The "Jobs" bill he has been touting since he he got done with his rest time after his Martha Vineyards "working man" vacation has really got to be throwing some very conflicting feelings towards the fans of Obama. Let me tell you why. Obama is pressing for a tax CUT in the form of social security tax. Everything I say here can be confirmed at the DNC's http://www.americanjobsact.com/ website.
"Tax Cuts to Help America's Small Businesses Hire and Grow" and "Cutting Payroll Taxes in Half...put more money in the pockets of every American".
This sounds a lot like tax cuts for businesses and the workers actually help the economy grow.
Now I thought democrats and liberals in general were opposed to less taxes, as it does nothing to help and economy when tax cuts are implemented. So why is Obama touting this? I don't know, but any reason one examines is a strike against him.
Reason 1: If you are one of the Obama supporters that think that Obama is the smartest, most intelligent and eloquent person to ever walk this Earth, then he is using his intelligence and is admitting that tax cuts stimulate job growth in an economy. And if the smartest guy in the room is saying this, it must be true so you can't argue against it.
Reason 2: Or Obama has just given in to the right wing wackos that want to line rich people's pockets and allow them to buy corporate jets*. If this is the case, then Obama is a spineless coward that was all talk and no action.
Reason 3: He is touting tax cuts because Wall Street is pressuring him to. If this is the case then Obama has brought no change to the way Washington does things (special interest groups). So instead of changing the way Washington does things, he has merely given in and in now another puppet president of the fat cats in Wall Street.
No matter how an Obama supporter looks at how Obama has handled things this summer, you all come out with the short end of the stick. There is no spin on this that makes Obama look good for his supporters.
*Every time a billionaire buys a corporate jet and runs around the country in it he is creating jobs- the jet did not spontaneously appear out of the air, and it certainly does not fly or maintain itself. A list of jobs the billionaire just created by buying a jet: Engineers who designed the plane, engineers who design electronics and avionics gear, engineers who designed the engines. Workers (probably union) who build all the things that have been designed. Pilots, stewards, mechanics both engine and electrical to maintain the aircraft, air traffic controllers, rent to airports for hangar space, fuel delivery personnel. I haven't even mentioned the web of jobs created as secondary to the need for all of this, like people who train pilots, construction workers who build the facilities, plumbers for toilets, administrative personnel for file paperwork, workers who build small components, gas companies that make aviation fuel, etc, etc. Maybe it is not a good idea to attack the one thing the uber rich actually do that creates jobs.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
My Gun Wish List...
While reading another blog, I got the idea to list what guns I hope to acquire some day. I won't put anything on that is unrealistic like a Bushmaster 20mm cannon, but guns that I might actually end up owning one day.
1. An Ar-15 or variant thereof. Nothing fancy with all sorts of doo dads attached, but a plain, functional AR. Why? Because I can.
2. An AK variant. Cause you can't have chocolate with out vanilla, yin without the yang. If you have an AR, you need an AK. Once again why? Because I live in the US and I can.
3. A Stoeger Coach gun. I have always wanted one of these, a double barrel shotgun. There is just something about them that makes me want one.
4. An M1 Garand. Don't think I need to explain why, but it would be cool to own a gun as uniquely American as apple pie or baseball.
Enough for now, stay tuned for my next installment of guns I will own one day...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
My impression of beating dead horse redux...
To finish up this rousing exercise in futility, I would like the last word (since it is my blog after all).
A few points-
HOW we get rid of the insurance companies is a moot point because this is more of a philosophical debate than an actual policy debate. But if you must know, neither Spencer or I believe in a pure capitalist system. Look up Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and you will see the kind of system we are talking about- one where the government does regulate business to certain extent to prevent monopolies, cabals, and collusion. When companies or businesses worry about their own business, they will innovate and find ways to keep costs down to attract customers. When a group of businesses get together and decide how much they are going to charge (i.e. insurance companies and doctors) then you have collusion and cabals. This does in fact hurt the consumer by eliminating competition in the market place.
So you would break up insurance companies with anti-trust suits and regulation. In some areas you would deregulate such as eliminating State License boards and Clinical License who protect only those doctors and insurance companies in their own state, or those they have a relationship with eliminating competition from Nurse Practitioners or other health care professionals who would like to offer a low cost alternative to the doctor.
As far as a safety net is concerned- yes, expand medicare and medicaid for those that need it, those that cannot afford to pay for their own health care, poor people. If you have a chronic illness, then I think that would fall under the auspices of a catastrophic (maybe we should call it a long term insurance plan) insurance plan, as the costs to constantly get medication and medical care would be higher than someone who has the sniffles every once in a while.
And if you tell me that Medicare/Medicaid (and yes, I know that medicare is a program for seniors over 65, and medicaid is a federally funded, state administered program for low income or needy people) are not good programs, then you would need to convince me how a single payer system would be administered any differently from these two government run health systems.
The problem with this whole discussion is there is a lot of assuming going on- just because we don't like Obamacare or a single payer system does not mean that we are fine with the current state of events, or that we are raging libertarians that want something to the right of anarchy in this country.
We just happen to think that our ideas are feasible ideas that would accomplish the same goals that anyone else wants- to improve the healthcare system and allow EVERYONE to take a part of the same quality as anyone else. My believing in a free market solution does not mean that I hate poor people, or somehow lack compassion for those that are needy and unfortunate with afflictions that they have no control over. I also don't believe that anyone who advocates a single payer or government run option loves Marxism and is lazy.
Does our free market plan have flaws? Sure. Does a government run, single payer system have flaws? It sure does. They both have their fair share of flaws, and I guess it comes down to which flaws you are willing to live with.
I entitled the post "beating a dead horse" because I have had many discussions with numerous people on this very same issue over the past few years, and yet I have not been convinced to change my mind on the issue, nor have I changed anyone else's mind. I suppose discussions like this are good for getting the blood flowing a little bit, or perhaps revisiting your beliefs- but beyond that they are of little value.
That being said, I do enjoy a good discussion every now and again, and rarely do I get frustrated with people to the point where I am mad at them. Spencer is still my brother and my homeboy, and Jon is still a great friend who makes sitting through Elder's Quorum bearable.
P.S. If I had to pick the current Obamacare system (which I believe wholeheartedly has benefited insurance companies more than people) and a single-payer system, I would choose the single payer system. I suppose if I was really honest with myself I would rather have crappy, horrible, cheap, Dr. Nick style healthcare in a single payer system than have this Obamacare travesty which has just managed to put more money in the insurance companies pocket.
PEACE- I'M OUT!
A few points-
HOW we get rid of the insurance companies is a moot point because this is more of a philosophical debate than an actual policy debate. But if you must know, neither Spencer or I believe in a pure capitalist system. Look up Adam Smith, the father of modern economics and you will see the kind of system we are talking about- one where the government does regulate business to certain extent to prevent monopolies, cabals, and collusion. When companies or businesses worry about their own business, they will innovate and find ways to keep costs down to attract customers. When a group of businesses get together and decide how much they are going to charge (i.e. insurance companies and doctors) then you have collusion and cabals. This does in fact hurt the consumer by eliminating competition in the market place.
