Scoring Points with Jesus

I was going to write a positive blog, really, I was. I went to find the story on our newspaper’s website, and gosh darn it, there was a response to it that begs for a comment. It’s too long to post here, but the article the comment can be found here. My response to Mr. Pampell is as follows:

This outrage Mr. Pampell feels has probably more to do with the pain he is experiencing as his greed beats into submission what is left of his humanity then the improper use of one of Jesus’ teachings by Pastor Idom.

If the stories and parables in the bible, especially in the new testament, are not to be used in our daily lives to better ourselves and thus bring us closer to God, then what possible reason is there for reading the bible or going to church? Apparently to some, when Jesus’ words run contrary to what they want then they either shoot the messenger or twist them to bring them in line. Pastor Idom used this story as a means of testing the validity of what we was thinking with how he should be thinking. When he was honest with himself, he concluded that his opposition was not in line with how he thinks God would expect him to behave.

The idea that God’s gifts to Mr. Pampell and his like - in the form of property - are being stolen to pay for health care shows exactly how high material possessions are placed in his obligation to his fellow man. Apparently all we need to do is pray harder for those that are not insured, and trust in our churches to come to the rescue. News flash, if “philanthropy, compassion, and consideration” were in abundant supply we would not be in this predicament. The fact that one can “walk into any emergency room in need of medical care, and you shall receive it, regardless of your ability to pay” is not a health care system. Who does Mr. Pampell think pays for this service? God?

It comes down to this. We have a system that does not provide equal health care to all. We have a health care system that will cause some people to go without, wait until it is too late, or cause financial ruin. So the question becomes do I have an obligation to them? And, if you include the Jesus element, are these not my neighbor he speaks about in the Good Samaritan parable? Its not robbing you to ask you to contribute to the same system you will access and use.

I, like Pastor Idom, believe I have an obligation to care for my fellow man. We are not talking about giving them access to power, or a bridge, or art, or a road. We are talking about health care for all – before you need it and when you need it, access that is not encumbered by fear of hurting ones family because of the cost. Whether the church will pay for it through my tithe, I pay for it out of philanthropy, or I pay for it in the form of a tax, one way or another all my fellow brothers and sisters must have the same care necessary to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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.

It is what it is or is it?

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele on NPR's Morning Edition

You have Medicare. You have Amtrak. You have the Post Office - all these government-run agencies that try to inject themselves into private markets typically don't do too well. My only point is that, okay, Medicare is what it is. It's not going anywhere. So let's focus on fixing it so that we don't every three, five, 10 years have discussions about bankruptcy and running out of money.

There is no argument with his last point. However, his first point must be addressed.

I am perplexed at the comments that come from the right. They are either purposely designed to perpetuate an idea- to distrust government's abilities in order to reduce it's standing - or they actually believe their comments to be true. I am beginning to think that the right has pushed aside intellectuals and instead welcomed in a leadership that believes in an idea but without an understanding of what is actually taking place.

So for the benefit of Mr. Steele and all those that think this way.

Private corporations have a mandate to serve their shareholders. Government corporations (medicare, Amtrak, the Post Office) have a mandate to serve the people. You cannot serve two masters. This is a truth and I welcome anyone to present an argument to the contrary.

Unless the shareholders choose to serve the people or are mandated through contract, law, regulation, or force, they will serve their own self-interest. Does this mean that those in charge of the government programs behave in an altruistic way? No, they too look out for their own self interests as well. The difference here is the mandate. You cannot compare Medicare, Amtrak, and the Post Office to how a corporation would do it. They work under two distinct different principles.

So my question is this. Did Haliburton provide a better service to our troops then the government would have with government employees? Did they do it more efficiently and at less cost?

The idea that government is inefficient because it is government is a myth. Its problems are from lack of will and resolve, made worse by a party that believes itself to benefit more from its failure than from its success. If we are served better by corporations, then you would not hear any argument from me. We are not, simply because the corporation will always serve itself first over my needs. Give me the Post Office's foibles over Enron, Arthur Anderson, AIG, Bear Sterns, and GM any day.

So naively, I will try to put this argument to rest by showing how Mr. Steele is wrong. When FedEx needs to deliver a package to a remote rural address whom do they use? They use the Post Office. Why? Because the post office has a mandate to serve all addresses in the US, FedEx will only serve areas that are profitable - if there was not a Post Office FedEx would not deliver there unless the cost could be recouped. This is the same principle that awaits Medicare and Amtrak if we turn it over to the private sector.

For a little over $10.00 I can ship a box anywhere in the US by the Post Office. If you took FedEx and UPS out of the picture, this box would get delivered. However, if you take the Post Office away, many addresses would most likely no longer be served. Unless someone is willing to pay for it, corporations will only focus on endeavors that bring in the best rate of return. That is their mandate, and that is what they will do if you let them take over health care, the post office, or Amtrak. This corporate mandate serves you well if your are a shareholder, but it does not serve the people overall.

