"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry March - 23, 1775
"Every American is required to buy health insurance, like it or not." (paraphrased) Barack Obama - March 23, 2010
Yes, folks, I am still out here, just not quite settled in enough to go back to full time blogging. [Yes, things are going well. Thank you for asking.] However, I happened to notice the historical juxtaposition and had to say something. Those of you who remember what "liberty" means know exactly what I am saying. As for the rest of you ... Sorry, I make it a point to keep the language here family friendly and find that I cannot complete that sentence while maintaining that rule. Read between the lines and you should be able to figure it out.
Rest assured that I am still following the news as closely as ever and will be back to commenting in depth just as soon as I can.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel What???
For anyone who still had doubts that the Nobel Peace Prize has become little more than political grandstanding in recent years, this fact was utterly proven today with the announcement that United States President Barack Obama has been named the winner of this year's award. Liberals across the country are doing a happy dance because this somehow proves them right, but what does it really mean? Absolutely nothing.
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Set aside political posturing and partisan bickering for a moment and look at the facts. Nominations for this award were due in by February 1 of this year, by which date Obama had held office for barely eleven days. Short of maybe single-handedly saving the world from an alien invasion, I think we can all agree that it is not physically possible to have accomplished enough in less than two weeks to justify a nomination for what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious awards in the world. The list of "accomplishments" the Nobel Committee claims for Obama were nothing more than campaign speeches at the time he was nominated. Have you ever heard of anyone winning such a high award for campaign speeches? Because I haven't.
To be perfectly blunt, that list of so-called accomplishments is still nothing more than speeches, more than half a year later.
- "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
Extraordinary? He's made - what? - one major speech on this subject, last week at the United Nations?
- "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons"
Okay, I'll give you this one. He talks about this a lot. But what has he actually done about it? Not much. I'm not saying that he won't, but he hasn't. Perhaps we should wait till he's actually done something before we give him an award for doing something?
- "USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting"
Whether you agree with this particular issue or not, you might want to notice that not one single initiative that Obama has pushed in this regard has actually passed yet. Again, nothing yet but speeches.
- "Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Notice the key words there: "are to be". It hasn't happened, but it will happen. Hasn't just about every U.S. President ever promised that this will happen? Regardless of what the results actually turn out to be, the prediction by someone is that it will improve democracy and human rights around the world. It rarely works out that way, but the promise is always made. Only this time you get an award just for making a promise.
It may be that Obama becomes a president and world figure who earns a Nobel Peace Prize in the future. His stated ideals and goals - disarmament, climate change action, healthcare, etc - are certainly well within the preferred areas of accomplishment for the Nobel Committee, but there is, as yet, no accomplishment. The Nobel Committee has only cheapened their award with what is blatantly nothing more than political posturing. This announcement says, "You are not Bush and you seem to do things the way we like, so we're going to pat you on the head for it, regardless of what the award is supposed to stand for." Liberals who are cheering this are only reinforcing the stereotype that they care more for prizes than for what is earned. For the record, I have seen some people say, essentially, "I love Obama and do believe that he will earn this award in the future, but this is ridiculous," so I know those people are out there as well.
This is ridiculous. This is, in fact, the kind of condescending, paternal attitude that liberal's get accused of displaying all the time. "I don't care what you've accomplished. Your heart's in the right place so here's a gold-plated cookie." If Obama were half the politician he thinks he is, he would graciously decline the award and ask to wait until he has accomplished more before being nominated again. Can you imagine the brownie points that would score?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Stretching The Dictionary
Reading the news this morning made me laugh. I see that President Obama and George Stephanopoulos were arguing over whether or not the much-discussed Everyone Must Buy Health Insurance mandate qualified as a new tax on the middle class (thus breaking Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class) and Stephanopoulos broke out the dictionary. I had to go to YouTube and look it up. I cheered! That is something I would have done, and have done here, repeatedly.
Please don't accuse me of thinking that Stephanopoulos stole a trick from my playbook. I know perfectly well that he doesn't even know this blog exists. I still find it gratifying that someone in the mainstream media actually understands the concept of going to the dictionary - the official and codified record of what words mean - when debating the meaning of a word.
There were a few amazing moments in that little discussion (and by "amazing" I mean "Did he really go there?").
Obama accused Stephanopoulos of "stretching a little bit right there" for using the dictionary. Really? It is now considered "stretching" to go to the dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word? On what planet? I would like to think that this blatant Gotcha moment might come back to bite Obama but, unfortunately, I know all too well that his die hard supporters will just spin it to mean something else. They have already started attacking Stephanopoulos (by calling him - GASP - a Republican). The fact of the matter is that Obama was wrong, was caught being wrong, and tried to weasel out of it by making it seem like the eminently reasonable action of Stephanopoulos was something dirty and giggle-worthy. Apparently we are supposed to believe now that it is a bad thing to use words for what they actually mean.
Obama also made the amazing statement, "If I say that, right now, your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10% next year, and you say, 'Well that's not a tax increase.'" And I say, in this example, are you saying this as a president or as an insurance company? Because your example doesn't say. If you are saying this as a president then 1) Yes, that actually would be a tax increase, in exactly the same way that your mandate is a tax increase and 2) When did you, as president, gain the Constitutional authority to tell the insurance companies what they will and will not charge? If, in this example, you are saying this as an insurance company then no, that is not a tax increase because insurance companies do not collect taxes. Duh! You're not really this stupid, are you? Or, more to the point, you don't really believe that we are this stupid, do you?
Finally - no surprise here - Obama fell back on the constant (and constantly false) auto insurance analogy. "Everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." For one thing, Mr. President, many people in America do consider that a tax and thus considered it a tax increase when such laws were passed. They may have agreed with the reason and need for the tax, but it was still a tax. After dismissing that strawman, we get to go back to the many reasons (already listed here) as to why the comparing health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandate is a false analogy. I know it sounds good and they do both have the word "insurance" in them, but surely a Harvard law professor can parse language better than that.
If you have to spend money you might not otherwise spend, because the government told you to, under penalty of law, that is a tax, no matter what other fancy terms you care to apply. If it is a new expenditure then it is a tax increase. No amount of fancy rhetoric will make this fact go away. It may be that you believe this tax increase is warranted, but that is an entirely different debate. Warranted or not, it is still a tax increase. Obama is faced with the choice of breaking his word to try and go forward with his healthcare policy ideas or keeping his word and probably not going forward with this ideas. It is a pretty classic No Win situation but then, frankly, he (and any other politician you care to know) should never have made that "no new taxes" pledge. That's a promise that never ends well in the long run.
