Opinions and solutions
It is very easy to express opinions about our current political situation. It is just as easy to point fingers and lay blame on any easy target. Politicians put themselves out in the public and have to accept the mud-slinging and criticism that comes their way. It is easy for any politician to respond to any verbal attack with a verbal response designed to show a negative side of his or her opponent. I have decided that I have maligned the actions of professional politicians without actually offering any solutions. This article will be a step toward correcting that failure. I will offer solutions to our current problems as a country.
These are real suggestions that I believe can be made to work. We have seen that our current system is failing and recent elections have shown the voters are looking for some kind of changes. Here are my proposed changes.
1: None of the above
As a general population we have lost trust in our government. We have seen the proof of how politicians and bureaucrats put more effort into protecting their jobs than in serving the electorate. Professional politicians are interested in getting the power and recognition that goes with being elected to office. They revel in attention from powerful people who want something. They really believe the deals they make are the reason they were elected.
Being elected to public office is actually a demonstration of fundraising and the effectiveness of the support group assembled to manage the campaign. It is not a reflection on the integrity or ability of the candidate. Politicians’ greatest skill is in their ability to follow a script and never say anything that can be used by the opposition’s spin doctors in attack ads. The American people do not trust professional politicians as a group. Few of us take the time or effort to understand why we distrust politicians.
Politicians have made a science of making others look bad by twisting their own words against them. The concept, distilled down to its essence, is: “If you are not good enough at what you do to make your self look good, your only hope is to make everyone around you look bad.” It is the evil of office politics expanded to a larger political arena.
To restore trust in our government we need to make real changes in the election process. The party system has become an impediment to effective government. My suggestion for diluting the power of national political parties is a simple change in election law. In any election for Federal public office President, Senator, Representative or whatever, add one additional election option: “NONE OF THE ABOVE” (hereinafter called NOTA). This way the public can express the distrust they have in the candidates offered for election. If NOTA wins a simple majority it will be obvious that the offered candidates are unacceptable. A new election is called with a new slate of candidates. The previous candidates are not allowed to run in the new election. This will assure a new selection of publically acceptable office holders with minimal ties to national parties.
2: Stop paying elected officials from public funds.Everyone in the country that is willing to think for themselves can see that the salary paid to elected officials is not the motivation for seeking elected office. From state level offices to the Presidency the cost of running a successful campaign is many times the potential salary of the job. The lure of the office is power and notoriety. We should not pay people to be self-serving.
One of the reasons we distrust politicians is the fact that they are subject to the influence of political action committees, business sector cooperatives, powerful, well-heeled special interests…etc. If these groups wish to influence a politician’s actions they should pay the “bought” person’s salary.
To make sure the public has some control over their elected officials, each candidate must completely disclose what groups he works for and how much they are paying. As voters we can make our choices based on the organizations that are paying for the legislative votes of a candidate. Any changes during the elected official’s term in office must be disclosed immediately. There will be potential for a popular candidate to receive a very large salary from a large number of paying supporters. As voters we will have the responsibility to learn the positions of the paying organizations and remove the politician if his alliances disagree with our own. Combining this change with the NOTA change described above will make officials more responsible for their actions and easier to remove if they forget who they ultimately answer to.
3: Stop wasting money on drug enforcement. Throughout history, banning any popular substance, activity…etc has proven ineffective. Even the morally indefensible practice of abortion cannot be effectively banned. Prohibition proved how banning something promotes the development of increasingly powerful criminal elements to satisfy the demand. The money flowing through the drug black market probably contributed to the economic collapse we recently endured. We can increase our tax base by producing quality and safe drugs to sell to real addicts while using the revenue to provide treatment and reduce the demand. The only way to remove the criminal element from recreational drugs is to de-criminalize the substances and tax the hell out of them to just below the level where criminal distribution becomes profitable. We cannot ban smoking but it has become a valuable tax resource. Alcohol is a valuable tax resource. Gambling is a valuable tax resource. So too can recreational drugs be. I have not worked out the details of how this could work but the concept has possibilities.
4: Increase government inspections and regulatory enforcement.This can have a positive effect on both tax revenue and unemployment. To help make sure that any company, large or small, does not put profit ahead of public safety we need vigorous inspections and significant, escalating fines for violators. This will add thousands of government jobs and private sector jobs to assure compliance. Again the details are fuzzy but there is some potential.
5: Progressive taxationThis is my favorite. I believe we should select a personal income level at (for instance) 5 times the current poverty level where we start adding taxation based on unemployment rates. If a person has gross income of $200,000 or more per year he will pay an unemployment tax based on the average unemployment rate for the year. If the average unemployment rate is 10% hit him with a 10% unemployment tax. This will certainly promote the creation of jobs and make offshore outsourcing look much less attractive on a personal level. People respond when their own money is threatened. Laying-off people will hurt the managers as well as the laid-off workers.
6: Limited compensationI believe there is no moral justification for personal compensation in excess of $50,000,000 per year. There are ways to reward successful top level managers for their knowledge and experience that makes a company successful besides padding their bank accounts. A large donation to a group of charities in the name of the manager, CEO…etc would be more acceptable. Here is a possible headline on a full page ad in a national publication or on a popular website:
XYZ Corporation wants to thank John C Doe Jr. for his very successful year at the helm of our company. In appreciation for his skills and contributions to our success we have donated a total of $25,000,000 to the following charities in his name. [Followed by a list of charities] Thank you John C Doe Jr.This is public recognition of the contributions made by the executive without making him immorally and wastefully wealthier.
