Take this quiz and see how ya do. Independence Day Quiz
I got a 26 out of about 30 questions.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Health care debate again: Democrats gone mad
Sorry it's been so long since I posted. Anyway, let's hit the ground running.
I just cannot figure the Democrats out. Why, why, why do they think that the "government option" is the ONLY solution to helping take care of the health care situation? Why are they so dead set on sticking through this - thick-or-thin, come-what-may, hell-or high-water? Why won't they weigh any other alternative, no matter how logical or reasonable?
What has made them so close-minded and intolerant to discussion and debate on this issue that they won't compromise one letter, despite the potential consequences to Obama's reputation as a leader and to their own re-election chances? Why is the passage of this one bill worth sacrificing their political careers and to the "edge" they hold in the House and Senate, this despite legitimate and credible doubts to the plan as they wish to enact it?
It boggles my mind, and it makes me grateful once again that I long ago decided to embrace my "independent" status after having supported Democratic candidates for so long (and I keep having to say this: Just because I no longer consider myself a Democrat does not mean that I am now a Republican. The GOP drives me nuts as well). Otherwise, I too would have been lost in their foggy-minded insanity.
I can hazard a guess, mainly because like I said, I was once one of them before I came to my senses. I believe that the Dems see the passage of this nutty GovOp (as I've been calling the "government option") as so crucial and primary to everything else is because they are of a mindset that belongs to the past: the left-wing 1960s.
I believe that this current crop of Dems, which is made up of a lot of aging baby boomers who grew up in that era, feel that this is their one last, best chance of finally implementing their dream of a (bracing myself for the potential criticism here, because there is no other way to say this but to call it) Communist-style health care system in which it's all free - paid by the obscenely wealthy overprivileged class that robs from the rest of us poor dumb slobs who wouldn't know thier anus from their belly button if the Dems weren't there to tell us.
In other words, the Dems believe they know better than us on what's best for us. And they decided that this GovOp is the best for us - despite arguments and evidence to the contrary, because this idea came into its full flower in that holiest of holy eras of the 1960s. It's a dogma, in other words - so right and correct that to try to say otherwise is blasphemy. When the rest of us unwashed rabble dare to question the GovOp dogma, we are insulting their god.
Even a mass of 50,000 or 1 million (depending on whose stats you believe, but I think it would be easy to know the difference between a group of 50,000 people and a million of them. Someone's yanking our chain here) marching on D.C. this past weekend was not enough of a sign that perhaps the GovOp is not the only alternative out there.
No, the GovOp is still the way to go for them. They favor this plan that will prove nihilistic to their re-election chances if they pass it anyway - which they are hard at work to insure that it does. Well, bully for them if they get themselves voted out in the process. I had long said that the party needed to implode from within and rebuild if it's ever going to return to its former glory. Perhaps we are finally going to witness that belief of mine coming into action.
Thing is, they are proving so short-sighted that they aren't even thinking that if they succeed in passing it and do indeed get themselves voted out in 2010 and 2012, who's to say that the new members of the House and Senate - who will most likely be a lot of Republicans - won't turn around and dump that plan right off the bat - especially if the GovOp proves to be as disastrous as some have been saying?
So then the Dems will have pushed and pushed and pushed themselves out of D.C., all for a plan that will do much more damage than what it will allegedly solve. In the process, they will have given the Democratic party a black eye that will take a very long time to heal. And a self-inflicted black eye at that. There is no other word for it than "insanity"; dumb, blind, feverish loyalty to an outdated set of values from another era. Hmm. Maybe there is something to that "natural selection" idea after all.
I just cannot figure the Democrats out. Why, why, why do they think that the "government option" is the ONLY solution to helping take care of the health care situation? Why are they so dead set on sticking through this - thick-or-thin, come-what-may, hell-or high-water? Why won't they weigh any other alternative, no matter how logical or reasonable?
