Are we the people we've been waiting for

President Obama was on the Daily Show last night and took a "profound disagreement" to one of John Stewart's questions.  Leaning forward in his chair to make his point bold, he told Stewart:

"This notion that healthcare was timid..."

But that's not the timid Stewart was talking about, at least I don't think it was, since I understood the question posed to Obama in the context of what, I too, think has been a problem with Obama's use of the bully pulpit.

Stewart said:

"You said great leaders lead in a time of opportunity...we're the ones we are looking for.  Yet legislatively it has felt timid at times.  I'm not sure at times what you wanted out of the health care bill...."

In other words, what we needed from you, then, and now, is boldness.  Rhetoric is just that, however, it does have the power to restore or sustain momentum.  Behind the scenes, the deals, the compromise, the politics...that's the sausage being made.  What we need from the leader is - this will be the best tasting, healthy, good for you sausage you could ever dream of.

Obama tried to play the give and take model, because that's actually how things get done in a democracy, or for that matter, in any situation where you have over 250 million people living under one roof.  Where Obama failed, and the Democrats as well, is that they did not counter the opposition's rhetoric with there own.

Obama was caught off guard with how difficult Republicans were going to make the job of leading.  Under a "normal" give and take political atmosphere, his model would have worked quite well.  But the desire to obtain control back from the Democrats has taken precedence over governing.  This is not something new,

And what this desire has unleashed is a monster that does not care who gets hurt in its path towards dominance. What Obama, the Democrats, and the bulk of us did not realize is how many people would welcome it into our lives.

No politician can win - legally - without someone voting for them.  Those votes need to be gained through whatever means necessary.  So if fear works, make people fearful.  If negative works, sling mud.  The Tea Party unleashed the beast, bought into how necessary it was for it to destroy this new "audacity of hope."

The monster did not come out on its own, it came when there was no concerted effort to keep it at bay.  Not in my wildest dreams would I ever have thought my fellow Americans were as stupid, ignorant, and as self-serving as I have come to see them as now.  And I too, have been timid in my recourse.

The Teas Party rhetoric was not countered which emboldened the Republican politicians looking for a way to get back into power.  What they adopted was a simple strategy of "No" to everything.  No compromise, no quid pro quo, no politicking...just "No" to everything.  Failure means disgust, disgust leads to wanting a change.  The Tea Party momentum emboldened them.

And because Obama and the bulk of us did not see the monster that they were willing to let lose, we did nothing to stop its release.  So now we have a President who needs 60% to get something passed.  Not a majority, but 60%.

And we the people see nothing wrong with that?  No, we the people fall into one of three camps:

• Failure is good for us.  President is bad.
• Congress can't get anything done.  Throw the bums out.
• Let the process work.  Compromise and vote.

Unfortunately there are few of us who see bullet three as an option.  Republicans want the first, and the bulk of the people have no idea of the super majority "requirement" and instead adopt the "it's broke" attitude of number two.  That's where Obama has missed his opportunity to redirect the mindset.

So that's what I think Stewart meant by Obama being timid.  Not the legislation itself, but the lack of boldness from the audacity of hope leader to stand up quickly to the we-want-you-to-fail beast.  The only way to counter a message is with one of your own.  Why did we ever let "socialism" become a normal word to describe what most of us voted for?

So take the gloves off Mr. President.  Everything you say must be bold, that audacity thing has to ring from every word and action.  If they want to see you fail make sure that message is out there loud and clear.  Then, when no one is looking get on with the making of sausage.  The best damn sausage you and Congress can possibly make.

That egg on your face was brought to you by Humpty Dumpty

My last post dealt with a bit o' back n' forth between a couple of commenters on another website over a 2001 speech made by Obama and his use of the word "redistribution" (among other things).

One of the posters, nathanbforrest45, felt that anytime someone comes to Obama's defense by saying "that's not what he means" what they are really doing is hiding the fact that he really is a socialist that hates America and wants to do away with the Constitution.  Why is "the left so esoteric" he asks "that we cannot understand their true meaning?"  "Perhaps," he states "the left should say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing."

And then he posts, without understanding the irony, this quote from "Alice Adventures in Wonderland" a book considered to be "one of the best examples of the literary nonsense genre."

"Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less" said Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

But alas, irony and logic are lost on the simpleminded.  The conservative wingnuts on the right have made a parlor game out of trying to make Obama sound like the evil antichrist they need him to be.  The reason you must understand the concept of context and nuanced phrasing is because that's how we speak.