These are some revolutionary ideas and I realize that they may seem absurd on first blush. If you take these ideas as a jump-off point for further discussion, they might lead to some real solutions for the problems at hand. If nothing else, you can respond by telling me how wrong I am. Some of these ideas have been discussed here before. I believe there is some validity to the concepts so I keep bringing them back.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Another explanation of our government's failure
Ramblings of an independent thinker:
There is evidence that the recent economic collapse was brought about by the deliberate and unregulated manipulation of the financial sector by a relatively small group of individuals. The recent accusations and the government’s lawsuit against financial giant Goldman-Sachs highlight the schemes. The people who were in position to make great personal wealth through control of the credit system were sure there would be no consequences. The Bush government went out of its way to ignore the way the markets were being managed. The policy was designed to let the financial sector have a free hand with no limits or oversight. A few people made billions while destroying the lives and investments of millions. This could have been prevented if previously existing limits had not been legislated away. There were laws on the books to prevent the very processes that caused the collapse. Conservatism was leveraged to eliminate the government control and the financial giants proceeded to destroy the economy while getting very rich. There was no consideration for the lives of the people who would loose their savings and small investments. The leaders of Goldman-Sachs and other big financial institutions knew there would be a failure of the system and arranged to make huge profits as the system imploded. People who had the foresight to see where the economy was headed made deliberate moves to ensure the collapse while also “betting” on the collapse. Hedge-fund managers made multi-billions by arranging the economic failure of the country.
The billions of dollars that the government had to pour into the financial sector to prop up the banking industry was the only thing that prevented the recession from becoming worse than the great depression. The laws that were enacted following the great depression to prevent it from happening again were the same laws that were gutted by the Bush-Republican government. A weak government cannot hope to prevent the powerful from preying on the powerless.
It is true that the average citizen has no concept of how this system works and how it can be manipulated by insiders. It is very easy to place blame on the most visible factors – including taxes and politicians. The blame rests on the huge financial companies with the power to send the economy in any direction they choose. The only hope for the average citizen is a strong government that is willing and able to stand up to the big companies and place limits on their ability to influence legislation. A strong government is strong only when it has the support of the people. A weak government is easily controlled by big business.
As citizens we have lost trust and respect for our government. The way the government has failed to protect the majority of citizens against the greed of a minority has eroded the trust. Everyone knows there are behind-the-scenes and under-the-table deals going on all the time in Washington. Politicians are maneuvering for their own wealth and power instead of in the interests of the people who elected them. Every public statement from any elected official is carefully weighed against the next election. Truth has no place in that equation. The interests of the country take a third place behind re-election prospects and personal power. There are very real philosophical differences about how to manage a country’s economy. At one end of the spectrum lies the idea that the government must never interfere in the way any organization does business. At the other end of the spectrum lies complete and total socialism where private business does not exist. (The second option is so distasteful that my fingers almost refuse to type it.) If we have any understanding of human nature, we can see that the disengaged government is just as dangerous as socialism to personal freedom. We need to ride along the wide gray area somewhere between these two extremes and we need honest and independent people making the decisions. Hard decisions that are unpopular with the public are sometimes required. The leader who has the guts to take the unpopular path will jeopardize his re-election. When the re-election is more important than the good of the country the politician has sold out to the system.
As voters we need to make sure the people we elect have the support they need to do their job. Professional politicians spend their lives saying the things we want to hear and let their party leaders decide their legislative posture. We need a new breed of leadership. When the country is suffering economic woes we need to elect people who understand economics and are willing to exert their knowledge and influence for the improvement of the country. We do not need to know who fathered her third child or who he slept with last Saturday. We need to know where he/she stands on economic issues. We need to look deeper into the qualifications of the people we elect – going past their personal lives to see their value as a tool to help the country. We need to grow up as a people and learn to think for ourselves. We can elect a person based on qualifications, and then when he has done his job; replace him/her with someone who has the qualifications to deal with the then-current issues. Let the elected leaders do their job and if they decide that re-election is more important than their mandate from the electorate they have to go. Politics as a profession is prostitution with a higher pay scale. Politics as a public service is leadership. A true political leader tells the truth, does his job and turns the position over to the next person. A professional politician spends his/her time and effort in pursuit of re-election and personal power. Maybe we should stop paying politicians.
I have fallen victim to the Twitter style of politics. I have found myself trying to express political, economic, scientific and even religious opinions in 140 character phrases. This is the same basic problem we all face when exposed to political advertisement. To have the most impact a short phrase must be emotional and inflammatory. To have an impact on an election, a 30-second ad must tear down the opposition’s political base. The science of public opinion has found many ways to make powerfully influential ads and as a voting public we have little defense. One of my favorite themes is that when two people insist on calling each other liars publicly long enough we start to believe them and realize both are liars. Having no real choice eliminates the motivation to vote. If we do vote, we vote for a party instead of the candidate – based on our perception of the party’s philosophy. We rarely dig deep enough to see if the party’s actions agree with the stated philosophy. In fact there is no connection between action and philosophy.
(There is much more to come. This is as much as most people will read at one time.)