So you would break up insurance companies with anti-trust suits and regulation. In some areas you would deregulate such as eliminating State License boards and Clinical License who protect only those doctors and insurance companies in their own state, or those they have a relationship with eliminating competition from Nurse Practitioners or other health care professionals who would like to offer a low cost alternative to the doctor.
As far as a safety net is concerned- yes, expand medicare and medicaid for those that need it, those that cannot afford to pay for their own health care, poor people. If you have a chronic illness, then I think that would fall under the auspices of a catastrophic (maybe we should call it a long term insurance plan) insurance plan, as the costs to constantly get medication and medical care would be higher than someone who has the sniffles every once in a while.
And if you tell me that Medicare/Medicaid (and yes, I know that medicare is a program for seniors over 65, and medicaid is a federally funded, state administered program for low income or needy people) are not good programs, then you would need to convince me how a single payer system would be administered any differently from these two government run health systems.
The problem with this whole discussion is there is a lot of assuming going on- just because we don't like Obamacare or a single payer system does not mean that we are fine with the current state of events, or that we are raging libertarians that want something to the right of anarchy in this country.
We just happen to think that our ideas are feasible ideas that would accomplish the same goals that anyone else wants- to improve the healthcare system and allow EVERYONE to take a part of the same quality as anyone else. My believing in a free market solution does not mean that I hate poor people, or somehow lack compassion for those that are needy and unfortunate with afflictions that they have no control over. I also don't believe that anyone who advocates a single payer or government run option loves Marxism and is lazy.
Does our free market plan have flaws? Sure. Does a government run, single payer system have flaws? It sure does. They both have their fair share of flaws, and I guess it comes down to which flaws you are willing to live with.
I entitled the post "beating a dead horse" because I have had many discussions with numerous people on this very same issue over the past few years, and yet I have not been convinced to change my mind on the issue, nor have I changed anyone else's mind. I suppose discussions like this are good for getting the blood flowing a little bit, or perhaps revisiting your beliefs- but beyond that they are of little value.
That being said, I do enjoy a good discussion every now and again, and rarely do I get frustrated with people to the point where I am mad at them. Spencer is still my brother and my homeboy, and Jon is still a great friend who makes sitting through Elder's Quorum bearable.
P.S. If I had to pick the current Obamacare system (which I believe wholeheartedly has benefited insurance companies more than people) and a single-payer system, I would choose the single payer system. I suppose if I was really honest with myself I would rather have crappy, horrible, cheap, Dr. Nick style healthcare in a single payer system than have this Obamacare travesty which has just managed to put more money in the insurance companies pocket.
PEACE- I'M OUT!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Part 2
Now that these two myths are resolved, what are my problems with obamacare. There are two big reasons that make the whole obamacare stink like a pile of German Shepherd diarrhea in August.
Problem 1: The individual mandate. My very good (but very misguided) friend says he does not mind it because everyone uses healthcare, so everyone should have to pay for it in some way. This is a good point if we lived in Europe, or some other continent or country where we did not have the Constitution. We have certain fundamental rights in this country, and I have not read anywhere in the constitution, nor in relevant case law that says the Federal Government can decree that we the people have to purchase something. The government is overstepping its bounds. If they would like to provide healthcare, fine, but when we allow them to have the power to mandate that we buy something, where will it end? “Oh, but Obama is so benevolent and virtuous that he wouldn’t possibly think of exploiting that power”, lets pretend that is true, what about 5 years from now when another Evil Republican gets into the Whitehouse- what do you think he will do with that power? It is not a right I am willing to give up, it is too easily exploitable by evil men with evil designs.
Problem 2: Who is going to pay for this? Who? Right now there is no way to pay for it. Sure we can raise taxes, but we all know that is an uphill battle even in good times, much less a recession. Basically, congress acted like the guy who decided to buy a Lamborghini in the hopes he would get that big promotion he deserves in order to pay for it. I would be more ok with this Frankenstein mess if they at least had the means to pay for it. But they don’t, they have just managed to borrow more money from the Chinese in order to pay for it. Now we have a debt, and we all know that debt is never good, even if it is for a "noble" cause.
Lets pretend I am in charge, what would I do to fix it? Everyone just expand your mind a little bit, and recognize that there are other ways to fix the healthcare system than just Obamacare.
1. I would expand Medicare to cover the 44 million people who don’t have healthcare. Out of a country of 300 million (less than 15 percent of the population by the way, which means 85% do have health insurance), I think we could expand and reform Medicare, cut the waste, make it more efficient, and make it a good program. It would certainly be cheaper than to try to cover the 85% of people that can pay for it on their own.
2. I would get rid of the insurance companies. They are the real problem here, as they inflate the costs of medical care. And just something to chew on- if Obama really is the champion of the little people to save them from the evils of industry, then why did he just give a huge freebie to the health insurance companies with the individual mandate?
I think if we could get the insurance companies out of it, then healthcare would be more affordable to those who could pay for it on their own, while still providing a safety net for those that cannot pay for it themselves.
One last thing, I have heard from many people that ObamaCare is better than nothing, and so we should just shut up and take it. To that I say I don’t care if you sprinkle skittles on a turd, I still won’t eat it.
There are other things that bother me, but they are too numerous to mention, these are the main sticking points with me. And please, if anyone reading this disagrees with any of my points, feel free to tell me why and try to convince me otherwise.
Peace- I’m Out!
Problem 1: The individual mandate. My very good (but very misguided) friend says he does not mind it because everyone uses healthcare, so everyone should have to pay for it in some way. This is a good point if we lived in Europe, or some other continent or country where we did not have the Constitution. We have certain fundamental rights in this country, and I have not read anywhere in the constitution, nor in relevant case law that says the Federal Government can decree that we the people have to purchase something. The government is overstepping its bounds. If they would like to provide healthcare, fine, but when we allow them to have the power to mandate that we buy something, where will it end? “Oh, but Obama is so benevolent and virtuous that he wouldn’t possibly think of exploiting that power”, lets pretend that is true, what about 5 years from now when another Evil Republican gets into the Whitehouse- what do you think he will do with that power? It is not a right I am willing to give up, it is too easily exploitable by evil men with evil designs.
Problem 2: Who is going to pay for this? Who? Right now there is no way to pay for it. Sure we can raise taxes, but we all know that is an uphill battle even in good times, much less a recession. Basically, congress acted like the guy who decided to buy a Lamborghini in the hopes he would get that big promotion he deserves in order to pay for it. I would be more ok with this Frankenstein mess if they at least had the means to pay for it. But they don’t, they have just managed to borrow more money from the Chinese in order to pay for it. Now we have a debt, and we all know that debt is never good, even if it is for a "noble" cause.
Lets pretend I am in charge, what would I do to fix it? Everyone just expand your mind a little bit, and recognize that there are other ways to fix the healthcare system than just Obamacare.
