Posts
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817&page=1
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101211795
With the climate summit in Denmark getting underway this week, I wanted to address somethings that I have heard a few times. One concerns our diet, and the other concerns businesses and economy.
I have heard that argument made (mostly from Bill Maher) that we can help fight global warming by simply becoming a vegetarian. This is true and yet false. Yes by eating only greens we would no longer have herds of cows, pigs, etc which means no grazing land is needed and no methane expulsions. But that is as far as the argument goes as far as I am concerned because eating all greens can be just as damaging to the environment**. Sure you no longer need grazing lands but if EVERYONE became a vegetarian then you would have to drastically increase the amount of farm land. Forests are destroyed not only for grazing but also to expand farmland. Now I admit that farms full of growing plants would help reduce CO2 through photosynthesis, however, that is only while those plants are growing. Dirt during the winter does nothing for the level of CO2. A forest full of trees and shrubs is far more beneficial to the environment even during the winter months. Another problem with this idea is that of water. Farms consume a huge amount of water, and in places such as the Western U.S. water is just as valuable as gold. Some animals are much better at living with less water than crops. I don’t think it is our diet that is the problem as much as it is the sheer numbers of us. We are very rapidly approaching (if not over) the carrying capacity of our environment and I think that is as much of a cause to climate change as anything else. If you doubt this, simply look at the few native people in the world who still live as foragers (hunting and gathering plants). They eat meat and greens and yet have an equilibrium with their environment. They don’t reproduce like rabbits and as a result their environment can easily sustain their way of life.
The other argument I have heard is that going green will hurt business and the economy. This argument is simply asinine because the only businesses that going green hurts are the oil companies. That’s it. If going green was so bad to businesses and the economy then how could Denmark drop their carbon footprint by 13% and yet grow their economy by 45% in the same time period? The simple fact is that with energy costs rising due to dwindling sources. It is greatly beneficial to spend more money to switch to green energy NOW because the longer we stay on conventional power sources, the higher the prices will rise. It is simple economic theory, as demand goes up and/or supply drops the cost goes up. The sooner we realize this and the sooner we bite the initial bullet of cost, the better of we all will be.
** I am not anti vegetarian and am impressed with people who can only eat greens I just don’t think its an end all save all diet.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Taxes and Tiger
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13930159
I love how politicians always think that they can have their cake and eat it too. The idea that you vow to not raise, and block, any tax raises is asinine. To completely reject something before you even know what the budget situation will be like is simply bad policy AND politics. Taxes are the biggest way the government raises money and as much as we all hate it, they sometimes have to be raised. I would love to see people who bitch about current rates, and current proposals to raise them, live during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now.
Now sure, you can cut budgets and government spending to try and close shortfalls but that can only take you so far. If you cut government programs that greatly benefit society, who is left to pick it up? The private sector won’t because as Sen. Stephenson said they are “hunkering down.” So when education, infrastructure, safety, health, etc get cut the quality we have come to expect drops dramatically. It also is pointless to raise taxes in one area only to reduce them in another. That simply changes taxes by appearance but it won’t help raise revenue because any possible new revenue from the raise gets eaten up by the cut.
I also love how the Senate Republicans plan to meet to decide their positions on the “big issues.” How in the hell can you compromise with people who already have their minds set in stone? I sincerely hope the Senate President won’t be in this meeting because if he is then he might as well take a stance on taxes before he sees any budget numbers too.
I understand that raising taxes doesn’t solve everything but neither do massive cuts in government spending. Especially when the government is the only entity left to spend on certain things because the private sector can’t or won’t fork out the money. If things are so bad that massive cutting is needed then why not tax nonprofit groups? They benefit just as much (if not more) from the government as everyone else does. Even a .5 or 1 percent tax on them would be better than nothing and such a small number won’t completely destroy them.
On a side note, can the world shut up about Tiger Woods? He is human people, just like the rest of us. We are all animals and have basic animal instincts. If we didn’t have a strong urge to have sex and reproduce we wouldn’t be the species we are today (which is debatable on whether that’s good or bad). We are no different than every other species on this planet. We all have basic instincts and basic requirements to live. Evolution doesn’t give a damn about a piece of paper that says “marriage license” on it. Any guy, or girl, who says they have not had sexual urges toward someone other than their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc is flat out lying. I am not excusing the fact that he cheated, nor am I saying that I have no problem when people do it. All I am saying is that wanting to have sex with as many people as possible is part of not only being human, but of being a living creature. He made his decision and he has to deal with it in his own private life.
