The "Tea Party effect"

(The combination of a busy month, along with some writers fatigue (not to be confused with writers block), lead me to take a month away from posting on my politics/philosophy blog)...

Was anyone really surprised by the election results earlier this month? I know I wasn't, and all of my friends who I had warned that this would happen, came around to apologize to me afterwards for thinking I was off my rocker that the Tea Party could have the impact which they had.
I make secret about my differences with the Tea Party: I side with their general position on the Constitution, and their economic ideologies, but I take great issue with their insistence on bringing religion-specifically Christianity-into every one of their positions, and as the basis for many of their arguments. But, like the Tea Party or not, you have to respect them for the much needed change which they are bringing to the political climate here in America. Whether it is a change that will be beneficial to our country is yet to be seen, but it is a change which we needed decades ago-that of the people dictating to Congress, and not the other way around...

The truth of the matter is that state and nationally elected leaders had grown corrupt, complacent and entitled to their positions. Many had become what the founding fathers of our Constitution warned us against-Aristocrats. They ran on their name recognition alone, and nothing more. They presented no real ideas for fixing the plethora of problems our nation faces, while lining their pockets with special interest dollars. In sum, they were the problem.
This months elections proved that the Tea Party had struck a cord-particularly among registered independents; and even though Democrats managed to get most of their entitlement class out to vote, they were not match for the masses of Independent voters who agreed with the Tea Party in that the problem with national politics was the career politicians who obviously had no ones interests at heart, except their own. Fortunately, for all of us, the effect of the Tea Party carried only so far as to cause wholesale changes in the House of Representatives-where we saw the greatest turn over in representation since the Great Depression. It is in the House where most of the problems with our national politics reside, and it was in the House where the Independent voters had the greatest impact-knocking out nearly every incumbent seeking reelection (too bad Nancy Pelosi couldn't have been sent packing, but you can't win them all). Had the Tea Party effect carried into the Senate, I would have some serious reasons to be just as concerned about the direction our country was heading into, as I do now about the direction is it already heading down. Luckily, the Independent voters got it right, and, for the most part, only made wholesale changes to that branch of our national legislature which is meant to represent us-the people...

My only hope is that the Tea Party doesn't let this success go to their heads.
I hope they keep their grass roots status and pay homage to those which they owe their recent electoral success too-the Independents. I hope that they stick to their guns, so to speak (no pun intended), and stay on those whom they helped elect to stay true to their campaign words of adhering to the will of the people.
I also hope that they are willing to drop their religious positions in their politics. If they are willing to do these 3 things, then the Tea Party is, in my opinion, exactly the force of will and passion our nation needs right now to turn our country around.

A letter to Americans

As we prepare to vote in the coming week all across our nation, I would like all Americans to consider what it is that makes us all "American": It is not bipartisanship. It is not Democrats vs. Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservates. It not entitlements or governmental control and influence in every part of our lives.
It is individuality and peronsal liberty from governmental involvement in every aspect of our lives; the strength of the human spirit to persevere; and the desire to earn a modest to luxurious living through hard work, and the dedication and determination it takes to succeed. These are the qualities which define America, and they are the qualities we should all look for, when possible, as we choose this next wave of people to represent us all in Congress...

It is time for us to take our country back-back from the corruption in corporate America, and, especially, back from the corruption and ignorance that plague our national and state governments.
For too many decades, too many of us have sat idly by, choosing not to participate in society other than by simply getting up and working every day: these people haven't voted, they haven't taken an active role in the raising of their kids, they haven't even taken an active role in their own lives except to survive until the next day-caring not one bit about what the day will look like so long as their own self destructive needs are met. It is too these people-the ones who believe that they can have no effect on "politics" and society in America.
It is to you, this "silent majority", who I am reaching out too.
Vote.
Express your opinion.
Let our current Congress people, and the newly elected ones, know that you will no longer stand idly by. That you will be heard. That you will be respected. And that you will no longer be trodden on and/or ignored because a select group of special interest groups, lobbyists and corporate interests are subverting your liberty via their influence over our elected leaders.
This is not a call for rebellion or separation, it is a call for you to take your respect and your liberty back as Individuals and members of our national and local societies by your choice.
It is time you are heard. Your country, and your fellow citizens, need you to speak, or else there may not be anything left for us to stand up, and speak for.
RR

Parents insuring their kids till they are 26? A bad message to send.

Last week, the first aspects of Obamacare went into effect. Most of America, including myself, is dreading the day, a couple years from now, when the bulk of the bill actually goes into affect (assuming it passes the Constitutionality test it faces in the Supreme Court), but the "patients bill of rights", as it is called, aspect of the legislation, which is what went into effect last Thursday, is the only part of the legislation I actually liked-except for children being allowed to stay on their parents health insurance until the age of 26...