If words only had one meaning, and only one meaning, Paul Simon would never have written "I hope my meaning won't be lost or misconstrued."  There would be no need for the word misconstrued because words would mean precisely what was said.  So let us look at another example of how something got misconstrued and used in a way that it was not intended.

Way back in 2000, George W. Bush (you remember him) made the comment:

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier," pausing and then joking, "just so long as I'm the dictator."

Now, if you want to play the - they should "say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing" - game, Bush said he wants to be a dictator. I mean there it is in black and white.  He said it......I'm not putting words in his mouth or selectively editing.  What I would be doing, however, is taking them out of context, and misconstruing their meaning (which was an appropriate and funny joke about how difficult it is to get things passed).

So if you thought for one tiny second that Bush wanted to be a dictator, well now you know the truth.  If you continue to think this even after reading my explanation, well you are an idiot.

Which brings me to:

"He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document," 

Context and selective editing.  As a poster named Evelyn_S succinctly wrote back in 2008:

He did not  call the Constitution a deeply flawed document in either clip.  Did not use those words.  He was referring to the racism in colonial times, when humans were held in slavery.  This, he was saying, is a flaw in the thinking of the framers of the constitution.

So my fine Humpty Dumpty, words do indeed mean exactly what the speaker wants them to mean.  Now that you know what was actually said and meant, I'll excuse your ignorance.  But if you continue to want them to mean what you want them to mean then you are more akin to Tweedledum, which in less nuanced terms, I am calling you an idiot.

Smart Makes a (good!) Comeback

LoL

Reading makes me begat stuff, and I came across a website while looking up what the definition of "Public Welfare" means in the Constitution's welfare clause.  Found an interesting site, but the guy's bias shows through on his interpretations - however, a lot of the comments - both for/against - are really insightful .  But there is always one...that requires me to go a googlin' and a begatin':

P.S., with regard to recent revelations that Obama said that the Constitution is "deeply flawed" because the framers were "blind" and that the "constraints" they placed in it are impeding "spreading the wealth," it seems his goal is to rewright the Constituion or at least to "reinterpret" it out of existence.

Did Obama really say that?  I don't know why I just can't accept it as factual....but there are too many idiots out there making stuff up a'la' Fox News.  So I used the search terms:

Obama said that the Constitution is "deeply flawed"

Got a bunch of blogs that all seem to have the quote...I choose:

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution ...Oct 27, 2008 ... He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the ... He simply said the Warren Court didn't break free of the basic ...

Which lead me to a website called "Argue with Everyone" and a post is by a guy named "naturemomma" where he quotes the 2001 radio interview and then (surprise, surprise) completely misunderstands the comments made and even makes stuff up.  Well another poster named "Smart Makes a Comeback" will not let this go unchallenged.  Some really funny stuff gets bantered back and forth.


smart makes a comeback 

You have no idea what any of that means do you ?

Nevermind..clearly you dont

You read a blog that told you it meant he wanted to change the constitution, you saw the word "redistribution" you dont know any better, so you ran with it.

My I suggest you get a smart friend to help you define some of the terms and put that intervirew into prospective. You will feel really stupid when you find out he was actually taking on a conservative point of view, but at least you wont go on spreading stuipidty and humiliating yourself even more

naturemomma

Argue with some..IGNORE the stupid

'nough said....

smart makes a comeback

I know...but I was trying to be charitable and help you out.

naturemomma

Ever wonder why EVERYTHING Obama Biden time says, is "taken out of context" or "misinterepreted"?

Because he is lying you idiot!

In 2001, he wasn't watching what he said. He wasn't on good behavior, nor was he attempting to hide what he actually thought.

You people are incredibly niave and stupid.

nathanbforrest45

"Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less" said Humpty Dumpty to Alice.

So redistribution does not mean redistribution it means?????????????????

If I said I think Smart Makes a Come Back is a socialist turd I think she/he/it would see the negative in that statement and "run with it"

naturemomma 

C'mon now nathan, you know you can't use common sense with stupid-is-as-stupid-does. 

Words mean nothing to these people. And neither do actions... So I really don't know how they decided on the character of this man. 

......Ahhhh, this must be where the, "hope and change" thing comes in! 

smart makes a comeback

Nathan, once again, your home schooling by illiterates betrays and fails you.

