Adam Weinstein, a blogger at Gawker, thinks that anyone who is not on board the Climate Change Train should be imprisoned.
Katherine Timpf, a reporter for Camus Reform, was told that a feminist leadership conference was "inclusive" and she was "not welcome here".
Charles Murray is a white supremacist for holding views on Education that don't fit within the platform of the Texas Democrat Party.
It's anti-free speech to allow people to contribute as much as they want to political campaigns.
The very people who passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act now want us to forget they ever passed it.
Lois Lerner faces contempt charges for refusing to speak (after already giving testimony, which is what she did when she proclaimed her innocence) on the IRS targeting certain groups. Mostly conservative groups.
The Anti-Koch Harry Reid funneled thousands upon thousands of dollars, illegally, to his granddaughter.
And there is that California State Senator, champion of gun control, who was, quite possibly, running illegal guns to Chinese Mobsters.
Last, there is that guy...you know the one who brilliantly helped create Mozilla Firefox, who was forced to resign because he gave money to Proposition 8 back in 2008. Proposition 8 was the ballot initiative for traditional marriage in California. You know who else favored traditional marriage in 2008? President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.
This is the new American Way. People who are brilliant in their field of business can't have a job because they don't support gay marriage. If you dare to question the orthodoxy on Climate Change, you should be imprisoned. The Koch Brothers are evil and trying to buy elections (but please don't pay attention to my illegal funds transfers to my family). Free speech!!! (Unless that speech comes from people I don't like and supports positions I don't support). Oh, and citizens should NOT be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons (but, fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers are just fine in the hands of organized crime.)
Yeah, that's all I have to say.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Adding to the Noise
I should probably not be adding to the noise today, but shutting up has never been one of my better qualities.
I posted a minor status on facebook about a recent Supreme Court case, because there are a lot of uninformed people out there. The case: Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby. All you had to do was listen to the protesters outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and you got a very...interesting... take on this case. You see, they are claiming that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are standing in the way of women's rights. Their rights to contraception. That these two businesses, by refusing to subsidize certain forms of contraception, are actually forcing women back into the 1960's, or something like that.
“The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments in a case that pits religious liberty against women’s rights.”
~Adam Liptake, New York Times, March 24, 2014
So, we'll start with this premise. Hobby Lobby would like to be exempt from Plan B and IUDs. Both methods of birth control could cause already fertilized eggs to be aborted. These methods of contraception comprise only 4 of the 20 available options under the Affordable Care Act. Hobby Lobby is more than willing to cover the other 16. Moreover, Hobby Lobby is not saying women cannot take Plan B or use IUDs. They are simply saying that, as a matter of faith, they should not be forced to subsidize them. So when discussing "women's rights", I'm pretty sure no one here is denying women the right to purchase these drugs.
Many of the protesters on Tuesday were holding signs said that contraception is a choice between a woman and her doctor. I have no problem with that. However, in this case, what they really want is the choice to be between the woman and her doctor, and the company to pay for that choice. By demanding coverage be provided, at no cost to the employee, you are inviting your company to participate in your choices. You don't really have a right to scream privacy while actively demanding that someone be "on the hook" for whatever it is you are doing "privately".
How about those signs that said "stay out of my bedroom." Gladly. I have no desire to be in your bedroom and I'm sure the Greens (of Hobby Lobby fame), don't want to be there either. So how about you stop demanding that they pay for your activities there? It's simple. If you truly want people to stay out of your sex life, don't ask them to pay for it.
Back in my 20's, my husband and I lived, literally, paycheck to paycheck. On pennies, sometimes. (Literally, pennies at the bottom of the change cup.) Our insurance did not cover birth control. Somehow I managed to squeeze the money for it. Maybe we didn't have dinner out one night when we really wanted to. We skipped seeing that movie in the theater and watched it when it came out on DVD. But, since I wanted to control my own fertility, I made the sacrifices necessary to do that.
I have a hard time feeling bad for someone typing out statuses on facebook from their $600 iphone, about how they got drunk at a bar the night before. A status full of typos because they just got their nails done. And with the status is a picture of that new cut and color. Today sacrifice means $15 bucks at the local clinic (which is about the cost of getting those nails done and about 1/4 of the cost of a cut and color). And yet, they gathered, like oppressed underdogs, in front of the Supreme Court, and tried to claim someone was violating their rights, their doctor-patient relationship and their privacy.