I am a Gen X'er, and, as I was taught, one of the early steps that I had to take in becoming an adult, was in getting a job which provided me with my own health insurance. It was at this point that "mommy and daddy" no longer had to "take care of me" and that I could not only provide money for myself, but was self sufficient enough that I could also provide for my own health when needed. What concerns me is the message we are sending to our future generations by saying they don't have to worry about health insurance until well into adulthood.
Becoming an adult is all about personal responsibility and achieving independence, and a big part of that is being able to provide for your own health. Human nature tends towards laziness (unless nurtured otherwise at an early age); by giving the option to not need health insurance until 26 years of age, we are nurturing that part of humanity that is detrimental to a healthy, vibrant and successful society; and, in a small way, we are telling children that adulthood can wait. This in turn could breed a much broader lack of responsibility regarding personal choices like drug use, sex, and money management.
It may also cause social conflict within children once they reach the age of 18-when law considers them an adult: we have seen for decades the conflict that 18-20 year olds have when they consider they are old enough to vote and die for our country in combat, but not old enough to enjoy a beer and burger with their friends and family. What are they to think about their place in life when all need to be independent at the "legal" age of being an adult is removed? Are we to expect them to be ready for the responsibility of raising a family, owning and taking care of a home, and managing a household and career, when all the little steps at being prepared for such things are removed or pushed later and later into adulthood?...

We can hope that this legislation, 20 years from now, will not lead to such social and personal strife and inevitable economic stresses; then again, we were told in the mid 20th century that Welfare wouldn't produce an entire segment of society dependent on government hand outs for their existence.

"Burning the Quran day"-a bad example of 1st amendment rights

One of the many great aspects of living in America is that we have freedom of speech and expression. At the same time that this is a great freedom, it is also one of the most abused freedoms we have. Of course, you will never hear me say that our 1st amendments should be changed in any way what so ever, but unfortunately for America, we will always get idiots like a Christian minister in Gainsville, Florida:
Pastor Terry Jones of Dove World Church has decided that he wants September 11th to be known as "Quran burning day" because of the 9/11 attacks of 2001 and the insistance of Muslims to build a Mosque near the 9/11 site in New York City. In sum, Paster Jones believes that it is time that we "stand up against Muslims", and this his way of wanting to stand up against that culture and their religious beliefs.
There are, of course, better ways of "standing up" to a cultures belief system which you believe is a danger to the world-like proving that your belief system, through actions based on their teachings, is better....
Pastor Jones' intentions may be good, but they certainly are not refective of the moral character and virtue the religion he preaches attempts to teach, nor are they logical given the attitude that radical Muslims have against "western" civilization in general. All Pastor Jones actions will do is anger that society of people further-giving them more reasons to hate America, and her political and economic allies; it also gives a black eye to a religion that has yet to fully distance itself from the pedophilia scandals that have rocked its sister religion, Catholicism.

There is a line that people have to learn to draw when utilizing their 1st amendments rights in America-a line that Liberals have taught society to blur more and more as each generation passes. With the freedoms that American's have, comes great responsibility-the responsibility to utilize them properly and at the right times, and using an anniversary representative of one of the saddest days of American history is not the time, or place, for such a thing as making a statement against another religion.
Fortunately, it is obvious that Pastor Jones' actions will back fire horribly on him as many of America's leaders are speaking out against his desire to go through with making September 11th "burning the Quran day". Sure, he may have 8000 or so supporters on Face Book, but they are a vast minority of Americans. Fortunately we have the right speak out against Pastor Jones' idea. Fortunately, many of us can let the world know that, despite having no love for the radical Muslimic beliefs that lead to the 9/11 attacks on our country, there are many more of us who dont support this person's actions, and that we believe there are better, more appropriate and responsible ways, to express our anger towards radical Islam....
The best way, I think, to fight idea's and people like Pastor Jones is by ignoring them-by not giving them the time of day, by not recognizing them, by simply looking past them. By recognizing Pastor Jones and his idea, and giving it all this attention, all we are doing is giving it an importance that these sort of ideas do not deserve; we make it out to be worthy our first amendment rights, when it really isn't. In the end, all we do by giving ideas like these the time of day, is to give freedom of speech a black eye.

2 questions that need to be asked-of all issues.

With the nation becoming more and more politically polarized because of the desires and demands of the Liberal movement for more and more Socialist policy by the Obama administration, a realization about people, and how they think, has become apparent to me...

In the world of Journalism there are a set of criteria for which all stories are based; they are 6 questions: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How. Two of these represent the most basic of all starts to forming any sort of philosophy and/or opinion about a topic: Why and How.
As I sit back, watch, and sometimes comment, on all that is happening in American politics today thanks to the overt Socialistic policies of the Obama administration, it has become very obvious to me that those who support these policies fail to ask these 2 fundamental questions; it is not just those that support these policies who fail to ask these questions, but those on the other side-that of the so called "Conservative" movement.
It is obvious to me that these 2 questions are never asked due to the proposals put forth by all parties as solutions to the various problems we face in America today.
Take the current health care "crisis" and the solutions for it being proposed as examples.
The current proposals include 2 dominant "solutions": a government "option" and/or a "commission" to establish some form of universal standards for providing health care. Neither of these proposals address what is wrong with our current health care system; such as the outrageous costs of malpractice insurance for doctors and what is termed "preventative" care or medicine. These are just 2 of many things which are responsible for the escalating costs of health care and insurance in our country, and 2 things which no plan currently in front of Congress (that I know of) addresses.
Sure, a current plan does away with insurance companies from declaring people ineligible for preexisting conditions, but it took the nation as a whole to scream about the first bill (known as Obamacare) not covering this very relevant and poor practice on the part of our health insurers. Regardless, demanding that insurers can deny coverage for preexisting conditions and creating a "government health insurance option" will do nothing to control the increasing costs of health care.