What has made them so close-minded and intolerant to discussion and debate on this issue that they won't compromise one letter, despite the potential consequences to Obama's reputation as a leader and to their own re-election chances? Why is the passage of this one bill worth sacrificing their political careers and to the "edge" they hold in the House and Senate, this despite legitimate and credible doubts to the plan as they wish to enact it?
It boggles my mind, and it makes me grateful once again that I long ago decided to embrace my "independent" status after having supported Democratic candidates for so long (and I keep having to say this: Just because I no longer consider myself a Democrat does not mean that I am now a Republican. The GOP drives me nuts as well). Otherwise, I too would have been lost in their foggy-minded insanity.
I can hazard a guess, mainly because like I said, I was once one of them before I came to my senses. I believe that the Dems see the passage of this nutty GovOp (as I've been calling the "government option") as so crucial and primary to everything else is because they are of a mindset that belongs to the past: the left-wing 1960s.
I believe that this current crop of Dems, which is made up of a lot of aging baby boomers who grew up in that era, feel that this is their one last, best chance of finally implementing their dream of a (bracing myself for the potential criticism here, because there is no other way to say this but to call it) Communist-style health care system in which it's all free - paid by the obscenely wealthy overprivileged class that robs from the rest of us poor dumb slobs who wouldn't know thier anus from their belly button if the Dems weren't there to tell us.
In other words, the Dems believe they know better than us on what's best for us. And they decided that this GovOp is the best for us - despite arguments and evidence to the contrary, because this idea came into its full flower in that holiest of holy eras of the 1960s. It's a dogma, in other words - so right and correct that to try to say otherwise is blasphemy. When the rest of us unwashed rabble dare to question the GovOp dogma, we are insulting their god.
Even a mass of 50,000 or 1 million (depending on whose stats you believe, but I think it would be easy to know the difference between a group of 50,000 people and a million of them. Someone's yanking our chain here) marching on D.C. this past weekend was not enough of a sign that perhaps the GovOp is not the only alternative out there.
No, the GovOp is still the way to go for them. They favor this plan that will prove nihilistic to their re-election chances if they pass it anyway - which they are hard at work to insure that it does. Well, bully for them if they get themselves voted out in the process. I had long said that the party needed to implode from within and rebuild if it's ever going to return to its former glory. Perhaps we are finally going to witness that belief of mine coming into action.
Thing is, they are proving so short-sighted that they aren't even thinking that if they succeed in passing it and do indeed get themselves voted out in 2010 and 2012, who's to say that the new members of the House and Senate - who will most likely be a lot of Republicans - won't turn around and dump that plan right off the bat - especially if the GovOp proves to be as disastrous as some have been saying?
So then the Dems will have pushed and pushed and pushed themselves out of D.C., all for a plan that will do much more damage than what it will allegedly solve. In the process, they will have given the Democratic party a black eye that will take a very long time to heal. And a self-inflicted black eye at that. There is no other word for it than "insanity"; dumb, blind, feverish loyalty to an outdated set of values from another era. Hmm. Maybe there is something to that "natural selection" idea after all.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
The truth is that there is no comparison to Hitler
Holy Sauerkraut, Batman! Pat Buchanan sounds like a Hitler apologist! Did Hitler want war?
Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the rise and fall of both, is a history lesson that will be studied for a long time to come - and it will certainly be used over and over again by political activists of all stripes seeking to persuade discussions to go their way. Basically, the formula is to link your opposition to Hitler in some way or fashion, and the rest, theoretically, takes care of itself.
Much has been made lately of comparing President Obama to Hitler, and there has even been altered pictures circulating that has Obama with Hitler's toothbrush mustache. While left-wingers may cry foul over that, they are far from innocent in using Hitler for political aims. For pretty much all of President Bush's terms of office, left wingers had tried to link Hitler to Bush and the war in Iraq.
