Health care vote

The country did not die when the British burned Washington to the ground. It did not fade into the pages of history when the slaves were freed. It did not weaken when women were granted their right to vote. It did not waver when the fate of the world was at stake. It did not crumble in the face of preventing a third world scorching war. It did not end an era when Medicare was passed. This vote on heath care is not what we wanted but it is better than doing nothing! More people will now get the chance to FIGHT for their right to live and their right to make that fight without losing everything in the process.

To those who oppose the idea of health reform I again ask this question. If government health care is good enough for seniors AND our military why not for the rest of us? If it is so bad why have they not fought tooth and nail to get rid of veteran benefits and Medicare? Could it be that they know private insurance companies would only ensure such high risk people over their company’s dead body?

Also keep this in mind when you fight against public health care. Many of our greatest medical triumphs have been funded BY THE GOVERNMENT. How many universities and research institutes have received government grants for medical research? Probably more than 50% I would bet.

This is a small step, and I hope that the idea of total health coverage remains a strong beacon to achieve.

After all, when this country declared itself independent, it shouted to the world that in America everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” We have the right to live our lives, the right to be free, AND the right of ownership.

Thoughts

This is kinda different from my other blogs. It's not political or anything like that. It's more of a situation where I have things swirling in my head and needed to get them out. Comment if you want if you can follow my train of thought well enough lol.



Is it possible for a person to be too nice or care too much for another? I often am willing to help people any way I can. Mostly by letting them know they can talk to me about anything without them having to worry about it affecting my opinion of them. I don’t force the issue, I just simply let them know and leave it to them. This has in the past lead to some close friendships and even stronger feelings (at least from my side), but I wonder if I am being too nice. I am willing to give people everything I can give to make sure that they feel happier and better with life, even if it means a little pain for me (stronger feelings (which I rarely if ever bring to her attention) not returned). I know that people have to make their own decisions in the end but I hate seeing them repeatedly choose to ignore their better judgments or repeatedly get involved with people who are simply wanting a notch on their sexual belt.

Is it selfish or stupid of me to worry about things in a relationship that may or may not happen? I don’t mean trust issues, but other things that go on in a relationship. For example, I am in a long distance relationship and have been for about two years (neither of us is close to being in a position to move). She says that I am “it” for her and no one comes close. Lately I have been debating on ending things. We get along great but have never had a fight (in person and by phone). A few annoyed times, but not a major fight. Now I feel that it can be one of two things: we won’t have major fights, maybe a few minor ones; or things are building up slowly and could end in a big fight. Should I end things to preserve our friendship and avoid any deep emotional baggage if we do have a major ending fight? Also this is my first relationship so I am also concerned if I personally can, for lack of a better term, keep my eyes to myself for as long as it lasts. How do I know if she is “it” for me when I don’t have anyone else to compare her to? It could be 5 years, more or less, before either of us can move, and I’m not sure if it would be fair to either of us to ignore other opportunities for that long. The distance makes it hard for me to be a true boyfriend and be there truly when she needs me. Her happiness above all else is my main concern and I am willing to see her happy with someone who can be there for her ALL the time. Again am I selfish, stupid, or too nice to think of ending things for those reasons? When does it become better to have hurt feelings for a short time, if it means happiness for both down the road with different people?

You get the government you work for

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/15/bayh.centrist.democrats/index.html?hpt=T2

I find this most recent case of a Senator choosing not to seek reelection one of the more interesting ones. Senator Bayh claims that one of his main reasons for not seeking another term is because of the partisan gridlock that is the day to day operations of the U.S. Senate. To me, his actions do not quite fit with his reasons. If you feel the Senate gridlock is a problem, which we all know it is, then why would you decide to “retire”? Would it not be more prudent to seek reelection and try your damnedest to break the gridlock one person at a time? By stepping down doesn’t he risk ADDING to the gridlock by allowing a more partisan person the chance to gain his seat? I wish Sen. Bayh would realize that he could do more as a senator, than he could being a former senator. This move seems to be more for his own benefit than that of his constituents and the nation.