Better yet, if this was a church, or a charity, or one of those dreaded 501(c4) organizations, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They are exempt, based on their religious beliefs. But if you happen to make a profit, well you're screwed. You don't get to have morals. Corporations that make money are run by individuals, who simply because they run a business, have somehow abdicated their Constitutional Rights. That's what the current Administration, the Liberal News Media, and the left-wing activist base want you to believe.
But wait, these same people, who say corporations are not individuals and thus don't have a claim to the first amendment (since it applies to individuals) will swear that the second amendment is a collective (or corporate) right, not an individual right.
Individuals, regardless of their business ownership, do not cease to be afforded the protections of the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but if you live in this country you do have to deal with it.
This country has, since the beginning of time, been based on the rights of individuals, the freedom of individuals. You are perfectly free to go to your local pharmacy and buy Plan B. You do not have the right to insist that someone else pay for it, even if it goes against everything they believe in. The Administration, Congress and the Senate would have done well to remember that when they cobbled together this atrocious legislation and rammed it down our throats. The poor me crowd would do well to remember it, because if they win, this very decision could very well come back to bite them in the ass.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Full Circle Observations
This weekend was full of news stories, the biggest one being the U.S. and several other countries reaching a deal with the Iranian Government over it's nuclear program. I'm not going to talk about that. I think the deal speaks for itself. I've decided to take on another, far less covered story.
Crystal Mangum was convicted of Second Degree Murder. (If you don't know her name, it's okay. She faded into oblivion after April 11, 2007. Most of the major media outlets are not going to give her top billing. It wouldn't really do much for their reputations.)
Let me diverge off course for just a moment. Not too long ago, my daughter was in a discussion with her TV Media teacher. The teacher requires the students to have a news story to discuss every day, and this day, one of the students mentioned the miscarriage of justice in the Steubenville Rape case. In the course of the discussion, my daughter mentions how false rape accusations lead to these miscarriages of justice in cases where rape actually does happen. Her teacher says there are is no such thing as a false rape accusation. My daughter mentions a few that have happened in her high school (stunts that were intended to gain attention. It seems in high school fake rape accusations and fake pregnancy is the way to go these days). Being that she was only 10 at the time, the case I would have brought up wasn't anywhere near her radar. We discussed it at home.
Which brings me back to Crystal Mangum and who she is. Ms. Mangum is the stripper who accused three Duke Lacrosse Players of kidnapping and rape. The story became a national media frenzy, and as is the case with all national media frenzies, editorial pages opined about how horrible this all was. Allan Gurganus in the New York Times, had this to say about these boys: “The children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing.” The media, professors at universities all across the country, and even politicians raced to judgment. These boys of white, rich privileged lives must be guilty.
Only they weren't. There was very little evidence to prove they had done it, and a whole lot of evidence that made it obvious they didn't. Evidence that Prosecutor Michael Nifong, who was trying to win re-election as the District Attorney of a racially diverse Durham County, illegally hid from the Defense. This act of severe prosecutorial misconduct led to him being fired, disbarred and charged. More than six years after the Attorney General for North Carolina dropped all the charges because, as he said, the accused were innocent, the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and 87 Faculty and Board members at Duke University have yet to apologize. It was truly stunning, the rush to judgment, and then the slow slinking away of all those judges when it turned out they had hitched their stars to something that never happened.
So Crystal Mangum won't be making front page news as a convicted murderer. To bring her up is to remind people of medial malpractice, an act that to this day is simply brushed under the carpet and never brought up again. I'm sure those three boys whose lives were ruined don't care, right?
Media Malpractice is alive and well. It was before this, and it will be for years to come because we, the citizens who read their garbage, refuse to hold them responsible. In their rush to be the first to cover a story, they almost never get it right.
Outside of the Rocky Mountain News, most media outlets got most of the massacre at Columbine High School wrong. And their observations are still taken as gospel today.