1. I would expand Medicare to cover the 44 million people who don’t have healthcare. Out of a country of 300 million (less than 15 percent of the population by the way, which means 85% do have health insurance), I think we could expand and reform Medicare, cut the waste, make it more efficient, and make it a good program. It would certainly be cheaper than to try to cover the 85% of people that can pay for it on their own.
2. I would get rid of the insurance companies. They are the real problem here, as they inflate the costs of medical care. And just something to chew on- if Obama really is the champion of the little people to save them from the evils of industry, then why did he just give a huge freebie to the health insurance companies with the individual mandate?
I think if we could get the insurance companies out of it, then healthcare would be more affordable to those who could pay for it on their own, while still providing a safety net for those that cannot pay for it themselves.
One last thing, I have heard from many people that ObamaCare is better than nothing, and so we should just shut up and take it. To that I say I don’t care if you sprinkle skittles on a turd, I still won’t eat it.
There are other things that bother me, but they are too numerous to mention, these are the main sticking points with me. And please, if anyone reading this disagrees with any of my points, feel free to tell me why and try to convince me otherwise.
Peace- I’m Out!
Monday, April 11, 2011
My impression of beating a dead horse...
So a very good, but extremely misguided, friend brought up Obamacare the other day. It was not my choice, I have not wanted to discuss poitics for a little while, but I suppose I just can’t get away from it. So in an effort to clarify my standing on obamacare, I offer the following essay:
Why Danny does not like ObamaCare
By Danny
First, let me clarify some myths surrounding my position.
Myth 1: Danny hates poor people. Although I do find their lack of hygiene and social skills disturbing (just kidding people!), I do not hate them. In fact, I find it appalling that their access to medical care is stymied because they do not have insurance. I think poor people do not get the same quality of healthcare as people who have health insurance. I further believe that everyone should have access to good medical care no matter what your income is. Just because I don’t like ObamaCare does not mean that I don’t think that poor people should not be able to have healthcare.
Myth 2: Danny loves the current healthcare system and does not want it to change. On the contrary, I think the current system stinks. I think the costs are artificially inflated due to having to go through a middle man for healthcare (insurance companies). The current healthcare system needs some serious reforms, but Obamacare is not the only option for reform out there.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of my essay...
Peace- I'm Out!
Why Danny does not like ObamaCare
By Danny
First, let me clarify some myths surrounding my position.
Myth 1: Danny hates poor people. Although I do find their lack of hygiene and social skills disturbing (just kidding people!), I do not hate them. In fact, I find it appalling that their access to medical care is stymied because they do not have insurance. I think poor people do not get the same quality of healthcare as people who have health insurance. I further believe that everyone should have access to good medical care no matter what your income is. Just because I don’t like ObamaCare does not mean that I don’t think that poor people should not be able to have healthcare.
Myth 2: Danny loves the current healthcare system and does not want it to change. On the contrary, I think the current system stinks. I think the costs are artificially inflated due to having to go through a middle man for healthcare (insurance companies). The current healthcare system needs some serious reforms, but Obamacare is not the only option for reform out there.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of my essay...
Peace- I'm Out!
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Just so you know, at this point I could really care less about what Obama does. Personally, I think we should have stayed out of Libya only because we are already fighting two other wars that Obama promised to end to get elected. But I have heard people at work spout this same stuff as the video singing Obama's praises for freeing the oppressed people of Libya. A little consistency in your thoughts is all I am asking for.
Peace- I'm out!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
politics bores me right now
the title says it all, but before I sign off for the next 6 months or so, I would like to get a couple of deep thoughts out there on politics.
1. Libya- so all you anti-war protesters that took time out from smoking the reefer and playing tetris to get out and vote for Obama, what is going through your minds now?
He seemed to run on a pretty solid anti war platform, and what has he done so far to make good on his promises- pull the troops out of Iraq - didn't really do that, the 2012 timetable was actually Bush's agreement . He pulled the troops out of Afghanistan...no, wait, he actually sent more troops to Afghanistan. Well, he may not have done that stuff, but he did shut down Guantanamo Bay... he didn't? I'll be, he didn't. Well, surely he got rid of all that icky stuff that fascist Bush put into place like the PATRIOT Act and wiretaps and all that stuff- right? No, I guess he didn't do that either. I am just wondering what everyone who was so passionate about old Obama's antithesis of Bush's warmongering are thinking now?
2. Government spending- it is outrageous and out of control. It makes me literally sick when I see how little congress is concerned about how much they spend and what it is doing to this country. I think everything needs to be cut- EVERYTHING- that includes military spending. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and lets tend to our house first, then we can go over to the neighbors and dig in their yard. I know some say the answer to the deficit is to raise taxes. Especially on businesses. Guess what, tax a business, you are really taxing the customer. If you don't believe me, just look at the gasoline industry. The federal, state and local fuel taxes are passed straight to you. You think the donut shop down the street is any different. The Feds start taxing them an extra .10 for every bagel they sell, I guarantee every bagel you buy will go up .10. And for all you moaning about the tax cut extensions, and how the republicans rammed it down our throats, take a look at the democrats who are staunchly unwilling to cut ANYTHING. I would be willing to pay higher taxes if congress would cut 42% out of the budget. Why 42%, because they borrow .42 on every dollar they spend.
3. Gay marriage- here's something for you guys, gov't should NOT be involved in marriage AT ALL. It is a religious institution and should therefore be left to the religions. I think all the government should be able to do is make two people legal partners that have rights to property. The partners do not need to be in love, it could be two old ladies, a guy and his grandma, a woman and her dog, business partners, I don't care, if you want to enter into a legal contract to be able to make decisions for people and inherit property when they die, then you should be able to no matter who you are or who they are. But leave marriage alone, especially the government, it is a religious matter and so you should separate yourself from it. The government is in no condition to start inflicting moral values on its citizens. Cause quite honestly, their moral values conflict with my moral values.
Anyhoo, there are a couple of my deep political thoughts to tie you over till summer.
Peace- I'm OUT!
1. Libya- so all you anti-war protesters that took time out from smoking the reefer and playing tetris to get out and vote for Obama, what is going through your minds now?
He seemed to run on a pretty solid anti war platform, and what has he done so far to make good on his promises- pull the troops out of Iraq - didn't really do that, the 2012 timetable was actually Bush's agreement . He pulled the troops out of Afghanistan...no, wait, he actually sent more troops to Afghanistan. Well, he may not have done that stuff, but he did shut down Guantanamo Bay... he didn't? I'll be, he didn't. Well, surely he got rid of all that icky stuff that fascist Bush put into place like the PATRIOT Act and wiretaps and all that stuff- right? No, I guess he didn't do that either. I am just wondering what everyone who was so passionate about old Obama's antithesis of Bush's warmongering are thinking now?
