I've been reading a lot about the horrid threats against Democrats after the passage of the health care bill. Mr. Krugman in the New York Times went has far as to say he'd never seen anything like it. So for those of you who think this is a first-time thing, never happened before, etc etc... let me refresh your memory.
Kill Bush Anyone?
Snipers Wanted?
Vandalism?
Bullet Riddled Political Headquarters?
Swastika in Madison?
Protesters Gone Wild?
And those are just the ones I could find easily. Let's not forget one Kenneth Gladly getting the snot beat out of him at a Tea Party Protest by those who support the Progressive movement. That was recent. Or the death threats to Sarah Palin and her family now circulating on twitter.
Righteous indignation is falling short. I'm truly not interested in hearing anymore stories about threatening phone calls to Congressman. Very few on the other side were condemning the above attacks when they were happening. Especially all those "Kill Bush" signs. It was just peaceful protesters practicing their first amendment rights...remember?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Re-Branding?
I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago about the state of America and American politics, and what needed to be done differently. He actually asked me to write this blog. He may discover he doesn't much like what I have to say. However, I've discovered that somewhere along the way most people don't like what I have to say. I get over it.
Do the Republicans need to be "re-branded"? Well, I think there is no doubt, after the losses in both 2006 and 2008 that they need to do something. I don't think it's re-branding though. I think it's a simple return to the policies that once got them elected. Let's face it, they must have "something" worth selling. A Republican has occupied the White House 20 out of the last 30 years. My friend says we need to go back to the days of Reagan, and I won't disagree with that. But what does that mean, really? I see a whole lot of Republican/Conservatives who have a very different meaning to what the "Reagan Years" were.
***Side Note*** Okay, before I go any further, I'm going to mention that I am not a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. I haven't been for years. Because of that, maybe I am the wrong person to discuss what the Republican Party needs to do. I'll give it a shot anyway.
I've watched politics and essentially the Republican Party go down the drain for a long time. I was part of the "Contract With American" generation. As a matter of fact, the year the Republicans took back both the House and the Senate for the first time in a long time, it was only the second year I was legally old enough to vote in an election. I liked the product the Republicans were selling, and I voted for them.
Over the years, as the Republicans became entrenched in Washington, they cared less about those 10 things they promised to do for "we the people". Those 10 things were forgotten. Essentially (and a lot of people aren't going to like this) Republicans became "Democrat-Lite". No, that's not fair. There are some GOOD Democrats out there. Republicans became "Liberal-Lite".
George W. Bush got elected to the Presidency on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism" whatever that means. After a mere 7 months in office, 9/11 happened. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, our country had been attacked on it's own soil. Compassionate Conservatism was forgotten in the wake of a damaged economy and the sudden realization that we were not as safe as we thought we were. First we went to Afghanistan, then Iraq, and as the months passed and the body county rose, people in America started to become unhappy with those wars. On top of that, a little nut-job, low-life named Osama Bin Laden was (and still is) running around loose. The mastermind hadn't been caught, and as young men and women shed their blood, more people became frustrated with what was happening militarily. Meanwhile, the Republicans had learned some very interesting lessons from their "liberal" counterparts, and a few they hadn't learned. They cut taxes, but they spent money as fast and sometimes faster than those Liberals. There were several "scandals" that plagued both the Congress and the Administration. Too many people looked at the Republicans and they had enough. In 2006 they lost both the House and the Senate, in 2008 the Presidency, and the cries came that "Conservatism was dead".
Um, no. Republicanism is dead. The truth is Conservatives and Moderates looked at the Republican Party and they weren't buying it anymore. Don't believe me? In the same year that the R's got ousted from the House/Senate, California voters rejected tax hikes, 6 states (including more than one liberal state) banned gay marriage, and Michigan voted a huge resounding no on Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences. All very conservative based policies.
Now, as far as I know, the Republican Party Platform hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan. At least not that dramatically. The Party itself still endorses all those things... Lower Taxes, Less Spending, Less Government Interference, Personal Responsibility, A Strong National Defense, etc... Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans elected didn't actually FOLLOW those platform principles.
The Republican Party doesn't need a new brand or a "re-brand". They simple need to remember what exactly they are supposed to stand for.
The responsibility doesn't just lie with Republicans though. It lies with all the idiots who vote for them, simply because they have an "R" next to their name. If you question that, I have two words for you: Arlen Specter.
A few short weeks ago, Mass. voters elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Scott Brown didn't ride around the state in a fancy bus. He bought a pickup truck and put 250,000 miles on it going out to meet regular voters. He promised them he'd stop out of control spending in congress. He promised that he would represent the people who voted to put him there. He would be "the people's senator". He would treat terrorists like terrorists. He would stand on the principle of strong family and personal responsibility. In essence Scott Brown ran on the Republican Platform, and he won in a state that doesn't vote for Republicans. Because the truth is, the average American voter, stands in the same place.
There are a lot of social issues that we may differ on, but the party that holds to Fiscal Conservatism and smaller government is in touch with a lot more average Americans. All the Republican Party needs to do, is get back to being that party.