The same can be said of the shootings in Aurora (remember the accusation that James Holmes was a tea party person?), Sandy Hook (we are still finding out how bad they got that wrong), and the list goes on and on. It's called Media Malpractice. They try, convict and sentence without a shred of evidence. After the Boston Marathon, it was a full day before any news channel even got a hint of the right information. For 24 hours they were permitted to disseminate information that they had absolutely no clue if it was correct, but, they had to have their 24/7 coverage, so they made things up.
Back to Ms. Mangum. It's probably cold consolation to three people who had their lives turned upside down by a pathological liar, who is now a convicted murderer. It's a cold consolation to those of us who questioned from the beginning whether the Duke Lacrosse "Rape" Case deserved the attention it was getting. It's no consolation to the true rape victims who have that much harder of a time, because this case caused people to doubt those accusations. And in the media silence we hear ... crickets.
Crystal Mangum was convicted of Second Degree Murder. (If you don't know her name, it's okay. She faded into oblivion after April 11, 2007. Most of the major media outlets are not going to give her top billing. It wouldn't really do much for their reputations.)
Let me diverge off course for just a moment. Not too long ago, my daughter was in a discussion with her TV Media teacher. The teacher requires the students to have a news story to discuss every day, and this day, one of the students mentioned the miscarriage of justice in the Steubenville Rape case. In the course of the discussion, my daughter mentions how false rape accusations lead to these miscarriages of justice in cases where rape actually does happen. Her teacher says there are is no such thing as a false rape accusation. My daughter mentions a few that have happened in her high school (stunts that were intended to gain attention. It seems in high school fake rape accusations and fake pregnancy is the way to go these days). Being that she was only 10 at the time, the case I would have brought up wasn't anywhere near her radar. We discussed it at home.
Which brings me back to Crystal Mangum and who she is. Ms. Mangum is the stripper who accused three Duke Lacrosse Players of kidnapping and rape. The story became a national media frenzy, and as is the case with all national media frenzies, editorial pages opined about how horrible this all was. Allan Gurganus in the New York Times, had this to say about these boys: “The children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing.” The media, professors at universities all across the country, and even politicians raced to judgment. These boys of white, rich privileged lives must be guilty.
Only they weren't. There was very little evidence to prove they had done it, and a whole lot of evidence that made it obvious they didn't. Evidence that Prosecutor Michael Nifong, who was trying to win re-election as the District Attorney of a racially diverse Durham County, illegally hid from the Defense. This act of severe prosecutorial misconduct led to him being fired, disbarred and charged. More than six years after the Attorney General for North Carolina dropped all the charges because, as he said, the accused were innocent, the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and 87 Faculty and Board members at Duke University have yet to apologize. It was truly stunning, the rush to judgment, and then the slow slinking away of all those judges when it turned out they had hitched their stars to something that never happened.
So Crystal Mangum won't be making front page news as a convicted murderer. To bring her up is to remind people of medial malpractice, an act that to this day is simply brushed under the carpet and never brought up again. I'm sure those three boys whose lives were ruined don't care, right?
Media Malpractice is alive and well. It was before this, and it will be for years to come because we, the citizens who read their garbage, refuse to hold them responsible. In their rush to be the first to cover a story, they almost never get it right.
Outside of the Rocky Mountain News, most media outlets got most of the massacre at Columbine High School wrong. And their observations are still taken as gospel today.
The same can be said of the shootings in Aurora (remember the accusation that James Holmes was a tea party person?), Sandy Hook (we are still finding out how bad they got that wrong), and the list goes on and on. It's called Media Malpractice. They try, convict and sentence without a shred of evidence. After the Boston Marathon, it was a full day before any news channel even got a hint of the right information. For 24 hours they were permitted to disseminate information that they had absolutely no clue if it was correct, but, they had to have their 24/7 coverage, so they made things up.
Back to Ms. Mangum. It's probably cold consolation to three people who had their lives turned upside down by a pathological liar, who is now a convicted murderer. It's a cold consolation to those of us who questioned from the beginning whether the Duke Lacrosse "Rape" Case deserved the attention it was getting. It's no consolation to the true rape victims who have that much harder of a time, because this case caused people to doubt those accusations. And in the media silence we hear ... crickets.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Demonizing the Guy Who Might Run For President....
In Three Years.