2. Government spending- it is outrageous and out of control. It makes me literally sick when I see how little congress is concerned about how much they spend and what it is doing to this country. I think everything needs to be cut- EVERYTHING- that includes military spending. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now and lets tend to our house first, then we can go over to the neighbors and dig in their yard. I know some say the answer to the deficit is to raise taxes. Especially on businesses. Guess what, tax a business, you are really taxing the customer. If you don't believe me, just look at the gasoline industry. The federal, state and local fuel taxes are passed straight to you. You think the donut shop down the street is any different. The Feds start taxing them an extra .10 for every bagel they sell, I guarantee every bagel you buy will go up .10. And for all you moaning about the tax cut extensions, and how the republicans rammed it down our throats, take a look at the democrats who are staunchly unwilling to cut ANYTHING. I would be willing to pay higher taxes if congress would cut 42% out of the budget. Why 42%, because they borrow .42 on every dollar they spend.
3. Gay marriage- here's something for you guys, gov't should NOT be involved in marriage AT ALL. It is a religious institution and should therefore be left to the religions. I think all the government should be able to do is make two people legal partners that have rights to property. The partners do not need to be in love, it could be two old ladies, a guy and his grandma, a woman and her dog, business partners, I don't care, if you want to enter into a legal contract to be able to make decisions for people and inherit property when they die, then you should be able to no matter who you are or who they are. But leave marriage alone, especially the government, it is a religious matter and so you should separate yourself from it. The government is in no condition to start inflicting moral values on its citizens. Cause quite honestly, their moral values conflict with my moral values.
Anyhoo, there are a couple of my deep political thoughts to tie you over till summer.
Peace- I'm OUT!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Childhood movies RUINED!
Remember when you were a wee lad of perhaps 10, and you saw that really super awesome Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie? Do you remember wondering why Ninja Turtles was looked over at the Oscars that year? Maybe you don't, but I do. Yes, I thought the TMNT movie was awesome. But then again I was an adolescent so what did I know? I realize now that TMNT is NOT an awesome movie, and is in fact one of the worst movies I have ever seen. We all grow up and realize that our tastes as kids were probably pretty bad.
Occasionally, however, we remember a movie from our childhood, and looking back cannot find anything bad to say about it. It has withstood the test of time and is still awesome. Or so we think. I had one of these moments earlier this week when I saw the 1989 Batman was on Netflix. Remembering fondly how great this movie was, and not thinking of one reason why it would even be in the same league as TMNT, I pressed the play button. I then proceeded to ruin one of my favorite childhood memories.
Where to begin? The dialogue alone made me cringe throughout the whole movie, it sounded like it was written for a High School drama class. I know it is a cartoony movie, but it just felt like it was a movie waiting to be rifftraxed. (Note to self, check RiffTrax and see if Batman is available). Other than a very weak script and plot, perhaps the worst part of the movie is Jack Nicholson. He didn’t play the Joker, he played Jack Nicholson. Anybody ever notice he plays the same character in all his movies? In this one he just wore some makeup and had a crazy laugh. I suppose this could be chalked up to wanting to beat my head in with a hammer whenever Jack Nicholson is on the screen, but I think it is because Nicholson is not a very good actor. NO HE DIDN’T!!!!!!!! Yes I did, he is a terrible actor that just happens to be one of Hollywood’s flavors of the month, much like Snookie is on whatever tv show she is on.
As a side note, there are very few really good actors, most of them become popular because they are easy on the eyes and can speak in complete sentences. Most of the really popular actors only play caricatures of themselves. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few of your favorite actor’s movies back to back- I can almost guarantee that the performances and mannerisms are all the same. Just look at Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson, perhaps you could watch a Harrison Ford movie, and then pop in some Denzel Washington and Glenn Close movies. If any disagree, feel free to point out my error!
In the same vein, Michael Keaton was Michael Keaton, not Bruce Wayne. We got the character from Mr. Mom and Gung Ho! and threw in a little more Tim Burton and we have Bruce Wayne.
This movie was simply awful. The only thing I liked about it was Batman’s costume. I still think it looked waaaayyy cooler than the costume in the new movies.
And before you think that I am comparing Batman to Batman Begins or the Dark Knight, I’m not. They are incomparable. They are apples and oranges. I would not compare these movies just like I would not compare the cheesy 1966 Batman to any of these others. And before anyone mentions the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, I refuse to acknowledge that they even exist, I believe that the rumor that these movies exist is a cruel joke perpetuated on the human race.
Anyhoo, enough about that, it is not a good movie. Maybe that is too harsh, it is a good movie for 10 year olds, and has found a great place next to TMNT in my mind.
Occasionally, however, we remember a movie from our childhood, and looking back cannot find anything bad to say about it. It has withstood the test of time and is still awesome. Or so we think. I had one of these moments earlier this week when I saw the 1989 Batman was on Netflix. Remembering fondly how great this movie was, and not thinking of one reason why it would even be in the same league as TMNT, I pressed the play button. I then proceeded to ruin one of my favorite childhood memories.
Where to begin? The dialogue alone made me cringe throughout the whole movie, it sounded like it was written for a High School drama class. I know it is a cartoony movie, but it just felt like it was a movie waiting to be rifftraxed. (Note to self, check RiffTrax and see if Batman is available). Other than a very weak script and plot, perhaps the worst part of the movie is Jack Nicholson. He didn’t play the Joker, he played Jack Nicholson. Anybody ever notice he plays the same character in all his movies? In this one he just wore some makeup and had a crazy laugh. I suppose this could be chalked up to wanting to beat my head in with a hammer whenever Jack Nicholson is on the screen, but I think it is because Nicholson is not a very good actor. NO HE DIDN’T!!!!!!!! Yes I did, he is a terrible actor that just happens to be one of Hollywood’s flavors of the month, much like Snookie is on whatever tv show she is on.
As a side note, there are very few really good actors, most of them become popular because they are easy on the eyes and can speak in complete sentences. Most of the really popular actors only play caricatures of themselves. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few of your favorite actor’s movies back to back- I can almost guarantee that the performances and mannerisms are all the same. Just look at Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson, perhaps you could watch a Harrison Ford movie, and then pop in some Denzel Washington and Glenn Close movies. If any disagree, feel free to point out my error!
In the same vein, Michael Keaton was Michael Keaton, not Bruce Wayne. We got the character from Mr. Mom and Gung Ho! and threw in a little more Tim Burton and we have Bruce Wayne.
This movie was simply awful. The only thing I liked about it was Batman’s costume. I still think it looked waaaayyy cooler than the costume in the new movies.
And before you think that I am comparing Batman to Batman Begins or the Dark Knight, I’m not. They are incomparable. They are apples and oranges. I would not compare these movies just like I would not compare the cheesy 1966 Batman to any of these others. And before anyone mentions the Joel Schumacher Batman movies, I refuse to acknowledge that they even exist, I believe that the rumor that these movies exist is a cruel joke perpetuated on the human race.
Anyhoo, enough about that, it is not a good movie. Maybe that is too harsh, it is a good movie for 10 year olds, and has found a great place next to TMNT in my mind.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
politicians...