Please don't accuse me of thinking that Stephanopoulos stole a trick from my playbook. I know perfectly well that he doesn't even know this blog exists. I still find it gratifying that someone in the mainstream media actually understands the concept of going to the dictionary - the official and codified record of what words mean - when debating the meaning of a word.
There were a few amazing moments in that little discussion (and by "amazing" I mean "Did he really go there?").
Obama accused Stephanopoulos of "stretching a little bit right there" for using the dictionary. Really? It is now considered "stretching" to go to the dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word? On what planet? I would like to think that this blatant Gotcha moment might come back to bite Obama but, unfortunately, I know all too well that his die hard supporters will just spin it to mean something else. They have already started attacking Stephanopoulos (by calling him - GASP - a Republican). The fact of the matter is that Obama was wrong, was caught being wrong, and tried to weasel out of it by making it seem like the eminently reasonable action of Stephanopoulos was something dirty and giggle-worthy. Apparently we are supposed to believe now that it is a bad thing to use words for what they actually mean.
Obama also made the amazing statement, "If I say that, right now, your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10% next year, and you say, 'Well that's not a tax increase.'" And I say, in this example, are you saying this as a president or as an insurance company? Because your example doesn't say. If you are saying this as a president then 1) Yes, that actually would be a tax increase, in exactly the same way that your mandate is a tax increase and 2) When did you, as president, gain the Constitutional authority to tell the insurance companies what they will and will not charge? If, in this example, you are saying this as an insurance company then no, that is not a tax increase because insurance companies do not collect taxes. Duh! You're not really this stupid, are you? Or, more to the point, you don't really believe that we are this stupid, do you?
Finally - no surprise here - Obama fell back on the constant (and constantly false) auto insurance analogy. "Everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." For one thing, Mr. President, many people in America do consider that a tax and thus considered it a tax increase when such laws were passed. They may have agreed with the reason and need for the tax, but it was still a tax. After dismissing that strawman, we get to go back to the many reasons (already listed here) as to why the comparing health insurance mandate to auto insurance mandate is a false analogy. I know it sounds good and they do both have the word "insurance" in them, but surely a Harvard law professor can parse language better than that.
If you have to spend money you might not otherwise spend, because the government told you to, under penalty of law, that is a tax, no matter what other fancy terms you care to apply. If it is a new expenditure then it is a tax increase. No amount of fancy rhetoric will make this fact go away. It may be that you believe this tax increase is warranted, but that is an entirely different debate. Warranted or not, it is still a tax increase. Obama is faced with the choice of breaking his word to try and go forward with his healthcare policy ideas or keeping his word and probably not going forward with this ideas. It is a pretty classic No Win situation but then, frankly, he (and any other politician you care to know) should never have made that "no new taxes" pledge. That's a promise that never ends well in the long run.
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Solves Everything Cop Out
The Left has developed a bulletproof response to every policy objection the Right might care to raise: it's all a result of racism. This neatly ends the need to discover whether or not points should be discussed - let alone the possibility of having such a discussion - because now, instead of discussing the original point of debate, you're discussing whether or not the argument is racially motivated. The very fact that a charge of racism can so easily derail any conversation should, itself, be a testament to how far we have come in race relations - Would the accusation be so explosive or insulting if there truly were as many racists as the accusers claim? Do you honestly believe that if you accused, for example, the average KKK member of being racist, that person would be insulted? - but instead it is being used to drive us backward. If you don't think people can develop racist tendencies by being constantly falsely accused of such then you don't know much about psychology or sociology.
Is there a racial overtone (or undertone) to the objections against President Obama's policies? Interestingly, Obama himself doesn't think so, not that this is doing a thing to slow down the accusers. Of course, it could be that Obama is just taking the politically expedient route. He is, after all, a politician. So what about the accusations themselves? Do they hold up? Why don't we look at a few and find out?
"Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar last week was ALL about race -- the race of the illegal immigrants both the President and Mr. Wilson were referring to."
This is one of the biggest and one of the easiest to dismiss. This could actually be an entire posting subject on its own, but I'll try to keep it brief. For starters, this argument demonstrates that there is nothing new with improperly inserting racial accusations into a policy debate. There are many people on one side of the illegal immigration debate who insist on making it a racial debate instead of a law and immigration debate. According to them, if you support enforcing (and even toughening) illegal immigration laws then you are a racist. End of discussion. Never mind the fact that immigration laws do not concern a specific race or that supporting such laws doesn't say a thing about your opinion on legal immigration. According to the thinking of this group, it is racist because one racial group makes up the majority of illegal immigrants in this country. Seriously? Is it my fault one race breaks this particular law more often than any other? If one racial group made up most of the thieves in a given country (please note that I am not suggesting this to be the case nor do I believe it to be so - I'm only giving a stupidly exaggerated example) would it then become racist to enforce anti-stealing laws? Of course not! Who would suggest such silliness? Why then is it suggested in this other area of law?
"Also, if it is not racism why carry swastika signs or call President Obama all kinds of unsavory names, and carry loaded guns to the meetings or protest marches?"
Do you even know what racism is about? Here's a hint: "I don't like you, you're stupid," is not a racist comment. It doesn't matter if I'm purple and you're green, it's still not a racist comment. If you're going to accuse someone of racism, can you at least use racial examples to support your accusation?
"Why all the rascist signs at these meetings calling Obama Hitler and Muslim and using every deragatory comment based on religion and race? As a black female seeing that I call it rasism (sic)."
Again, an accusation of racism while citing examples that do not support the accusation. Muslim is a religion, not a race and comparing Obama (black) to Hitler (white supremacist) strikes me as a rather absurd way to go about racism. You are aware of the fact that many true racists would not consider comparisons to Hitler to be a bad thing, right?
I've collected another comment that says pretty much the same thing as this one but includes the phrase "Indonesian Muslim" instead of just "Muslim". If you aren't aware of the fact that the "Indonesian" portion of that particular accusation is an assertion on whether or not Obama is legally eligible to hold the office of president (no comment here on the irrationality of that assertion - that would be a different post) and not a racial slur against Indonesians then you haven't been paying enough attention to current events to really warrant making a comment.