Do the Republicans need to be "re-branded"? Well, I think there is no doubt, after the losses in both 2006 and 2008 that they need to do something. I don't think it's re-branding though. I think it's a simple return to the policies that once got them elected. Let's face it, they must have "something" worth selling. A Republican has occupied the White House 20 out of the last 30 years. My friend says we need to go back to the days of Reagan, and I won't disagree with that. But what does that mean, really? I see a whole lot of Republican/Conservatives who have a very different meaning to what the "Reagan Years" were.
***Side Note*** Okay, before I go any further, I'm going to mention that I am not a card-carrying member of the Republican Party. I haven't been for years. Because of that, maybe I am the wrong person to discuss what the Republican Party needs to do. I'll give it a shot anyway.
I've watched politics and essentially the Republican Party go down the drain for a long time. I was part of the "Contract With American" generation. As a matter of fact, the year the Republicans took back both the House and the Senate for the first time in a long time, it was only the second year I was legally old enough to vote in an election. I liked the product the Republicans were selling, and I voted for them.
Over the years, as the Republicans became entrenched in Washington, they cared less about those 10 things they promised to do for "we the people". Those 10 things were forgotten. Essentially (and a lot of people aren't going to like this) Republicans became "Democrat-Lite". No, that's not fair. There are some GOOD Democrats out there. Republicans became "Liberal-Lite".
George W. Bush got elected to the Presidency on a platform of "Compassionate Conservatism" whatever that means. After a mere 7 months in office, 9/11 happened. For the first time since Pearl Harbor, our country had been attacked on it's own soil. Compassionate Conservatism was forgotten in the wake of a damaged economy and the sudden realization that we were not as safe as we thought we were. First we went to Afghanistan, then Iraq, and as the months passed and the body county rose, people in America started to become unhappy with those wars. On top of that, a little nut-job, low-life named Osama Bin Laden was (and still is) running around loose. The mastermind hadn't been caught, and as young men and women shed their blood, more people became frustrated with what was happening militarily. Meanwhile, the Republicans had learned some very interesting lessons from their "liberal" counterparts, and a few they hadn't learned. They cut taxes, but they spent money as fast and sometimes faster than those Liberals. There were several "scandals" that plagued both the Congress and the Administration. Too many people looked at the Republicans and they had enough. In 2006 they lost both the House and the Senate, in 2008 the Presidency, and the cries came that "Conservatism was dead".
Um, no. Republicanism is dead. The truth is Conservatives and Moderates looked at the Republican Party and they weren't buying it anymore. Don't believe me? In the same year that the R's got ousted from the House/Senate, California voters rejected tax hikes, 6 states (including more than one liberal state) banned gay marriage, and Michigan voted a huge resounding no on Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences. All very conservative based policies.
Now, as far as I know, the Republican Party Platform hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan. At least not that dramatically. The Party itself still endorses all those things... Lower Taxes, Less Spending, Less Government Interference, Personal Responsibility, A Strong National Defense, etc... Actions speak louder than words. The Republicans elected didn't actually FOLLOW those platform principles.
The Republican Party doesn't need a new brand or a "re-brand". They simple need to remember what exactly they are supposed to stand for.
The responsibility doesn't just lie with Republicans though. It lies with all the idiots who vote for them, simply because they have an "R" next to their name. If you question that, I have two words for you: Arlen Specter.
A few short weeks ago, Mass. voters elected Scott Brown to the Senate. Scott Brown didn't ride around the state in a fancy bus. He bought a pickup truck and put 250,000 miles on it going out to meet regular voters. He promised them he'd stop out of control spending in congress. He promised that he would represent the people who voted to put him there. He would be "the people's senator". He would treat terrorists like terrorists. He would stand on the principle of strong family and personal responsibility. In essence Scott Brown ran on the Republican Platform, and he won in a state that doesn't vote for Republicans. Because the truth is, the average American voter, stands in the same place.
There are a lot of social issues that we may differ on, but the party that holds to Fiscal Conservatism and smaller government is in touch with a lot more average Americans. All the Republican Party needs to do, is get back to being that party.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Thoughts on the MA Election (and other things)
Maybe I should change my blog name to "morning after". Truly though, after the election last year, and much of what's gone on since, I took a long break from the political side of my blogging. (For those of you with a more personal connection to me, I do still blog on that side of the fence haha) I didn't stop reading the news, or watching what was going on, but I did stop commenting on it. The truth is, I'm tired of the same tired arguments, and interested in people stepping back from their parties and really looking at what we need to do to get back America. (I can say this proudly as a non-card carrying member of any party. Yay!)
First of all, to those of you who have made mention of Fox News in relation to the Scott Brown Campaign. Um, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. It was okay for all of those networks to basically become arms of the Democratic Party during the 2008 Presidential Election, but you are seriously going to whine about ONE network in ONE election? More importantly, sites like Instapundit.com and Redstate.com have been reaching out to their network of readers for months, LONG before Fox news jumped on the bandwagon.
Second, the GOP has no right to claim victory in this election beyond the "R" attached to Senator-Elect Brown's name. In a state like Massachusetts where admitting you are Republican isn't entirely healthy, I would say a lot more then Republicans voted for this candidate.