Do you know what irritates me most about politicians? I mean ALL politicians- republicans, democrats, blah, blah, blah...
Their weird justifications whenever they lose an election. What might that be, you ask?
We lost because our base wasn't motivated to vote. We lost because people didn't get out and vote. We lost because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, and people weren't motivated to vote.
Maybe you lost because people disagree with you and your policies.
And before anyone fires back at me with Obama and the democrats, let me make myself clear- ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS.
In 2006, the republicans lost- and they did the same thing. It wasn't that their base did not turn out to vote, they were tired of how they were running things.
To the democrats that lost this year- it was not because your people did not turn out to vote, it was not because you didn't get your message out, and it was certainly not because us dumb citizens just don't understand what you are trying to do.
You lost because people do not like the way you are running things. Period.
End of rant.
Peace- I'm out.
Their weird justifications whenever they lose an election. What might that be, you ask?
We lost because our base wasn't motivated to vote. We lost because people didn't get out and vote. We lost because we didn't explain ourselves well enough, and people weren't motivated to vote.
Maybe you lost because people disagree with you and your policies.
And before anyone fires back at me with Obama and the democrats, let me make myself clear- ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS.
In 2006, the republicans lost- and they did the same thing. It wasn't that their base did not turn out to vote, they were tired of how they were running things.
To the democrats that lost this year- it was not because your people did not turn out to vote, it was not because you didn't get your message out, and it was certainly not because us dumb citizens just don't understand what you are trying to do.
You lost because people do not like the way you are running things. Period.
End of rant.
Peace- I'm out.
Friday, October 15, 2010
My silence is broken...
After a hiatus of about 4 months, I have decided to break my silence. What will I talk about? I bet you cannot wait to get a glimpse into my soul, the deepest thoughts a redneck like me can conjure up...
Probably not. Because I am in school, and we are trying to expand the living area in the house that my posts will continue to be sparse. It is because I am on vicodin right now for an abscessed tooth that I am up at 1:30am and am writing this now.
Just some random thoughts-
Some may think because I am a black hearted conservative that I don't believe in social safety nets. Quite the contrary, actually. I am not opposed to welfare, medicare or medicaid, food stamp, WIC, etc, etc. I am opposed to the fraud and waste that poor MANAGEMENT of the programs produce. I am opposed to politicians using social programs as a bribery tool for votes. I think unemployment benefits are good. I like the idea that if I lose my job, I don't have to starve, or my family does not need to starve.
I recently had to read a book for one of my classes called American Dream by Jason DeParle. It is a book about welfare reform in the 90's. Although I didn't agree with many of the conclusions of the author, it was a very informative book I thought on the limits of government. After the welfare reform under the Clinton administration cleaned up most of the fraud and abuse, it shed new light on the legitimate cases of welfare. For some, being on welfare was needed because they were in-between jobs, or were single parents that felt they needed to raise their kids- in my mind perfectly legitimate and good reasons to be a welfare recipient. Others couldn't keep jobs because of mental illness and drug addictions.
What struck me most in the book (my class is on public policy) was how the policies implemented never quite got to the root of the problem. The policies in the welfare reform focused on job skill training, interview training, etc. All great things, except the majority of people still on welfare were there because of addictions and mental illness. How is interview training going to help someone on crack become a contributing member of society?
The issues that seem to cause people to be on welfare are not things the government can help with- they are issues of morality and values. This may surprise some of you, but I don't think the government is in a position to dictate and educate us about morals and values. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent teenage pregnancy. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent drug abuse. Not the government. I also think that Sex ed should not be taught in schools, even abstinence programs- that is something parents should be teaching.
We do need Separation of Church and State, but we don't need insulation from churches. That is the problem now days, religion has become something to be mocked. Moral relativism is what rules the day. Until we can change that, no amount of money spent in government programs is going to stop teen pregnancy, drug abuse, or any other moral or values based activity.
This is why I see the government as a lumbering impedance to society. They often have to stick their hands in places where they do not belong. They try too hard to be a paternalistic entity. In my opinion, it does more harm than good.
And just to show that this in not a right left issue, I will criticize the right for a moment. In the 90's, the prevailing thought was that the cycle of welfare could be broken by kids seeing their parents working, or that by working, adults would gain a sort of spiritual satisfaction out of it that they would magically become better parents. Now, conservatives also postulated that if a work requirement was introduced into welfare, the rolls would be reduced. They also postulated that if block grants were given to the states, and the states were allowed to administer it as they saw fit, the rolls would be reduced. Liberals said that both these ideas would increase the homeless population and kids would be sleeping in alleys.
The liberals were wrong, welfare reform did not produce more homeless families, it did reduce the number of people on the rolls, cause most figured they could just go out and get a job and make more money, since they had to work anyway. Also, states administered the programs more effectively and helped more people. So the conservatives were correct on that point, but they were wrong that it could break the cycle of welfare. They were wrong because they attempted to fix a moral and values problem with government policy- it doesn't work.
Anyway- after that long post that most people probably won't care to read, and may have fell asleep halfway through- I thank you for reading it and getting to this part, sadly there is no reward, only the knowledge that you know some of Danny's innermost special thoughts...
Peace- I'm Out.
Probably not. Because I am in school, and we are trying to expand the living area in the house that my posts will continue to be sparse. It is because I am on vicodin right now for an abscessed tooth that I am up at 1:30am and am writing this now.
Just some random thoughts-
Some may think because I am a black hearted conservative that I don't believe in social safety nets. Quite the contrary, actually. I am not opposed to welfare, medicare or medicaid, food stamp, WIC, etc, etc. I am opposed to the fraud and waste that poor MANAGEMENT of the programs produce. I am opposed to politicians using social programs as a bribery tool for votes. I think unemployment benefits are good. I like the idea that if I lose my job, I don't have to starve, or my family does not need to starve.
I recently had to read a book for one of my classes called American Dream by Jason DeParle. It is a book about welfare reform in the 90's. Although I didn't agree with many of the conclusions of the author, it was a very informative book I thought on the limits of government. After the welfare reform under the Clinton administration cleaned up most of the fraud and abuse, it shed new light on the legitimate cases of welfare. For some, being on welfare was needed because they were in-between jobs, or were single parents that felt they needed to raise their kids- in my mind perfectly legitimate and good reasons to be a welfare recipient. Others couldn't keep jobs because of mental illness and drug addictions.
What struck me most in the book (my class is on public policy) was how the policies implemented never quite got to the root of the problem. The policies in the welfare reform focused on job skill training, interview training, etc. All great things, except the majority of people still on welfare were there because of addictions and mental illness. How is interview training going to help someone on crack become a contributing member of society?
The issues that seem to cause people to be on welfare are not things the government can help with- they are issues of morality and values. This may surprise some of you, but I don't think the government is in a position to dictate and educate us about morals and values. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent teenage pregnancy. Morals and values is what is going to help prevent drug abuse. Not the government. I also think that Sex ed should not be taught in schools, even abstinence programs- that is something parents should be teaching.