"There is a huge element of racism in how many Republicans, white working-class people, and those on the religious right see the Democratic Party as a whole. I know religious people who seethe at the very thought of their tax money going to welfare cheats (i.e., blacks), who are full of anger at having to deal with resentful, boorish, fat, lazy, long-nailed government clerks (black women), and who burn with hatred at the anti-social low-lifes whose very presence drives down property values, ruins neighborhoods, and contaminates everything they touch (blacks again). For many of them the words "welfare", "socialism", "Obama", and "Democrat" are just code words for black, black, black, and black."
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projecting"? Just because you claim that these things are code words for "black" doesn't mean that they are. Personally, most of the welfare cheats that I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the boorish, lazy government workers I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the people complaining about these people that I have known in my life have been just as demonstrably angry about the "white trash" examples as at any other examples. Frankly, what does it say about you that you assume these things mean "black"? In short, this is another accusation without foundation. Because the accuser assumes the person in question means "black" does not in any way demonstrate or prove that this is actually the case.
What needs to be said here is that this is most of the current debate on racism. It is made up almost entirely of people assuming racism with no evidence to support the accusation. Are there racists involved in this debate? Absolutely, and anyone who suggests otherwise is too foolish to be involved in the debate. Are those racists the majority of the Right side of the debate? There is no evidence to support this assumption and I find it highly doubtful. The fact of the matter is that the Left, on the whole, assumes that you are racist if you don't support welfare, affirmative action, or entitlement policies in general or if you do support such things as enforcement of illegal immigration laws - in short, if you're not on the Left - so you are guilty before you have even done anything. This makes it easier for them because, if you are just a hateful little racist, they don't have to waste time discussing policy differences with you.
There is a continuing problem with racism in this country, but you cannot solve that problem by throwing everything you disagree with into the same pot and calling it all racism. People can disagree with spending decisions without having a racial motivation. People can believe there is no Constitutional justification for government involvement in healthcare without having racial motivations. People can believe that current plans under discussion will harm their own healthcare without having racial motivations. The very fact that these differences can legitimately exist indicates that you should be discussing them instead of dismissing them as racism and pretending they don't exist.
The fact that you refuse to discuss them does not say good things about your side of the argument.
Is there a racial overtone (or undertone) to the objections against President Obama's policies? Interestingly, Obama himself doesn't think so, not that this is doing a thing to slow down the accusers. Of course, it could be that Obama is just taking the politically expedient route. He is, after all, a politician. So what about the accusations themselves? Do they hold up? Why don't we look at a few and find out?
"Representative Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar last week was ALL about race -- the race of the illegal immigrants both the President and Mr. Wilson were referring to."
This is one of the biggest and one of the easiest to dismiss. This could actually be an entire posting subject on its own, but I'll try to keep it brief. For starters, this argument demonstrates that there is nothing new with improperly inserting racial accusations into a policy debate. There are many people on one side of the illegal immigration debate who insist on making it a racial debate instead of a law and immigration debate. According to them, if you support enforcing (and even toughening) illegal immigration laws then you are a racist. End of discussion. Never mind the fact that immigration laws do not concern a specific race or that supporting such laws doesn't say a thing about your opinion on legal immigration. According to the thinking of this group, it is racist because one racial group makes up the majority of illegal immigrants in this country. Seriously? Is it my fault one race breaks this particular law more often than any other? If one racial group made up most of the thieves in a given country (please note that I am not suggesting this to be the case nor do I believe it to be so - I'm only giving a stupidly exaggerated example) would it then become racist to enforce anti-stealing laws? Of course not! Who would suggest such silliness? Why then is it suggested in this other area of law?
"Also, if it is not racism why carry swastika signs or call President Obama all kinds of unsavory names, and carry loaded guns to the meetings or protest marches?"
Do you even know what racism is about? Here's a hint: "I don't like you, you're stupid," is not a racist comment. It doesn't matter if I'm purple and you're green, it's still not a racist comment. If you're going to accuse someone of racism, can you at least use racial examples to support your accusation?
"Why all the rascist signs at these meetings calling Obama Hitler and Muslim and using every deragatory comment based on religion and race? As a black female seeing that I call it rasism (sic)."
Again, an accusation of racism while citing examples that do not support the accusation. Muslim is a religion, not a race and comparing Obama (black) to Hitler (white supremacist) strikes me as a rather absurd way to go about racism. You are aware of the fact that many true racists would not consider comparisons to Hitler to be a bad thing, right?
I've collected another comment that says pretty much the same thing as this one but includes the phrase "Indonesian Muslim" instead of just "Muslim". If you aren't aware of the fact that the "Indonesian" portion of that particular accusation is an assertion on whether or not Obama is legally eligible to hold the office of president (no comment here on the irrationality of that assertion - that would be a different post) and not a racial slur against Indonesians then you haven't been paying enough attention to current events to really warrant making a comment.
"There is a huge element of racism in how many Republicans, white working-class people, and those on the religious right see the Democratic Party as a whole. I know religious people who seethe at the very thought of their tax money going to welfare cheats (i.e., blacks), who are full of anger at having to deal with resentful, boorish, fat, lazy, long-nailed government clerks (black women), and who burn with hatred at the anti-social low-lifes whose very presence drives down property values, ruins neighborhoods, and contaminates everything they touch (blacks again). For many of them the words "welfare", "socialism", "Obama", and "Democrat" are just code words for black, black, black, and black."
Are you familiar with the psychological term "projecting"? Just because you claim that these things are code words for "black" doesn't mean that they are. Personally, most of the welfare cheats that I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the boorish, lazy government workers I have known or seen in my life have been white. Most of the people complaining about these people that I have known in my life have been just as demonstrably angry about the "white trash" examples as at any other examples. Frankly, what does it say about you that you assume these things mean "black"? In short, this is another accusation without foundation. Because the accuser assumes the person in question means "black" does not in any way demonstrate or prove that this is actually the case.
What needs to be said here is that this is most of the current debate on racism. It is made up almost entirely of people assuming racism with no evidence to support the accusation. Are there racists involved in this debate? Absolutely, and anyone who suggests otherwise is too foolish to be involved in the debate. Are those racists the majority of the Right side of the debate? There is no evidence to support this assumption and I find it highly doubtful. The fact of the matter is that the Left, on the whole, assumes that you are racist if you don't support welfare, affirmative action, or entitlement policies in general or if you do support such things as enforcement of illegal immigration laws - in short, if you're not on the Left - so you are guilty before you have even done anything. This makes it easier for them because, if you are just a hateful little racist, they don't have to waste time discussing policy differences with you.