When did this country decide that it was more beneficial to hand the reigns of power to a bunch of extreme politicians and people on both sides of the aisle than it would be to have moderates run things? Was it when special interests, corporations, and unions started to bloat the campaign coughers of politicians? Was it when Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s decided to latch onto the religious extremists of their party to gain back power? Was it when the Democrats decided around the same time to rent or sell themselves to the highest bidder in order for them to compete with the Republicans? Regardless of when it started, it is only getting worse and worse. Today’s reincarnation is the “Tea Party” movement which is starting to make the Republican “revolution” of the 90s look like a centrist movement. The more political things get the less people decide to pay attention which, ironically, has led to more politicization. As hard as it may be people NEED to stay involved in the political process. We NEED to research the issues on our own (from MULTIPLE and DIFFERENT sources), and follow the votes of the people we elect into office. We get the government we work for, and if people are so tired about the way things are now, then we MUST get more involved to help changes things for the better. The extremes of both parties have shown what a dedicated MINORITY can do, but their voice would be drowned out by the moderate ones if only people would wake up and realize it. If there isn’t someone running for an office you agree with, then support the person who is closest to what you believe. Or simply find someone who is at the very least willing to listen and work with people they may not always agree with.

Manchurian Candidates

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14239144?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

This recent ruling by the Supreme Court that lifts ALL restrictions on the type of spending corporations and unions can and cannot do during elections is one of the most corrupt rulings I have ever seen. In this world of electronic information, unlimited spending by people who can afford it violates every principle that democracy was founded on. We think campaign spending is out of control now, just wait to see what happens as a result of this asinine ruling. Where are Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold in the wake of this decision? Where is the outrage and condemnation from the most outspoken people when it comes to campaign finance reform? Do these two truly care about reform or do they only care when it is politically expedient and/or beneficial for them? It is one thing to come out and say they are “disappointed” but quite another to go out and fight for what you believe.

I have said before that large campaign donations are in effect bribery. Help us get what we want and we will give you money to keep, or get, you in elected office. With this ruling these corporations and unions will no longer be able to bribe politicians, they will in fact be able to CHOOSE what politicians they do and do not want. In other words, we will have a government FULL of Manchurian Candidates. If Congress and/or the President don’t do what these people want, then they will be able to simply buy and install people who will give them what they want. Also this ruling doesn’t apply to only U.S. companies, it also applies to U.S. subsidiaries of FOREIGN companies. Am I the only one who has a problem with foreign companies being able to sway elections to suit their interests? Say for example, OPEC…

This idea of a corporation being considered an “individual” has gone way too far. The only time a corporation should be seen as a single entity is in a lawsuit (sue just the company and not every single employee) or criminal case (not everyone is responsible) but even then its pushing it. Every citizen of this country gets one vote, corporations are NOT citizens and as a result should not be able to have such an enormous influence on elections. The employees of a company can give their opinions with their VOTE, and not by their company BUYING the election.

Sorry Sen. Bennet, the idea that this is a huge win for free speech is a laughable claim at best. We’ll see if you still stand by such a statement if this ruling leads to a landslide victory to DEFEAT you. This is anything but free speech.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html

Another thing that would save the government money would be to drastically reduce the amount of contractors that the government currently employs. Contrary to popular belief, contracting out a job is not always the cheapest thing to do. In fact it can often be one of the most expensive things a government could do. Let me explain.

A federal, or civil service, employee costs the government health care, wages, retirement, and training. Also as a direct employee of the federal government, the government can better control its quality controls and fire or change anything that isn’t up to standards. On the other hand, when the government hires a contractor the government not only pays for the same things a federal employee gets but they also have to cover the profit margin of the company they contract with. This is a big reason why contractors often get paid more, because the company they work with can gouge (over charge) the federal government for their services. Also, the government often doesn’t have the same power to fire or hire an employee based on performance if they are contracted.

Yes, contracting may be seen as a way to “shrink” the federal government but you have to ask yourself at what cost. Is it worth paying two, three times, or more, for a contract employee to make government seem “smaller” when a federal employee could do the exact same job for less?