We do need Separation of Church and State, but we don't need insulation from churches. That is the problem now days, religion has become something to be mocked. Moral relativism is what rules the day. Until we can change that, no amount of money spent in government programs is going to stop teen pregnancy, drug abuse, or any other moral or values based activity.
This is why I see the government as a lumbering impedance to society. They often have to stick their hands in places where they do not belong. They try too hard to be a paternalistic entity. In my opinion, it does more harm than good.
And just to show that this in not a right left issue, I will criticize the right for a moment. In the 90's, the prevailing thought was that the cycle of welfare could be broken by kids seeing their parents working, or that by working, adults would gain a sort of spiritual satisfaction out of it that they would magically become better parents. Now, conservatives also postulated that if a work requirement was introduced into welfare, the rolls would be reduced. They also postulated that if block grants were given to the states, and the states were allowed to administer it as they saw fit, the rolls would be reduced. Liberals said that both these ideas would increase the homeless population and kids would be sleeping in alleys.
The liberals were wrong, welfare reform did not produce more homeless families, it did reduce the number of people on the rolls, cause most figured they could just go out and get a job and make more money, since they had to work anyway. Also, states administered the programs more effectively and helped more people. So the conservatives were correct on that point, but they were wrong that it could break the cycle of welfare. They were wrong because they attempted to fix a moral and values problem with government policy- it doesn't work.
Anyway- after that long post that most people probably won't care to read, and may have fell asleep halfway through- I thank you for reading it and getting to this part, sadly there is no reward, only the knowledge that you know some of Danny's innermost special thoughts...
Peace- I'm Out.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Clarification on guns
I am ok with certain regulations on guns, just as I am on cars. Allow me to elaborate:
I am ok with age restrictions on owning firearms.
I am ok with background checks.
I am ok with outlawing straw purchases (although it really is just the honor system at play here.)
I am ok with one private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen.
I am ok with the tax stamp for owning an automatic weapon.
I am ok with having to take a training class before you carry a firearm.
Beyond that, there are not many more things I am ok with. A gun is dangerous. So is a car, an arc welder, a table saw, a nail gun. Cars kill far more people than guns do, so why have we not banned cars yet?
Just some facts that I found- in 2004 the number car crash fatalities was 42,636. The firearm fatalities (which includes all types of deaths from firearms- accidental, murder, etc.)was 29,569. http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/01/Autos/nhtsa_death_stats/index.htm http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
Also on more interesting fact- in 2008, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the firearm of choice for murderers was a handgun, not a rifle by a 2 to 1 margin (an AK-47 is classified as a rifle). Leads me to believe the only gangstas who use AK's are in the movies. Besides, how many times do you here about 10 or more people getting shot at the same time? Has it happened, maybe, I can't find anywhere in the US where a gang member rolled up with an AK and took out a rival gang at the same time. If it does happen, it is rare. and AK's are legal to buy and own. Where is the mass killing from all the non-banned assault rifles?
I am ok with age restrictions on owning firearms.
I am ok with background checks.
I am ok with outlawing straw purchases (although it really is just the honor system at play here.)
I am ok with one private citizen selling a gun to another private citizen.
I am ok with the tax stamp for owning an automatic weapon.
I am ok with having to take a training class before you carry a firearm.
Beyond that, there are not many more things I am ok with. A gun is dangerous. So is a car, an arc welder, a table saw, a nail gun. Cars kill far more people than guns do, so why have we not banned cars yet?
Just some facts that I found- in 2004 the number car crash fatalities was 42,636. The firearm fatalities (which includes all types of deaths from firearms- accidental, murder, etc.)was 29,569. http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/01/Autos/nhtsa_death_stats/index.htm http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics
Also on more interesting fact- in 2008, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the firearm of choice for murderers was a handgun, not a rifle by a 2 to 1 margin (an AK-47 is classified as a rifle). Leads me to believe the only gangstas who use AK's are in the movies. Besides, how many times do you here about 10 or more people getting shot at the same time? Has it happened, maybe, I can't find anywhere in the US where a gang member rolled up with an AK and took out a rival gang at the same time. If it does happen, it is rare. and AK's are legal to buy and own. Where is the mass killing from all the non-banned assault rifles?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
more guns part 2...
To continue the theme of yesterday: arguments against guns and my responses to them.
I don’t have a problem with people owning guns, I just don’t see why you need to have a _____________.(fill in the blank with a scary gun, such as an M-16 or AK-47) I’ll let everyone in on a little secret- how the gun looks or how many rounds it holds does not make it more dangerous then a pink, bolt action rifle. ANY gun in the hands of an irresponsible person is capable of severely injuring or killing a person. It’s like taking a stick of dynamite and painting one yellow with flowers on it, and another one black with flames and demons on it. Is the yellow one with flowers any less dangerous than the other? I think this argument comes from a lack of knowledge of guns. People will say that these types of guns, especially the AK-47 have a more dangerous caliber of bullet than other guns. This is simply not true. The AK-47 fires the 7.62mm round, which is a relatively small round. Most hunting rifles fire a far larger and more powerful round, such as the .30-.06, a far larger and much more common hunting round. The M-16/AR-15 shoots an even smaller round, the 5.56/.223 (they are not the same, they are slightly different rounds). In fact, this round is sometimes referred to as a “varmint” round, cause it’s mostly good at killin’ ground critters, like rats, prairie dogs and rabbits. Others will say that what makes them dangerous is the magazine capacity- sometimes 30 rounds. I honestly don’t understand too much of why this is a big deal, something about being able to fire more without reloading… I’ve got news for you- if it takes you more than 2 seconds to throw another magazine in the firearm you probably wear a helmet and ride the short bus to school. So the amount of ammo it holds doesn’t really ring true to me as sufficient basis for a ban.
Well, I had more written, but to be honest this subject is boring me for now…since this is my domain I will cease writing about guns. I have not really read any comments any have made, so perhaps I will.
On the other hand, Sharel and I might be getting a dog here in the next couple of weeks. It is a big dog, one that will eat small children and skinny people. (I am just kidding, the dog has no taste for adult, skinny humans). Any way, she is a chocolate color and about 7 or 8 months old. We are not real sure that we are going to get her, but we are going to check her out. We are excited. She was picked up by animal control from the owners who were moving and didn’t want to take her with. The good news is she is young enough to still socialize and have it benefit her. Like I said, it is up in the air right now, but we would sure like to get her if she fits with us.
Peace- I’m out.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
More on guns...