There is evidence that the recent economic collapse was brought about by the deliberate and unregulated manipulation of the financial sector by a relatively small group of individuals. The recent accusations and the government’s lawsuit against financial giant Goldman-Sachs highlight the schemes. The people who were in position to make great personal wealth through control of the credit system were sure there would be no consequences. The Bush government went out of its way to ignore the way the markets were being managed. The policy was designed to let the financial sector have a free hand with no limits or oversight. A few people made billions while destroying the lives and investments of millions. This could have been prevented if previously existing limits had not been legislated away. There were laws on the books to prevent the very processes that caused the collapse. Conservatism was leveraged to eliminate the government control and the financial giants proceeded to destroy the economy while getting very rich. There was no consideration for the lives of the people who would loose their savings and small investments. The leaders of Goldman-Sachs and other big financial institutions knew there would be a failure of the system and arranged to make huge profits as the system imploded. People who had the foresight to see where the economy was headed made deliberate moves to ensure the collapse while also “betting” on the collapse. Hedge-fund managers made multi-billions by arranging the economic failure of the country.
The billions of dollars that the government had to pour into the financial sector to prop up the banking industry was the only thing that prevented the recession from becoming worse than the great depression. The laws that were enacted following the great depression to prevent it from happening again were the same laws that were gutted by the Bush-Republican government. A weak government cannot hope to prevent the powerful from preying on the powerless.
It is true that the average citizen has no concept of how this system works and how it can be manipulated by insiders. It is very easy to place blame on the most visible factors – including taxes and politicians. The blame rests on the huge financial companies with the power to send the economy in any direction they choose. The only hope for the average citizen is a strong government that is willing and able to stand up to the big companies and place limits on their ability to influence legislation. A strong government is strong only when it has the support of the people. A weak government is easily controlled by big business.
As citizens we have lost trust and respect for our government. The way the government has failed to protect the majority of citizens against the greed of a minority has eroded the trust. Everyone knows there are behind-the-scenes and under-the-table deals going on all the time in Washington. Politicians are maneuvering for their own wealth and power instead of in the interests of the people who elected them. Every public statement from any elected official is carefully weighed against the next election. Truth has no place in that equation. The interests of the country take a third place behind re-election prospects and personal power. There are very real philosophical differences about how to manage a country’s economy. At one end of the spectrum lies the idea that the government must never interfere in the way any organization does business. At the other end of the spectrum lies complete and total socialism where private business does not exist. (The second option is so distasteful that my fingers almost refuse to type it.) If we have any understanding of human nature, we can see that the disengaged government is just as dangerous as socialism to personal freedom. We need to ride along the wide gray area somewhere between these two extremes and we need honest and independent people making the decisions. Hard decisions that are unpopular with the public are sometimes required. The leader who has the guts to take the unpopular path will jeopardize his re-election. When the re-election is more important than the good of the country the politician has sold out to the system.
As voters we need to make sure the people we elect have the support they need to do their job. Professional politicians spend their lives saying the things we want to hear and let their party leaders decide their legislative posture. We need a new breed of leadership. When the country is suffering economic woes we need to elect people who understand economics and are willing to exert their knowledge and influence for the improvement of the country. We do not need to know who fathered her third child or who he slept with last Saturday. We need to know where he/she stands on economic issues. We need to look deeper into the qualifications of the people we elect – going past their personal lives to see their value as a tool to help the country. We need to grow up as a people and learn to think for ourselves. We can elect a person based on qualifications, and then when he has done his job; replace him/her with someone who has the qualifications to deal with the then-current issues. Let the elected leaders do their job and if they decide that re-election is more important than their mandate from the electorate they have to go. Politics as a profession is prostitution with a higher pay scale. Politics as a public service is leadership. A true political leader tells the truth, does his job and turns the position over to the next person. A professional politician spends his/her time and effort in pursuit of re-election and personal power. Maybe we should stop paying politicians.
I have fallen victim to the Twitter style of politics. I have found myself trying to express political, economic, scientific and even religious opinions in 140 character phrases. This is the same basic problem we all face when exposed to political advertisement. To have the most impact a short phrase must be emotional and inflammatory. To have an impact on an election, a 30-second ad must tear down the opposition’s political base. The science of public opinion has found many ways to make powerfully influential ads and as a voting public we have little defense. One of my favorite themes is that when two people insist on calling each other liars publicly long enough we start to believe them and realize both are liars. Having no real choice eliminates the motivation to vote. If we do vote, we vote for a party instead of the candidate – based on our perception of the party’s philosophy. We rarely dig deep enough to see if the party’s actions agree with the stated philosophy. In fact there is no connection between action and philosophy.
(There is much more to come. This is as much as most people will read at one time.)
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
More signs that the United States may be doomed:
When any publicly known group with a significant following draws a line in the sand and refuses to back down in the face of opposition the potential for violence increases. When this same group is faced with opposition too powerful to resist, the resulting desperation opens the way to terrorism. Desperation is subjective and emotionally charged.
In this country, the principle of free press is sacrosanct while the science of manipulating public opinion has reached a high level of effectiveness. The combination of unrestrained press with scientifically powerful political advertisements can push some susceptible people further toward the fringes. The people on the fringes clump together like dust particles in a stellar nebula; eventually reaching a mass that has an attraction of its own. When these clumps are moving in similar directions it is possible for them to combine into ever increasing mass with proportionally greater attraction.
A sufficiently massive clump (or social movement) becomes capable of exerting a disruptive force on the core system (society). The increasing dissatisfaction [shown by the American people] with the central Government is the force pushing people toward the fringes. The Tea Party Movement and similar groups are indicators of the level of disenfranchisement felt by many. The number of people with interest in these groups is larger than the number of active participants. Charismatic leadership can draw many more away from the government and into opposition to the status quo.
