance for everyone, I am talking about the option for the public to witness the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.
We have seen, and the Democrat Party has felt the results of the vote buying that has occurred to allow Obama to claim a health care reform victory (one of his campaign promises). Now that the reconciliation process is underway Obama is refusing to have the process be public, on CSPAN, "...so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents..." (another campaign promise). This gives the impression that all the bad press for not making things public is less than the bad press they would receive if we really knew what they were up to.
This is the usual sound bite Obama uses to distract from what he is doing, the prestige that distracts you from his sleight of hand. What he is saying is, "I am so much wiser than you that I will decide what health care insurance will make you healthier, and tax you if you disagree. Don't worry though, if you are going to be foolish and spend your money on insurance I do not approve of, you have plenty of extra money to spend helping finance somebody else's health insurance."
Obama seems to have it out for you if you want to live without health insurance, or if you want health insurance that is TOO good. What happened to a federal government that protected our liberty to choose for ourselves how to invest our money and live our lives?
My family spend a good amount of money in the effort to be healthy. We do not need a health insurance with low deductibles since we budget for medical expenses. Besides that, we participate in Medi-Share, a Christian medical expense sharing program. Will we be forced to participate in some other government approved program instead? Will we be fined or jailed if we do not want to change? How can this be fair?
Let's take the "Cadillac" mentality to the next level...where does it end? What is next, a special tax on certain types of makeup because it doesn't make women any prettier? How about a tax on certain "Cadillac schools" like Yale or Harvard because they don't really make you any smarter?
It is interesting that Cadillac is a GM product....you know, GM that is operated by the government....maybe people who actually buy those luxurious vehicles that do nothing to make anyone healthier should be taxed as well? No, wait, got that one backwards, Obama will want to tax those of us who by a Ford to subsidize those government Cadillac's he is selling...how ironic.
We have seen, and the Democrat Party has felt the results of the vote buying that has occurred to allow Obama to claim a health care reform victory (one of his campaign promises). Now that the reconciliation process is underway Obama is refusing to have the process be public, on CSPAN, "...so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents..." (another campaign promise). This gives the impression that all the bad press for not making things public is less than the bad press they would receive if we really knew what they were up to.
"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve, that helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do." - National Public Radio interview just before Christmas.
This is the usual sound bite Obama uses to distract from what he is doing, the prestige that distracts you from his sleight of hand. What he is saying is, "I am so much wiser than you that I will decide what health care insurance will make you healthier, and tax you if you disagree. Don't worry though, if you are going to be foolish and spend your money on insurance I do not approve of, you have plenty of extra money to spend helping finance somebody else's health insurance."
Obama seems to have it out for you if you want to live without health insurance, or if you want health insurance that is TOO good. What happened to a federal government that protected our liberty to choose for ourselves how to invest our money and live our lives?
My family spend a good amount of money in the effort to be healthy. We do not need a health insurance with low deductibles since we budget for medical expenses. Besides that, we participate in Medi-Share, a Christian medical expense sharing program. Will we be forced to participate in some other government approved program instead? Will we be fined or jailed if we do not want to change? How can this be fair?
Let's take the "Cadillac" mentality to the next level...where does it end? What is next, a special tax on certain types of makeup because it doesn't make women any prettier? How about a tax on certain "Cadillac schools" like Yale or Harvard because they don't really make you any smarter?
It is interesting that Cadillac is a GM product....you know, GM that is operated by the government....maybe people who actually buy those luxurious vehicles that do nothing to make anyone healthier should be taxed as well? No, wait, got that one backwards, Obama will want to tax those of us who by a Ford to subsidize those government Cadillac's he is selling...how ironic.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Confusing the Free Market
By the government artificially sustaining failing companies that are "too big to fail" they are confusing the free market. Failing companies encourage company leadership to make hard changes and investors to consider new (and better) companies. By allowing companies like GM to continue to operate despite the failing in the free market, you confuse investors. Some that would remove their investment and give it to a growing company to fuel it's good choices will leave their investment (or worse invest more) in companies that SHOULD fail, thereby enabling their bad choices. This creates a double hit on competitors because it removes risk from the failing company while increasing it for their legitimate competitors. It also forces competitors to become investors in the very companies that compete with them, with no hope of a return on their forced investment (in the form of higher taxes).
Government can't create jobs (unless they are government jobs that actually drain the economy). The government can't insure fairness. The government can't bail-out or rescue industries. The government doesn't produce revenue, it consumes it.
The bottom line is that the government has no business being involved in the free market. The market is self balancing and when you have the federal government trying to help, it just creates a pendulum affect.
Government can't create jobs (unless they are government jobs that actually drain the economy). The government can't insure fairness. The government can't bail-out or rescue industries. The government doesn't produce revenue, it consumes it.
The bottom line is that the government has no business being involved in the free market. The market is self balancing and when you have the federal government trying to help, it just creates a pendulum affect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)