Just in case any of you don’t know my stance on guns- I like them. I like them a lot. Sure, some may say it is an unhealthy obsession. Mom thinks it is because I watched violent tv shows like CHiPs and Hunter as a very small child. Perhaps it was the Christmas that I got a Red Ryder bb gun from Santa that set me on this path of firearm love. Whatever the case may be, I do enjoy shooting guns. Please don’t mistake this for some sort of apocalyptic end of the world stance on life, where I stockpile guns and wait for zombies to rise so I can shoot them and live in a world with no electricity and no government and no…well, you get the picture. I would call myself a gun enthusiast (not really, ‘cause then I would have to kick my own rear end) in the same vein as people are enthusiasts about cars, or golf, or musical instruments, or model planes, or chess. Get the picture? It’s a hobby that I find no weirder or strange than the aforementioned hobbies.
That being said, as far as gun control, I have heard all the arguments for it, and it has yet to change my mind. There are some common arguments that I hear, and just so we do not repeat ourselves here, here are my responses to them.
Guns kill people. So do knives, cars, baseball bats, tire irons, fists, feet, piano wire, rope, electricity, water, heat, cold, bungee jumping, mountain biking, horses, tigers, bears, dogs, viruses, hammers, nail guns, lakes, boats, airplanes, bricks, rocks, cliffs, trees, skydiving, scuba diving, sharks, repelling,, etc. If you don’t get my point- lots of things kill people, but we do not outright ban them.
Guns kill people part 2. No, they don’t. I can set a loaded gun on a table and at no point will it kill someone. It can’t. it is not alive, it is not capable of manipulating itself, it is not capable of aiming itself. It cannot kill. A person could pick up the gun and use it to kill another human. A person can pick up a baseball bat and use it to kill someone. A person can pick up a knife and use it to kill another person, but there is no crusade bellowing “Knives kill people!” In my scant 30 years of life, not once has a knife from the kitchen ever killed me or someone I know on its own. It is the same with guns. It is a tool, one that people use for a variety of purposes from sport to hunting to fighting wars. Someone has to use it to kill. Blame the person, not the tool.
Crazy, evil people use a myriad of things to kill or hurt other people. I don’t think it is going to make much difference what they use, the point is if they want to kill or hurt someone, they will find a way. Banning guns ain’t gonna stop them.
But, you say, guns are more dangerous and deadly than a lot of things you just listed. I would agree. But any of the things listed above, especially automobiles can be deadly in the hands of an irresponsible person. We do not ban cars, and I know more people personally that have been killed or severely injured in a car accident than killed or injured with a gun.
That is probably a long enough post for now. I will post more arguments I have heard and my responses to them.
Peace- I’m out.
Monday, June 28, 2010
My silence is broken...
SCOTUS rejected Chicago’s handgun ban. I know most of you will say “boy, Danny is probably ecstatic right now, that loveable, cuddly lump of right wing angst!” But, you would be wrong. Well, not too wrong, just a little. Lemme ‘splain, before some think I have lost my mind.
First, I am very happy with this ruling. I think bans like this are bred out of an illogical fear knee-jerk reactionism. These types of bans do not address the root cause of crime, but rather symptoms of crime. It is like going to a doctor with an infection, and instead of treating the infection, he prescribes Tylenol just to keep the fever, the symptom of an infection, away. I could go on and on about what the underlying causes of crime are, but that is another post. Anyway, I think this ruling does give back some of the freedom that we should have.
I am hesitant with this ruling for another reason. My states rights/libertarianism is showing on this one. I think states should largely be left alone from Federal intrusion. If a state wants to ban guns, give out socialized medicine, have exorbitant taxes, dictate what kind of car you can drive, when you can run your A/C, then you can move to California and see how well you do. Hey, maybe spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax will create a successful economy and a wonderful place to live, just like California.
If you want to live in a state with the opposite philosophy, then you can move to a place like Texas. If you want to live someplace in between, then you can choose from 48 other states.
My point is, I think if you let states run themselves with whatever philosophy they choose, it will be apparent what works and what doesn’t. I know some will say that it can’t happen that way since states and their economies are tied in to each other, and it wouldn’t be practical, but hey, I can dream can’t I?
I know some, like Spencer will argue that states cannot trample on fundamental rights laid out in the constitution. I would agree as well. That is why I am very, very happy about this ruling, and only slightly, very slightly unhappy about it.
Now, everyone feel free to comment and express their own views, but let me say I may or may not respond, as my time is very limited on looking and updating the blog, and also because with gun control I am very stubborn and already have made my mind up. There is little that anyone could say that will make me think any differently about my views. So nah nanana booboo.
Peace- I’m out.
Friday, June 4, 2010
response to Spencer
I do not disagree with you. You are addressing the clean up phase of the spill. In that area Obama is failing horribly. I am referring to the actual leak and the many people who wonder why Obama hasn't stopped the leak yet. I am referring to the people who are screaming for Obama to kick BP out and take over the efforts to stop the leak.
I think what we have here is a large segment of the population that when disaster strikes, they are waiting for Uncle Sam to kiss the booboos and make everything better immediately. they did it with Bush and Katrina. They wondered why Bush didn't evacuate New Orleans. Now they are wondering why Obama didn't plug the leak. I am quite confident that the government would take 8 times as long to fix the leak than BP will take.
This is the point of my post. the cleanup efforts are a whole other discussion.
So there.
On a somewhat related note, the EPA brought together the best minds they could find to figure out how to stop the leak. One of the "experts" they called in was one James Cameron, the mega intellectual director extraordinaire. Given who this administration is running to for ideas, I think it is a good thing for humanity that they are letting BP fix the leak.
I think what we have here is a large segment of the population that when disaster strikes, they are waiting for Uncle Sam to kiss the booboos and make everything better immediately. they did it with Bush and Katrina. They wondered why Bush didn't evacuate New Orleans. Now they are wondering why Obama didn't plug the leak. I am quite confident that the government would take 8 times as long to fix the leak than BP will take.
This is the point of my post. the cleanup efforts are a whole other discussion.
So there.
On a somewhat related note, the EPA brought together the best minds they could find to figure out how to stop the leak. One of the "experts" they called in was one James Cameron, the mega intellectual director extraordinaire. Given who this administration is running to for ideas, I think it is a good thing for humanity that they are letting BP fix the leak.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
a brief foray back into the seedy world of politics...
Just a potpourri of thoughts…
I just have to ask all those that loathe George Bush- 20 years from now am I still gonna have to listen to everything being blamed on Bush? How long is the Obama Administration going to keep blaming Bush for things? At some point enough policies will be in place that the current administration will have to own it. For now it sounds like a lot of people have loser’s elbow. (to demonstrate what ‘loser’s elbow’ is, first point your index finger out, like you are pointing at somebody. Take your other hand and cup it under your elbow. Now jab your pointing finger hand towards something [may I suggest a picture of George W.] whilst repeating “it’s your fault, it’s your fault!”. Do that enough and eventually you will have to see a doctor as you will have a condition similar to tennis elbow, but its called ‘Loser’s Elbow’)
The Oil Spill…
First I would just like to say that this is not Obama’s fault. I would also mention that BP is not some evil, sinister corporation that is not fixing this because it hates the inbred shrimp fisherman of the Gulf and the environment.