Recently released reports of growing numbers of extremist militias operating on the fringes of society are an indicator of an even more violent opposition. With the right level of desperation, these groups can be very dangerous. If the violent militias become aligned with the growing membership of anti-government movements a very dangerous situation can arise. It may be too late to diffuse the threat but delaying a real effort will surely lead to violence down the road.
One part of the problem is the effectiveness of the media in manipulating public opinion. In the United States, the population has come to rely on the electronic media for immediate information. Slickly produced and scientifically targeted 30 second political advertisements combine with well-planned sound-bites to influence public opinion. Emotionally charged ads use strong words or phrases such as liar or “unplug grandma” to stir up the mob mentality. Mainstream thinkers soon begin to believe the accusations of both sides and decide that both sides are no longer fit to be in charge. The fringe grows stronger with each person who looses trust in the system.
Those of us who still want to work within the system to affect change must try to convince honest people to run for office. We need independent people who can be trusted to work toward real change. We need people with the guts to do what needs to be done without worrying about the next election. When a legislator is not worried about the next election he or she cannot be manipulated by the political parties into voting the party line. If we do not change the system we are dooming our children to the death and misery of civil war on this continent. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, our children should learn Chinese or Arabic to survive the new government imposed by the invading country.
In this country, the principle of free press is sacrosanct while the science of manipulating public opinion has reached a high level of effectiveness. The combination of unrestrained press with scientifically powerful political advertisements can push some susceptible people further toward the fringes. The people on the fringes clump together like dust particles in a stellar nebula; eventually reaching a mass that has an attraction of its own. When these clumps are moving in similar directions it is possible for them to combine into ever increasing mass with proportionally greater attraction.
A sufficiently massive clump (or social movement) becomes capable of exerting a disruptive force on the core system (society). The increasing dissatisfaction [shown by the American people] with the central Government is the force pushing people toward the fringes. The Tea Party Movement and similar groups are indicators of the level of disenfranchisement felt by many. The number of people with interest in these groups is larger than the number of active participants. Charismatic leadership can draw many more away from the government and into opposition to the status quo.
Recently released reports of growing numbers of extremist militias operating on the fringes of society are an indicator of an even more violent opposition. With the right level of desperation, these groups can be very dangerous. If the violent militias become aligned with the growing membership of anti-government movements a very dangerous situation can arise. It may be too late to diffuse the threat but delaying a real effort will surely lead to violence down the road.
One part of the problem is the effectiveness of the media in manipulating public opinion. In the United States, the population has come to rely on the electronic media for immediate information. Slickly produced and scientifically targeted 30 second political advertisements combine with well-planned sound-bites to influence public opinion. Emotionally charged ads use strong words or phrases such as liar or “unplug grandma” to stir up the mob mentality. Mainstream thinkers soon begin to believe the accusations of both sides and decide that both sides are no longer fit to be in charge. The fringe grows stronger with each person who looses trust in the system.
Those of us who still want to work within the system to affect change must try to convince honest people to run for office. We need independent people who can be trusted to work toward real change. We need people with the guts to do what needs to be done without worrying about the next election. When a legislator is not worried about the next election he or she cannot be manipulated by the political parties into voting the party line. If we do not change the system we are dooming our children to the death and misery of civil war on this continent. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, our children should learn Chinese or Arabic to survive the new government imposed by the invading country.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
More political commentary from the streets.
More Political Commentary from the Lower Level
We have a chance to become a stronger country with a social conscience if we take the new health care law to the next level and make it work. If we continue to point fingers and decry the evils of the new law the consequences can be dire. Already several states are grouping together in opposition to the law. Does this sound familiar? It should. Similar action by the states brought on the deaths of many Americans who ended up fighting each other over the opposition to the law.
Opponents are making statements that inflame the public just as before the law was passed. The statements are either untrue or are extreme exaggerations with only small bits of truth. In the end, all the opposition can be distilled to one poisonous product. The opponents do not want to give up any of their income to taxation.
This fact may be hidden beneath several layers of pseudo-economics and high-sounding rhetoric. If you hold your nose and dig into the pile, the core of the opposition is exposed: simple and immoral greed.
People who would otherwise respond in a good way to open and honest discussion are being manipulated and incited to loud protests by the deodorized pile of crap from the richest levels of our society. The only thing these rich people have to loose is a small percentage of their amassed income. They are isolated from the world of pain and suffering here at the bottom and, truth be told, they really do not care.
Forced insurance?
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is a response to the opposition’s demands for non-government funding of health care. The forced insurance would not be needed if health care funding were provided as a progressive tax increase. There are several options for taxation that would spread the cost across several segments of the population with the heaviest taxes on those who can best afford it. I propose a 1% tax on incomes over $15000 A 1% tax on an income of $150000 is much less painful than a 1% tax on someone with $30000 annual income. The cost of living a basic existence is universal. For the $150000 income family, anything beyond a basic existence is a luxury made possible by the extra income. This means that a 4400 square foot home is a luxury. For the $30000 family a 1000 square foot apartment is basic existence. The high income family does not have to choose the 4400 square foot home. A slight reduction in living area can offset the 1% tax. For the low income family they have no options and the 1% tax can mean less food or no medicine for a sick child. This is the basis of the progressive tax that was the original configuration of the income tax. Implementing a progressive health care tax to fund the health insurance subsidy for poor people might eliminate the forced insurance in the new law.
Be thankful for the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.