I love how politicians always think that they can have their cake and eat it too. The idea that you vow to not raise, and block, any tax raises is asinine. To completely reject something before you even know what the budget situation will be like is simply bad policy AND politics. Taxes are the biggest way the government raises money and as much as we all hate it, they sometimes have to be raised. I would love to see people who bitch about current rates, and current proposals to raise them, live during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now.
Now sure, you can cut budgets and government spending to try and close shortfalls but that can only take you so far. If you cut government programs that greatly benefit society, who is left to pick it up? The private sector won’t because as Sen. Stephenson said they are “hunkering down.” So when education, infrastructure, safety, health, etc get cut the quality we have come to expect drops dramatically. It also is pointless to raise taxes in one area only to reduce them in another. That simply changes taxes by appearance but it won’t help raise revenue because any possible new revenue from the raise gets eaten up by the cut.
I also love how the Senate Republicans plan to meet to decide their positions on the “big issues.” How in the hell can you compromise with people who already have their minds set in stone? I sincerely hope the Senate President won’t be in this meeting because if he is then he might as well take a stance on taxes before he sees any budget numbers too.
I understand that raising taxes doesn’t solve everything but neither do massive cuts in government spending. Especially when the government is the only entity left to spend on certain things because the private sector can’t or won’t fork out the money. If things are so bad that massive cutting is needed then why not tax nonprofit groups? They benefit just as much (if not more) from the government as everyone else does. Even a .5 or 1 percent tax on them would be better than nothing and such a small number won’t completely destroy them.
On a side note, can the world shut up about Tiger Woods? He is human people, just like the rest of us. We are all animals and have basic animal instincts. If we didn’t have a strong urge to have sex and reproduce we wouldn’t be the species we are today (which is debatable on whether that’s good or bad). We are no different than every other species on this planet. We all have basic instincts and basic requirements to live. Evolution doesn’t give a damn about a piece of paper that says “marriage license” on it. Any guy, or girl, who says they have not had sexual urges toward someone other than their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc is flat out lying. I am not excusing the fact that he cheated, nor am I saying that I have no problem when people do it. All I am saying is that wanting to have sex with as many people as possible is part of not only being human, but of being a living creature. He made his decision and he has to deal with it in his own private life.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Inexcusable!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/bin.laden.2001/index.html
This isn’t “breaking news” but I was on vacation when I heard about it and want to comment about it.
First, this shows that NO ONE has learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. It could have been debated that we had learned earlier, but with this report shows for a fact that we have not. One of the big problems with Vietnam was the fact that high ranking (head of the DoD, heads of intel agencies, etc) officials were too obsessed with the numbers game and were too controlling of the commanders on the ground. Well, that is EXACTLY what this report says the Bush Admin did.
Now I know that hind sight is 20/20 and all that but what seems clear is that at the time, they were seeing with 20/30 vision. Bin Laden has been the SOLE goal of this whole war in Afghanistan and when we could have achieved that goal, Rummy and Cheney decided it was better not to act rather than jeopardize their precious “risk-averse, 'light footprint' model” of war. How much more could they possibly have had their heads up their asses? Did they honestly want him to escape so the war would keep going, or did they simply not have the balls to make the call?
They KNEW he was at Tora Bora, they have evidence that he WAS there before they attacked, so how the hell could they just decide to let him walk out the back fucking door?! Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if we had left Hitler a wide open escape route into another country or region (Middle East, Asia, etc)? Wars can be, and are, won and lost by a single decision, and I believe that this was our single decision. If Rummy and Franks had given the troops the resources they needed AT THAT MOMENT, this war could have been OVER. Now, because of those dumb asses, not only are we stuck in Afghanistan, but now Pakistan (who just happens to have nuclear weapons) is in a perilous position and we are stuck trying to keep that country from falling.
Now I know I wasn’t in the room when this decision was made, but when you have a chance to nail your ultimate goal and you don’t even TRY, there is something wrong with that. Sure you might have had more casualties than you would like, but IT WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN THE CASUALITIES AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF WAR!