“If I didn’t care so much about our country, I would hope he would get the Republican nomination for president, because that would mean the end of the Republican Party." (Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, Rachel Maddow Show, October 31,2013)
The next Presidential election is 3 years away. The Primaries for that election are 2 years away. And yet, I've seen a bunch of headlines in the last few weeks about Ted Cruz, and his ability to be nominated and to be elected President of the United States. It's possible I'm suffering from Post Presidential Campaign Syndrome. I'm tired of the campaigns and the politics of personal destruction that come with them. Maybe that's why I'm trying to figure out why the Democrats are on a rampage against Ted Cruz running for President...in two years. It seems that even though we just elected a President a year ago, we are still in campaign mode, and people like Harry Reid want you to know that if you vote for Ted Cruz (in three years), you will destroy the Republican Party.
First of all, Senator Reid, as I'm not a progressive, or a liberal, or a Democrat, the odds are I'm not really concerned with who you think I should vote for, in an election I haven't even started thinking about. Nor am I concerned with what Rachel Maddow thinks about anything. I watch the Kelly Files. Sorry.
Second, I have to wonder why all these Democrats, and all these Pundits on both sides of the aisle are going after Ted Cruz on the basis of an election no one (but Pundits with nothing better to do) is thinking about. What is it about this man that is driving so many people to say some very nasty things about Ted Cruz and his supporters?
Look again at Harry Reid's quote. He is essentially saying that if you care about the USA, you wouldn't possibly cast your vote for Ted Cruz.
We heard from a lot of people, even conservative pundits, that Barack Obama was the smartest man who ever ran for President. If his accomplishments prior to becoming President were the reason people said that, maybe we should look at Ted Cruz.
- Graduated from South Baptist High School in 1988, Valedictorian
- Graduated cum laude from Princeton University, BA from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
- Won Top Speaker at the US National Debating Championships and the North American Debating Championship in 1992.
- Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, Juris Doctor.
- Editor of the Harvard Law Review
- Executive Editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
- Founding Editor of the Latino Harvard Law Review
- Law clerk to J. Michael Luttig, US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
- Law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice, US Supreme Court
- Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States, `1999-2003
- Solicitor General, State of Texas, 2003-2008
That's some list of accomplishments. Alan Dershowitz called him "Off the charts brilliant", when he was at Harvard Law School
Ted Cruz is a pretty smart man. He's a minority. The people in Texas love him. (Okay, I realize maybe that isn't a bonus. After all, to many people, Texas is a foreign country. God bless Texas.)
So why, 3 years out from a Presidential Election, are people like Harry Reid going on news shows, telling people how bad Ted Cruz is?
Maybe, just maybe, because they think he can win.
Monday, October 14, 2013
What's In A Name?
I love football. For six long years, I gave it up in protest. Protest of both a quarterback and a coach, who I thought received far too many accolades for missing the coveted prize in the NFL: The Superbowl. I was ecstatic when the Eagles fired Andy Reid, and despite the team's less than stellar start this season, I firmly believe it was a decision that should have been made a long time ago.
I love football. I have a passionate dislike for several teams in the NFL. Most of this is due to a conference rivalry that dates back to when the NFC East was the hardest division to play in. The Dallas Cowgirls (oops...boys), the NY Giants, and the Washington Redskins. You can't be an Eagles fan and not hate those teams. It's just not allowed.
I love football.
What I don't love is smarmy commentators who decide to use their national airtime, during a sport that remains the most popular in the U.S., to score political points, or worse, to promote some trumped up charge of racial injustice.
The Washington Redskins. If you aren't a football fan, it's just a name to you, and maybe you find it offensive, I don't know. 79% of all Americans don't, but maybe you're in the 21% who do. I've honestly never even though about it, because to me, the Redskins are the team from Washington D.C., who have beaten the butts of my team more than once, and have more Superbowl Wins than we do in Philadelphia. (Ok, pretty much everyone has more Superbowl rings than we do, we haven't won any.)
To listen to Bob Costas speak so eloquently you'd think that it's plainly obvious that the name, whether now, or sometime in the past, was specifically chosen to twist fingers in the eyes of Native Americans. It's obviously a slur, even if it wasn't meant that way. It's just not ok to name your team the Redskins. Of course the players, the coaches and the owner don't men anything bad by it, but it's still horrible, evil, cruel. (You can skip the part where he freely admits that a majority, as in 90%, of all Native Americans don't have a single issue with the name.)