There is a continuing problem with racism in this country, but you cannot solve that problem by throwing everything you disagree with into the same pot and calling it all racism. People can disagree with spending decisions without having a racial motivation. People can believe there is no Constitutional justification for government involvement in healthcare without having racial motivations. People can believe that current plans under discussion will harm their own healthcare without having racial motivations. The very fact that these differences can legitimately exist indicates that you should be discussing them instead of dismissing them as racism and pretending they don't exist.
The fact that you refuse to discuss them does not say good things about your side of the argument.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Healthcare Lies Continue
In an about face from one of his campaign promises, President Obama has announced that he would be open to the possibility of legislation requiring people to maintain health insurance whether they want it or not, fining those who fail to do so and only exempting those who absolutely cannot afford the premiums (note that this last group would only include those whose income fell under a certain bar and it would have nothing to do with what you felt you could or could not afford). If that sentence doesn't send a chill through you then I have to wonder if you understand America at all.
During his presidential campaign, Obama assured everyone that no one would be required to have health insurance under his ideas of healthcare reform. He now says that his thinking has evolved because of persuasive arguments others have made that say bringing down the cost of healthcare may require such legislation. This would normally be the time when charges of flip-flopping get leveled (and such charges actually are already flying across the blogoshpere), but I'm not going to take that route. Personally, I have no trouble with evolved thinking. If you cannot change your mind in the face of new evidence then you have no business being in charge of anything and what is often charged as flip-flopping is, in reality, sound decision making in the face of new evidence. I don't believe this is a case of new evidence, though. President Obama has demonstrated himself to be too intelligent and too sharp on research to not have thought of this little problem a long time ago (whatever problems I have with Obama, the abilities of his mind are not on the list). I don't think there has been any new evidence and I don't think his thinking has evolved. I think he lied, plain and simple.
To say that healthcare reform would be a long and hard battle would be a championship level understatement. The subject hasn't even been seriously broached since the Clinton administration and then it went down in flames. Barack Obama certainly knew this when he made healthcare reform a central part of his campaign. He knew what kind of fight he would have on his hands and he knew that he had to temper things accordingly.
No matter how sheep-like the American public becomes (and believe me, I expect some people to start grazing any day now), most people still feel their hackles rise when you start saying "mandatory" to anything that has never before been mandatory, especially when it means telling people they have to pay for something. For many people, it's different if you just take it in taxes. Then they never actually see the money to fret over having to spend it and they're not smart enough to fully realize they still spent it. (Think I'm being too harsh here? Witness how many people insist on calling single-payer healthcare "free" despite the fact that this is exactly how it is paid for.) There are too many of us, however, who would see through this scam and would scream bloody murder. If you start taxing for healthcare then you are wide open for the claims of socialism that most proponents of reform are trying to avoid. So, we're in a bind if we know that lowering costs is going to require people paying for health insurance they don't actually use to buoy up the influx of people who aren't really paying (being subsidized by other people's taxes) but are using the healthcare system every chance they get. If we tell people up front that we're going to make them pay for something they don't want, even some healthcare reform supporters are going to get mad and drop support. If we tell people we're going to add a huge healthcare tax ... Well, telling people they're about to get taxed even further usually results in not getting elected. So how do we address this?
It's pretty easy, actually, and a community organizer would know exactly how to do it. You get people completely and totally pumped about what they want first and then, only after they have built up a good head of steam, you break the bad news in such a way that the over-excited mob now sees it as a challenge to overcome, instead of something that would have stopped them cold before they got pumped. If you have ever been part of a charity organization, a high school football team, or a basic training platoon then you know exactly what I mean. It's done all the time and it's done in almost the exact same way this about face has been done.
What will President Obama's thinking evolve about next? He is already changing the wording of a promise he made just last week, that no one who liked their doctor or coverage would have to change under his plans. He's hedging his bets on that one before the news is even old. If I were a betting man, I would wager that whatever plan finally emerges, it will have little to no resemblance to what has been discussed so far.
Just wait and see.
During his presidential campaign, Obama assured everyone that no one would be required to have health insurance under his ideas of healthcare reform. He now says that his thinking has evolved because of persuasive arguments others have made that say bringing down the cost of healthcare may require such legislation. This would normally be the time when charges of flip-flopping get leveled (and such charges actually are already flying across the blogoshpere), but I'm not going to take that route. Personally, I have no trouble with evolved thinking. If you cannot change your mind in the face of new evidence then you have no business being in charge of anything and what is often charged as flip-flopping is, in reality, sound decision making in the face of new evidence. I don't believe this is a case of new evidence, though. President Obama has demonstrated himself to be too intelligent and too sharp on research to not have thought of this little problem a long time ago (whatever problems I have with Obama, the abilities of his mind are not on the list). I don't think there has been any new evidence and I don't think his thinking has evolved. I think he lied, plain and simple.
To say that healthcare reform would be a long and hard battle would be a championship level understatement. The subject hasn't even been seriously broached since the Clinton administration and then it went down in flames. Barack Obama certainly knew this when he made healthcare reform a central part of his campaign. He knew what kind of fight he would have on his hands and he knew that he had to temper things accordingly.
No matter how sheep-like the American public becomes (and believe me, I expect some people to start grazing any day now), most people still feel their hackles rise when you start saying "mandatory" to anything that has never before been mandatory, especially when it means telling people they have to pay for something. For many people, it's different if you just take it in taxes. Then they never actually see the money to fret over having to spend it and they're not smart enough to fully realize they still spent it. (Think I'm being too harsh here? Witness how many people insist on calling single-payer healthcare "free" despite the fact that this is exactly how it is paid for.) There are too many of us, however, who would see through this scam and would scream bloody murder. If you start taxing for healthcare then you are wide open for the claims of socialism that most proponents of reform are trying to avoid. So, we're in a bind if we know that lowering costs is going to require people paying for health insurance they don't actually use to buoy up the influx of people who aren't really paying (being subsidized by other people's taxes) but are using the healthcare system every chance they get. If we tell people up front that we're going to make them pay for something they don't want, even some healthcare reform supporters are going to get mad and drop support. If we tell people we're going to add a huge healthcare tax ... Well, telling people they're about to get taxed even further usually results in not getting elected. So how do we address this?
It's pretty easy, actually, and a community organizer would know exactly how to do it. You get people completely and totally pumped about what they want first and then, only after they have built up a good head of steam, you break the bad news in such a way that the over-excited mob now sees it as a challenge to overcome, instead of something that would have stopped them cold before they got pumped. If you have ever been part of a charity organization, a high school football team, or a basic training platoon then you know exactly what I mean. It's done all the time and it's done in almost the exact same way this about face has been done.