Join the Republican Party: Hard on terror until we get the chance to win then we look the other way until the target escapes.
This isn’t “breaking news” but I was on vacation when I heard about it and want to comment about it.
First, this shows that NO ONE has learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. It could have been debated that we had learned earlier, but with this report shows for a fact that we have not. One of the big problems with Vietnam was the fact that high ranking (head of the DoD, heads of intel agencies, etc) officials were too obsessed with the numbers game and were too controlling of the commanders on the ground. Well, that is EXACTLY what this report says the Bush Admin did.
Now I know that hind sight is 20/20 and all that but what seems clear is that at the time, they were seeing with 20/30 vision. Bin Laden has been the SOLE goal of this whole war in Afghanistan and when we could have achieved that goal, Rummy and Cheney decided it was better not to act rather than jeopardize their precious “risk-averse, 'light footprint' model” of war. How much more could they possibly have had their heads up their asses? Did they honestly want him to escape so the war would keep going, or did they simply not have the balls to make the call?
They KNEW he was at Tora Bora, they have evidence that he WAS there before they attacked, so how the hell could they just decide to let him walk out the back fucking door?! Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if we had left Hitler a wide open escape route into another country or region (Middle East, Asia, etc)? Wars can be, and are, won and lost by a single decision, and I believe that this was our single decision. If Rummy and Franks had given the troops the resources they needed AT THAT MOMENT, this war could have been OVER. Now, because of those dumb asses, not only are we stuck in Afghanistan, but now Pakistan (who just happens to have nuclear weapons) is in a perilous position and we are stuck trying to keep that country from falling.
Now I know I wasn’t in the room when this decision was made, but when you have a chance to nail your ultimate goal and you don’t even TRY, there is something wrong with that. Sure you might have had more casualties than you would like, but IT WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN THE CASUALITIES AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF WAR!
Join the Republican Party: Hard on terror until we get the chance to win then we look the other way until the target escapes.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Terror on Trial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sept11_trial
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html
For the past few days, debate has been raging on about whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11/01, should be tried in New York City in federal court. Some of the people who oppose it claim that it will make NYC “less safe”, more of a “target”, and that since he isn’t a US Citizens then he doesn’t deserve the right to be tried in a US court.
First off, NYC will be a target tomorrow, it was a target 15 years ago, it will be a target in 20 years, and whether or not a trial is performed there will not change that in the slightest. Also, where were all of these people 10 years ago? The first World Trade Center bomber was not a citizen and yet was tried in federal court in NEW YORK CITY. Was this a problem then? No. Did it make NYC “less safe” and more of a “target”? No. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life without so much as a hiccup in the judicial system. So it can be done the same way for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Before Rudy and all these other people bitch moan about something that gets them into the limelight they might decide to do a little research before hand. We wouldn’t want them to make TOTAL asses out of themselves.
That all being said, I believe that he should not be tried in New York, Washington DC, or any other city in the United States. If we truly want to show the world that our justice system works, then we should acknowledge that there is NO WAY an unbiased jury of his peers can be found in any state of this country. If this country wants to set an example then we should say that we have a biased opinion in the matter and as such the world court should be the venue for these trials. The entire point of the World Court is to allow ANYONE of ANY COUNRTY a fair trial when the country in which the crime was committed cannot be unbiased. Now yes, there is a chance that no matter where they are tried, that the case could be dismissed and the perps set free. That is our own damn fault! The leaders of this country know our laws, and the laws of the world, that state precisely what you can and CANNOT do to a person in your custody. Also they know what is and is not admissible in a court of law. They know that if you say….TORTURE SOMEONE, any and all “evidence” obtained by that torture is inadmissible. If a cop kicks the shit out of a murderer to get a confession, he is kicking the shit out of his own case. When you know the rules and don’t obey them then you fully deserve to have the case turn to dust in your own hands. We have laws and if your actions break them then you have to deal with any and all possible consequences of those actions.
Lastly, the perps of 9/11 should NOT be sentenced to death under ANY circumstances! Whether I am for or against the death penalty has nothing to do with this view, but has everything to do with facts. There is a reason why Ramzi Yousef (the first World Trade Center bomber) was sentenced to life in prison and not death, and anyone with half a brain should realize why. If you sentence Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to death you are doing nothing more than giving him EXACTLY what he and his cause want. Martyrdom. If this government and this country cannot realize this simple fact then we truly do not understand our enemy, and that is a very dangerous position from which to wage war.