It is my opinion that those people who have been able to use their talents, skills, training or education to reach the top levels of income should be excited to support the system of government that gave then the opportunity to succeed. There are many places in the world where this level of success is not possible. No business person, inventor, writer, sports star or media celebrity could be successful if no one is buying products or tickets. The largest group of people is in the mid to lower income levels. Letting these relatively poor people live longer with more disposable income will increase economic growth more than letting a large portion of spendable income remain in the tight fists of a relatively few high income families.
One rich family may buy one $250000 houseboat for family vacations. For the same $250000, five hundred families can buy small sport fishing boats. The fishing boat factory has 500 employees and purchases supplies in the local community. The custom houseboat builder has 50 employees and most of the exotic materials used are imported from foreign countries. The benefits of spreading the wealth outweigh the Reagan-era trickle-down approach where each level on the way down siphons off a piece of the flow. Let us have some support for health care. We can continue to work longer and earn more to spend. Spending drives the economy. A booming economy will offset the taxes on the rich because the boom benefits them most.
PS: Give me a year of health care and a paying job I can physically do and I will shut up and go to work.
We have a chance to become a stronger country with a social conscience if we take the new health care law to the next level and make it work. If we continue to point fingers and decry the evils of the new law the consequences can be dire. Already several states are grouping together in opposition to the law. Does this sound familiar? It should. Similar action by the states brought on the deaths of many Americans who ended up fighting each other over the opposition to the law.
Opponents are making statements that inflame the public just as before the law was passed. The statements are either untrue or are extreme exaggerations with only small bits of truth. In the end, all the opposition can be distilled to one poisonous product. The opponents do not want to give up any of their income to taxation.
This fact may be hidden beneath several layers of pseudo-economics and high-sounding rhetoric. If you hold your nose and dig into the pile, the core of the opposition is exposed: simple and immoral greed.
People who would otherwise respond in a good way to open and honest discussion are being manipulated and incited to loud protests by the deodorized pile of crap from the richest levels of our society. The only thing these rich people have to loose is a small percentage of their amassed income. They are isolated from the world of pain and suffering here at the bottom and, truth be told, they really do not care.
Forced insurance?
The requirement that everyone buy health insurance is a response to the opposition’s demands for non-government funding of health care. The forced insurance would not be needed if health care funding were provided as a progressive tax increase. There are several options for taxation that would spread the cost across several segments of the population with the heaviest taxes on those who can best afford it. I propose a 1% tax on incomes over $15000 A 1% tax on an income of $150000 is much less painful than a 1% tax on someone with $30000 annual income. The cost of living a basic existence is universal. For the $150000 income family, anything beyond a basic existence is a luxury made possible by the extra income. This means that a 4400 square foot home is a luxury. For the $30000 family a 1000 square foot apartment is basic existence. The high income family does not have to choose the 4400 square foot home. A slight reduction in living area can offset the 1% tax. For the low income family they have no options and the 1% tax can mean less food or no medicine for a sick child. This is the basis of the progressive tax that was the original configuration of the income tax. Implementing a progressive health care tax to fund the health insurance subsidy for poor people might eliminate the forced insurance in the new law.
Be thankful for the society that gave you the opportunity to succeed.
It is my opinion that those people who have been able to use their talents, skills, training or education to reach the top levels of income should be excited to support the system of government that gave then the opportunity to succeed. There are many places in the world where this level of success is not possible. No business person, inventor, writer, sports star or media celebrity could be successful if no one is buying products or tickets. The largest group of people is in the mid to lower income levels. Letting these relatively poor people live longer with more disposable income will increase economic growth more than letting a large portion of spendable income remain in the tight fists of a relatively few high income families.
One rich family may buy one $250000 houseboat for family vacations. For the same $250000, five hundred families can buy small sport fishing boats. The fishing boat factory has 500 employees and purchases supplies in the local community. The custom houseboat builder has 50 employees and most of the exotic materials used are imported from foreign countries. The benefits of spreading the wealth outweigh the Reagan-era trickle-down approach where each level on the way down siphons off a piece of the flow. Let us have some support for health care. We can continue to work longer and earn more to spend. Spending drives the economy. A booming economy will offset the taxes on the rich because the boom benefits them most.
PS: Give me a year of health care and a paying job I can physically do and I will shut up and go to work.
Monday, March 22, 2010
My views on the healthcare debate
Part One: My views on the healthcare debate.
Several years ago I had a supervisor that I could not get along with (one of many over the years). He assigned me a project that, in my mind, was totally unworkable. I tried to show him the mistakes and propose a workable solution. He was un-shakable. As expected, the project was a complete flop. His comment was “it would have worked if you had wanted it to.” With several years more wisdom I can see his point. I might have put in more effort if I saw some possibility of success.
Now we have a patchwork effort at healthcare reform being heralded as a giant leap forward. Opponents are loudly proclaiming it won’t work. The opponents have managed to install into the legislation several impediments to real success. Chances are it will not work unless the opponents are willing to make an effort to make it work. Unlike me, they could open their minds and look for effective solutions to the problems they see. Simply standing in the way or dragging back on progress will make failure more possible.
We have to look at the motives of the opposition. Do they want to strengthen the country and take a moral approach to improving society or do they want to be vindictive crybabies because they were voted down? There are some legitimate concerns about the costs at all levels. There are some concerns about the effect on jobs, recession recovery and budget deficits.