Let corporations take care of our wants and government take care of our needs.

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!

We are the handyman

“They think Government is the way to fix everything.”

Same line, different day. Liberals want Government to take care of everything, conservatives want little Government involvement. Oh, if it was only that simple. It is in the mind of the 21st century conservative fed on a diet of rhetoric and government bashing. But I just sit there, mum, caught between wanting to challenge them on this idea but faced with the reality that it will isolate me in the community as well as it will not do anything to change their thinking. These people are too well indoctrinated into the idea that government is bad.

Glen Beck’s Point 1: America is good.

How can America be good if its government is bad?

Glen Beck’s Point 9: The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Who is “me”? If it answers to me, then it does my bidding. What about the other 304 million citizens? Unless we are all on the same page we are going to have some issues that need to be sorted out. Well how about majority rules? Sounds fair, unless you are in the minority.

So my question to people who believe government is bad, or should not be the one to fix things, is this. If you do not task government with the responsibility of fixing problems associated with 304 million people trying to live together, who will be given this responsibility? Who decides what is a problem of “the common good” and what needs to be fixed? Who should be responsible for maintaining the "happiness" for the people?

The mantra from the right has been that government cannot fix things, it should not meddle, it should stay out of our lives, that I know best how to take care of my own business. In a sense, what is being fed to people is we do not need government, or at the very least, we need our government not yours.

The idea that “I know what is best for me” only works if what is best for you does not interfere with what is best for me. Anyone that thinks that people will do the right thing should watch what takes place in a store parking lot during “tax free” day. People do not do what is in the best interest of everyone, they do what is in their own self interest. Government can, and should, be tasked with doing what is in the common interest.

If America is good, as Glen Beck says it is, it is because of its 304 million people’s ability to function. The common good is the foundation for this. Good government maintains the happiness of the people. So let’s keep Beck’s point 1 “America is Good” and change Point 9 to something a little more Benjamin Franklin like:

Point 9: The government works for us. I sacrifice to the public good and in return my government procures and secures my happiness.

We the people = We the government. If the government can't fix problems then we can't fix problems. If the government is the enemy of the people then the enemy is us.

You get the point.

US History with a dash of Newt

In today’s paper “Plans for texts has many riled up – Texas public school students should learn about Newt Gingrich and other conservative politicians but not liberals according to the first draft of proposed standards” all brought to you by the Texas State Board of Education.

First thought through my head was “to the victors go the spoils” which, as I was told as a kid, means that history is written by those in control. Now I don’t expect much from the same group that had a religious neocon at its lead and just recently hired another one in his place. These folks have an agenda, they are biased, and really don’t care about truth or fairness if it runs counter to what they want and believe.

But to be fair, I cannot just take what the “liberal” press feeds me, because you know they have an agenda too – just ask Sarah Palin. No, but really, the press is prone to misunderstanding just like the rest of us, and since everyone quotes and presents the same story, if it is wrong to start with it gets passed on as wrong. So being the good lil’ scientist I am, I find the document and the passage.

Now I have no idea if the group that put this together had an agenda to snub liberals or indoctrinate our youth to think and become conservative. It is possible that what they were trying to do is show the shift in mindset as we moved into the 21st century. That shift, like it or not, was towards conservative views and policy ushered in by Newt Gingrich and the moral majority it it changes the lay of the land significantly. So it is possible that there was no mention of liberal movers and shakers because they played very little in this shift.

On the other hand, the requirement to study Phyllis Schlafly does not hold well for this argument, in my opinion, since she was no more a player in this process as anyone on the left or right. Understanding how Conservative advocacy is how one “understands the circumstances of the US as it emerges into the 21st century." Students should know how it came about, who the players were, and how it took place.

So before we tar and feather these guys for promoting their conservative agenda. Let’s back off a bit and hear what they have to say. If my take is correct, then it is important for kids to know, because I was also told way back when that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes again.

Listening without hearing

Proof that people will yell support for anything, regardless of what was just said.

Borat at rodeo: "May George Bush drink the blood drink the blood of every single man, woman, and child of Iraq"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.


Blue October - Argue with a tree - intro to James: "This is a song about hurting someones feelings so bad"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.


NPR - Man to Rep Brian Baird (D-WA) at a health care town-hall meeting: "I am a marine, as a disabled veteran that served this country, I have kept my oath, do you ever intend to keep yours?"

Crowd: Whoops and hollers in support.

This was right after (but not caught on tape) the crowd was demanding to know if AmeriCorps volunteers were arming to take over the country and whether the health care plan would dictate how parents would raise their children.

$10 bucks says they whooped and hollered at that too.