It is simple to stick to personal principles and the principles of this country when times are good. It is far harder to do that when times get tough.
“…you have to make the choice between what is right and what is easy.”
- J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html
For the past few days, debate has been raging on about whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the “mastermind” of 9/11/01, should be tried in New York City in federal court. Some of the people who oppose it claim that it will make NYC “less safe”, more of a “target”, and that since he isn’t a US Citizens then he doesn’t deserve the right to be tried in a US court.
First off, NYC will be a target tomorrow, it was a target 15 years ago, it will be a target in 20 years, and whether or not a trial is performed there will not change that in the slightest. Also, where were all of these people 10 years ago? The first World Trade Center bomber was not a citizen and yet was tried in federal court in NEW YORK CITY. Was this a problem then? No. Did it make NYC “less safe” and more of a “target”? No. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life without so much as a hiccup in the judicial system. So it can be done the same way for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Before Rudy and all these other people bitch moan about something that gets them into the limelight they might decide to do a little research before hand. We wouldn’t want them to make TOTAL asses out of themselves.
That all being said, I believe that he should not be tried in New York, Washington DC, or any other city in the United States. If we truly want to show the world that our justice system works, then we should acknowledge that there is NO WAY an unbiased jury of his peers can be found in any state of this country. If this country wants to set an example then we should say that we have a biased opinion in the matter and as such the world court should be the venue for these trials. The entire point of the World Court is to allow ANYONE of ANY COUNRTY a fair trial when the country in which the crime was committed cannot be unbiased. Now yes, there is a chance that no matter where they are tried, that the case could be dismissed and the perps set free. That is our own damn fault! The leaders of this country know our laws, and the laws of the world, that state precisely what you can and CANNOT do to a person in your custody. Also they know what is and is not admissible in a court of law. They know that if you say….TORTURE SOMEONE, any and all “evidence” obtained by that torture is inadmissible. If a cop kicks the shit out of a murderer to get a confession, he is kicking the shit out of his own case. When you know the rules and don’t obey them then you fully deserve to have the case turn to dust in your own hands. We have laws and if your actions break them then you have to deal with any and all possible consequences of those actions.
Lastly, the perps of 9/11 should NOT be sentenced to death under ANY circumstances! Whether I am for or against the death penalty has nothing to do with this view, but has everything to do with facts. There is a reason why Ramzi Yousef (the first World Trade Center bomber) was sentenced to life in prison and not death, and anyone with half a brain should realize why. If you sentence Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to death you are doing nothing more than giving him EXACTLY what he and his cause want. Martyrdom. If this government and this country cannot realize this simple fact then we truly do not understand our enemy, and that is a very dangerous position from which to wage war.
It is simple to stick to personal principles and the principles of this country when times are good. It is far harder to do that when times get tough.
“…you have to make the choice between what is right and what is easy.”
- J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Literal Visitor from the Heavans?
Once again my mind has been chewing on religion. This time spurred on by a friend’s recent blog.
History seems to be leaning towards the idea that a man existed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago named Jesus Christ. But what if he was in fact not a man? Not a child of man, nor a “child of god.” What if he was in fact a completely different being that had taken human form to ease communication and reduce fear of its appearance? You can laugh at this idea if you want but I have given the matter serious thought (and I know I’m not the first).
Given the age of humanity, Earth, and the universe itself, the idea of other beings on other worlds is plausible. When you look at how long humans took to evolve, a matter of minutes or seconds to the universe, it is easily possible for other life forms on other planets to have done the same sooner than we did. Thus making them an older and far more advanced species. Is it so hard to believe that, if this is true, an advanced species visited this planet? A species who is/was far beyond the comprehension of ancient civilization. When viewed from this point, the “miracles” performs by J.C. could have been nothing more than technology being used that was impossible for people to understand. What are now considered holy books could be simply stories that were told to try and explain things that could not be explained in any other way.