What will President Obama's thinking evolve about next? He is already changing the wording of a promise he made just last week, that no one who liked their doctor or coverage would have to change under his plans. He's hedging his bets on that one before the news is even old. If I were a betting man, I would wager that whatever plan finally emerges, it will have little to no resemblance to what has been discussed so far.
Just wait and see.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Priorities Gone to The Dogs
Try this on for size. This is an actual headline I saw yesterday. "Animal rescuers disappointed over 'first dog' choice". My first thought when I read the headline was, "Who cares?" After reading the article, the only change to my first thought was adding expletives that I will not reprint here. These people actually think it is a newsworthy matter that the Obamas went to a breeder for their dog rather than getting one from a rescue shelter.
This is a major problem with the modern issues movements. Some nutjobs have their one hotbutton issue that is usually irrelevant to the world at large and are genuinely confused and offended when no one else cares. Turn on the news some time. Maybe you'll see that there are more important concerns in the world than where someone acquired a dog. Seriously, what has happened to the human race and any sense of priorities?
I have a laundry list of reasons I am not a fan of Barack Obama. His choice in dogs has so low a priority, it can't even see the list. We have a deepening recession, out-of-control spending, ongoing terrorism concerns, pirates on the seven seas, a couple of wars, and various international and domestic crises that all require delicate attention. How does a choice of dog even rate on this scale?
Personally, I was baffled as to why the whole world was watching the White House for their dog selection in the first place. Okay, it's a cutesy human interest story that people don't have to cringe or worry about. I can see that. So why turn it into a cringe or worry fest? It doesn't make sense.
If you actually feel the need to make international news (this story was on the UK edition of Reuters), can you at least try to have something worth saying to the world?
This is a major problem with the modern issues movements. Some nutjobs have their one hotbutton issue that is usually irrelevant to the world at large and are genuinely confused and offended when no one else cares. Turn on the news some time. Maybe you'll see that there are more important concerns in the world than where someone acquired a dog. Seriously, what has happened to the human race and any sense of priorities?
I have a laundry list of reasons I am not a fan of Barack Obama. His choice in dogs has so low a priority, it can't even see the list. We have a deepening recession, out-of-control spending, ongoing terrorism concerns, pirates on the seven seas, a couple of wars, and various international and domestic crises that all require delicate attention. How does a choice of dog even rate on this scale?
Personally, I was baffled as to why the whole world was watching the White House for their dog selection in the first place. Okay, it's a cutesy human interest story that people don't have to cringe or worry about. I can see that. So why turn it into a cringe or worry fest? It doesn't make sense.
If you actually feel the need to make international news (this story was on the UK edition of Reuters), can you at least try to have something worth saying to the world?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Betrayal Of Service
The Obama administration announced today that it was dropping plans for a proposal it should never have been pursuing in the first place. Actually, in an ironic note, no one in the administration even had the nerve to make the announcement so they had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi make it instead. I say this is ironic because the House was not pursuing this plan - in fact, the heads of the appropriate committees in both chambers, both Democrats amusingly enough, flat refused to even consider it - so why was this a House Speaker announcement? My guess is that no one in Obama's posse relished the idea of getting his or her nose rubbed in yet another monumental mistake.
What was this monumental mistake? Obama wanted to go after private insurance companies to pay for service-related treatment for our military personnel. Supposedly this plan would save the federal government more than $500 million and, after all, the insurance companies are getting a free ride. Obama said it, so it must be true. He even had the gall to tell veteran's groups that, if they didn't like his plan, they needed to come up with something else.
[This whole current philosophy of "you're not allowed to say no unless you have your own plan" is really starting to get on my nerves, but that's a post for another day.]
I have an idea, Mr. President. It's rather revolutionary, and I know how much you like anything revolutionary, so stop me if you've heard this one before. It's a really simple plan: Honor your commitments and don't spend billions of dollars you don't have, preventing you from honoring your commitments.
Insurance companies are not getting a free ride on service-related treatment because they have nothing to do with service-related treatment! They didn't put our soldiers in harms way, we did. We owe them! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this president, who believes so strongly in "spreading the wealth", should have such a low understanding of paying an honest debt, but this is a new low.
I have not been a rabid anti-Obama writer. I dislike him and I certainly didn't vote for him. I believe he is unqualified for his job and is going to make a huge mess that the rest of us will have to find a way to clean. However, I believe we have had very few qualified presidents in the last 200 years, so I didn't see Obama as anything too remarkable, even in that. Now, though, I am beginning to wonder if I have been too forgiving.
We are the first nation in the history of the world who have acted like we truly believe that we can spit on our own military and get away with it. If any other military at any other time in history were treated the way we have treated ours there would have been a military coup long ago. Either that or they would have simply walked away and left us to defend ourselves. How much arrogance does it take to torment and abuse the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen? Have we really become this stupid?
Mr. Obama, your behavior this week has been truly disgusting. Not only are you too arrogant to realize the foolishness of your actions, you lack the honor to recognize the shame of them. These people deserve your respect and your gratitude, not another one of your spur-of-the-moment, half-thought-out pipe dreams.
To those who have served this country and stuck to your guns in opposition to this scheme, thank you. Thank you for your service and thank you for your continued dedication. I promise you, there are those who have not forgotten.
What was this monumental mistake? Obama wanted to go after private insurance companies to pay for service-related treatment for our military personnel. Supposedly this plan would save the federal government more than $500 million and, after all, the insurance companies are getting a free ride. Obama said it, so it must be true. He even had the gall to tell veteran's groups that, if they didn't like his plan, they needed to come up with something else.
[This whole current philosophy of "you're not allowed to say no unless you have your own plan" is really starting to get on my nerves, but that's a post for another day.]
I have an idea, Mr. President. It's rather revolutionary, and I know how much you like anything revolutionary, so stop me if you've heard this one before. It's a really simple plan: Honor your commitments and don't spend billions of dollars you don't have, preventing you from honoring your commitments.
Insurance companies are not getting a free ride on service-related treatment because they have nothing to do with service-related treatment! They didn't put our soldiers in harms way, we did. We owe them! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this president, who believes so strongly in "spreading the wealth", should have such a low understanding of paying an honest debt, but this is a new low.
I have not been a rabid anti-Obama writer. I dislike him and I certainly didn't vote for him. I believe he is unqualified for his job and is going to make a huge mess that the rest of us will have to find a way to clean. However, I believe we have had very few qualified presidents in the last 200 years, so I didn't see Obama as anything too remarkable, even in that. Now, though, I am beginning to wonder if I have been too forgiving.