Movies, God, Rush Limbaugh, and War

Avatar link: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/vatican-says-avatar-no-masterpiece-ap
Robertson: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6101136.shtml
Limbaugh: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml


I find it rather pathetic that the Vatican despises Avatar because they claim it flirts “with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion.” Has the Vatican truly forgotten, or has it conveniently ignored the history of religion? Even in the fantasy world of belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, the very FIRST religions were NATURE BASED! What modern religions call “paganism” today is in fact the basis for ALL modern religions in one way or another. If “nature worship” never existed then it is likely that most of today’s religions would look entirely different than they do now. It’s a fact that every religion steals, or “borrows”, parts from all the religions that came before it (such as beliefs, dates, tales, rules, afterlife, etc). So for the Vatican to condemn Avatar and its “nature worship” they are in effect condemning themselves. Not to mention the fact that nearly all religions that do worship nature treat nature AND man far better than basically all monotheistic religions treat them.

This all goes back to this idea that is pervasive throughout major religions today. It is this “holier than thou” mentality that makes them think THEIRS is the true religion and anyone who believes otherwise will be condemned to eternal damnation. As a result these same religions CAUSE more pain and suffering than they claim to CURE. How do you truly help people who believe differently than you when your very beliefs preach that those same people are condemn unless they convert?


Which brings me to Haiti, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh…
Pat Robertson’s “holier than thou” attitude knows no bounds. He couldn’t just stand up there and encourage people to help the victims in Haiti, oh no! He had the audacity, the ignorance, and his head so far up his ass that he had to blame Haiti’s earthquake on Haiti itself! The truly disturbing part of his whole statement was not the fact he said it, it is the fact that people BELIEVE every word he says because he is a “man of God.” Is it really so hard to think for yourselves, or at the very least pick up a geology book? The people who believe Rush Limbaugh and his claims are just as blind and ignorant as those who believe Robertson. Limbaugh’s comments are in some ways even worse than Robertson’s because Robertson was at least encouraging people to help Haiti, Limbaugh on the other hand said not to even think about helping them. To say that the PRESIDENT will siphon funds for relief to fund his campaign as well as use it to his political advantage is simply disgusting. I shouldn’t be surprised that it came from the mouth of a little man who uses fear and sows dissent to get his point across, but to actually tell people NOT to help others is a new low even for him. Again, however, there is a huge number of people who, for whatever reason, believe every little word he spouts from his fat mouth and won‘t lift a finger or a neuron to think for themselves. I would bet even if HE was under a pile of rubble in Haiti that he would STILL make the same pathetic claims.


Finally, I come to our current battle against terrorists once again. The last few weeks have seen an attempted bombing on a plane, and two security breaches in New York City area airports. The bombing was thwarted by passengers, and the breaches were simply people being idiots but still people are again getting paranoid about flying and claiming the President is making us “less safe.” I wrote about how asinine making such a claim is a few weeks ago so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead I would like to raise a different issue. Since 9/11, every attempted terrorist attack in the US has been easily stopped, either by alert travelers, good law enforcement work, and some by to increased security procedures. Some of that credit is deserved, but some I feel is not. I look back at the complex planning used for 9/11 and then look at the attempted attacks since and I see a major flaw in our thinking. Not a single attack since 9/11 has come even close to such planning and detail and all of them are still concentrating on aircraft. I sit here thinking about that as I watch Pearl Harbor and have come to the conclusion that we are probably vastly underestimating the people we are fighting. Now one of the basic rules of war according the Sun Tzu is to “know thy enemy” and that knowing your enemy and yourself means the difference between victory or defeat. I feel that we are greatly underestimating our adversaries. What if we are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do? So far nearly all of the attention to increasing security has been centered on air travel. What if these recent half-asses attacks are designed to KEEP our attention on air travel? Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they flooded their radio transmissions with false targets in order to distract and prevent us from guessing what their true target was. A diversion is one of the most potent tactics to use in warfare. It would not surprise me in the least if that is not exactly what we are seeing today. Our aviation security is almost as good as it is going to get, but we still have at least one major weak point for an attack. Our shipping ports are still just as vulnerable and open to infiltration today as they were 9 years ago. That would be my bet for where the next attack will come from. A weapon, and perhaps even personnel to detonate it, shipped onto US soil by an ocean cargo vessel. From the port they have easy access to the entire country. Sure, you could say they may be randomly pulled over by some Highway Patrol on their way to their target but they would be smart enough to do NOTHING to attract such attention. This is just a theory but it is one I hope I never see proven right.