The truth is that neither president nowhere near approaches Hitler's lust for power nor his territorial ambitions - and while you may argue over how much loss of human life each has caused, their numbers nowhere nears the staggering loss of life that Hitler brought about. It's just not a valid comparison - and yet that won't stop the comparisons from being made. There is a saying that the definition of insanity is to do the same failed thing every time and expecting a different result each time. Both left and right wingers cling to the Hitler tactic because it is a lazy shorthand way of labeling the opposition instead of actually debating the issues. It's for them that "Godwin's law" was made.
Let me ask this: How many of you had your mind changed after you heard that "X" is just like Hitler? Were any of you a Bush supporter until left-wingers compared him to Hitler, then you switched sides? Did any of you back Obama until you saw those pics of him with a Hitler mustache? The truth is that Hitler and Stalin were monsters the likes of which had never been seen before, and hopefully won't be seen again.
To try to turn the tragic, painful lessons brought about by their murderous actions just to score cheap political points is an insult to all those who suffered and died under their respective regimes. Politics is a dirty, ugly business, and it often is reduced to childish and immature behavior just to gain some edge over their opponent.
Having said all that, this is not to say that there aren't any instances of comparing "Person X" to Hitler, just that the Hitler card has been played so much that whenever it shows up, it's mostly because of that player's intellectual laziness rather than through any valid comparison. The overuse of the Hitler and the Nazi card also has the effect of blurring or diluting the true lessons that can be learned from his actions, and that's something that should NEVER be forgotten.
I'll save that discussion for another time, because I want to be able to deal with this thoroughly.
Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the rise and fall of both, is a history lesson that will be studied for a long time to come - and it will certainly be used over and over again by political activists of all stripes seeking to persuade discussions to go their way. Basically, the formula is to link your opposition to Hitler in some way or fashion, and the rest, theoretically, takes care of itself.
Much has been made lately of comparing President Obama to Hitler, and there has even been altered pictures circulating that has Obama with Hitler's toothbrush mustache. While left-wingers may cry foul over that, they are far from innocent in using Hitler for political aims. For pretty much all of President Bush's terms of office, left wingers had tried to link Hitler to Bush and the war in Iraq.
The truth is that neither president nowhere near approaches Hitler's lust for power nor his territorial ambitions - and while you may argue over how much loss of human life each has caused, their numbers nowhere nears the staggering loss of life that Hitler brought about. It's just not a valid comparison - and yet that won't stop the comparisons from being made. There is a saying that the definition of insanity is to do the same failed thing every time and expecting a different result each time. Both left and right wingers cling to the Hitler tactic because it is a lazy shorthand way of labeling the opposition instead of actually debating the issues. It's for them that "Godwin's law" was made.
Let me ask this: How many of you had your mind changed after you heard that "X" is just like Hitler? Were any of you a Bush supporter until left-wingers compared him to Hitler, then you switched sides? Did any of you back Obama until you saw those pics of him with a Hitler mustache? The truth is that Hitler and Stalin were monsters the likes of which had never been seen before, and hopefully won't be seen again.
To try to turn the tragic, painful lessons brought about by their murderous actions just to score cheap political points is an insult to all those who suffered and died under their respective regimes. Politics is a dirty, ugly business, and it often is reduced to childish and immature behavior just to gain some edge over their opponent.
Having said all that, this is not to say that there aren't any instances of comparing "Person X" to Hitler, just that the Hitler card has been played so much that whenever it shows up, it's mostly because of that player's intellectual laziness rather than through any valid comparison. The overuse of the Hitler and the Nazi card also has the effect of blurring or diluting the true lessons that can be learned from his actions, and that's something that should NEVER be forgotten.
I'll save that discussion for another time, because I want to be able to deal with this thoroughly.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
My high school yearbook picture
Check it out; my high school yearbook pic. I had hair back then, and a bad attitude. And poor taste in fashion too, it seems. Trust me though, I was hardly alone in that.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Public option for healthcare: A delusional fantasy
Some time back on Facebook, I had called the public option for health care a delusional fantasy. I was asked by a fellow blogger to explain. I had stated that I would cover this topic on my blog so that I can go into more detail. Well, getting to that took longer than I expected, so I apologize for that. Anyways, here is why I call a public option a delusional fantasy.