I understand, the entire interview and it’s content are far over your head, but you when you take your cue from idiot talk radio, faux noise, whacky right wing blogs, and blithering dundereads like naturemomma and parrot what you hear, you display your ignorance all too graphically.

nathanbforrest45

Excuse me you arrogant and condescending bimbo but if the man says he believes in redistribution and that the courts need to do more and the Constitution only tells us what the government can't do then what exactly am I supposed to believe. Its not an issue of talk radio (and since I never listen to NPR I don't listen to idiot talk radio in any event) or right wing blogs (which I don't read), its an issue of reading the words and hearing the words and gaining an understanding from what is actually said, not what some commentator tells me that I should have heard.

I am able to read and understand. If the left is so esoteric that we cannot understand their true meaning that perhaps the left should say what it really means in less "nuanced" phrasing.

smart makes a comeback

Except that is not what he said you pathetic mouth breathing hick...LOL...so it seems you clearly are NOT able to read and understand 

"Nuanced" phrasing ? 

hahahahahaha !!!!!!!!

A reasonably intelligent 10th grader could understand that what he said was, that contrary to the belief of some, the courts did not engage in such activism.

Read and listen to what people say...Not what Limbaugh and Hannity TELL you they said....you wont look so silly

Good GAWD…can these people be THIS stupid ?

Good GAWD indeed!

Oh, and by the way.....no Obama never said the Constitution is "deeply flawed"

Ben Stein's reality-check meter's day off

So Ben Stein has a column called "Dreemz" in the April edition of Newsmax the "Independent. American" magazine featuring the smiling faces of Victoria & Joel Osteen on the cover.

Ben Stein sees Obama audacity of hope as nothing more than a child who thinks he will get a pony because they want one for their birthday. Apparently the audacity of stating that we will double our exports is too much of a stretch for Mr. Stein to accept, therefore deserving of ridicule for even mentioning it in the State of the Union address.

Can't be done! Mr. Stein emphatically believes, Magical Thinking that Obama guy does. Now whether or not we can double exports in five years is not what I want to debate. If you want to see some well reasoned arguments on this goal check this or this or this out.

They, like Mr Stein, think it's too lofty a goal, only they, unlike Mr. Stein, offer something tangible in terms of a fix that could help the cause instead of Mr. Stein's it-never-has-happened-so-it-can't-happen-Obama-suffers-from-a-"psychological disorder" diatribe that seems to be the standard discourse offered by these conservative leaning venues.

Now Mr.Stein is welcome to spew his beliefs in any way he wants. I have done the same in my blog, and I regret it now. It's name calling, attaching a negative image to the person all the while ignoring the issue. Obama does not have a "physiological disorder" as Mr. Stein wants his readers to believe. Nor is the goal of doubling exports unattainable making it magical thinking. It's a goal - a direction - here is what we want to do, here is what we will change to make it happen. The counter to this, as Mr. Stein so eloquently leaves out, is to have no goal. Would he have had an issue if Mr. Obama had said we will raise exports by 10% in 5 years? Obtainable - yes, but not very can-doish (i.e American ingenuity and drive).

Note: that's the importance of hope - the idea that things can change if we have the "audacity" to believe they can, that putting energy into something can - will - make a difference. Why this bothers conservative commentators is beyond me and seems to conflict with the magazine's cover that "faith can help in hard times." But I digress......

What really troubled me was that Ben Stein - this smart guy - or at least I thought he was smart - can make statements that fail the smell test (i.e. logic and or factual data) or what he calls his "reality-check meter."

Statement one: [in the State of the Union Address] "he did not repeat the decades-long promises to help keep Israel alive."

OK. we can debate if that's an important goal of America - but now's not the time. Obama did not mention Israel - that's "Jarring" to Mr. Stein. Apparently this has been done for "decades." Now I am going to exclude looking at Clinton's SOTU speeches and focus on Regan, Bush I, and Bush II because they are seen as imperfect - but conservative - by these new Tea Party thinkers. Now Obama has given two SOTU addresses, his first did, but this latest one did not mention Israel and Mr. Stein now finds Mr. Obama scary because of this.

So has mentioning Israel really been repeated in SOTU addresses for decades?

• Bush II did not mention Israel in 2002
• Bush II did not mention Israel in 2004
• Bush I did not mention Israel in 1990
• Regan did not mention Israel in 1988
• Regan did not mention Israel in 1984

So if not mentioning Israel in a SOTU address is "jarring," logically one would assume that Mr. Stein would find these other three president's SOTU address to be jarring as well.