In these "solutions" for health care can be easily seen lacking the 2 questions of Why? and How?

If it had been asked, "Why does health care in our country cost so much?"; and the correlary, "Why is the cost of health insurance rising disproportionately to wages and inflation?", real explanations would have been found which would not have included either of the 2 primary "options" for "fixing" this "crisis" that are currently before our Congress.
Further, after asking Why?, our Congressional leaders would have then been able to ask to ask How do we fix it? and would have been able to find concrete solutions to the problems they found once they asked "why'"?

These 2 questions shouldn't just be limited to the current health care debate-they need to be asked of all issues we face, and yet they are not-particularly by those who are on the side of "liberalism". This is obvious to me because if you ask these 2 questions of every issue, they lead to the where the problem originate's, and therefore lead to solutions that fix the problem at its root causes-not in solutions which simply brush over the cause by giving "hand outs" after the effects of the cause have been felt.

Before we can solve anything, we must ask "Why"; that will lead us to "How"; which will lead us to the best solutions for all our country's problems. This is why, I believe, our Federal Government, in particular, always fails to provide any sustainable solutions to our nations problems.
I can only hope that one day this changes, and our national Congressional leaders learn to ask these 2 most important questions of every issue, but given the current political climate and social divisions within our country today, it's hard to see when that day may come.

Is Obama driving a wedge between American's?

This is a question that may shock some-after all Barack Obama has only been our President for 9 months. But given all that has taken place with Tea Party’s, demonstrations at Town Hall meetings, and other “counter” movements to Obama seemingly starting every day, it is one that begs to already be asked: is Obama dividing our nation? Perhaps, even, irreparably?

For many, this is an absolutely ludicrous question to ask of a president whose predecessor was one of the most hated in our history. But an argument could be made the George Bush brought us together as one as a president has never before: early in his first term he did it through the patriotism we all felt following the 9/11 attacks; and from the midway point of his 2^nd term on, he did so through the universal hate and anger we all felt towards a man whose politics and cronyism had made us the global “bad guy”-hated by nearly every nation on Earth.

But, this isn’t about any defense of what George Bush did-there is no defense for him-no this is about Obama, and what he is doing to us now.

Obama’s policies are, without question, Socialist; and to all American’s who have awoken to this, Socialism is not what America represents. And, despite what Liberals and Democrats would like to have the global community think, Socialism is not an ideology supported by most American’s.

The proof of this can be found in Obama’s and Congress’s approval ratings since Obama was elected.

Two weeks after Obama was elected he enjoyed as high as a 76% approval rating in a CNN poll, and Congress a 39% approval rating in a Fox News poll.

Eight and a half months later? Fox News’ most recent poll has Obama’s approval at 49%-the lowest it has been since his election; and Congress? The same day Obama got his lowest approval rating, so did they, with a pathetic 24% of American’s approving of how our Congressional leaders are conducting their jobs.

(The Congressional approval rating is just as important as Obama’s because Congress is currently controlled by the same party that Obama is from, and, as President, Obama is that parties unanimous leader so long as he remains president).

Needless to say, most American’s are not happy-and I am one of them.

We are not happy that Obama has socialized 2 of America’s Big 3 auto’s; we are not happy that as part of his health care reform he is trying to force a government option on us (therefore attempting to Socialize that industry); we are not happy that he has pandered to our enemies and refuses to help the U.N. enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran; we are unhappy that he is not keeping his word in Afghanistan, and seems ready to allow it to become another “Vietnam”; we are unhappy that he is saddling our children, our children’s children, and their children, with $100’s of thousands of debt each before they are born; we are unhappy that he was awarded something (the Nobel Peace prize) without earning it; we are unhappy that he seems to be tearing apart all that was once great about America and that there are nearly 50% of us out there gullible enough to buy into his rhetoric.

Obama ran on a platform of “Change you can believe in”, but for many of those who voted for him, the platform wasn’t supposed to start with the destruction of all that was American first; that platform wasn’t believed to be capable of dividing America so decisively that people who have never voted before, much less attended at town hall style meeting, appeared at Town Hall meetings all over America to get into the faces of their representatives and demand that they stop Socializing American industries. And, as I see it his ideologies, and his policies, are driving a wedge between all Americans: on one side are those who still believe in the traditional American values of hard work, self reliance and responsibility, and a small Federal Government; and on the other are those who want the easy way out-the way of Big Government intervention and control, the way of a Universal Equality that can only be achieved by Government controls and Dictatorship.

I know which side I stand on, do you?

No "peace" in this years Nobel prize winner

The whole world was shocked last Friday when President Obama was chosen as this year’s Nobel Peace prize winner. Globally the response was overwhelmingly negative in the sense that people failed to understand what he had done exactly to earn the reward. Here in the United States the response was also mostly negative, both for the aforementioned reason and because Obama’s policies and ideologies are seen as being extreme on the “socialistic” side of things.