Take the Aztec Civilization for an example. When the Spanish Conquerors first went to Central America,, the Aztecs believed them to be gods. The Spanish wore strange shining clothes and possessed technology that the Aztecs couldn’t understand how or why it worked. Now as we know the Aztecs were very wrong in this belief and it cost them their civilization, but WHY they thought the way they did cannot be completely faulted. From what they knew of their world and technology, the ONLY way to explain what they were seeing was through their religion. Take any modern medical advance, use and show it to people of the Bronze Age, and I promise you that you would be viewed as a god, miracle worker, or some sort of magician. Just as we would view a being far more advanced than we are, especially if we couldn’t SEE it had a different appearance from us.
So why could this not be an explanation of J.C.? Ancient civilization was brutal and ignorant but also full of beautiful art and advanced technology. What if an advanced species came here, saw what we were capable of (both good and bad), and decided to give us a nudge in a certain direction. Perhaps they had a similar period in their history and wanted to help us avoid the mistakes or tragedies that they themselves had made. Maybe they nearly destroyed their entire species due to war and violence and wanted us to avoid that fate.
Think about it. What people thousands of years ago referred to as the “heavens” was in fact the literal sky above their heads. The stars, planets, etc that they couldn’t touch, explain, or understand but could only simply see with their eyes. What if the “resurrection” was nothing more than that advanced being leaving this planet? The best explorers, scientists, etc know how to reduce or eliminate any sign of their presence. So would it not reason that an advanced species would know how to do the same? Maybe they plan on returning when we have advanced to a certain point. Or are still here observing our growth. Ever hear of the Vorlons that were part of the series Babylon 5?
Sure you can say its an outlandish idea, but reason doesn’t discount the possibility. If people can blindly follow supposedly magical books, then why not take a reasoned explanation seriously? Following a set of beliefs and a book doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension or understanding.
History seems to be leaning towards the idea that a man existed in the Middle East 2,000 years ago named Jesus Christ. But what if he was in fact not a man? Not a child of man, nor a “child of god.” What if he was in fact a completely different being that had taken human form to ease communication and reduce fear of its appearance? You can laugh at this idea if you want but I have given the matter serious thought (and I know I’m not the first).
Given the age of humanity, Earth, and the universe itself, the idea of other beings on other worlds is plausible. When you look at how long humans took to evolve, a matter of minutes or seconds to the universe, it is easily possible for other life forms on other planets to have done the same sooner than we did. Thus making them an older and far more advanced species. Is it so hard to believe that, if this is true, an advanced species visited this planet? A species who is/was far beyond the comprehension of ancient civilization. When viewed from this point, the “miracles” performs by J.C. could have been nothing more than technology being used that was impossible for people to understand. What are now considered holy books could be simply stories that were told to try and explain things that could not be explained in any other way.
Take the Aztec Civilization for an example. When the Spanish Conquerors first went to Central America,, the Aztecs believed them to be gods. The Spanish wore strange shining clothes and possessed technology that the Aztecs couldn’t understand how or why it worked. Now as we know the Aztecs were very wrong in this belief and it cost them their civilization, but WHY they thought the way they did cannot be completely faulted. From what they knew of their world and technology, the ONLY way to explain what they were seeing was through their religion. Take any modern medical advance, use and show it to people of the Bronze Age, and I promise you that you would be viewed as a god, miracle worker, or some sort of magician. Just as we would view a being far more advanced than we are, especially if we couldn’t SEE it had a different appearance from us.
So why could this not be an explanation of J.C.? Ancient civilization was brutal and ignorant but also full of beautiful art and advanced technology. What if an advanced species came here, saw what we were capable of (both good and bad), and decided to give us a nudge in a certain direction. Perhaps they had a similar period in their history and wanted to help us avoid the mistakes or tragedies that they themselves had made. Maybe they nearly destroyed their entire species due to war and violence and wanted us to avoid that fate.
Think about it. What people thousands of years ago referred to as the “heavens” was in fact the literal sky above their heads. The stars, planets, etc that they couldn’t touch, explain, or understand but could only simply see with their eyes. What if the “resurrection” was nothing more than that advanced being leaving this planet? The best explorers, scientists, etc know how to reduce or eliminate any sign of their presence. So would it not reason that an advanced species would know how to do the same? Maybe they plan on returning when we have advanced to a certain point. Or are still here observing our growth. Ever hear of the Vorlons that were part of the series Babylon 5?