Third, the "tea bagger" references need to stop. This is a crude sexual reference to a group of people who do not identify with a party, they identify themselves as Americans. They are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They are tired of of way government is being run. They are not real fond of either major party. They come from every background. If you don't like what they stand for, fine. But making crude sexual references to a group of people is not considered good political debate. (For the record neither is calling someone an idiot, ignorant, dumb or stupid. Just saying)
Now, moving on to my thoughts on what this election means.
First of all, Martha Coakley's campaign was dealt two death blows that she had nothing to do with. When the Senate Leadership bought off Senator Nelson, it pissed off the American people. In a big way. Color the American Public stupid, because we all know that stuff happens all the time. However, the health care debate, if you can call it that, took place where the public was kept in the dark. Let's face it, we are STILL in the dark about everything that's in that 2,000 page atrocity. And a good way to piss off the rest of the country is to promise that the rest of us schlubs are going to be footing the bill for Nebraska for the rest of our lives, our childrens lives, our grand childrens lives, etc. Then news came out that the American taxpayer was also buying off Louisiana to the tune of 300 million dollars. And if that wasn't enough, we got the news that while the Senate was going to tax "cadillac" health care plans to pay for their 2,000 page monstrosity, the unions were going to be exempt from that tax for 5 years. The collective response across the country was WTF? Ms. Coakley didn't have a say in either of those things, but the (D) next to her name doomed her to take credit for them regardless. (Much the same way anyone with an (R) next to their name gets labeled as George W. Bush...still.) In all fairness, both of those things were beyond the candidates control, and she got labeled with them, however unfairly. I will however say that when she said there was no Taliban in Afghanistan.... or that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan... those things probably didn't help. The simple truth is, I believe, that Democrats thought since it was Massachusetts and it was Ted Kennedy's seat, they couldn't lose. Assumptions are bad things.
I've heard many pundits say this is a referendum against President Obama's agenda. Maybe. What I truly think you are seeing is this. In 2006, after 6 years of us spending money like it was water, and driving our nation into deeper debt, not to mention more than a few scandals, the American people wanted change. So they did what is so great about this country. They took power away from the people screwing up, and handed it to someone else. That's the basic principle this country was founded on. The power to change things lies with the people. Now it's 3 years later. In the space of a year we've spent 780 billion dollars on a stimulus plan that failed to do what was promised, we spent over 1 trillion dollars bailing out companies, another how many billions essentially buying car companies, etc etc etc. Our debt is astronomical. We were promised transparency, and yet we haven't seen a whole lot of CSPAN cameras covering the meetings involving the health care bill. We were promised ethics, and yet we've seen a lot of really unethical things going on. See, we were promised change, and change didn't happen. I understand that we need some kind of health care reform, and I think it can be done working within the framework of our country, but when millions of people are without jobs (me included), and families are struggling to put food on their tables, worried about paying their mortgages, and barely getting by, they don't want Congress taking on some MASSIVE output of money. And Healthcare is a MASSIVE output of money, money this country doesn't have to spend. So, I feel more likely that this is a referendum against Congress and the Senate.
The question is, are the Democrats smarter than their Republican counterparts? Are they smart enough to sit back and listen to the people they say they are looking out for? A majority of this country does not want either one of the health care bills currently making the rounds in the halls of power. When I hear the leadership stand up and say they are going to pass it anyway, I wonder when they forgot that they are at will employees of the citizens of the United States of America. We never lost the ability to decide what is best for us. And right now, at this point in time, this is NOT good for us or our country. Hopefully, this morning, they are sitting back and rethinking exactly what their priorities should be. If they do that, they stand a chance of retaining the mandate they believe they have. If they don't, 2010 could very well look much like last night.
That's really all I have to say. For now anyway.
my time is running short. Other more pressing needs are calling me to stop writing. I have not proof read this, so if there is a typo or stray spelling error, it's because I didn't have the time to correct them all. Please don't label me an idiot for it. That will get any comments quickly deleted. Remember, calling someone an idiot is NOT good debate.
First of all, to those of you who have made mention of Fox News in relation to the Scott Brown Campaign. Um, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. It was okay for all of those networks to basically become arms of the Democratic Party during the 2008 Presidential Election, but you are seriously going to whine about ONE network in ONE election? More importantly, sites like Instapundit.com and Redstate.com have been reaching out to their network of readers for months, LONG before Fox news jumped on the bandwagon.
Second, the GOP has no right to claim victory in this election beyond the "R" attached to Senator-Elect Brown's name. In a state like Massachusetts where admitting you are Republican isn't entirely healthy, I would say a lot more then Republicans voted for this candidate.
Third, the "tea bagger" references need to stop. This is a crude sexual reference to a group of people who do not identify with a party, they identify themselves as Americans. They are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They are tired of of way government is being run. They are not real fond of either major party. They come from every background. If you don't like what they stand for, fine. But making crude sexual references to a group of people is not considered good political debate. (For the record neither is calling someone an idiot, ignorant, dumb or stupid. Just saying)
Now, moving on to my thoughts on what this election means.