The sensible thing to do would be to find ways to solve the individual problems and make the changes work to improve lives and bring the country together. Recent history seems to indicate another approach is forthcoming. There will be several months of nay saying, finger pointing and vindictive actions unrelated to this issue.
Legitimate opposition is important. Continued opposition after the fact leads to mistrust and opens the door to divisiveness that weakens the country. We only have to look to the two wars we are engaged in to see where stubborn, vindictive, uncompromising, blind opposition leads. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are divided by two or more internal groups that oppose each other on irrational grounds. The result is unnecessary death of innocents. Draw a line through the recent events and extend it into the future and you will see the internal unrest of today leading to a Chinese-led peace-keeping mission arriving to stop the American Civil war.
This is one possible future, however unlikely. There are other possibilities that are much more in line with the visions of our founding fathers. We can regain the respect of the world and become the beacon of hope that we once were.
Part Two: Moral responsibility?
There is little doubt that many healthcare proponents have endangered their re-election chances. I applaud those individuals who had the guts to do what was morally right in the face of potential political backlash. I point a finger of shame at those who let their personal ambitions of re-election drive their decisions. Their ambitions very likely killed a few people who could have been saved by quick action several months ago. We could have extended help to many who are now dead.
Most of the people who opposed the reform packages did so from a narrow-minded self-focused greed. They do not want to pay taxes. There is significant opposition to the rich folk’s tax that is part of the reform bill. This tax is aimed at families earning $250,000 per year. How can any family at that income level experience any hardship because of an additional 1% tax? Will he have to drive his Mercedes a couple more months before trading it for a new one? Will his family have to shorten their European vacation by a day or two?
Contrast that to people like me. I have a total income of $1200/month. I am unemployed, uninsured, and (even if I had the money) uninsurable due to several medical conditions. My unemployment benefits will expire in three months. A doctor’s visit or two and some prescription support might extend my life. Chances are I’ll not survive to benefit from the reform since the main benefits are delayed four years. Thankfully I have no children suffering with me but many people in similar circumstances do have kids. How can the “hardship” of 1% extra tax on that rich family compare to the suffering we on the other end of the spectrum live daily? Really! How many families in this country earn more than $100,000/year? Multiply that by the amount of a 1% tax and the product would pay for health coverage for many people like me.
I have worked hard all my life. That hard work in unhealthy environments probably contributed to my current medical conditions. Now all I have to look forward to is a painful death. My wife is suffering too, but that is another story. I am an intelligent person with the skills to earn a living in spite of my medical problems. I shouldn’t have to die as a drain on society. Some health insurance could get me turned around and make me productive again. I could get a job and pay part of the insurance premium. I can still live on $1200 a month. Any additional income could pay for medicine and insurance premiums. Contact me and I share my whole story if you get to me before I die.
Several years ago I had a supervisor that I could not get along with (one of many over the years). He assigned me a project that, in my mind, was totally unworkable. I tried to show him the mistakes and propose a workable solution. He was un-shakable. As expected, the project was a complete flop. His comment was “it would have worked if you had wanted it to.” With several years more wisdom I can see his point. I might have put in more effort if I saw some possibility of success.
Now we have a patchwork effort at healthcare reform being heralded as a giant leap forward. Opponents are loudly proclaiming it won’t work. The opponents have managed to install into the legislation several impediments to real success. Chances are it will not work unless the opponents are willing to make an effort to make it work. Unlike me, they could open their minds and look for effective solutions to the problems they see. Simply standing in the way or dragging back on progress will make failure more possible.
We have to look at the motives of the opposition. Do they want to strengthen the country and take a moral approach to improving society or do they want to be vindictive crybabies because they were voted down? There are some legitimate concerns about the costs at all levels. There are some concerns about the effect on jobs, recession recovery and budget deficits.
The sensible thing to do would be to find ways to solve the individual problems and make the changes work to improve lives and bring the country together. Recent history seems to indicate another approach is forthcoming. There will be several months of nay saying, finger pointing and vindictive actions unrelated to this issue.
Legitimate opposition is important. Continued opposition after the fact leads to mistrust and opens the door to divisiveness that weakens the country. We only have to look to the two wars we are engaged in to see where stubborn, vindictive, uncompromising, blind opposition leads. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are divided by two or more internal groups that oppose each other on irrational grounds. The result is unnecessary death of innocents. Draw a line through the recent events and extend it into the future and you will see the internal unrest of today leading to a Chinese-led peace-keeping mission arriving to stop the American Civil war.
This is one possible future, however unlikely. There are other possibilities that are much more in line with the visions of our founding fathers. We can regain the respect of the world and become the beacon of hope that we once were.
Part Two: Moral responsibility?
There is little doubt that many healthcare proponents have endangered their re-election chances. I applaud those individuals who had the guts to do what was morally right in the face of potential political backlash. I point a finger of shame at those who let their personal ambitions of re-election drive their decisions. Their ambitions very likely killed a few people who could have been saved by quick action several months ago. We could have extended help to many who are now dead.
Most of the people who opposed the reform packages did so from a narrow-minded self-focused greed. They do not want to pay taxes. There is significant opposition to the rich folk’s tax that is part of the reform bill. This tax is aimed at families earning $250,000 per year. How can any family at that income level experience any hardship because of an additional 1% tax? Will he have to drive his Mercedes a couple more months before trading it for a new one? Will his family have to shorten their European vacation by a day or two?