In explaining the decision, the Nobel Committee which awards the prize said that Obama received the award for what he “represents” and for what his policies could lead too in terms of future world peace. To those of us who believed that the award had to be earned, we also learned that there was president for winning the award without actually earning it or having any relating accomplishments…

As a result of Obama’s “winning” the Nobel peace prize, we have learned 2 important things about the Nobel’s: first, that you don’t have to actually do anything to win one and secondly, if this is how they are going to be awarded they have no meaning what so ever.

It is a thorough joke that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize, and the reasoning of the Nobel commission doesn’t fly on me. Barack Obama’s ideologies are not avenues for peace. His ideologies are based on socialistic tendencies which history has proven to us to be “anti” peace. Socialism breeds both corruption and envy, which inevitably leads to conflict and class warfare. Take a look at the history of any society on our planet which was purely socialistic and these truths become evident.

Obama’s ideologies stand for peace? Hardly, and if more proof is needed, look no further than America where we have become more divided than ever before.

Logic vs. Common Sense

Logic[1]: 1. the scientific study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the method and validity of deductive reasoning; 2. valid reasoning; 3. A particular system or method of reasoning.

Common Sense[2]: beliefs that people in common would agree on; that which they "sense" as their common natural understanding and used to refer to beliefs or proposition that most people would consider “prudent” and “of sound judgment” without relying on knowledge relating to the object or topic in question, but based upon knowledge that can be seen as “common”.

Those who know me well know that much of the political and social philosophies I believe in are derived from conclusions I have reached through my use of logic. Throughout much of my life, when I have been asked about my use of logic to draw the political and social conclusions which I do, I have been challenged that “that’s just common sense”, to which I am forced to reply that, “if it is, then why isn’t (it) accepted as such?”.

To me, as a student of logic, the differences between logic and common sense are obvious, but as I learned recently from a friend they are seen as one and the same by most people. This same friend challenged me to explain the difference between the 2…He asked and so he shall receive. I hope the following helps himself and others learn to not only recognize the differences between the 2, but to understand just how much it takes to establish theories and solutions by one, and to simply use the other when it’s appropriate…

The definitions at the top of this discourse lay bare the basic difference between the 2: one requires education (of some kind), the other does not; however the differences go much deeper than just this simple difference.

In the case of Common Sense, it is both regional and cultural and many times can be based on a person’s field of mastery. For example, to the tribal huntsmen in Africa, it is “common sense” to never leave your home with out your preferred method of hunting or protection; in an industrialized nation with police forces to protect us (in general), it is common sense to never leave home with out a means of communication (as in your cell phone); to the parent whose child breaks their arm, it is common sense to first call your spouse (or your child’s other parent) before heading off to the hospital; to the doctor uncle who was watching over his nephew or niece, it would be common sense to first exam the arm before contacting their parents and headed off to the doctor.

In each of these examples, and any others I could come up with, the “common” theme to the reactions of each situations is what would be considered as being natural to the person or people involved: To someone who has drove a car for 10 or more years, its natural to check around you before proceeding with a turn; to the new driver on the road they have to remind themselves, or be reminded by others, to look before turning.

In the case of the Logic, there is little that is “natural” or “common”.

Logic is-as the book definition says-something of a science. It’s the deduction of a solution relative to the facts and knowledge at hand; it is a distinct process that requires conscience thought and effort. It’s use and application can be most easily defined and found in the mathematical formula’s many learn in algebra, geometry, calculus and the various sciences of physics and astronomy. (This is not to say that “learning” Logic makes one use it all the time, just that its use can be found there. Using and applying it to everyday and theoretical situations is another thing entirely).

In the above driver analogy Logic would tell both the experienced and inexperienced driver to look before turning because you can (as opposed to “may”) be hit by another car if you did not do so.

Like common sense, Logic is situational; unlike common sense, Logic can be applied to every situation-Common Sense is specific, Logic is not.

It can be said that there are components of common sense to logic, but most times, there is no “common sense” to logic. As example, the common sense of a drug dealer going to pick up his supply of drugs: it is common sense to be “packing” a weapon of some kind when doing so for protection; logic would say that you shouldn’t be a “drug dealer” to begin with because the potential risks are not worth the potential rewards.

There was a time when I really did believe that to be “logical” was “natural”, but as I have gotten older, I have learned that this is not the case at all. In fact, the ability to use logic, much less master it in any way, is a rather unique and rare gift: unique because most people lack the patience to think things through before acting; rare because, even those who know of logic-and/or are practiced in it use-fail to use it regularly.

Therefore, it can be said that perhaps the biggest difference between Common Sense and Logic isn’t the thought processes or knowledge involved, but the simplicity in acknowledging that one is “common” and the other is not.

---

[1] Take from Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary.

[2] Taken from Wikipedia and edited and paraphrased for content by myself.

Obama's first loss-but Rio does deserve it..

It's most likely not His first, but i think it's His biggest loss so far-Obama not convincing the IOC that their host city should be Chicago for the 2012 games; so that Obama has a place to "celebrate (his) election" and, I'm sure, so that he can show the world "how far we've come" during his administration...Now i suppose if "you" agree with "his" idea of what the responsibilities of the Federal Government should be, then you want His policies in place, and because there are enough supporters of his opinion out there, he thought it was a slam dunk. Not so...Besides, Rio and South America finally have their chance and hopefully they will do it right.