So, once again, Bob preaches to his immense television audience, telling them how they ought to think or feel about a certain issue. (Remember his gun control rant during Sunday night football last year?)
Bob, this is football. We do not need or want you to give us lessons in your political or social views on Sunday night. We want to talk football: the good, the bad, and the ugly of a game that involves men throwing, catching, kicking balls and tackling other men, all in the quest to get the pigskin past the goal line. But you Bob, you just can't resist the urge to lecture us all on right and wrong.
So, now I get to lecture you on facts. If you want to be some great commentator, do your homework.
The team in question, originally the Boston Braves, was created in 1932. The year after that they became the Boston Redskins. The first Redskins team had four Native Americans players, and a Native American head coach. I'm sure if they found the name offensive they could have protested, but they didn't. Their logo, that infamous Indian that we Philadelphia fans live to hate (for purely competitive reasons), was created in conjunction with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, which has it's base of operations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. George Allen, then coach, worked with Native Americans on that logo, and was later honored by those same Native Americans. All without a hint of protest over the name.
You see Mister Costas, outside of your politically correct, there must be injustice, pathetic bubble, Native Americans are seen as fierce, brave, strong and loyal, all things you want in a top notch professional football team. They are the kind of people you can get behind and cheer for. They are inspiring. And by denoting themselves the Redskins, they encompass the entire Native American population, not just the braves (who were the warriors), or a specific tribe (like the Blackhawks), or some caricature (like the Indians). One look at that logo, and you are looking at a proud, strong person. One willing to fight for his brothers.
It seems 79% of Americans, and 90% of Native Americans clearly understand what has somehow escaped your oh-so-enlightened mind.
Speaking as a life-long die-hard, even gave up football in protest, Philadelphia Eagles fan, how dare you even suggest that a team I look forward to watching my guys play each and every season, just so I can root again them, change their name? I don't want to play the Washington Whatevers, I want my team to play the tradition of the Washington Redskins. The name that's become associated with a division rivalry. That to so many Redskins fans is associated with winning a Superbowl. Somehow, Bob, you've managed to make me defend a team I live to hate.
And you've also managed to do one other thing that was never, ever possible until you opened your big mouth on Sunday night, again.
You've made me root for the darn Redskins every time they play (unless they are playing the Eagles.)
I love football. I have a passionate dislike for several teams in the NFL. Most of this is due to a conference rivalry that dates back to when the NFC East was the hardest division to play in. The Dallas Cowgirls (oops...boys), the NY Giants, and the Washington Redskins. You can't be an Eagles fan and not hate those teams. It's just not allowed.
I love football.
What I don't love is smarmy commentators who decide to use their national airtime, during a sport that remains the most popular in the U.S., to score political points, or worse, to promote some trumped up charge of racial injustice.
The Washington Redskins. If you aren't a football fan, it's just a name to you, and maybe you find it offensive, I don't know. 79% of all Americans don't, but maybe you're in the 21% who do. I've honestly never even though about it, because to me, the Redskins are the team from Washington D.C., who have beaten the butts of my team more than once, and have more Superbowl Wins than we do in Philadelphia. (Ok, pretty much everyone has more Superbowl rings than we do, we haven't won any.)
To listen to Bob Costas speak so eloquently you'd think that it's plainly obvious that the name, whether now, or sometime in the past, was specifically chosen to twist fingers in the eyes of Native Americans. It's obviously a slur, even if it wasn't meant that way. It's just not ok to name your team the Redskins. Of course the players, the coaches and the owner don't men anything bad by it, but it's still horrible, evil, cruel. (You can skip the part where he freely admits that a majority, as in 90%, of all Native Americans don't have a single issue with the name.)
So, once again, Bob preaches to his immense television audience, telling them how they ought to think or feel about a certain issue. (Remember his gun control rant during Sunday night football last year?)
Bob, this is football. We do not need or want you to give us lessons in your political or social views on Sunday night. We want to talk football: the good, the bad, and the ugly of a game that involves men throwing, catching, kicking balls and tackling other men, all in the quest to get the pigskin past the goal line. But you Bob, you just can't resist the urge to lecture us all on right and wrong.