First of all, Martha Coakley's campaign was dealt two death blows that she had nothing to do with. When the Senate Leadership bought off Senator Nelson, it pissed off the American people. In a big way. Color the American Public stupid, because we all know that stuff happens all the time. However, the health care debate, if you can call it that, took place where the public was kept in the dark. Let's face it, we are STILL in the dark about everything that's in that 2,000 page atrocity. And a good way to piss off the rest of the country is to promise that the rest of us schlubs are going to be footing the bill for Nebraska for the rest of our lives, our childrens lives, our grand childrens lives, etc. Then news came out that the American taxpayer was also buying off Louisiana to the tune of 300 million dollars. And if that wasn't enough, we got the news that while the Senate was going to tax "cadillac" health care plans to pay for their 2,000 page monstrosity, the unions were going to be exempt from that tax for 5 years. The collective response across the country was WTF? Ms. Coakley didn't have a say in either of those things, but the (D) next to her name doomed her to take credit for them regardless. (Much the same way anyone with an (R) next to their name gets labeled as George W. Bush...still.) In all fairness, both of those things were beyond the candidates control, and she got labeled with them, however unfairly. I will however say that when she said there was no Taliban in Afghanistan.... or that Curt Schilling was a Yankees fan... those things probably didn't help. The simple truth is, I believe, that Democrats thought since it was Massachusetts and it was Ted Kennedy's seat, they couldn't lose. Assumptions are bad things.
I've heard many pundits say this is a referendum against President Obama's agenda. Maybe. What I truly think you are seeing is this. In 2006, after 6 years of us spending money like it was water, and driving our nation into deeper debt, not to mention more than a few scandals, the American people wanted change. So they did what is so great about this country. They took power away from the people screwing up, and handed it to someone else. That's the basic principle this country was founded on. The power to change things lies with the people. Now it's 3 years later. In the space of a year we've spent 780 billion dollars on a stimulus plan that failed to do what was promised, we spent over 1 trillion dollars bailing out companies, another how many billions essentially buying car companies, etc etc etc. Our debt is astronomical. We were promised transparency, and yet we haven't seen a whole lot of CSPAN cameras covering the meetings involving the health care bill. We were promised ethics, and yet we've seen a lot of really unethical things going on. See, we were promised change, and change didn't happen. I understand that we need some kind of health care reform, and I think it can be done working within the framework of our country, but when millions of people are without jobs (me included), and families are struggling to put food on their tables, worried about paying their mortgages, and barely getting by, they don't want Congress taking on some MASSIVE output of money. And Healthcare is a MASSIVE output of money, money this country doesn't have to spend. So, I feel more likely that this is a referendum against Congress and the Senate.
The question is, are the Democrats smarter than their Republican counterparts? Are they smart enough to sit back and listen to the people they say they are looking out for? A majority of this country does not want either one of the health care bills currently making the rounds in the halls of power. When I hear the leadership stand up and say they are going to pass it anyway, I wonder when they forgot that they are at will employees of the citizens of the United States of America. We never lost the ability to decide what is best for us. And right now, at this point in time, this is NOT good for us or our country. Hopefully, this morning, they are sitting back and rethinking exactly what their priorities should be. If they do that, they stand a chance of retaining the mandate they believe they have. If they don't, 2010 could very well look much like last night.
That's really all I have to say. For now anyway.
my time is running short. Other more pressing needs are calling me to stop writing. I have not proof read this, so if there is a typo or stray spelling error, it's because I didn't have the time to correct them all. Please don't label me an idiot for it. That will get any comments quickly deleted. Remember, calling someone an idiot is NOT good debate.
Friday, August 7, 2009
The Dangers of Being Unemployed
There are many dangers to being unemployed - not having enought money to pay bills, looking for a job in this economy, boredom. But the biggest danger I've seen so far is that I read too much news, and actually have started reading the 1000+ page healthcare bill from Congress. I've only gotten through the first 50 pages. To put it nicely, reading a 1000 page book on just about any other subject would be better than trying to read through this bill. There is quite a bit of "see section xxxx, x, x, x,.1" in this that I'm not sure I'll ever quite understand all the ins and outs, and yet, I'm doing it.
Within the first 50 pages, I've already found places where both sides have been wrong. It is a fact that 5 years after the bill is passed you may not be able to keep your current insurance even if you like it. And if you switch your insurance in that 5 year period, you will have to use the government exchange. You can still buy a private plan, but that plan will have to include what the government tells it to include.
I have not yet found a section that mandates covering abortions, the closest we come is "family planning", and while that could include abortion, it doesn't necessarily include abortion yet. I'll let you know if that provision does crop up later in the bill.