Too bad for Obama...Guess he wasn't as popular overseas as everybody, including himself, thought he was. It will be interesting to see what his foreign policy towards Brazil will be like in the future, after what will probaly be an entertaining media "field day" that will get us no where and only seek to muddy the picture even more.
Unfortunately, lost in all of this will be Rio De Janiero, which, even based on my limited knowledge, deserves to have it's "day in the sun". What Beijing did for the '08 games was amazing-it literally changed a culture-with 5 times the population the Chinese are only just now learning about Capitalism, and then there is India, in some ways much farther along than China is.
Brazil, and South America are largely forgotten about.
Rio is one of the Worlds largest cities and has much in the way of culture to offer...But I digress...I'm gonna sit back and enjoy what I'm hoping will be an entertaining show.

Backhanded compliments for Obama

I have to say that I was a little impressed with some comments made by Obama earlier this week before the general assembly of the U.N. in New York.
Obama actually had the balls to come out and say what many of those who stand against him belie;f; in sum he said that other nations needed to learn to take more responsibility and control over their own problems and to stop relying and expecting help from the U.S. for them.
I say this only impressed me a "little" because if it had come from any other President before GWB I would have did back flips of joy and screamed from the roof tops; but, after hearing the way in which Mr. Obama said these things, andd given his blatant socialistic tendancies, it makes me wonder...
If you have ever studied philosophy and/or economic and political theories, then you may know that history has proven that to enforce socialism and socistic policies a dictatorship is necessary; and
if you listen closely to the way in which Mr. Obama says these things to the U.N. general assembly you can hear the dictator in him come out.
It's the way in which he emphasizes his words-he emphasizes the "us" in his statements and not the "them"; he emphasizes the "effect" and not the "cause". Now, perhaps this is just my own perceptions relative to our current president-after all it is no secret that I am, to put it mildly, suspicious and critical of his policies-but instead of being able to praise him for a well spoken, and much needed to be said, point before the U.N., I am forced to wonder if we are finally starting to see the dictator in Obama coming out.
Whether we are seeing this side of him or not, only time will tell. For now I will guardedly give Obama a high five and a job well done for standing up to the beggers of the U.N.

Why all the fuss for Obama's plans on "addressing" the kids?

It was announced last week that Mr. Obama was going to “address” our country’s school children on closed circuit television this Tuesday-a move that naturally got all Conservatives and Republican’s up in arms. They, Republicans and Conservatives, are saying this is an attempt by Mr. Obama to “indoctrinate our nation’s youth to his socialistic policies”.

And, not surprising, Liberals are asking why? Why all the fuss? Presidents have spent time in class rooms for decades now-it’s a Presidential tradition?

Personally, as non partisan observer, I find it very obvious why there is so much controversy amongst certain segments of our society about Mr. Obama’s desire to speak directly to our youth.

For one, I can’t recall one any other president in my lifetime who spoke to all of the nation’s youth privately, for no other reason than to simply speak to them. George Bush addressed our nation’s youth in 1991, but his speech was broadcast live on CNN, PBS and other national cable and local stations. According to last weeks press release announcing this event, Mr. Obama’s address will be on “closed circuit” television-i.e. only available in schools and in those classrooms who wish to turn their TV’s on at the time of his speech.

Secondly, after all of the very socialistic policy making on the part of Obama’s administration during the first 8 months of his tenure, many people, regardless of party affiliation, are rather leery of Mr. Obama’s intentions, and for a number of reasons: Why address the nation’s youth now and for what purpose?

If’s it’s a speech as innocuous as the White House claims it will be about (staying in school, getting good grades, etc), then why make this speech on closed circuit TV, in school, and away from the influence of their parents? And if that is his message, wouldn’t it be better served as part of a national advertising campaign for one of the multitude of national organizations whose purpose it is to help kids stay in school?

These questions aren’t controversial, they are legitimate question’s to ask-particularly of a “president” whose policies, in less than his first year in office, have strayed farther from the intentions of our Constitution than any other holder of his office.

Many people are scared-and rightfully so-that Mr. Obama is openly attempting to prepare some sort of radical socialistic transformation of our Nation, and, in preparation for it, he must speak directly to our children on this, and on the importance of “staying in school”.

Don’t get me wrong, staying in school very important. In fact, it is one of the few ways to defeat socialism-not just staying in school, but staying in school, doing well while you are there, and then going on to college to secure your future.

So, if this is all there is to his message, and his intentions are only as innocuous as the White House claims, then Mr. President, why say so on closed circuit TV, away from the parents who can enforce the message, and, even worse, within the confines of one of the most socialistic institutions in our country-the nations public school system?

I could go on and on with questions about why he is doing this, and that, is specifically the point that people are making. Fortunately, Mr. Obama isn’t able to “force” all school kids to watch this “address”, however, the point that he is even desirous of addressing our children, away from the influence of their parents, is a scary thought-just another in a series of actions and statements by this president which make those of us who still possess the capacity to think freely wonder exactly what his intentions are for our nation.