Sure you can say its an outlandish idea, but reason doesn’t discount the possibility. If people can blindly follow supposedly magical books, then why not take a reasoned explanation seriously? Following a set of beliefs and a book doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension or understanding.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Gotta love politicians
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=8601136
Ok I love how all three Utah Reps voted against the bill and say how much they don’t like it but they don’t say the critical thing. WHAT DO THEY SUGGEST! The ONLY two ideas I have heard out of Republicans that I like are tort reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, but both won’t solve the problem. Tort reform sounds good on the surface, sure, but what will prevent insurance companies from simply pocketing the money they “save”. Nothing! It’s no different than the asinine idea of a “gas tax holiday” during last year’s presidential race. If Representative Chaffetz is “so disappointed” then why didn’t he pull his head out of his ass and introduce a bill that has the same goals as the one the House passed yesterday. I also love how Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz talk about the government “taking control of people’s health care” and yet they claim they fight to protect Medicare. Are they really that dense? They are fighting the public OPTION because government health care is the death of everyone and YET they are fighting FOR GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICARE!? Please! Also, I’m sorry Rep. Chaffetz but if lawmakers don’t understand the bill it’s their own damn fault. What are you paying all of your staffers for? Sit around and suck air? If you don’t know what is in it by now (the ideas have been talked about for MONTHS) then you either dropped the ball or your staffers did. Either way, your lack of attention does not constitute an emergency on our part. Take some damn responsibility for the job you were elected into! As for Rep. Matheson, I say again. Why is spending this much on HELPING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, when we are spending far MORE in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t have it both ways my friend. Oppose both, accept both, or be willing to raise taxes to pay for both.
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2295363.html
Now I sympathize with the people in Cali who will be affected by this rise in taxes but I would like them to think of the alternative. Most people don’t realize that states CAN NOT have an unbalanced budget. It is a law. It would be far worse for the state government to go bankrupt than it would be to deal with a rise in taxes. Take the current number of unemployed and then add to it people from EVERY state agency, contract, etc. It’s not a pretty picture is it.
Ok I love how all three Utah Reps voted against the bill and say how much they don’t like it but they don’t say the critical thing. WHAT DO THEY SUGGEST! The ONLY two ideas I have heard out of Republicans that I like are tort reform and allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, but both won’t solve the problem. Tort reform sounds good on the surface, sure, but what will prevent insurance companies from simply pocketing the money they “save”. Nothing! It’s no different than the asinine idea of a “gas tax holiday” during last year’s presidential race. If Representative Chaffetz is “so disappointed” then why didn’t he pull his head out of his ass and introduce a bill that has the same goals as the one the House passed yesterday. I also love how Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz talk about the government “taking control of people’s health care” and yet they claim they fight to protect Medicare. Are they really that dense? They are fighting the public OPTION because government health care is the death of everyone and YET they are fighting FOR GOVERNMENT RUN MEDICARE!? Please! Also, I’m sorry Rep. Chaffetz but if lawmakers don’t understand the bill it’s their own damn fault. What are you paying all of your staffers for? Sit around and suck air? If you don’t know what is in it by now (the ideas have been talked about for MONTHS) then you either dropped the ball or your staffers did. Either way, your lack of attention does not constitute an emergency on our part. Take some damn responsibility for the job you were elected into! As for Rep. Matheson, I say again. Why is spending this much on HELPING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, when we are spending far MORE in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t have it both ways my friend. Oppose both, accept both, or be willing to raise taxes to pay for both.
http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2295363.html
Now I sympathize with the people in Cali who will be affected by this rise in taxes but I would like them to think of the alternative. Most people don’t realize that states CAN NOT have an unbalanced budget. It is a law. It would be far worse for the state government to go bankrupt than it would be to deal with a rise in taxes. Take the current number of unemployed and then add to it people from EVERY state agency, contract, etc. It’s not a pretty picture is it.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Election night thoughts
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/27/health.care/index.html
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Just wanted to share a few of my thoughts on this election night of 2009.