Something else of note: there are certain "taxes" that will be imposed for certain things. And in one place it actually says "This tax imposed under this chapter will not be treated as a tax". Kinda makes you think these people are really trying to pull one over on us, right? (I haven't gotten to that section yet, but someone pointed it out to me. It's there - page 203 lines 14 and 15)
The purpose for me reading this bill is because we are hearing "it says that", "no it doesn't say that", and since I'm not sure half the people opining on this have actually read it, I'm going to read it and find out what it really says. At this point, I can point to the only major lie I have seen. President Obama keeps saying "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it". That's not true Mr. President. Not really. What you need to be saying is "If you like your insurance plan you can keep it for 5 years. At that time, if that plan doesn't meet our mandates you will not be able to keep it, unless it changes to meet our mandates. And then, it may not be the plan you liked and wanted to keep."
I have noticed several other things in this debate and I'm going to opine and ask questions:
1 - The President himself once said "I'm not familiar with that portion of the bill". Please, Mr. President, if you are going to push Health Insurance Reform, could you at least be part of the process? This is your idea, and yet, you seemed to have handed control of it over to the Congress and Senate, and you aren't even sure about everything that's in it.
2 - The debate changed over the last month from "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurance Reform". Please explain that change?
3. According to the Bill coverage with this new plan won't start until 2013, and even then the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will only cover about 16 million of the uninsured, meaning that of the "47 million" we keep hearing about, 31 million of them will remained uncovered at a price tag of at least 1 trillion dollars. So are these 31 million not Americans and not entitled to coverage? Who are these people who will ultimately not be covered by the bill that's supposed to make sure EVERYONE has affordable coverage?
4. Why the rush? If this is the biggest thing we need to tackle, the biggest problem we have, why not take the time to do it right? Mr. President, you gave these people 3 weeks to write a bill, and you actually wanted them to pass it in that time too. Can we please give them the time to do the right thing? Please?
I truly do believe there needs to be reform. I have several ideas I'd like to express to my Representatives about that reform. But the truth is, a good bi-partisan effort with the American people involved is going to take time. The President once said that he envisioned the meetings taking place on C-Span and having all kinds of people in on the discussion. This current bill was written in committee with people from Congress - no constituents, no doctors - just career politicians. That's not the way health care or, I'm sorry, health insurance reform should be handled. It's not the way the President told us it would be handled.
Within the first 50 pages, I've already found places where both sides have been wrong. It is a fact that 5 years after the bill is passed you may not be able to keep your current insurance even if you like it. And if you switch your insurance in that 5 year period, you will have to use the government exchange. You can still buy a private plan, but that plan will have to include what the government tells it to include.
I have not yet found a section that mandates covering abortions, the closest we come is "family planning", and while that could include abortion, it doesn't necessarily include abortion yet. I'll let you know if that provision does crop up later in the bill.
Something else of note: there are certain "taxes" that will be imposed for certain things. And in one place it actually says "This tax imposed under this chapter will not be treated as a tax". Kinda makes you think these people are really trying to pull one over on us, right? (I haven't gotten to that section yet, but someone pointed it out to me. It's there - page 203 lines 14 and 15)
The purpose for me reading this bill is because we are hearing "it says that", "no it doesn't say that", and since I'm not sure half the people opining on this have actually read it, I'm going to read it and find out what it really says. At this point, I can point to the only major lie I have seen. President Obama keeps saying "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it". That's not true Mr. President. Not really. What you need to be saying is "If you like your insurance plan you can keep it for 5 years. At that time, if that plan doesn't meet our mandates you will not be able to keep it, unless it changes to meet our mandates. And then, it may not be the plan you liked and wanted to keep."
I have noticed several other things in this debate and I'm going to opine and ask questions:
1 - The President himself once said "I'm not familiar with that portion of the bill". Please, Mr. President, if you are going to push Health Insurance Reform, could you at least be part of the process? This is your idea, and yet, you seemed to have handed control of it over to the Congress and Senate, and you aren't even sure about everything that's in it.
2 - The debate changed over the last month from "Health Care Reform" to "Health Insurance Reform". Please explain that change?
3. According to the Bill coverage with this new plan won't start until 2013, and even then the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will only cover about 16 million of the uninsured, meaning that of the "47 million" we keep hearing about, 31 million of them will remained uncovered at a price tag of at least 1 trillion dollars. So are these 31 million not Americans and not entitled to coverage? Who are these people who will ultimately not be covered by the bill that's supposed to make sure EVERYONE has affordable coverage?
4. Why the rush? If this is the biggest thing we need to tackle, the biggest problem we have, why not take the time to do it right? Mr. President, you gave these people 3 weeks to write a bill, and you actually wanted them to pass it in that time too. Can we please give them the time to do the right thing? Please?
I truly do believe there needs to be reform. I have several ideas I'd like to express to my Representatives about that reform. But the truth is, a good bi-partisan effort with the American people involved is going to take time. The President once said that he envisioned the meetings taking place on C-Span and having all kinds of people in on the discussion. This current bill was written in committee with people from Congress - no constituents, no doctors - just career politicians. That's not the way health care or, I'm sorry, health insurance reform should be handled. It's not the way the President told us it would be handled.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Stupidly
The word "stupidly" seems to have made a comeback in the last week. It all started when the press asked President Obama how he felt about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates for disorderly conduct. Professor Gates, a Harvard Professor, was arrested after a passer-by reported what looked like an attempted break-in. It turns out it wasn't a break-in, just the Professor trying to get in his own house. Now, I have locked myself out of the house and had to crawl in a window on more than one occasion, but have never had my neighbors or anyone else call the cops. However, had that been the case, I would have been happy to provide the officers with proof that I lived in said residence, and then let them go on their way. It's their job to investigate when something like that is reported, and I would be grateful that someone actually was trying to protect my private property. Mr. Gates wasn't so grateful, and for some reason unknown to any of us, he started bullying and threatening the police officer (Mr. Crowley). He even called him a racist. He was arrested. And the President said "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly". It set off a firestorm that had the FOP and many other people shaking their heads and wondering if the President understands anything about law enforcement.