As seen through my eyes: American Culture

I have noticed it for some time: the degradation of American society.

Over the last 20 years or so this degradation has showed itself every few months. Events like the Columbine shootings in 1999, the Virginia Tech campus shootings in 2007, the Branch Davidian Cult massacre in 1993, and the Northern Illinois University shooting in 2008 are just a few of the mass murders which have garnered national and international headlines by our country over the last 2 decades.

This year, in particular, there seems to be many mass murders, shootings and uniquely violent events, and this weekend the mass murder of 8 people in south Georgia and the discovery of missing person Jaycee Dugard in California who was missing for 18 years have lead me to ask once again: what is happening to our society?

Why is American culture crumbling around us?

With this past weekend’s events fresh in my mind I have chosen to post something which I wrote some months ago when dwelling on the “state of American culture” today...

There was a time not too long ago when it was easy to identify exactly what encompassed American culture. A time when other cultures wanted to be just like ours: hard working, free, democratic and full of accomplishments. But, in less than 50 years, what was once the envy of the world has become a relative laughingstock on the global stage.

Crime and corruption across all professions, socio-economic and ethnic boundaries lead our national newscasts, while a generation of suer’s and suees point fingers and attempt to place blame on others for actions which they refuse to take responsibility for and for which our Federal Government says they shouldn’t have too.

The ideology of political correctness is being forced down our throats and is segmenting our once great society. No long are we all “American’s”, part of the once great melting pot that was our society. No, now we all have to be “African” Americans, “Mexican” Americans, “Asian” Americans, or some other of a countless hyphenated, watered down version of an American.

Along with the loss of domestic cultural identity, this period of being “PC” has brought with it an unsurprising lack of international cultural feats.

The last great national cultural accomplishment that America and lay claim too which had global significance was that of landing a man on the moon in 1969. Since that time we have done nothing else culturally while nations such as China, Japan, Brazil and all of Europe (to name a few) have produced cultural and technical feats with a global impact; and all the while, we in America can’t even unite well enough to decide how and what to replace the fallen World Trade Center towers with so as to help wash away the scars of 9/11.

Even worse are the things today which are said to define American Culture: American Idol-the “reality” TV show with its back landed slap in the face via the fact that more people cast a vote for its winner than in our presidential elections; our economy, which thanks to American Corporate greed, helped lead the global recession; and our sports leagues and organizations which, no matter how hard they try, cannot seem to get rid of the specter’s of cheating and crime that permeate through them.

American Culture? Where it is I sure don’t see it.

Sure, ethnic groups have their own sub cultures, but the largest of these-the “African” American’s-is so narrow minded that it fails to see its own self destructive nature.

If there is an American Culture left somewhere that would make me stand up and be proud to be American again then somebody please let me know because, as an American, I am tired of hanging my head in shame to be called an American over the embarrassment at what my once great country as has become.

Controversy at Big Blue? I think not!

s

It just so happened that I was up in Michigan this past weekend when the story about possible NCAA rules violations concerning the amount of practice time which student athletes for the Michigan Wolverine Football program participate in. It came out that, supposedly, 2^nd year coach Rich Rodriquez was making players practice or show up to watch film more than the 20 hours that the NCAA allows programs to assign per week…I have to echo the words of many on this issue: you’re kidding right? This is a joke, right?

The program has it’s worst year ever last year and a couple of pussified players who didn’t make the team last year (one of them is a transfer to a school on the west coast this year) come out crying like little bitches about how Rich Rod is “working us too hard-beyond what the N-C-A-A would allowwww”.

This kind of shit pisses me off-it’s just so pathetic that it infuriates me.

Anyone who knows anything about sports-at any level-knows that to make “the team” you have to put in extra effort. Now, because of NCAA rules no student athlete can practice more than the aforementioned 20 hours per week, so programs have “voluntary practices” and video sessions which athletes may, or may not, participate in. Of course, if you want to make the team, or be a starter on the team, you are going to participate in as many of these voluntary activities as possible. I

Only losers who don’t care, or whiny little bitches like those who are causing trouble for Big Blue, would not participate in these extra activities-they are a part of life for the student athlete who wishes to make the team and a necessity for those student athletes who want to start for their team.

Unfortunately, U of M is now going to be investigated by the NCAA-causing unnecessary grief and stress for a program that needs to focus on getting better and winning football games and not on the “controversy” which now surrounds it…Controversy my ass…This reeks of “whinyness” and the cry baby attitude of those who weren’t good enough or who didn’t possess the determination and willingness it took/takes to be a winner. I hope that the NCAA see’s what all of us outsiders see-that this is a farce and a waste of time to “investigate”.

On the passing of Ted Kennedy

NOTE: Originally written on August 28^th but a combination of computer issues and a vacation prevented me from posting it appropriately. My apologies…

I admittedly did not know very much about “Teddy” Kennedy and what I knew of the man I didn’t like very much, but, in his death I have to ask: What did he do that was so great?

I know that he was considered a leader of the modern Liberal ideology, but what is that doing for us? Destroying our society by breeding generation after generation of Americans to depend on the Federal Government to “take care of them” as opposed to learning to think and produce for themselves.