We are the first nation in the history of the world who have acted like we truly believe that we can spit on our own military and get away with it. If any other military at any other time in history were treated the way we have treated ours there would have been a military coup long ago. Either that or they would have simply walked away and left us to defend ourselves. How much arrogance does it take to torment and abuse the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen? Have we really become this stupid?
Mr. Obama, your behavior this week has been truly disgusting. Not only are you too arrogant to realize the foolishness of your actions, you lack the honor to recognize the shame of them. These people deserve your respect and your gratitude, not another one of your spur-of-the-moment, half-thought-out pipe dreams.
To those who have served this country and stuck to your guns in opposition to this scheme, thank you. Thank you for your service and thank you for your continued dedication. I promise you, there are those who have not forgotten.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
An Omnibus Of Absurdity
Sorry I haven't been around much - the paying job has been rather consuming lately - but, in honor of the Omnibus Pork Bill currently squabbling its way through Congress, here is an omnibus post on the absurd headlines and talking points in the news lately.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against a sitting head of state for the first time. They have accused Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur and officials from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have stepped up to defend and endorse al-Bashir. A gaggle of known criminals is endorsing another criminal and they're not even smart enough to realize what this means.
The U.S. Postal Service is losing revenue yet again and is now threatening to remove Saturday deliveries in order to save money. Face it folks. If any real business were run the way this agency is run it would have gone bankrupt and disappeared long ago. The USPS is the only "business" in the world that gets away with raising rates because no one wants there service.
A middle school in Southern California is spending $10000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish classes to native Spanish speakers and they don't understand why everyone else is giving them funny looks. School officials claim to be just taking advantage of a natural resource but I'd say artificially inflating your "success" numbers by giving classes to students who are known to have no need of the class is more accurately described as cheating. It's kind of like putting the math nerds in the Checkbooks for Dummies classes and then claiming to have done something wonderful when they all achieve perfect scores.
Southwest has a new plane on the runway that has some passengers seeing red. It has other passengers seeing a beautiful woman in a bikini but it's all in the eye of the beholder, right? The new plane is a flying advertisement for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and features Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli lounging in a bikini. Uptight passengers are complaining that it is "pornography". Ordinarily I scoff at European opinions of America, but this one makes sense. One of the reasons they often look down on us is because we have so many loud people who do not know how to use a dictionary. Look up "pornography", people. You will not find "woman lounging in a bikini" anywhere in the definition.
And, of course, the hoorah about comments from Rush Limbaugh continues to defy imagination. Everywhere you look you'll find Lefties crying "treason!" because a man who is known to oppose liberal policies has stated that he hopes those policies fail. When did criticising a sitting president become treasonous? It certainly wasn't treasonous for the last eight years when the Left was non-stop slamming and ridiculing Bush. Of course, we're talking about the same people who dismiss Limbaugh as a "drug addict" because he became hooked on pain medication after surgery but apparently have no problem with Obama's admitted recreational drug use. Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Speaking of that particular controversy, Federal Union Thug ... I mean Boss Colleen M. Kelley recently weighed in on the controversy by lambasting Limbaugh and claiming that "If he [Obamna] fails, our country fails." Really? In a country of more than 300 Million people our only possibility of solving this economic crisis resides with one man of middling political experience? And Kelley wonders why she didn't get invited to the White House for the last eight years.
I could keep going but I think I've skewered enough absurdities for one day. Maybe I'll do another omnibus tomorrow. There will certainly be the headlines for it. It seems certain now that one thing I can count on from the current political circus is plenty of absurdities. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so frightening.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against a sitting head of state for the first time. They have accused Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur and officials from Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah have stepped up to defend and endorse al-Bashir. A gaggle of known criminals is endorsing another criminal and they're not even smart enough to realize what this means.
The U.S. Postal Service is losing revenue yet again and is now threatening to remove Saturday deliveries in order to save money. Face it folks. If any real business were run the way this agency is run it would have gone bankrupt and disappeared long ago. The USPS is the only "business" in the world that gets away with raising rates because no one wants there service.
A middle school in Southern California is spending $10000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish classes to native Spanish speakers and they don't understand why everyone else is giving them funny looks. School officials claim to be just taking advantage of a natural resource but I'd say artificially inflating your "success" numbers by giving classes to students who are known to have no need of the class is more accurately described as cheating. It's kind of like putting the math nerds in the Checkbooks for Dummies classes and then claiming to have done something wonderful when they all achieve perfect scores.
Southwest has a new plane on the runway that has some passengers seeing red. It has other passengers seeing a beautiful woman in a bikini but it's all in the eye of the beholder, right? The new plane is a flying advertisement for Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and features Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli lounging in a bikini. Uptight passengers are complaining that it is "pornography". Ordinarily I scoff at European opinions of America, but this one makes sense. One of the reasons they often look down on us is because we have so many loud people who do not know how to use a dictionary. Look up "pornography", people. You will not find "woman lounging in a bikini" anywhere in the definition.
And, of course, the hoorah about comments from Rush Limbaugh continues to defy imagination. Everywhere you look you'll find Lefties crying "treason!" because a man who is known to oppose liberal policies has stated that he hopes those policies fail. When did criticising a sitting president become treasonous? It certainly wasn't treasonous for the last eight years when the Left was non-stop slamming and ridiculing Bush. Of course, we're talking about the same people who dismiss Limbaugh as a "drug addict" because he became hooked on pain medication after surgery but apparently have no problem with Obama's admitted recreational drug use. Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Speaking of that particular controversy, Federal Union Thug ... I mean Boss Colleen M. Kelley recently weighed in on the controversy by lambasting Limbaugh and claiming that "If he [Obamna] fails, our country fails." Really? In a country of more than 300 Million people our only possibility of solving this economic crisis resides with one man of middling political experience? And Kelley wonders why she didn't get invited to the White House for the last eight years.
I could keep going but I think I've skewered enough absurdities for one day. Maybe I'll do another omnibus tomorrow. There will certainly be the headlines for it. It seems certain now that one thing I can count on from the current political circus is plenty of absurdities. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so frightening.
Monday, January 26, 2009
State Of The Union
I have mentioned numerous times that I spend at least as much time reading comments sections as I do reading news and editorials. You can learn more this way; learn more about what people think. The comments sections are not usually full of the professional thinkers and writers. They are, instead, full of the average reader for whatever publication is hosting the comments. As such, a comments section can be a better barometer for the social, mental, and emotional state of a population than an entire newspaper.