Statement two: "He seemed to believe that he was presiding over a post-racial America when he won entirely by getting spectacular majorities of the black vote"

OMG! WTF? Did he really make this statement? Obama won because more people voted for him in states with the most Electorial college votes. If Black votes were the only thing that pushed him forward then he would have won in states that have the highest percentage of black voters (you know the South). But lets look at the numbers, shall we (Damn the data! It screws up what I want to belive!).

• Obama got 43% of the white vote which was more than Kerry got in 2004.
• Obama got 56% of the woman vote.
• Obama got 66% of the Hispanic vote.
• Obama got 66% of the votes from those that voted for the first time.
  

End of discussion on this. More people wanted Obama then just blacks. What an utterly stupid and ill-informed statement for Ben Stein to make.

Statement three: "He seemed to believe himself when he said he was going to read every line of the budget with its million of lines."

Here is what Obama said:

We will continue through the budget line by line, page by page to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work.

Now I don't think he meant he would "personally" read the budget, I think he meant he and his staff would. Kind of like reading assignments in college - you divvy up the work, meet, discuss, that kind of thing. Now Mr. Stein's point regarding how "he would know from reading a line for a dam in Idaho whether or not that money was spent wastefully" is a valid question, but the gist of the argument was it can't be done so don't even try and by saying that's what you plan to do - you know - get all fiscally with the budget - just makes you seem a "huckster" or a "self-deluder."

This isn't dreamland Obama is in, its a direction, a goal, a methodology. That's what leadership is all about - pointing the ship in a direction. The direction of increasing exports and removing wasteful spending from the budget is not magical thinking, require superhuman feats, or is living in dreamland, unless of course what you really want is the ship to stay in port and the nightmare for all us have-nots to continue. If you don't like the direction articulate a better direction and then state why.

Stick to selling credit score services - your "reality-check meter" has gone off prematurely making your writing seem a bit...well... Anyone?....Anyone?....Bueller?.....

It was his waterloo, he bought it for 99 cents on Itunes

Rep John Shadegg wrote an op-ed called "Democrats will be held accountable." In it he makes a couple of statements that I think need a little bit more back story before they are passed off as what really took place.

Never before in American history has such far-reaching legislation passed on a purely partisan basis — not Social Security, not Medicare, not Civil Rights and not SCHIP.

True statement by the way, but one should look at the bigger question here, and that is "why?"

Now it is easy to come up with lots of reasons and most of them would be legitimate areas of concern. Even the "they are forcing me to buy insurance" argument holds water. But that is not why the vote was partisan. Republican's took a stand not for principle but for politics - that is they wanted healthcare reform to fail so Obama would not have a victory.

"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him...." Sen. Jim DeMint

This is why there was a partisan vote, this was the strategy and woe to any Republican who broke it. The Republicans have painted themselves in a corner - walk in lockstep or you will be cast as a RINO - or not conservative enough.

The majority thought pattern within the Republican party bought off on the waterloo approach and it was a bust. Did Obama win? No, there were no winners here because one side decided it was in their best interest to not shape it into something that works but to do everything they could to make it fail.

So here's a news flash for you Republicans: Not everything the Democrats put together is sound and/or good for the country. That's the nature of non-diversity of thought - it becomes one sided. You had a chance to interact, to wheel and deal, to do the politicking to get what you think is needed. That's how it works, its a stupid game of give and take and hopefully out of the mix will come something good.

You lost an opportunity to govern just like you squandered 8 years when you controlled both Congress and the White House. You may indeed win and become the majority party in 2012, but so what - what will you do for us other than provide rhetoric and promote a hands-off let-the private sector-decide model that created the economic mess we are in now and left citizens at the whims of a healthcare system dependent upon private insurance that was unfordable or unavailable unless one's employer was nice enough to offer it?

Healthcare reform was need way before Bush 43 was in office. Obama set out to get it passed which was one of the reasons people like me voted for him. What we ended up with when he signed it into law was not perfect, but it was the best we could get because Republicans choose to sit on the sidelines and pout.

Think about governing, not just for conservative "principles" but for the good of all 300 million people who have a diverse set of wants and needs. Right now you leave me very little choice put to vote for Democrats.

My my, I tried to hold you back but you were stronger

Oh yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight

And how could I ever refuse

I feel like I win when I lose

Abba - Waterloo

You have to be cruel to be kind

Being critical of Obama's new plan to prevent home foreclosures is good sport for those who critical of all things Obama. I wrote a while back, when the financial crisis first hit, that I thought there should be a "hands-off" approach to the situation. Letting those banks and businesses that gambled and planned poorly for a crisis fail would allow for those that did not to take their place. This is the basic premise of natural selection and would, in my opinion, produce a stronger economy by allowing the less intelligent management teams and their institutions become less dominant or die out.