Contrast that to people like me. I have a total income of $1200/month. I am unemployed, uninsured, and (even if I had the money) uninsurable due to several medical conditions. My unemployment benefits will expire in three months. A doctor’s visit or two and some prescription support might extend my life. Chances are I’ll not survive to benefit from the reform since the main benefits are delayed four years. Thankfully I have no children suffering with me but many people in similar circumstances do have kids. How can the “hardship” of 1% extra tax on that rich family compare to the suffering we on the other end of the spectrum live daily? Really! How many families in this country earn more than $100,000/year? Multiply that by the amount of a 1% tax and the product would pay for health coverage for many people like me.
I have worked hard all my life. That hard work in unhealthy environments probably contributed to my current medical conditions. Now all I have to look forward to is a painful death. My wife is suffering too, but that is another story. I am an intelligent person with the skills to earn a living in spite of my medical problems. I shouldn’t have to die as a drain on society. Some health insurance could get me turned around and make me productive again. I could get a job and pay part of the insurance premium. I can still live on $1200 a month. Any additional income could pay for medicine and insurance premiums. Contact me and I share my whole story if you get to me before I die.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Imminent Collapse of the United States
The Collapse of the United States is Imminent
Many people are realizing how flawed and fractured our government has become. Elections across the country have degraded into a choice between two or more equally distasteful options. Legislative decisions are determined by party leaders and the opinions of individual legislators are unimportant. Public opinion is commanded by the most effective marketing campaign financed by the party. If consumer products were marketed with the same strategies, the public would be outraged. We have actually forced tobacco companies and alcohol companies to follow strict marketing rules yet we continue to accept the marketing of political opinion as freedom of speech. Opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Marketing has been proven to be subject to regulation and is not protected by the constitution. Political advertising is marketing more than it is opinion and should be subject to regulation. Truth in tone and content should be required. Exaggerated claims and emotionally charged proclamations should be restricted. If truth in advertising is applied to political ads, the public’s respect for the government just might improve. When Jon and Jan spend millions on political ads calling each other liars, the public begins to believe it. Both Jon and Jan suffer from decreased respect and trust. Eventually nothing either says is accepted and anyone connected with either Jon or Jan is a suspected liar too.
Marketing is a science. The techniques of effective marketing are well known. The erosion of respect and trust caused by emotionally charged political advertising becomes a grand canyon of distrust and disrespect into which all politicians fall. When any one politician begins to climb out to gain some public respect, the others reach up and pull him/her back down into the muck. The roiling battle to prevent trust and respect makes the 21st century American public the most misinformed ever.
If Americans do not regain respect and trust for the government, the country will surely fall apart. Alaska already has a movement toward declaring independence. Texas has had a taste of independence and southern states still hold some bitterness toward the federal government. Political and economic pressure destroyed the USSR and that country was much more ruthless in respect to the member states than the United States has been since 1865. It can happen and the more we grow to distrust the central government the more likely a collapse becomes. It will be deadly. The (possibly foreign) country that picks up the pieces will determine how our children live or die, the language they speak and the religion that they follow. Think about it. Find a way to convince your representatives that the current path leads to weakness and danger.
Many people are realizing how flawed and fractured our government has become. Elections across the country have degraded into a choice between two or more equally distasteful options. Legislative decisions are determined by party leaders and the opinions of individual legislators are unimportant. Public opinion is commanded by the most effective marketing campaign financed by the party. If consumer products were marketed with the same strategies, the public would be outraged. We have actually forced tobacco companies and alcohol companies to follow strict marketing rules yet we continue to accept the marketing of political opinion as freedom of speech. Opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Marketing has been proven to be subject to regulation and is not protected by the constitution. Political advertising is marketing more than it is opinion and should be subject to regulation. Truth in tone and content should be required. Exaggerated claims and emotionally charged proclamations should be restricted. If truth in advertising is applied to political ads, the public’s respect for the government just might improve. When Jon and Jan spend millions on political ads calling each other liars, the public begins to believe it. Both Jon and Jan suffer from decreased respect and trust. Eventually nothing either says is accepted and anyone connected with either Jon or Jan is a suspected liar too.
Marketing is a science. The techniques of effective marketing are well known. The erosion of respect and trust caused by emotionally charged political advertising becomes a grand canyon of distrust and disrespect into which all politicians fall. When any one politician begins to climb out to gain some public respect, the others reach up and pull him/her back down into the muck. The roiling battle to prevent trust and respect makes the 21st century American public the most misinformed ever.
If Americans do not regain respect and trust for the government, the country will surely fall apart. Alaska already has a movement toward declaring independence. Texas has had a taste of independence and southern states still hold some bitterness toward the federal government. Political and economic pressure destroyed the USSR and that country was much more ruthless in respect to the member states than the United States has been since 1865. It can happen and the more we grow to distrust the central government the more likely a collapse becomes. It will be deadly. The (possibly foreign) country that picks up the pieces will determine how our children live or die, the language they speak and the religion that they follow. Think about it. Find a way to convince your representatives that the current path leads to weakness and danger.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The failures of modern government
The gentlemen who designed the United States had certain concepts that they were passionate about and were sure to include in their documents. The more arbitrary items that may have been part of the discussion were left out of the "official" documentation. That documentation is the constitution and it is the foundation of our country. The bill of rights was the first addition to the constitution and it was intended to specify the limits of government interference in private lives.
Since those high-minded gentlemen completed their work we have made repeated attempt to improve it - most often causing more damage than improvement. Those amendments that were focused on personal choices with no real victims are the most glaring failures of the amendment process. The most obvious failure was prohibition.