So, now I get to lecture you on facts. If you want to be some great commentator, do your homework.
The team in question, originally the Boston Braves, was created in 1932. The year after that they became the Boston Redskins. The first Redskins team had four Native Americans players, and a Native American head coach. I'm sure if they found the name offensive they could have protested, but they didn't. Their logo, that infamous Indian that we Philadelphia fans live to hate (for purely competitive reasons), was created in conjunction with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund, which has it's base of operations on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. George Allen, then coach, worked with Native Americans on that logo, and was later honored by those same Native Americans. All without a hint of protest over the name.
You see Mister Costas, outside of your politically correct, there must be injustice, pathetic bubble, Native Americans are seen as fierce, brave, strong and loyal, all things you want in a top notch professional football team. They are the kind of people you can get behind and cheer for. They are inspiring. And by denoting themselves the Redskins, they encompass the entire Native American population, not just the braves (who were the warriors), or a specific tribe (like the Blackhawks), or some caricature (like the Indians). One look at that logo, and you are looking at a proud, strong person. One willing to fight for his brothers.
It seems 79% of Americans, and 90% of Native Americans clearly understand what has somehow escaped your oh-so-enlightened mind.
Speaking as a life-long die-hard, even gave up football in protest, Philadelphia Eagles fan, how dare you even suggest that a team I look forward to watching my guys play each and every season, just so I can root again them, change their name? I don't want to play the Washington Whatevers, I want my team to play the tradition of the Washington Redskins. The name that's become associated with a division rivalry. That to so many Redskins fans is associated with winning a Superbowl. Somehow, Bob, you've managed to make me defend a team I live to hate.
And you've also managed to do one other thing that was never, ever possible until you opened your big mouth on Sunday night, again.
You've made me root for the darn Redskins every time they play (unless they are playing the Eagles.)
Monday, September 30, 2013
Responsibility
At no point since it's passage, has the Affordable Care Act ever been approved of by a majority of the American people. When it was passed, a majority of the American people didn't want it. And while the numbers have fluctuated somewhat, it's always been majority against.
The House of Representatives recently passed a Continuing Resolution to fund every aspect of government but the Affordable Care Act. The Senate added an amendment restoring funding. When sent back to the House, they compromised. They delayed the implementation of the individual mandate for a year. The Senate is saying they will table the bill, and the White House is saying if it passes the Senate it will be vetoed.
Who would be responsible for shutting down the government?
By all measures of sanity and logic, it would appear that it is the Senate and the White House, not the House, that is perfectly happy to let the government shut down all over a health care bill that a majority of the American people have never wanted. And all those horror stories? They appear to be true.
People said the employer mandate would cost jobs. The Administration said that was hogwash. But as the date for that mandate to kick in drew closer, companies across America started dropping full time employees to part time employees. Other companies froze hiring to stay below the 50 employee threshold. So the President, in a move that was nothing but political to anyone with half a brain, delayed the employer mandate for year. To right after the mid term elections.
We were told if we liked our doctor and insurance we could keep them. However, over the last few weeks, pictures cropped up all over the internet. Pictures of letters, sent to people by their insurance companies, telling them that their plan is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act. They will have to purchase a new plan, and that new plan, which includes a lot of extra stuff, will cost them more money. For some it's more than twice what they were paying for a plan that did what they needed it to do, but might not cover birth control and in vitro fertilization.
Howard Dean recently admitted that Sarah Palin was right about those death panels. Death panels was a term coined to describe the Independent Payment Advisory Board, who would decide whether your life was really worth that life saving treatment. Or did everyone forget the President himself mentioning that controlling health care costs might mean giving granny the red pill instead of the blue pill, that was more expensive, but that she really needed to you know...live.
You might be interested to know how much control of our healthcare resides in the hands of one person. The Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bill has this to say about the powers of this one person: 700 references to the "Secretary shall", 200 reference to the "Secretary may" and 139 references to the "Secretary determines". So, in a 2,000 page bill that no one read before they passed it (Nancy Pelosi: We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it), 1,039 times it is determined that one person, not elected, and with no Constitutional check on their powers, can determine the outcome of YOUR healthcare.