I know he was considered a “champion” of the poor, but how many did he help? As far as I could tell, Ted Kennedy helped create not one policy which improved the overall status of the “poor” in our country. Oh sure, he increased the size of their entitlements, but nowhere do I see one thing that he did which really helped the poor to not be poor anymore. In fact, I would say he helped to make it easier to STAY poor-if anything at all.

Further, I know of no policies for which his backing allowed for a “bridge” between our 2 dominant political parties so as to pass important Legislation, so, needless to say, to me Ted Kennedy was far from “great”.

I am, of course, no fan of Liberalism, and so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I am so critical of Ted Kennedy but, I am impartial as it comes to critiquing the individual accomplishments of people and their relevant importance to others and with Ted Kennedy I just don’t see it. Personally, all that I saw in Ted Kennedy was a man who despised the success and achievements of anyone outside of himself, his friends and his family and a man who seemed willing and wanting to go to any length necessary to prevent people of becoming independently successful-just so long as it didn’t cost him or the “poor” anything.

In fact, I don’t see why the entire Kennedy family is so “well liked” at all-especially if you look at their history.

To a person, every prominent male member of the Kennedy family had controversy.

We all know of JFK’s “supposed” infidelities and his cut throat, take no prisoners attitude towards politics, and then there were Robert’s borderline criminal pursuits of the Mafia which eventually lead to his murder. As for Ted himself, he suffered from his own controversies in the 1970’s which ruined his presidential bid of that time and “delayed” his rise through the political ranks until the later half of the 1980’s. We also know that the family has a whole were/are some of the best at working the closed door political scene that we have ever had in our country-willing to do whatever is necessary to pass legislation which they deem necessary, whether its needed or not.

When viewed openly, the Kennedy family appears to be some of the more corrupt people in the country and not the “champions” of righteous they are seemingly held up as.

I digress…I know that it’s not fair to talk about those who have long since past by us, but Ted was a Kennedy after all, and he sure lived up to all that his namesake meant, and it is my opinion that we-those of us who seek to strive for the betterment of ourselves and our society through our hard work-should be glad that we are rid of him.

Health Insurance: Privilege or Right?

Another of the arguments by proponents[1] for a Federally subsidized health care “option” is that health insurance is a right. This position forces me to question what exactly what is a “privilege” and what is a “right”.

Without pulling out Miriam Websters, a right is a universally accepted morality which all citizens of a particular society are in agreement of being entitled too.

A privilege is anything that can be afforded which is not a necessity and which is considered beyond the income of those who make the median income of those within a given country.

I don’t think anyone would argue that providing health care is a moral virtue on the order of a right, which any society should practice and provide. And it just so happens that in America we do, in fact, provide health care-free of charge if necessary-to any who need it. But the idea that insurance, of any kind, is a right, I have to question.

This time quoting Websters, the definition which applies is “a protective or compensatory measure”.

Traditionally, insurances-whether they be for a car, a life, a home or a body- have been considered luxuries. When “health” insurance was popularized by the unionization of American workers in the early 20^th century it was seen as another great accomplishment of American society reflective of America’s overall wealth relative to the rest of the world, in that jobs were so plentiful, and paid so well, that workers and employers could “afford” health insurance. And even though most, if not all, American workers had health insurance throughout most of the 20^th century. The fact that Americans, as individuals, could afford the luxury of health insurance for most of the 20^th century became lost out of a laissez faire attitude towards our collective health being insured because it was “guaranteed” via full time employment.

And so now we have a political movement afoot to provide a governmentally subsidized health care plan, through which all Americans will have health insurance, and one of the arguments used by supporters of this idea is that health insurance is a right.

If all American’s were to agree that health insurance is a right, then there would need to be a universal concurrence of opinion as to what that right should entail: how much coverage do we all deserve and what quality of basic services are we entitled too. But more so, if we were to all agree that health insurance is a right, and no longer a privilege, then we would be compelled to also agree on what level of “health” we should all strive for.

Knowing that those who are obese and whom smoke cigarettes and who drink too much alcohol have more health expenses-particularly when they get older-would have to be addressed as a nation. The costs of these behaviors being so high as it relates to our health, there would be a need to regulate them to some degree, if for no other reason than to control costs.

A further concern is that in America our rights are guaranteed by law within our Constitution. Therefore, if we were to deem it necessary for health insurance to be considered a right, to guarantee that right an amendment to our Constitution would be required for its maintenance.

Under these criteria, how could we as a nation ever expect to classify health insurance as a right?

The fact of the matter is, health insurance has never been, and never should be, a right. Health insurance has always been a privilege-a privilege traditionally reserved for the wealthy who could afford to “insure” things against loss or damage, for those who could afford to take risks with things-including their health. Our health has never been guaranteed-not from day one and certainly not when measured against the lifestyle decisions most make through out the course of their lives. Based on these realities it is a wonder how so many people can believe that they have a right to health insurance.

---

[1] I have been told that I should stop referring to those who support the current health care reform option as “lefties” or liberals for a multitude of reasons. Needless to say, based on journalistic integrity alone (I am a professional writer after all) I should not be so biased or derogatory towards proponents of a federally subsidized health care plan.