It is a fantasy because to have a "free health care for all" plan will fail by the simple fact that there is simply not enough money to support such a program. We will not be able to tax the rich enough to support it, because there aren't enough rich people to tax. And if you tax them too much (which you will have to do in order to get the funds for the public option), then they will either not be rich anymore, or they will take their money and leave the country. In either instance, we will be "SoL", because then who is left to tax for what will become the motherof all money pits? Ya got it, bucko. The rest of us slobs.
Plus, if employers are given the option of paying a private HMO for its employees vs not paying anything and letting them sign up for the gov't plan, what option do you think they will take? What employer would be willing to take on the added expense of paying for a private HMO for its employees when they wouldn't have to? And what private HMO could stay in business if employers drop them in favor of gov't plans? Those private HMOs will then go out of business, thus leaving the public "option" as the sole remaining option.
The argument that the gov't is simply trying to provide "competition" for private HMOs is a false argument, because there is no way a private HMO can compete with the gov't, who doesn't have to worry about making a profit, thus it can set its own prices - including prices that would be ruinous for private HMOs. This is simple economics that even I know. Soon we will be throwing money at an organization (the gov't HMO, that is) that has no incentive or motivation (like profit) to be doing a professional - or even a good - job in providing your health care.
I call the public option "delusional" because that is exactly what it is to expect that a change from a plan run by profit-mongers - that is, private HMOs - to a plan run by power-mongers - that is, a gov't plan that will become a football in the hands of politicians and lobbyists. Why would we expect that a simple exchange of mongers will make things better? At least with the private HMOs, we can hit them where it hurts by shopping around when they start putting profits ahead of service. Not so when the public option eventually becomes the only option.
Having said all this, this does not suggest that I don't think we need health care reform. Far from it. What I DON'T support is the belief that "health care reform" is totally synonymous with "gov't plan". In fact, I would view them as polar opposites. I am fully aware that private HMOs pull a lot of funny business and I would totally support true health care reform that helped to curb their abuses. More on those alternatives in my next or upcoming blog entry.
It is a fantasy because to have a "free health care for all" plan will fail by the simple fact that there is simply not enough money to support such a program. We will not be able to tax the rich enough to support it, because there aren't enough rich people to tax. And if you tax them too much (which you will have to do in order to get the funds for the public option), then they will either not be rich anymore, or they will take their money and leave the country. In either instance, we will be "SoL", because then who is left to tax for what will become the motherof all money pits? Ya got it, bucko. The rest of us slobs.
Plus, if employers are given the option of paying a private HMO for its employees vs not paying anything and letting them sign up for the gov't plan, what option do you think they will take? What employer would be willing to take on the added expense of paying for a private HMO for its employees when they wouldn't have to? And what private HMO could stay in business if employers drop them in favor of gov't plans? Those private HMOs will then go out of business, thus leaving the public "option" as the sole remaining option.
The argument that the gov't is simply trying to provide "competition" for private HMOs is a false argument, because there is no way a private HMO can compete with the gov't, who doesn't have to worry about making a profit, thus it can set its own prices - including prices that would be ruinous for private HMOs. This is simple economics that even I know. Soon we will be throwing money at an organization (the gov't HMO, that is) that has no incentive or motivation (like profit) to be doing a professional - or even a good - job in providing your health care.
I call the public option "delusional" because that is exactly what it is to expect that a change from a plan run by profit-mongers - that is, private HMOs - to a plan run by power-mongers - that is, a gov't plan that will become a football in the hands of politicians and lobbyists. Why would we expect that a simple exchange of mongers will make things better? At least with the private HMOs, we can hit them where it hurts by shopping around when they start putting profits ahead of service. Not so when the public option eventually becomes the only option.