ENOUGH!!!

I am getting sick and tired of hearing this back and forth about what party makes this country safer and which doesn’t. This debate which has been rekindled because of the attempted bombing on Christmas day is absolutely asinine. For all of you out there attacking the President because you feel his “apologetic” world stance is making us “less safe”; pull your heads OUT of your asses and wake the hell up!

The President had basically played NO part in the major security lapses that allowed this terrorist onto the plane. What allowed it to happen was the security people not doing their jobs AND the lack of intelligence sharing. Neither of these things are controlled by the President on a daily basis and nor should they be. Micromanaging is just as bad as completely ignoring. All of this nonsense about Democrats making the nation less safe and Republicans making it more safe is asinine and helps NO ONE. EVERY single politician cares about having a safe country. EVERYONE! If they did not then they would not have gotten into the offices they now occupy. They may have different ideas of when force (military action) is needed but ALL of them want a safe and peaceful nation. Can we please stop this damn pissing contest over who is more “patriotic” and who isn’t. It helps NO ONE. By bitching back and forth, we are giving our enemies EXACTLY what they want. One of the desired effects of the tactic of terrorism is to not only instill fear into a populace, but also to sow the seeds of paranoia and distrust among that same populace. An opponent who is divided and fighting amongst themselves is a WEAKER opponent than one that is unified in opposition. So by saying one party is “less patriotic” and makes us “less safe” not only makes the person saying it look weak but it also weakens the country as a whole. Look, I know and fully admit, that I will bash people and issues like there is no tomorrow. But I have never and will never, NEVER, accuse a person of being unpatriotic or purposefully trying to destroy this country unless I have proof to the contrary! As the great President Lincoln said so eloquently: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

If you are going to blame someone then blame the Department of Homeland Security. That entire department was created in 2003 to allow the sharing of intelligence, protecting the borders, and improve responses to disasters (terrorism, natural, etc) and yet as we are beginning to find out, the intelligence sharing STILL has not become a reality. Thousands died in 2001, as well as others before 2001 (ie USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc), because intelligence was not available to ALL agencies involved in ensuring the safety of this country. The FBI, CIA, NSA, military intelligence agencies, etc kept all of their information in house. What has to happen for these people to stop their pointless turf war and put ALL of their information in one central place so that ALL of the other agencies have access to the exact same information? What one agency may deem nothing of importance, may be the key to solving something in another agency. I hope the President brings the hammer down on all these agencies and FORCES them to share ALL of their information with each other ALL the time.


"We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
-Abraham Lincoln, First inaugural address, March 4, 1861

Pointless new rules

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airline_attack_regulations

This is seriously one of the most asinine new regulations I have yet to see. You can’t get up, can’t access your carry-on, AND cannot have anything in your lap for the last hour of a flight. How in the hell does this help with “travel security”? Does this mean no bathroom breaks either? So rather than overflowing lavatories we will now have to deal with people in overflowing underwear? Great…

How about we address the REAL security lapse in this case. This guy was on a NO FLY LIST! HELLO!!! Might a better security measure be firing the asses of every person who is supposed to check names with such a list! I guess they are too busy screening all the little old ladies or little kids who have “similar” names to those on no fly lists. Isn’t the whole idea of security screening and no fly lists to PREVENT people like this guy from EVER getting near a plane? Why did NONE of the security personnel find something suspicious about this guy. If you are a customs official wouldn’t you investigate a powdery looking substance in someone’s bag? Just a thought…

This is a perfect example of excessive security. The current procedures in place seem to be doing there job just fine. IF YOU DO YOUR DAMN JOB! I rarely get up in a plane, even on long flights, but these new regulations make me more willing to drive places rather than fly. Not because I feel “less safe” (I feel safer in a plane than any other form of transportation) but because of totally asinine rules such as these, especially when they don’t come close to addressing the actual issue.