I think a little logical thought would help- first, this spill is going to cost BP an enormous amount of money and reputation. This could likely put BP into a serious financial problem. What evil, profit worshipping corporation is going to purposely endanger their profits like this? In that same vein of thinking, with BP knowing what a huge disaster this is for their bottom-line, does it not stand to reason then that they are doing everything they can to stop the leak? It was an accident. Lets get the leak stopped first, then we can evaluate what went wrong and see if there is any culpability on anyone’s part.
Further I would like to go on record as defending Obama a little (shocking, I know). Really what can he do? Don a scuba tank and a teleprompter and go down there and inspire the pipe to stop gushing oil? Perhaps we could hook his enormous brain up to a computer and use it to come up with a solution to the leak? Better yet, why don’t we just follow the solution he has already given to “Plug the damn hole!”. He can do no more to stop the leak than Bush could to stop a hurricane.
I do however think the people who blamed Bush for Katrina should go ahead and blame Obama for this spill. You guys wouldn’t want to be hypocrites, would you? You see, I didn’t think there was a whole lot Bush could have done to get people out of New Orleans (state and local sovereignty issues), and I don’t think there is a whole lot Obama can do in the current situation. So I am consistent.
Now just so you don’t think that I have suffered brain trauma, here are my criticisms of the administrations handling of this disaster- as I said before, lets concentrate on fixing the problem, rather than wasting time and effort trying to find someone to blame for this. After all, did Obama not run on the promise to change the status quo of politics? What is the status quo of politics when it comes to disasters? Assigning blame early and often. Instead of sending Holder down there to investigate criminal activities, focus on the problem. As Sharel pointed out, it is a little like an ER doc trying to figure out who hit who before working on the car accident victim. Beyond that, I think it helps little to start threatening everyone associated with this effort with criminal charges. It is counterproductive.
Peace- I’m Out.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Conclusions
I grow tired of the healthcare discussion…it displeases me. So this will be the last post on healthcare for a while. We have had a rousing discussion, and points were made on both sides, but in all seriousness, I think we are all intelligent people that have already made our minds up. We could spend months going back and forth on this issue, and since this is my totalitarian blog, I choose to move on after this post.
But first, a few last thoughts on the bill. Sharel’s post sums up nicely what the philosophical opposition to this bill is. By mandating that we have to do something, we are being deprived of a choice to make. Like it or not, this diminishes our agency. I feel, and Sharel does too, that we have an obligation as a disciple of Christ to help the poor and the needy and the sick. The key word is WE, not the government. When the government takes over, it too diminishes our ability to take care of the poor and the needy. Agency in this life means suffering and unfairness abound. Opposing this healthcare bill does not mean we don’t care about the poor or the needy. It doesn’t mean that we like the way the system is run right now. It doesn’t mean we are ok with people going through bankruptcy because from no fault of their own, they became ill. These are things that need to be addressed, but I don’t think this bill addresses any of this.
In fact, I think this bill is going to really hurt me and my family. We are the people stuck in the middle that make too much for help, but not enough to cover all the proposed costs. Sharel and I have worked hard to manage our finances, and we have less going out in money than we have coming in not because we make a lot, but because we have gone without a lot of things such as cell phones, or flat screen TV’s, new clothes, etc. I would bet that I make less than most people reading this blog, and if you want to know how much I make, just ask, and I will shoot you an email. All that hard work is being threatened by rising health care premiums to meet the government mandates. And that is not me speculating what is going to happen, that is an acknowledged fact. I don’t want to break the law, but if it is the difference of having to go on welfare because I can’t afford to pay my bills, or Sharel having to go to work or pay the $695 penalty, I will pay the $695 penalty. I will take my chances with not being obedient to the laws of the land. And if we get sick, we will sign up for insurance. It sucks, and I won’t be proud of it, but I will not make Sharel work outside the home, it is too important that she raise our kids, not a daycare.
So that being said, I will move on. And what will amuse me in the future? Shall we talk about current political events? Perhaps. But probably not. I think I will turn back to a rousing discussion of guns. A few upcoming debates- .223 vs 7.62. Glock vs. FNp. AK vs AR. Perhaps other debates, such as Courtesy flushes, who do they really help? ’68 Camaro vs. ’76 Camaro. K5 Blazer or Bronco? Maybe I will have some more venting posts, such as what frustrates me about Boy Scouts, or working in an office full of women with only two toilets, one of which is a ladies room, the other a unisex restroom. Or why Newsradio was the funniest sitcom ever on television. Whatever I desire…
Peace- I’m out!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thoughts from Sharel on the current discussion of healthcare...
From Sharel in answer to comments from the previous post:
Yes, WE the Lord's disciples are supposed to take care of the poor and needy, not the government. There is a difference as well between being compelled to give and giving of our own free will.
“It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.”
–
All things to be done in the Lord's way and as we can see the government never does things in the Lords way.
We are supposed to take care of the needy and poor, but we should be able to do that without punishing others. Our whole purpose in helping the poor is to teach themselves how to help themselves as well. As history has shown us well that once you are in a welfare state, there is no incentive to go back. We should not just give stuff away and the church never just gives stuff away. Whenever help is given the gospel teaches the person who has been given something, to help out in return, to give back.
I guess it all comes down to a basic belief in what the governments role is. When we look beyond the health care bill there are fundamental beliefs about freedom and government.
I want to really reiterate how I DO NOT LIKE THE SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS, I keep getting from you how I must love how things are and that is not the case! We just don’t like this particular bill the way it is.
“All we have to do is … examine any movement that may be brought into our midst … and if it … attempt[s] to deprive us in the slightest respect of our free agency, we should avoid it as we would avoid immorality or anything else that is vicious. … Free agency is as necessary for our eternal salvation as is our virtue. And … as we guard our virtue with our lives, so should we guard our free agency.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 46.)
President Marion G. Romney, when he was a member of the Council of the Twelve, gave this advice:
“One of the fundamental doctrines of revealed truth is that … God endowed men with free agency (see Moses 7:32). The preservation of this free agency is more important than the preservation of life itself. … Everything which militates against man’s enjoyment of this endowment persuades not to believe in Christ, for he is the author of free agency.
“Now the world today is in the throes of a great social and political revolution. In almost every department of society laws and practices are being daily proposed and adopted which greatly alter the course of our lives. Indeed, some of them are literally shaking the foundations of our political and social institutions. If you would know truth from error in this bitterly contested arena, apply Mormon’s test to these innovations [as recorded in Moro. 7:16–18]. Do they facilitate or restrict the exercise of man’s divine endowment of free agency? Tested by this standard, most of them will fall quickly into their proper category as between good and evil.” (Speeches of the Year, Brigham Young University Press, 1957, pp. 10–11.)
“In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ (Moro. 7:47.) This we must develop if we would obtain eternal life.” (Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115.)
The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery.- Marion G. Romney, “Church Welfare Services’ Basic Principles,” Ensign, May 1976, 120
P.S.- I still want the crepe and fruit sauce recipe.Sharel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