Having said all this, this does not suggest that I don't think we need health care reform. Far from it. What I DON'T support is the belief that "health care reform" is totally synonymous with "gov't plan". In fact, I would view them as polar opposites. I am fully aware that private HMOs pull a lot of funny business and I would totally support true health care reform that helped to curb their abuses. More on those alternatives in my next or upcoming blog entry.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Promotions that epic failed
Imagine being the PR exec when something like this occurs:
10 Promotional Stunts that Horribly Backfired
10 Promotional Stunts that Horribly Backfired
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Public vs Private health insurance plans
A good buddy of mine discussed health care in his blog, and it brought up a question that I keep asking myself. This question is not so much directed at him and those who responded in his comments section that followed (but he is free to respond here, of course!), but rather this is me thinking out loud. That question is this:
Will a federal health insurance plan (FHIP) do any better than the private system that we have now?
First, understand that I tried very hard to keep this question from sounding like I'm some sort of anti-government kook. However, I can't shake the idea that a FHIP will become yet another political football whose coverage will vary depending upon who's in office. I also can't shake the fear that a FHIP will become the tool of political lobbyists for pharmaceutical corporations and various other associations allegedly based on "health services". In other words, I can't shake the belief that certain illnesses will get preferential coverages under a FHIP because a certain PAC happens to have powerful lobbyists working for it rather than coverage being based on actual need.
Granted, there will be a "shake-out" period for any FHIP that happens to get off the ground, but can we afford to wait until such a shake-out is complete? And any medical or pharmaceutical PAC would want the "shake-out" period to last as long as possible so that they can keep taking advantage of the uncertainty to work in as much influence into the final plan as they can. I can't shake the feeling that a FHIP is going to be a gigantic financial boondoggle that will do more to hurt health care than help, because we are depending upon politicians to not resort to type by using a FHIP to help their re-election chances rather than to help the people for whom it was intended: the currently uninsured. Can any of you honestly trust politicians to not think of themselves first before the constituencies that they serve - especially with something that is going to be so personal and primal to our lives as our health and health care?
There are some other things I can add, but now is a good time to stop and get some feedback before I continue. However, I will say that it really would give politicians' word more sway if they made themselves subject to the very same FHIP that they expect us to take up (see my previous blog entry). If it's going to be mandatory for us to take it, then it should be the same for them. As foreign a concept as this might be for them, if they would lead by example, then it would speak volumes more of their faith in a FHIP than exempting themselves from taking up such a plan while requiring us to take it up.
Will a federal health insurance plan (FHIP) do any better than the private system that we have now?
First, understand that I tried very hard to keep this question from sounding like I'm some sort of anti-government kook. However, I can't shake the idea that a FHIP will become yet another political football whose coverage will vary depending upon who's in office. I also can't shake the fear that a FHIP will become the tool of political lobbyists for pharmaceutical corporations and various other associations allegedly based on "health services". In other words, I can't shake the belief that certain illnesses will get preferential coverages under a FHIP because a certain PAC happens to have powerful lobbyists working for it rather than coverage being based on actual need.
Granted, there will be a "shake-out" period for any FHIP that happens to get off the ground, but can we afford to wait until such a shake-out is complete? And any medical or pharmaceutical PAC would want the "shake-out" period to last as long as possible so that they can keep taking advantage of the uncertainty to work in as much influence into the final plan as they can. I can't shake the feeling that a FHIP is going to be a gigantic financial boondoggle that will do more to hurt health care than help, because we are depending upon politicians to not resort to type by using a FHIP to help their re-election chances rather than to help the people for whom it was intended: the currently uninsured. Can any of you honestly trust politicians to not think of themselves first before the constituencies that they serve - especially with something that is going to be so personal and primal to our lives as our health and health care?
There are some other things I can add, but now is a good time to stop and get some feedback before I continue. However, I will say that it really would give politicians' word more sway if they made themselves subject to the very same FHIP that they expect us to take up (see my previous blog entry). If it's going to be mandatory for us to take it, then it should be the same for them. As foreign a concept as this might be for them, if they would lead by example, then it would speak volumes more of their faith in a FHIP than exempting themselves from taking up such a plan while requiring us to take it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