From what I have read and seen there is a growing concern over the government deficit, the economy, and jobless numbers. Often the complaints about the growing deficit AND bad jobless numbers are coming from the same group. Well I would like to know which is more important to them: jobs or deficit. Jobs are created by the government and by private industry, but as lay-offs and the unemployment rate attest the private sector isn’t producing enough, if any, new jobs. As a result the government is left to fill in the gap because if it doesn’t then the government AND the economy suffer. In order to create jobs, money MUST be spent. Ergo, the deficit will undoubtedly rise. So would these people rather the government spend nothing and try to reduce the deficit, but as a result unemployment skyrockets, or not? We all know that no jobs means no money to be spent which means a terrible economy. Talking about raising taxes (even on the people who can afford it) is political suicide normally and even more toxic in a recession. We put the government between a rock and a hard place because no matter what it does it pisses someone off, even if those same people benefit from government action.
As for the current state of the health care debate, I have a little to add. First off, I say if Sen. Lieberman (I Rhode Island) wants to try and filibuster the health care bill then Sen. Reid should let him, however, Reid should use his power to limit only one person to filibuster (aka Lieberman) and not the larger group. The leader of the Senate is allowed to make such a requirement when it comes to filibusters. I would love to see Sen. Lieberman speak for hours and hours without a break. Somehow I think the filibuster wouldn’t last very long (the longest was just over 24 hours). Also, I love how people are so anal about the cost of this bill, which saves lives, and yet at the same time they have no problem spending MORE within a matter of months on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that the idea is to reduce the threats to this country (which may or may not actually be happening) but you are also killing others. Is it really that much easier to spend money on war than it is on something that could drastically improve life in this country?
I don’t think this country, and the world for that matter, can make the next leap forward until we realize that we are ALL human and we are ALL responsible to one another. Until we realize that this person has the EXACT same rights (including the right to medical care without being forced to choose between health and bankruptcy) as a person on the other side of the globe. As an agnostic I think it’s rather sad that I understand this more fully than a lot of people who claim they are devotedly religious. It is self destructing to fight and kill over which book is true or not, what color a person’s skin is, what gender they prefer to bond with, etc. Until we all truly grow up, this world will not change for the better.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Just wanted to share a few of my thoughts on this election night of 2009.
From what I have read and seen there is a growing concern over the government deficit, the economy, and jobless numbers. Often the complaints about the growing deficit AND bad jobless numbers are coming from the same group. Well I would like to know which is more important to them: jobs or deficit. Jobs are created by the government and by private industry, but as lay-offs and the unemployment rate attest the private sector isn’t producing enough, if any, new jobs. As a result the government is left to fill in the gap because if it doesn’t then the government AND the economy suffer. In order to create jobs, money MUST be spent. Ergo, the deficit will undoubtedly rise. So would these people rather the government spend nothing and try to reduce the deficit, but as a result unemployment skyrockets, or not? We all know that no jobs means no money to be spent which means a terrible economy. Talking about raising taxes (even on the people who can afford it) is political suicide normally and even more toxic in a recession. We put the government between a rock and a hard place because no matter what it does it pisses someone off, even if those same people benefit from government action.
As for the current state of the health care debate, I have a little to add. First off, I say if Sen. Lieberman (I Rhode Island) wants to try and filibuster the health care bill then Sen. Reid should let him, however, Reid should use his power to limit only one person to filibuster (aka Lieberman) and not the larger group. The leader of the Senate is allowed to make such a requirement when it comes to filibusters. I would love to see Sen. Lieberman speak for hours and hours without a break. Somehow I think the filibuster wouldn’t last very long (the longest was just over 24 hours). Also, I love how people are so anal about the cost of this bill, which saves lives, and yet at the same time they have no problem spending MORE within a matter of months on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I understand that the idea is to reduce the threats to this country (which may or may not actually be happening) but you are also killing others. Is it really that much easier to spend money on war than it is on something that could drastically improve life in this country?
I don’t think this country, and the world for that matter, can make the next leap forward until we realize that we are ALL human and we are ALL responsible to one another. Until we realize that this person has the EXACT same rights (including the right to medical care without being forced to choose between health and bankruptcy) as a person on the other side of the globe. As an agnostic I think it’s rather sad that I understand this more fully than a lot of people who claim they are devotedly religious. It is self destructing to fight and kill over which book is true or not, what color a person’s skin is, what gender they prefer to bond with, etc. Until we all truly grow up, this world will not change for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