Now the big issue the right-wingers are harping on regarding helping home-owners that overbought and are heading towards foreclosure is one of a "moral hazard." What they really mean by this is that it is not fair to those (them) that played by the rules and did not buy more house then they could afford. To help them is to reward their bad behavior and, therefore perpetuate this idea that someone (the Government) will be there to pick them up should they fall.

This is a valid argument, however, it is not an issue of punishing and rewarding the individual that we should be focusing on, instead it should be what is the right approach to minimize the damage and allow us to move forward quicker and then to never let this happen again. It is unfortunate that the talking heads that have the tea party ears focus on the individual as the problem and not on the situation that was allowed it to take place.

It happened because there were no checks in place on its upward progress. This is one of the downsides to a laissez-faire approach to government as perpetuated by the Bush administration. This does not put blame on 43's shoulders but it does make him culpable.

Businesses, for the most part, exist to accumulate wealth for the shareholders. Sub-prime loans and derivatives were the cat's meow at the time. A lot of big institutions got into it because that's where money was being made. It fed off of home loans and what better way to create home loans then to make owning a home easy as putting zero down! House prices were moving up and up how could it go wrong? My wife and I thought this a risky proposition at the time as did a lot of other people. But more and more big players and trusted financial institutions were all giddy about it so why shouldn't the little guy get in on some of this action?

Which brings us to this point in time now. Millions are poised to lose their homes and the Obama government wants to - will - step in. Sounds good on paper - help the little guy, protect the banks, allow the economy to heal itself. Win-win win!

But it is the wrong solution. NPR interviewed Barry Ritholtz today about his blog "The Big Picture." I happen to agree with his stance. When you help the homeowner you also help the banks. Both were irresponsible and both should take the punishment. It sounds harsh but in the long run it will let the strong and lucky prosper. The real moral hazard is not me being somehow punished because I was prudent, its not letting a true market economy run its course.

Stupid people were in charge before the crisis and this money from President Obama will just keep them there.

Lying for God

“How many observe Christ’s birthday! How few, his precepts! O! ‘Tis easier to keep holidays than commandments.” Benjamin Franklin

On my way to 89.1 the radio stops at 89.9, a christian radio station where two hosts are taking calls. I have searched for the name of the show and their names but can find noting. It was about 10:30ish on Friday Central Time.

I hear the tail end......

Caller: Isn't he (Obama) a Muslim?

Host: Well he is not an admitted Muslim, but he is a Muslim sympathizer.

Hmmmm, that doesn't sound very Christian like to me, I mean these guys are on a christian radio station professing how much Jesus loves us. But then I am struck with what just took place here. The host knowingly lied. Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Apparently the host doubts Obama's Christian faith, which only God really knows, so stating that he is "an admitted Muslim" is making either a direct lie or stating a belief that one knows what God knows.

But this is war, so it is OK to be dishonest, elusive, and misleading. "I did it for you God! I killed the truth to further your Glory, just like I killed those abortion doctors, just like I gave you the crusades, just like I massacred that wagon train in Mountain Meadows Utah, just like.......I did it all for you God!

The inability of those that proclaim themselves to be Christians to transcend above the simple-mindedness of basic human foibles, is disapointing. Don't they read their Bible? And those that lead them, those like the radio hosts that I'll bet told themselves that they were "called by God" to speak, have a responsibility to God and their audience to be truthful. Because if you lie about something then you can lie about anything.

So is what the host said lying? First what is a "Lie?" Websters defines it as:

1. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
2. is untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
3. something that misleads or deceives
4. a charge of lying

Second, is telling a lie something that God would have an issue with?

Leviticus 19:11-12 "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another"

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Am I casting the first stone by pointing this out? No, just shining a light on another liar.

But words will never hurt me?

I have concluded (way late in life) that my wife is right and that people are stupid. Now when you say this, it includes both her and I, so I guess it should really be stated that people will often believe something to be true based on perception rather than fact. In this case, words have power to sway and entrench. So lets do away with two of them in the health care debate.

Phrase 1: keep the insurance companies honest.

When President Obama said recently that it will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.” he unfortunately concluded that these companies are not being honest now or will become dishonest in the future.

Insurance companies are not the bad guys in this fight. They are a business, and as such, put the interests of their shareholders primary over everyone and everything else. This is how business works in the USA. Unless there is a driving force to "not be evil" businesses will always behave in a way that benefits them. This has nothing to do with honesty, it is the nature of the beast and why, in my opinion, government is a necessary player in a free market.