Some news stations have berated the poor woman who made the 9-1-1 call, actually laughing because it appeared she didn't know her "neighbor", except it turns out she wasn't his neighbor but a passer-by playing the good Samaritan.
But I digress, really, because the fact is, even after the President made it clear that he didn't know all of the facts of the case, he still had to make a pronouncement that the arrest was a stupid move. Now, I'm not convinced it wasn't overkill, but overkill doesn't mean racist. I'm sure had the arresting officer been black, and the homeowner white, this wouldn't have even entered the collective thought process other than to shrug our shoulders and say "it happens".
The other day someone I was talking to brought this up in a round about sort of way saying that 6 months wasn't enough time to judge the President, and too many people were freaking out because there was a "darkie" in the White House. I blinked. Um, first of all, even jokingly, most people wouldn't use the term "darkie" - at least not people in my circles. Maybe we are too used to being accused of being racists for any number of reasons, but um... yeah... we wouldn't use that term. Second, I don't remember hearing a single commentator in the last 18 months (which is about as far back as my memory goes) make any reference to not wanting to vote for President Obama because he was black, and once he won, I don't remember any of them freaking out because there was a black man in the White House. So I asked, innocently enough, "Who said there was a problem with a black man in the White House?" I got this response "Glenn Beck called him racist."
Calling someone a racist doesn't necessarily mean you have a problem with their skin color does it? I mean, I know racists, both black and white, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid or upset with either white or black people because of it. Do I think Glenn was correct in his assumption? I don't know. I didn't hear the clip, and I haven't read more than that one sentence, so I'm going to vote present on that one. But, I think a point can be made that even after admitting he didn't have all the facts, President Obama's "stupidly" remark came off looking like he was looking for a racist in the situation. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't the black guy. At best, he jumped to an absurd conclusion that was in no means backed up by facts later revealed, not only about the case, but about the officer in question. At worst, he was confirming or agreeing with Mr. Gates that the officer in question had used racial profling in this case. (Although, I know for a fact, having worked in the 9-1-1 center, that the officer was just doing his job in requesting ID to confirm that the subject in the house, was, in fact, the owner.)
The fact is, the only two people in this case who acted stupidly were the President and his friend, Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates, had he really thought there was an issue, could have addressed it afterwards with Mr. Crowley's superiors. We took calls to the 911 center about that all the time - someone had an issue with the officer and wanted to speak to the chief. The President should have been smart and said "I don't know all the facts of the case, and as such, I think it would be inappropriate for me to offer an opinion at this time". Maybe a few liberal elite people might have been perturbed, but the rest of the country would have nodded their heads and said "smart man, our President".
Instead, today, people across the country aren't wondering if our President doesn't see all white people as potential criminals or hate-mongers just waiting to happen. I don't believe that either, by the way. I just think he rushed to make his judgment, and he's paying for it now.
And by the way...from this point forward, I thinkt he word "stupidly" should be banned.
Some news stations have berated the poor woman who made the 9-1-1 call, actually laughing because it appeared she didn't know her "neighbor", except it turns out she wasn't his neighbor but a passer-by playing the good Samaritan.
But I digress, really, because the fact is, even after the President made it clear that he didn't know all of the facts of the case, he still had to make a pronouncement that the arrest was a stupid move. Now, I'm not convinced it wasn't overkill, but overkill doesn't mean racist. I'm sure had the arresting officer been black, and the homeowner white, this wouldn't have even entered the collective thought process other than to shrug our shoulders and say "it happens".
The other day someone I was talking to brought this up in a round about sort of way saying that 6 months wasn't enough time to judge the President, and too many people were freaking out because there was a "darkie" in the White House. I blinked. Um, first of all, even jokingly, most people wouldn't use the term "darkie" - at least not people in my circles. Maybe we are too used to being accused of being racists for any number of reasons, but um... yeah... we wouldn't use that term. Second, I don't remember hearing a single commentator in the last 18 months (which is about as far back as my memory goes) make any reference to not wanting to vote for President Obama because he was black, and once he won, I don't remember any of them freaking out because there was a black man in the White House. So I asked, innocently enough, "Who said there was a problem with a black man in the White House?" I got this response "Glenn Beck called him racist."