The truth is the bill was never really written, and for it to work in any manner, whether good or bad, it will need to be amended hundreds of times over. It was 2,000 pages of open ended government control over your very life, and by life I mean, the breathing, heart beating, brainwave thing.
And it is this law, this one little law, this one train wreck of a law (according to Max Baucaus), that is going to be the reason the Democrats shut down the government. They are so tied to a law they passed (and which they then exempted themselves from, big surprise there), that they will allow every other government service shut down. Oh, except their pay. In 1992, when they were still in charge of the legislative body of the government, they suckered us into passing an amendment which doesn't allow them to give themselves pay raises, but it also ensures they still get a paycheck in the event the government shuts downs. Congress needs their pay more, than say granny needs her social security.
So who is responsible for shutting down the government?
The House of Representatives recently passed a Continuing Resolution to fund every aspect of government but the Affordable Care Act. The Senate added an amendment restoring funding. When sent back to the House, they compromised. They delayed the implementation of the individual mandate for a year. The Senate is saying they will table the bill, and the White House is saying if it passes the Senate it will be vetoed.
Who would be responsible for shutting down the government?
By all measures of sanity and logic, it would appear that it is the Senate and the White House, not the House, that is perfectly happy to let the government shut down all over a health care bill that a majority of the American people have never wanted. And all those horror stories? They appear to be true.
People said the employer mandate would cost jobs. The Administration said that was hogwash. But as the date for that mandate to kick in drew closer, companies across America started dropping full time employees to part time employees. Other companies froze hiring to stay below the 50 employee threshold. So the President, in a move that was nothing but political to anyone with half a brain, delayed the employer mandate for year. To right after the mid term elections.
We were told if we liked our doctor and insurance we could keep them. However, over the last few weeks, pictures cropped up all over the internet. Pictures of letters, sent to people by their insurance companies, telling them that their plan is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act. They will have to purchase a new plan, and that new plan, which includes a lot of extra stuff, will cost them more money. For some it's more than twice what they were paying for a plan that did what they needed it to do, but might not cover birth control and in vitro fertilization.
Howard Dean recently admitted that Sarah Palin was right about those death panels. Death panels was a term coined to describe the Independent Payment Advisory Board, who would decide whether your life was really worth that life saving treatment. Or did everyone forget the President himself mentioning that controlling health care costs might mean giving granny the red pill instead of the blue pill, that was more expensive, but that she really needed to you know...live.
You might be interested to know how much control of our healthcare resides in the hands of one person. The Secretary of Health and Human Services. The bill has this to say about the powers of this one person: 700 references to the "Secretary shall", 200 reference to the "Secretary may" and 139 references to the "Secretary determines". So, in a 2,000 page bill that no one read before they passed it (Nancy Pelosi: We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it), 1,039 times it is determined that one person, not elected, and with no Constitutional check on their powers, can determine the outcome of YOUR healthcare.
The truth is the bill was never really written, and for it to work in any manner, whether good or bad, it will need to be amended hundreds of times over. It was 2,000 pages of open ended government control over your very life, and by life I mean, the breathing, heart beating, brainwave thing.
And it is this law, this one little law, this one train wreck of a law (according to Max Baucaus), that is going to be the reason the Democrats shut down the government. They are so tied to a law they passed (and which they then exempted themselves from, big surprise there), that they will allow every other government service shut down. Oh, except their pay. In 1992, when they were still in charge of the legislative body of the government, they suckered us into passing an amendment which doesn't allow them to give themselves pay raises, but it also ensures they still get a paycheck in the event the government shuts downs. Congress needs their pay more, than say granny needs her social security.
So who is responsible for shutting down the government?
Monday, September 9, 2013
To Those Who Never Got Involved.
I posted Steve Taylor lyrics to facebook last night, from his song "Whatever Happened to Sin". At the time, I was thinking about the church today, and how so many churches are preaching a feel good, social justice gospel in order to make themselves more acceptable to the masses.
Today I realized how appropriate those lyrics truly were, not just to the church, but to our political scene today.
I remember after the election, seeing posts on facebook where people were talking about how they didn't really speak out during the election, but now there were things going on they just couldn't keep silent about. Those posts made me angry. Most of the things that were so upsetting after the election were going on well before the election and during the election. Suddenly deciding to speak up now, when the damage is already done, seemed to me to be a case of "too little, too late".