Imagine my disgust, then, at the comments I read so often.
I read one today on the Washington Post's website. The story isn't particularly important to this discussion but, for background, it was about the continuing controversy over President Obama telling a collection of politicians that they "can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
Full disclosure: I did not vote for Obama and I have never listened to Rush. If that double negative throws off some preconceived notions on where I stand, too bad.
At any rate, a person posting under the name "Changeontheway" had some things to say that I find very disturbing. This person states that Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly said that he wants President Obama to fail (a point that may or may not be true - I have no way to judge) and, in this same paragraph - so, I must assume, for this reason - claims that Limbaugh is "a terrorist with a mic".
Had that been all that Changeontheway said, that would have been bad enough. To compare an editorialist with a suicide bomber is the ultimate in false identification. If people like this honestly cannot tell the difference between vehement disagreement and intentional mass homicide then our democracy is doomed already. Just imagine what happens when you get too many people this stupid voting.
That was, however, not all this genius had to say on the matter.
The next paragraph is two simple sentences: "First, Limbaugh has committed treason against the United States. His comments warrant criminal charges."
I just love how much this word "treason" gets thrown around these days. You would think that we were living in a totalitarian society where speaking out against the ruler warrants a death sentence or where "treason" is a wide word with a vague definition. In America, however, such is not the case. In America, the word "treason" has been carefully defined by nothing less than the Constitution itself. Article III Section 3 states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." [Stress added by me.] I am fairly certain that even Limbaugh's most ardent opponents would not attempt to claim that he adheres to the enemies of the United States or that he has attempted to levy war. The fact that Obama has already been quite vocal in expressing many ideas that would be antithetical to the conservative position combined with the fact that Limbaugh is a very vocal conservative would make it self-evident that Limbaugh would hope Obama fails in these policies. Most conservatives probably hope for the same thing. I am not, strictly speaking, a conservative and I'm hoping for quite a few failures myself. That is not treason, under our laws, and it is protected political speech. The very type of protected speech, in fact, that liberals usually spend so much time screaming about. It's so nice to see that the double standard is alive and well.
Changeontheway goes on to say that "the FCC should shut his program down. This man has been convicted of doctor shopping, due to his addiction of medications, he has made threats to our new administration and is overall offensive." We'll take those in order, if you don't mind. They won't take long.
There is no FCC regulation barring someone with a conviction from having a broadcasting career and such a regulation would be ludicrous in the extreme. What does one even have to do with the other?
What threats has Limbaugh made toward any administration? While I've already stated that I don't listen to the show, I am fairly certain that any such threats, coming from one of the highest-rated voices in talk radio, would have made the national news. I don't recall seeing any headlines to that effect and, as you might imagine, I am something of a news junkie. Hoping that someone fails, if that is what is supposed to be the threat here, is hardly the same thing as threatening someone. Even if Limbaugh has threatened to help Obama fail, that is not the type of threat that is punishable. Obama has threatened to veto certain legislation if it does not meet his approval. That is his job. Convincing his listeners to help stop the policies of which he does not approve is Limbaugh's job, and it is a legal job. Threatening to do your legal job is not the kind of threatening that is illegal.
As for "overall offensive", that is nothing more than a matter of opinion. The fact that Limbaugh is one of the highest-rated voices in talk radio clearly states that many people disagree with Changeontheway in this matter. What the FCC views as actionably offensive is as clearly defined as is the word "treason" and somehow Limbaugh doesn't strike me as someone to use foul language or do such things as perform sexual acts on his radio show.
In short, Changeontheway has not demonstrated any reason for the FCC to interfere with Limbaugh's show. He goes on to compare Limbaugh with the Don Imus controversy but it is worth noting that the FCC did not shut down Imus. His advertisers did. Limbaugh's advertisers quite obviously love him.
As I said at the beginning, these comments can be a useful barometer to what the average people of a certain group are thinking and, while I have only dissected one comment here, I see such comments on a daily basis. There are far too many people in this country who want to outlaw anything with which they disagree. Worse, there are far too many people who act as though they truly believe that anything they oppose is already illegal. These people, the voting public, have no idea what freedom means or what America stands for. That thought, alone, should chill your blood. I know it does mine.
Imagine my disgust, then, at the comments I read so often.
I read one today on the Washington Post's website. The story isn't particularly important to this discussion but, for background, it was about the continuing controversy over President Obama telling a collection of politicians that they "can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."
Full disclosure: I did not vote for Obama and I have never listened to Rush. If that double negative throws off some preconceived notions on where I stand, too bad.
At any rate, a person posting under the name "Changeontheway" had some things to say that I find very disturbing. This person states that Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly said that he wants President Obama to fail (a point that may or may not be true - I have no way to judge) and, in this same paragraph - so, I must assume, for this reason - claims that Limbaugh is "a terrorist with a mic".
Had that been all that Changeontheway said, that would have been bad enough. To compare an editorialist with a suicide bomber is the ultimate in false identification. If people like this honestly cannot tell the difference between vehement disagreement and intentional mass homicide then our democracy is doomed already. Just imagine what happens when you get too many people this stupid voting.
That was, however, not all this genius had to say on the matter.
The next paragraph is two simple sentences: "First, Limbaugh has committed treason against the United States. His comments warrant criminal charges."
I just love how much this word "treason" gets thrown around these days. You would think that we were living in a totalitarian society where speaking out against the ruler warrants a death sentence or where "treason" is a wide word with a vague definition. In America, however, such is not the case. In America, the word "treason" has been carefully defined by nothing less than the Constitution itself. Article III Section 3 states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." [Stress added by me.] I am fairly certain that even Limbaugh's most ardent opponents would not attempt to claim that he adheres to the enemies of the United States or that he has attempted to levy war. The fact that Obama has already been quite vocal in expressing many ideas that would be antithetical to the conservative position combined with the fact that Limbaugh is a very vocal conservative would make it self-evident that Limbaugh would hope Obama fails in these policies. Most conservatives probably hope for the same thing. I am not, strictly speaking, a conservative and I'm hoping for quite a few failures myself. That is not treason, under our laws, and it is protected political speech. The very type of protected speech, in fact, that liberals usually spend so much time screaming about. It's so nice to see that the double standard is alive and well.
Changeontheway goes on to say that "the FCC should shut his program down. This man has been convicted of doctor shopping, due to his addiction of medications, he has made threats to our new administration and is overall offensive." We'll take those in order, if you don't mind. They won't take long.