Calling someone a racist doesn't necessarily mean you have a problem with their skin color does it? I mean, I know racists, both black and white, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid or upset with either white or black people because of it. Do I think Glenn was correct in his assumption? I don't know. I didn't hear the clip, and I haven't read more than that one sentence, so I'm going to vote present on that one. But, I think a point can be made that even after admitting he didn't have all the facts, President Obama's "stupidly" remark came off looking like he was looking for a racist in the situation. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't the black guy. At best, he jumped to an absurd conclusion that was in no means backed up by facts later revealed, not only about the case, but about the officer in question. At worst, he was confirming or agreeing with Mr. Gates that the officer in question had used racial profling in this case. (Although, I know for a fact, having worked in the 9-1-1 center, that the officer was just doing his job in requesting ID to confirm that the subject in the house, was, in fact, the owner.)
The fact is, the only two people in this case who acted stupidly were the President and his friend, Mr. Gates. Mr. Gates, had he really thought there was an issue, could have addressed it afterwards with Mr. Crowley's superiors. We took calls to the 911 center about that all the time - someone had an issue with the officer and wanted to speak to the chief. The President should have been smart and said "I don't know all the facts of the case, and as such, I think it would be inappropriate for me to offer an opinion at this time". Maybe a few liberal elite people might have been perturbed, but the rest of the country would have nodded their heads and said "smart man, our President".
Instead, today, people across the country aren't wondering if our President doesn't see all white people as potential criminals or hate-mongers just waiting to happen. I don't believe that either, by the way. I just think he rushed to make his judgment, and he's paying for it now.
And by the way...from this point forward, I thinkt he word "stupidly" should be banned.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Canned Pork Anyone?
When Congress was in the process of writing and passing the $787 billion stimulus, many Conservatives and Libertarians took to calling it the "Porkulus". Of course, that was based on the few things people actually found out before it passed. Now we can "track" our stimulus money. So this funny tidbit appeared on one of my many daily reading sites:
We, the taxpayers, have bought ourselves $16 million worth of canned pork from Lakeside Foods in Plainview, MN. It's actually listed as "Canned Pork" on the recovery.gov website.
If only I had the time to go through every project listed to see what we are actually buying. I just thought, since some of us claimed that the stimulus was packed with pork projects and election payoffs, that actually spending that kind of money on canned pork was...ironic.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the QUACAA to become available online so we can actually read it before it becomes law, and the President is pushing for that to happen for Congress takes it's paid month off come August 7th.
The Stimulus has not, contrary to the President's statements, done what it was supposed to do. We were told it would stop unemployment at 8% - it's at 9.5%. We were told it would save or create (how do you count saved jobs???) 3 million jobs. According to the President it's saved or created 150,000 jobs while the economy hemorrhaged 2.5 million jobs. And we still don't know how he's counting "jobs saved" - his own people don't even know. And now comes the news that he's not going to release his budget updated in July. He's going to wait until August, after Congress has already recessed and hopefully a passed a bill that the non-partisan Congressional Budget office says is going to cost us at least 1 trillion dollars. Maybe it is because it's a Presidential transition year, but hey, he was able to release an update in May, so why not now? Could it be that the numbers are bleak, and he's afraid it might sink the Health Care ship that is already taking on more water than a canoe with a cannon-ball sized whole in it?
I don't know - I'm still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with my share of $16 million dollars of canned pork.....
We, the taxpayers, have bought ourselves $16 million worth of canned pork from Lakeside Foods in Plainview, MN. It's actually listed as "Canned Pork" on the recovery.gov website.
If only I had the time to go through every project listed to see what we are actually buying. I just thought, since some of us claimed that the stimulus was packed with pork projects and election payoffs, that actually spending that kind of money on canned pork was...ironic.
Of course, I'm still waiting for the QUACAA to become available online so we can actually read it before it becomes law, and the President is pushing for that to happen for Congress takes it's paid month off come August 7th.
The Stimulus has not, contrary to the President's statements, done what it was supposed to do. We were told it would stop unemployment at 8% - it's at 9.5%. We were told it would save or create (how do you count saved jobs???) 3 million jobs. According to the President it's saved or created 150,000 jobs while the economy hemorrhaged 2.5 million jobs. And we still don't know how he's counting "jobs saved" - his own people don't even know. And now comes the news that he's not going to release his budget updated in July. He's going to wait until August, after Congress has already recessed and hopefully a passed a bill that the non-partisan Congressional Budget office says is going to cost us at least 1 trillion dollars. Maybe it is because it's a Presidential transition year, but hey, he was able to release an update in May, so why not now? Could it be that the numbers are bleak, and he's afraid it might sink the Health Care ship that is already taking on more water than a canoe with a cannon-ball sized whole in it?
I don't know - I'm still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do with my share of $16 million dollars of canned pork.....
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Fierce Moral Urgency
So, yet again yesterday, our President decided to hold a mini sales pitch, er... press conference, to sell his Health Care Reform. This comes after ABC's fawning 2 hour coverage, and after earlier this week all 3 major networks gave him the time to talk about it. I guess it's a good thing it's summer, and most programs on TV are re-runs. At least he won't be pissing off the average American Idol fan by pre-empting their show. (Yes, remember all those "stimulus" news conferences?)