Business is a lot like the Botulinum toxin - both a remedy and a deadly poison, all at the same time. To say that the toxin is bad because it can and will kill, is to ignore the good that comes with it. In the hands of a skilled physician (government) the toxin is free to do do the work it can do (capitalism) and provide the benefits wanted by the individual (market). Those that participate in the health insurance industry are no more dishonest in their labor than the physician is an administer of poison.

Phrase 2: socialized health care system.

When Chet Edwards was asked "Have you decided how you will vote on HR 3200?" his response of "I will not vote for any bill I believe would result in a Canadian–style, socialized health care system." fed into the notion that government involvement is socialism or leads to socialism. Government involvement is, and should, be kept in check by a strong healthy free market. Asking government to step in, make laws, provide services is no more an example of socialism then Google is an example of a monopoly.

When used willy-nilly or purposely, words have power. These two phrases must be stopped dead in their tracks.

And liberty for all, unless you have a pre-exsisting illness

I was going to take a different approach this month and write about positive people or people that lead an honest and humanistic life. But, nooooooooo, I gotta hear a comment that just begs for a response.

Amanda Terresi of Liberty on the Rocks, a libertarian social group, was interviewed regarding Obama’s health care speech last night on NPRs Morning Addition "Groups React To Obama's Health Care Speech"

The idea is that it is health insurance. The concept of insurance is that you get it before you become sick or before something happens to you. It is equivalent to not having any car insurance, hitting a tree, and calling Geico and saying you want to sign up.

Lady, you are an idiot.

To deny those with pre-existing illness the opportunity to receive care because they are asking to get into it late in the game shows a real lack of sensitivity let alone an ignorance of how insurance is supposed to work.

Pre-existing illness is not the equivalent of how car insurance works. I am supposed to have car insurance, and if I am denied, it becomes nothing more than an inconvenience or I can play the odds and go without. But if I have an illness and am denied coverage, my options are to be rich enough to take care of it myself, poor enough to have the government pay for it, find a generous benefactor, go without, or go bankrupt.

Our present system offers very little security to those that are dependent on the whims and humanity of their employer and health insurance provider. If I hit a tree without insurance I end up with a messed up car, but if I get a heart attack without insurance, my care will be paid for by someone – you in the form of higher premiums or by the government in the form of taxes. That is the bottom line. Or, I suppose you can say “it sucks being you” and just let me die.

At the beginning, the payouts will be greater than the take. After a while, it will balance out as the “healthy” pay more in then the sick. That is how insurance is supposed to work. I pay into a car insurance pot that I have never used in 30 years. I do this to protect myself in case I need it. All that money given is used to pay for others that because of bad luck, stupidity, or an act of God needed to use it.

We need a health insurance program that everyone pays into, that is guaranteed to provide the necessary health care one needs, and is affordable. This is doable, but as long as the Amanda’s of the world want to think about only themselves, we will continue to have piss-poor health and unnecessary bankruptcies.

You do not preserve liberty by denying life or the pursuit of happiness to those unfortunate enough to be sick. There is no choice but to include everyone into the fold. To do anything less is to say their life is not worth the cost. And that my good Amanda is unacceptable in the America I want to live in.

Slippery Slope of Stupidity

MSNBC 2/21/08 - Air Force Col. Morris Davis, now head of the Air Force judiciary, said he believes "there are some very bad men at Guantanamo and some of them deserve the death penalty."

As part of the judiciary, Col. Davis has the right to believe, so what is the next step when the prosecutor "believes" that the party committed the act? Well the sixth Amendment to our Constitution comes to mind. You know, blah blah blah...speedy trial....blah blah..informed of charges....assistance of counsel. You know, things so important that they put it in there way at the begining. But wait Jeff, they also said in the 5th "except in cases arising ....in time of War or public danger." DoH! Don't have to! neener neener neener.

So that means what? We can do what ever we want?

There are things in life that we call slippery slopes. Gitmo was one of them. It served a purpose but created a problem, because not everyone who was sent there was bad. It was, and this is the fault of conservative thought, better to side with us then with them. They could be guilty, they could have done it. Some are bad - we know that, lets err on the side of protection.

He was picked up in Afghanistan in 2002. No one knows how old he was, maybe as young as 12. The Pentigon did a bone scan and said he was 17.

His lawyers say he has grown five inches during his time behind bars. He was accused of throwing a grenade and wounding Americans.