On death panels and "exchanges"

It was with much self restraint that I had to take a break from putting in words my thoughts on H.R. 3200-the bill on health care currently in Congress commonly known as Obama-care.

My lack of words on the subject, however, didn’t keep me from paying attention to what specifics of the bill were being discussed in the media and at various town hall meetings nationwide. Particularly, I took note of Mr. Obama’s appearance on the Michael Smerconish radio show this past Thursday. Obama’s appearance was in an effort to “woo right wing” thinkers to his health care plan. Unfortunately, despite his party affiliation, Smerconish is an Obama supporter and therefore failed to press our President about specifics of the bill and screened callers-in so that most of the hard questions were filtered out before they could be posed.

Regardless, there were 2 aspects about Obama-care which dominated the press this last week: the idea of “death panels” being a part of the bill, and that H.R. 3200 will make the Health Insurance marketplace more competitive through the creation of its “exchange”.

Personally, I find it funny that so many people think that there are “death panels” in this bill. No where in the bill does it define such a thing as a “death panel”. The supposition is drawn from language in the bill which provides for “end of life counseling”. Much of the language for this so called counseling is vague, and can be easily misunderstood to mean that the Fed wants to “guide you into the after life”. Although I wouldn’t put it past the Liberals and Democrats to have the intentions of having actual death panels so has to dictate how and when we can die, I don’t think that, today at least, they are brazen enough to try so-perhaps in the future, but not today at least.

The “Exchange Commission” created by H.R. 3200 is another matter entirely.

I listened all week long as Obama tried to tell people that this aspect of the bill will not effect whether or not we will be able to keep our current doctors, insurance providers, etc and that it will provide “competition in the marketplace”. Mr. Obama sounded really good saying all this and, for about 2 seconds he even had me believing what he had to say was true, until I remembered what that portion of the bill says.

Sections 141-144 of the bill deal with the creation of this so called Exchange and the duties of its Commissioner, but it is within section 142 to which Mr. Obama’s belief that this bill will provide “competition in the marketplace” becomes an out right lie.

Section 142: Duties Authorities of the Commissioner; Part (b) titled Promoting Accountability, subpart (2) Compliance Explanation and Audits (a) says that “in general the commissioner shall, in coordination with States, conduct audits of qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal requirements. Such audits may include random compliance audits and targeted audits in response to complaints or other suspected non-compliance.”

This can all be taken a couple of ways, but the inclusion of the words “qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal reguirements”, at the very least, implies that some health insurance plans may not qualify. If this is so, then how does said exchange provide for more competition in the marketplace if it is going to exclude some of that competition?

Needless to say, Mr. Obama’s definition of “providing for a more competitive marketplace” as it relates to our health insurance options falls on shaky ground, which leads me to ask-why? Why, if it is Mr. Obama’s desire to make the health insurance marketplace more competitive, would he support a commission which would effect regulations (i.e. impose restrictions) into said exchange? Logically this makes no sense owing to the fact that any such bodies which impose regulations on their membership become exclusive, thereby leading to easy collusion, or actually limiting the competition-which I believe is exactly what Mr. Obama is after.

As we all know, Mr. Obama is vastly quoted as saying that he would not support any health care reform if it didn’t eventually lead to a single payer system-which is exactly what this exchange is designed to do.

The imminent death of Obamacare leaves some questions to be answered

Apparently the message has gotten through loud and clear to the Obama administration that we, the average people of America, don’t want the Federal Government butting it’s Pinocchio like nose into our health care via a federally subsidized health insurance “option”. In case you missed it, it was first announced yesterday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and then reported as breaking news on all the cable news stations, that the “public option” of H.R. 3200 (commonly called Obamacare) was “not essential to health care reform”. This announcement (and his words that “the public option is just a sliver of the proposed health care reform”) was cheered by those of us who vociferously spoke against H.R. 3200, means that Mr. Obama finally gets it that most American’s want no part of federally subsidized health care. And is saying this, H.R. 3200 is all but dead and maybe Mr. Obama will give up on trying to force his version of health care upon us-for now anyways.

But this backing off of what was obviously bad legislation leads me to ask why?

Why propose this bill at all if the so called public option wasn’t “necessary to the importance of passing health care reform”?

If it wasn’t necessary to passing health care reform then why was it so prominently displayed in H.R. 3200 that it comprised most of the bill’s 1000 plus pages?

And if it was so irrelevant why were the various aspects of this “public option” the ones put forth to Americans as the evidence of what the Obama administration viewed as “reform” of the health care industry?...

We most likely will never get any answers to these questions because A) no matter how much Obama claims he wants “transparency” during his presidency we know better than to expect 100% of it and B) because those journalists who cover the White House and the Obama administration for the large news organizations are too big of pussies to ask the hard questions and really confront our Congressional leaders when they try to pass such blatantly subversive legislation on the American people.

I digress...Obamacare isn’t completely dead yet, but it sure looks to be headed that way quickly. My hope is that many of us learned a lesson out of this which I have known for most of my life: that it is up to us, the public, to keep watch over what our elected officials are doing because if we hadn’t of done so in this case, and then spoke out by the 100’s of thousands against it, just think what could have been?