You see, I believe we have a duty to at least TRY to make a difference when it comes to the things we believe in. Putting your head in the sand and not speaking out, for whatever reason, is a cowardly move. This will make people angry. I get it. We don't want to upset our friends or family. We want to keep the peace. I truly do understand that. Those things, however, do not let us off the hook. It just doesn't.
I can go back to that old saying from Germany during World War 2, about how someone didn't speak up, and when they came to take him, there was no one left to speak up for him. But we've heard that one before.
It's quite simple. If you don't speak out when it counts, when you could make a difference, when you could challenge the status quo, or all the news that fits the narrative, then really, how much right do you have to complain now?
In case you are still sitting there saying "But, people will delete me off facebook, or stop talking to me, or get angry, or..."
I have had 2 family members delete me and block me on facebook. Not because I said something hateful to them. Not because I was mean or horrid. Simply because I had the nerve to post an opinion different than theirs. I challenged their assumptions, and this made me persona non grata. They were constantly posting things that challenged my assumptions. They made me look deeper into what I thought. In many cases, they didn't change my opinion, but I became much more capable of defending my own position, because I was forced to see the other side. I welcome this. I guess they didn't. And while occasionally it still stings, I refuse to stop speaking out.
I have been called a bigot, a racist, homophobic. I have been told I am more concerned with other women's sex lives and that's why I"m pro-life. I have been told I am annoying and useless. And yet I still speak out.
The ability to speak out, to challenge, to verbalize our opinions is one of the foundations of society. If it wasn't for people speaking out, there would have never been a Revolutionary War, the Abolitionists Movement, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. All of those things challenged in a deep, profound, life-changing way, the status quo. People, individual people, made a difference.
So I will continue speaking out, and I'm challenging you to do the same.
I'll leave you with this little tidbit, from Steve Taylor's song:
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
Today I realized how appropriate those lyrics truly were, not just to the church, but to our political scene today.
I remember after the election, seeing posts on facebook where people were talking about how they didn't really speak out during the election, but now there were things going on they just couldn't keep silent about. Those posts made me angry. Most of the things that were so upsetting after the election were going on well before the election and during the election. Suddenly deciding to speak up now, when the damage is already done, seemed to me to be a case of "too little, too late".
You see, I believe we have a duty to at least TRY to make a difference when it comes to the things we believe in. Putting your head in the sand and not speaking out, for whatever reason, is a cowardly move. This will make people angry. I get it. We don't want to upset our friends or family. We want to keep the peace. I truly do understand that. Those things, however, do not let us off the hook. It just doesn't.
I can go back to that old saying from Germany during World War 2, about how someone didn't speak up, and when they came to take him, there was no one left to speak up for him. But we've heard that one before.
It's quite simple. If you don't speak out when it counts, when you could make a difference, when you could challenge the status quo, or all the news that fits the narrative, then really, how much right do you have to complain now?
In case you are still sitting there saying "But, people will delete me off facebook, or stop talking to me, or get angry, or..."
I have had 2 family members delete me and block me on facebook. Not because I said something hateful to them. Not because I was mean or horrid. Simply because I had the nerve to post an opinion different than theirs. I challenged their assumptions, and this made me persona non grata. They were constantly posting things that challenged my assumptions. They made me look deeper into what I thought. In many cases, they didn't change my opinion, but I became much more capable of defending my own position, because I was forced to see the other side. I welcome this. I guess they didn't. And while occasionally it still stings, I refuse to stop speaking out.
I have been called a bigot, a racist, homophobic. I have been told I am more concerned with other women's sex lives and that's why I"m pro-life. I have been told I am annoying and useless. And yet I still speak out.
The ability to speak out, to challenge, to verbalize our opinions is one of the foundations of society. If it wasn't for people speaking out, there would have never been a Revolutionary War, the Abolitionists Movement, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. All of those things challenged in a deep, profound, life-changing way, the status quo. People, individual people, made a difference.
So I will continue speaking out, and I'm challenging you to do the same.
I'll leave you with this little tidbit, from Steve Taylor's song:
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)