"I think the rules are fair," Col Davis said. "I think the problem is having political appointees injected into the system. They are looking for a political outcome, not justice."

So where is the justice after 7 years for a kid who, may or may not have done what he was accused of doing?

This is what makes the whole Gitmo thing so wrong, because it goes against what we are supposed to stand and fight and die for - that Constitution thingy, remember?

At some point they knew he was not one of those "bad men" and they knew he was also a kid. But because releasing him would be an admission of their mistake, they ignore it, passing it on so that someone else will make the call and take the heat. If he did do the deed then he should have been tried and sentenced.

How is that justice?

So lucky for us we have that three branches of government thingy that they also set up which gives us the ability to right a wrong using the law (oh the irony on that!).

July 30, 2009 (Reuters) — A U.S. judge on Thursday ordered that one of the youngest detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Judge Huvelle excoriated the government for the way it has handled this and other Guantanamo cases.

Cool! And thank God we got ol' Obama as our new Prez! Surely he will also do the right thing!

The Obama administration insisted it still was weighing a criminal case in U.S. federal court against Jawad for allegedly tossing a grenade that wounded two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter in Kabul in late 2002, but that no decision has been made.

August 24, 2009 (NPR) - One of the youngest people ever held at Guantanamo was welcomed home Monday by Afghanistan's president and joyful relatives after almost seven years in prison — freed by a military judge who ruled he was coerced into confessing to wounding U.S. soldiers with a grenade.

And as if on queue.....

Justice Department officials have said the criminal investigation of Jawad is still open but his transfer back to Afghanistan makes prosecution unlikely.

Ahhh the sweat sound of Justice....Not!

Onward christian shillmen....

After seeing my last post the wife asks me ”why are you looking for Christian radio stations?”

When I rent a car for work, I like to listen to public radio which is on the low end of the dial – yea the left side – so what of it! To get to the station 89.1, I have to go thru a few “christian” radio stations that have decided to take up residence where traditional public radio access has resided.

So a few days ago, while on my way to 89.1 I get stopped on 89.9

“We need to oppose Obamacare!”

“We need to show up at these town meetings and be vocal, let’s not be violent, that’s not how Christians should act…..”

“We need to……"

So there I was listening to this guy, on a christian radio station, asking myself the question who is “we”?

This christian talk show host is a guy named Matt Friedeman and apparently the “we” he is speaking to are folks that listen to christian radio stations, which I assume are Christians wanting to listen to a "family friendly" radio station (or guys like me just passing through).

There seems to be a general theme to the “talk” on these christian stations – that is it is almost always anti-Obama and anti-democrat. I am not sure exactly why opposing health care reform requires the work of Christians, unless when you ask yourself the question “What would Jesus do?” and you receive a divine answer of ”go forth and disrupt town-hall meetings!”

Under the guise of morality, the domain of the preacher/religious zealot, arguments can be made for and against any proposed law or government action. Guys like Friedeman should be arguing, like Jesus would have, for health care coverage that is not dependent on if one has a job that provides coverage and/or one is rich enough to pay for it.

I have read Mr. Friedeman’s opposition points to the healthcare debate, they are primarily based on a misunderstanding and/or fear, which in my opinion, is put out there to illicit apprehension which will lead to opposition.

Friedman and his ilk are either terribly naive, ignorant, misguided, or shills for those whose agenda is not one in the best interest of society as a whole. There are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, but opposition just to oppose is not going to solve this problem.

What's in it for me?

At some basic level, it really comes down to am I better off now than before? All things considered, I have stagnated, so whatever economic policies under the previous President were in place, really did little to change my lot in life.

But under Obama, within his first six months I get a new car!


With the cash for clunkers program, I received $4500 for our 94 4-wheel drive Explorer. Ford pitched in $1000, and I got another $2500 because of where I work. Then to top it all, Ford gave us three years financing at zero percent interest.

Finally a government program I get to partake in, and I finally get a car with air conditioning and windows that will roll up! Wins all around! The salesman gets a commission, the dealership makes money, and Ford sells another car.

I am sad that the Explorer had to be euthanized, she was still running strong even after 15 years. I also sympathize with the auto wreckers that lose a good engine, but the program was designed to stimulate the economy and remove less fuel efficient vehicles off the road which reduces foreign oil demand and reduces pollution (unless I drive it more since it does have AC).

All in all not a bad program with the exception of the dealership is up in the air as to if the government will follow through on their end, which leaves me with the possibility of the deal falling through.

If that happens then I will not have a new car and therefore will not like Obama.