There is no FCC regulation barring someone with a conviction from having a broadcasting career and such a regulation would be ludicrous in the extreme. What does one even have to do with the other?
What threats has Limbaugh made toward any administration? While I've already stated that I don't listen to the show, I am fairly certain that any such threats, coming from one of the highest-rated voices in talk radio, would have made the national news. I don't recall seeing any headlines to that effect and, as you might imagine, I am something of a news junkie. Hoping that someone fails, if that is what is supposed to be the threat here, is hardly the same thing as threatening someone. Even if Limbaugh has threatened to help Obama fail, that is not the type of threat that is punishable. Obama has threatened to veto certain legislation if it does not meet his approval. That is his job. Convincing his listeners to help stop the policies of which he does not approve is Limbaugh's job, and it is a legal job. Threatening to do your legal job is not the kind of threatening that is illegal.
As for "overall offensive", that is nothing more than a matter of opinion. The fact that Limbaugh is one of the highest-rated voices in talk radio clearly states that many people disagree with Changeontheway in this matter. What the FCC views as actionably offensive is as clearly defined as is the word "treason" and somehow Limbaugh doesn't strike me as someone to use foul language or do such things as perform sexual acts on his radio show.
In short, Changeontheway has not demonstrated any reason for the FCC to interfere with Limbaugh's show. He goes on to compare Limbaugh with the Don Imus controversy but it is worth noting that the FCC did not shut down Imus. His advertisers did. Limbaugh's advertisers quite obviously love him.
As I said at the beginning, these comments can be a useful barometer to what the average people of a certain group are thinking and, while I have only dissected one comment here, I see such comments on a daily basis. There are far too many people in this country who want to outlaw anything with which they disagree. Worse, there are far too many people who act as though they truly believe that anything they oppose is already illegal. These people, the voting public, have no idea what freedom means or what America stands for. That thought, alone, should chill your blood. I know it does mine.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Already Getting Nervous
It seems that President-Elect Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet and is already generating controversy. In fact, we still have more than a month before he takes over the top job and some people are already getting nervous. I'm not talking about those who were nervous the moment his election was announced. I'm talking about people who actually wait to see results before making judgments.
Full Disclosure: I did not vote for Obama. I didn't care for McCain either, but anyone who is as popular just because as Obama is, makes me nervous. History has far too many examples of people riding this kind of popularity straight into disaster.
Speaking of which, today's subject: Obama's "America Serves" initiative.
It would appear that there has been some hanky-panky over at Obama's Change.gov website, changing up some wording to make things sound less offensive, but I have doubts that changes in words actually means changes in intentions or goals. At issue is the plan, under the America Serves tab, to require all middle school and high school students to perform 50 hours of community service and all college students to perform 100 hours of community service. For those of you running over to look this up, the word "require" is no longer present - it was stricken from the page a couple days ago - but it was and the fact that it was says more about Obama's intentions and goals than anything that page currently says.
Think about that for a moment. Your child goes to school in order to learn to read and write, learn some math and science and (hopefully) acquire some knowledge of history and government. Exactly what does community service have to do with school? "Yes, I know you have straight A's in all educational courses but you cannot graduate because you have not completed your required community service." Is that really something we want to see?
Under such a program, who gets to define what is a community service? You should already know the answer to that question. He who controls the purse strings controls the definitions. I can easily assume that it will not be you, the parent, controling that definition.
Let me make sure this is clear. I have nothing against community service. I don't even have anything against students performing community service. It would probably be good for them and there is absolutely no reason it cannot be organized through the schools. There are many extracurricular activities organized through the schools that encourage student participation but are in no way required. The moment you transform it into a requirement, however, it becomes something else entirely. And, for the record, it makes no difference whether the government makes a law requiring it or they sneak into it by withholding funds from schools that don't require it. Either way amounts to a requirement and either way amounts to a government mandated requirement. Requiring a person to work where you want them to work is, by definition, slavery and slavery is, by the Constitution, outlawed. Whether the requirement is direct and straight forward or sneaky and underhanded, it is still a requirement and still slavery.
You cannot force volunteerism. The very idea is ludicrous and the fact that someone would even consider it says a lot about that person. I would highly recommend that everyone pay close attention to this subject as we move forward and be prepared to scream bloody murder if the scoundrels at the top actually look like they are preparing for implementation.
Full Disclosure: I did not vote for Obama. I didn't care for McCain either, but anyone who is as popular just because as Obama is, makes me nervous. History has far too many examples of people riding this kind of popularity straight into disaster.
Speaking of which, today's subject: Obama's "America Serves" initiative.
It would appear that there has been some hanky-panky over at Obama's Change.gov website, changing up some wording to make things sound less offensive, but I have doubts that changes in words actually means changes in intentions or goals. At issue is the plan, under the America Serves tab, to require all middle school and high school students to perform 50 hours of community service and all college students to perform 100 hours of community service. For those of you running over to look this up, the word "require" is no longer present - it was stricken from the page a couple days ago - but it was and the fact that it was says more about Obama's intentions and goals than anything that page currently says.
Think about that for a moment. Your child goes to school in order to learn to read and write, learn some math and science and (hopefully) acquire some knowledge of history and government. Exactly what does community service have to do with school? "Yes, I know you have straight A's in all educational courses but you cannot graduate because you have not completed your required community service." Is that really something we want to see?
Under such a program, who gets to define what is a community service? You should already know the answer to that question. He who controls the purse strings controls the definitions. I can easily assume that it will not be you, the parent, controling that definition.
Let me make sure this is clear. I have nothing against community service. I don't even have anything against students performing community service. It would probably be good for them and there is absolutely no reason it cannot be organized through the schools. There are many extracurricular activities organized through the schools that encourage student participation but are in no way required. The moment you transform it into a requirement, however, it becomes something else entirely. And, for the record, it makes no difference whether the government makes a law requiring it or they sneak into it by withholding funds from schools that don't require it. Either way amounts to a requirement and either way amounts to a government mandated requirement. Requiring a person to work where you want them to work is, by definition, slavery and slavery is, by the Constitution, outlawed. Whether the requirement is direct and straight forward or sneaky and underhanded, it is still a requirement and still slavery.
You cannot force volunteerism. The very idea is ludicrous and the fact that someone would even consider it says a lot about that person. I would highly recommend that everyone pay close attention to this subject as we move forward and be prepared to scream bloody murder if the scoundrels at the top actually look like they are preparing for implementation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)