Let's face it, the President is a darn good salesman. He sold the American Public his campaign, and they bought it. And not long after he won the election, he sold his Stimulus Plan, and manage to drum up enough support in the polls that Congress passed it. It also appears to have worked for Cap and Trade, but then, most people didn't support that. Congress voted for it anyway.
So with 60% of Americans not feeling an urgency to increase the deficit with another government run social program, President Obama is taking to the television airwaves and pitching this program too. With a fierce moral urgency.
Is this the same fierce moral urgency that led to a 787 billion dollar stimulus plan that was going to keep unemployment at 8% or lower? We keep hearing we have to do something now or it's going to get worse. But when we did do something "now" without having even read the full extent of what we were doing, things got much worse than they would have if we had left it alone. Once again, a bill is being rushed through Congress (like Stimulus I and II and Cap and Trade), no one will really get a chance to read it or understand everything that is in it, and we are doing it because it has to be done NOW.
You'll have to excuse me while I shake my head in disbelief.
I think most people forget that the Government isn't in the business of making money. If you doubt me, look at the US Postal Service and Amtrak, two Government Organizations that are Hemorrhaging money faster than GM and Chrysler before we bailed them out. The Government only has 1 source of income - the taxpayer. So every bill that is passed is going to require the taxpayer to pony up money to cover the expenses.
787 billion dollar Stimulus? That's right open your wallet (and btw, please don't talk to me about my "tax cut" that I was informed by my own employer that I would have to pay back come tax time next year).
Rising Energey Cost due to Cap and Trade? Open your wallet (because you know those companies will pass that tax hike right on down to you)
Universal Health Coverage? Get out your wallet.
And don't bother asking for that "transparancey" that we were promised. As of yet, not a single bill from Congress has been opened up to the American Public to read for 5 days before being signed into law. Not one. We still don't have any clue what was in the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and I'm sure we won't know what is in the Health Care Bill. Which by the way, has a really interesting name: QUACAA. Yes, prononced Caca.
Must have been a psychological slight by Congress.
I'm not against Health Care Reform. I'm against Health Care Reform that is going to cost trillions of dollars, going God-knows-where, and is run by a government that makes hand washing laundry look like the most effective thing in the world. Let's find a way to reform health care via the free market. Let's work together (which is not happening, in case you didn't notice - no Republicans in Congress voted for the Stimulus, only 8 voted for Cap and Trade, and I don't think many are planning to vote for the Health Care Bill - there's your "healing the great divide in the country"). There has to be something we can do without just approving some unknown bill that's modeled after other failed systems, right?
But there is that "fierce moral urgency" thing....
Let's face it, the President is a darn good salesman. He sold the American Public his campaign, and they bought it. And not long after he won the election, he sold his Stimulus Plan, and manage to drum up enough support in the polls that Congress passed it. It also appears to have worked for Cap and Trade, but then, most people didn't support that. Congress voted for it anyway.
So with 60% of Americans not feeling an urgency to increase the deficit with another government run social program, President Obama is taking to the television airwaves and pitching this program too. With a fierce moral urgency.
Is this the same fierce moral urgency that led to a 787 billion dollar stimulus plan that was going to keep unemployment at 8% or lower? We keep hearing we have to do something now or it's going to get worse. But when we did do something "now" without having even read the full extent of what we were doing, things got much worse than they would have if we had left it alone. Once again, a bill is being rushed through Congress (like Stimulus I and II and Cap and Trade), no one will really get a chance to read it or understand everything that is in it, and we are doing it because it has to be done NOW.
You'll have to excuse me while I shake my head in disbelief.
I think most people forget that the Government isn't in the business of making money. If you doubt me, look at the US Postal Service and Amtrak, two Government Organizations that are Hemorrhaging money faster than GM and Chrysler before we bailed them out. The Government only has 1 source of income - the taxpayer. So every bill that is passed is going to require the taxpayer to pony up money to cover the expenses.
787 billion dollar Stimulus? That's right open your wallet (and btw, please don't talk to me about my "tax cut" that I was informed by my own employer that I would have to pay back come tax time next year).
Rising Energey Cost due to Cap and Trade? Open your wallet (because you know those companies will pass that tax hike right on down to you)
Universal Health Coverage? Get out your wallet.
And don't bother asking for that "transparancey" that we were promised. As of yet, not a single bill from Congress has been opened up to the American Public to read for 5 days before being signed into law. Not one. We still don't have any clue what was in the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and I'm sure we won't know what is in the Health Care Bill. Which by the way, has a really interesting name: QUACAA. Yes, prononced Caca.
Must have been a psychological slight by Congress.
I'm not against Health Care Reform. I'm against Health Care Reform that is going to cost trillions of dollars, going God-knows-where, and is run by a government that makes hand washing laundry look like the most effective thing in the world. Let's find a way to reform health care via the free market. Let's work together (which is not happening, in case you didn't notice - no Republicans in Congress voted for the Stimulus, only 8 voted for Cap and Trade, and I don't think many are planning to vote for the Health Care Bill - there's your "healing the great divide in the country"). There has to be something we can do without just approving some unknown bill that's modeled after other failed systems, right?
But there is that "fierce moral urgency" thing....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)