Eggsactly what was their point?

Over at Texas A&M University the Young Conservatives of Texas had an Anti-Obama carnival last Wednesday to demonstrate Sen. Barack Obama's economic policies. Their choice of message deliverance was to have students throw eggs at a big poster of Obama tacked to a piece of plywood. Needless to say, it did not go over well with those students who support Obama, and things got a little bit heated.

When I went back to College at Humboldt State University in Arcata California Regan had just recently been elected president. HSU is the polar opposite of A&M in terms of political persuasion and the new policies he was initiating were not going over well with a lot of my fellow classmates. One particular issue was his Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who according to the Audubon Society was "arguably the most anti-environment secretary ever."

So it was only natural that during HSU’s annual Lumberjack Days celebration one student organization, which I can’t recall, decided to have as their booth’s fundraiser event:

“Throw James Watt into the Volcano”

They built a small volcano with a mouth large enough to engulf a Ken doll dressed up to look like James Watt, including glasses and bald head. Not to be sexist, they also had a Barbie dressed up as Anita Bryant that could be thrown in as well. So for 25 cents we could show our frustration with both these individuals while helping the organization earn a few bulks.

The only difference between this event and the one at A&M was ours was actually kind of funny when you think about it without partisanship. They were both exercises in free speech, and for me, actually helped me learn what James Watt was all about. This is the same response the YCTs were trying to accomplish along with a little “in your face” thrown in to spice it up a bit (pun intended).

We have nothing to fear when we hear views that are contrary to our own. The kid that stood in front of the sign attempting to stop the eggs from being thrown probably learned more about himself and his convictions then at any other time in his life.

Was it in bad taste? No more so than throwing Mr. Watt and Ms. Bryant to a fiery doom.

Did the YCT change anyone’s mind on who to vote for? Doubtful.

Did the students who participated, witnessed, or read about it become more enlightened about the world they live in? Yea.

And that’s a beautiful thing my friends, all brought to you courtesy of the First Amendment


http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2008/10/30/News/Obama.carnival.Turns.Into.Protest-3515201.shtml

The two McCains

Trey Parker and Matt Stone put out some of the best parody and satire around. The sad thing is that they would have never made it this far had they not been able to meld the two ingredients - lampoon and shock value - together to get a large number of eyeballs to watch the show. In the beginning it was more the latter but as they have matured so has the show particularly in its parody sophistication. Without the crudeness it would not have an audience anywhere near what it has now, and without the wit it would not be watched by people like me. What an odd combination of the two. But it works.

Which brings me to John McCain. He was on Letterman last night to eat crow about missing a scheduled appearance on the show. What struck me was how much I like John McCain when he is being John McCain. When he is in political mode – he makes me turn away. So there I was watching the two different McCain’s talk when it dawned on me why I am bothered by it. It doesn’t work.

The idea behind the straight talk express was for McCain to be McCain. It worked getting him the nomination because there is a lot of substance there. Not everyone in the Republican Party wanted him, but enough did to cause the others to drop out. But getting your Party’s nomination and winning the election are two different things which McCain soon found out would be his situation. He needed the Republican base and that base doesn’t want straight talk they want red meat.

Enter Sarah Palin. She is everything that McCain is not to the base. An evangelical-gun loving-gay loathing-conservative values-liberal hating-rhetoric spewing answer to what is all wrong with America. She is the artery-clogging red meat that was necessary to “energize” the folks that now make up the base of the Republican Party. These are the same ones that would have stayed home on Election Day because McCain was just not conservative enough for them.

So McCain parked the straight talk bus and tried to disguise himself as red meat too. Trouble is he is not. Parker and Stone can make South Park work because they understand both aspects of what their show has to be in order for it to be successful. When they are crude it is because they themselves think it is funny – they get it. And when they parody and lampoon - they get that too. They understand it because they can relate to it, and because they relate to it they can pull it off.

McCain does not understand or relate to the base he needs for support so when he tries to placate them it falls flat and the attempt turns me away. He is substance only and substance doesn’t sell to the Republican base that doesn’t want to hear straight talk. They want to hear and be fed terrible things about Obama – and McCain don’t play that – at least not very well.

Neither Obama nor McCain will win because of the votes from people like me. We are drowned out by the “kill him” mindset that makes up too many of my fellow Americans. They care little about the substance in the rhetoric thrown to them. This needs to change. Call me naive but I really do think straight talk and hope are tangible but only if their messengers believe fully in them.

"You know what, I've learned something today…"