Those amendments that reinforced personal freedoms are the most successful. Foremost among the successes is the prohibition of slavery. Other amendments were intended or required to address social changes and technological advances never envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment process allows the constitution to evolve with the needs of an evolving society.
Over history, many prominent societal collapses can be laid at the feet of government - either all or in part. A strong yet responsive government can stand and grow with the support of its people. Tyrannical, self-centered, or isolated governments generally have a limited life-span. The collapse can be devastatingly sudden as demonstrated by the Sadam Hussein government in Iraq or it can be a dismally slow process like the fall of Rome. Either way the population suffers.
Our current government is failing the population in several ways. There have been several symptoms of disease in our government. We can choose to ignore the symptoms like a stubborn man who refuses to have that chest pain investigated or we can get our regular checkup and take corrective measures.
At this point a disclaimer is in order. This writer has a deep populist and liberal leaning so the opinions expressed will be biased by that leaning. The ideas put forth are intended to trigger discussion among intelligent persons in positions to influence the direct of the government's evolution.
The government of the United States originally had limited, if any, influence on private business ventures. Allowing the aggressive pursuit of wealth gave the most dynamic people the chances to expand and build the country. The government even supported commerce by using military force to battle threats to American commerce. This government was empowered by the citizens through voting and taxes.
Every citizen bears some responsibility for financing the government. Taxes are the primary financial resource for the government and when tax revenue does not meet the demand on resources the government must borrow against future revenue. When demands continue to exceed resources only two solutions are available. The government can increase income by increasing taxation or it can reduce the demand by eliminating expensive services.
There comes a point where cutting services any more becomes counter-productive. There is a point where a society begins to deteriorate. When the structure of a government shrinks and puts a growing number of citizens on the margins the marginalized citizens are corrosive to the government. As more people become marginalized the motivation to force a change grows.
We are seeing indications of the marginalization of segments of society daily. Individual acts of desperation are becoming a daily occurrence. School shootings, workplace shootings, wide ranging gang activities and drug distribution organizations are everywhere. The more people are marginalized the greater the potential army of revolution. These people do not vote and politicians are not interested in them in any way.
The professional politicians who should be in positions to direct change are simply using their positions as jobs. They have developed the skills to promote themselves to the voting public and to court the money needed for the next re-election campaign. No one in Washington or any state capital is willing to promote the changes that we need to insure the survival of our country. No position that draws any public opposition will be supported. Personal power and wealth are more important than the country that politicians should be taking care of. They will say anything to get the support of the voters, realizing that once elected what they promise cannot be delivered.
Independent thinkers who will not be controlled by the party leadership have no chance of election. The leadership of both parties will not allow the election of independents. The resources of both parties will be poised against any promising independent. Both parties are intent on preserving their powerbases and will not let the existing power structure be threatened by rogue independence.
This party solidarity and the absolute refusal to compromise for the good of the people have made the government ineffective at best and dangerous in potential. As voters we need to refuse to support any candidate who hints at a party affiliation and receives any support from either of the national committees. Professional politicians must surrender their power to real people who want the country and people to survive and who are willing to do what is required. As people we need to stop believing the party propaganda and learn to think for ourselves. If we do not change the way the government works we (or at best or grandchildren) will loose the privileges our forefathers gave us.
The constitution gives us the means to correct some of the current failures. A couple of well though-out amendments that revise the party system and secure personal rights are needed. Any sign of positive effort by the elected leadership will ease the growing unrest we are experiencing.
The erosion around the margins can be neutralized by a forward-thinking government with the guts, integrity and willingness to make radical changes. Without these changes the country is in definite danger of collapse. A charismatic leader with the support of the poor and disenfranchised can look to foreign powers for assistance. We will find ourselves fighting for survival on American soil. Internal opposition groups can create enough confusion to weaken us to invasion. Another natural disaster might be all that is required to break the public’s trust in the government and allow anarchy to take over.
Since those high-minded gentlemen completed their work we have made repeated attempt to improve it - most often causing more damage than improvement. Those amendments that were focused on personal choices with no real victims are the most glaring failures of the amendment process. The most obvious failure was prohibition.
Those amendments that reinforced personal freedoms are the most successful. Foremost among the successes is the prohibition of slavery. Other amendments were intended or required to address social changes and technological advances never envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment process allows the constitution to evolve with the needs of an evolving society.
Over history, many prominent societal collapses can be laid at the feet of government - either all or in part. A strong yet responsive government can stand and grow with the support of its people. Tyrannical, self-centered, or isolated governments generally have a limited life-span. The collapse can be devastatingly sudden as demonstrated by the Sadam Hussein government in Iraq or it can be a dismally slow process like the fall of Rome. Either way the population suffers.
Our current government is failing the population in several ways. There have been several symptoms of disease in our government. We can choose to ignore the symptoms like a stubborn man who refuses to have that chest pain investigated or we can get our regular checkup and take corrective measures.
At this point a disclaimer is in order. This writer has a deep populist and liberal leaning so the opinions expressed will be biased by that leaning. The ideas put forth are intended to trigger discussion among intelligent persons in positions to influence the direct of the government's evolution.
The government of the United States originally had limited, if any, influence on private business ventures. Allowing the aggressive pursuit of wealth gave the most dynamic people the chances to expand and build the country. The government even supported commerce by using military force to battle threats to American commerce. This government was empowered by the citizens through voting and taxes.
Every citizen bears some responsibility for financing the government. Taxes are the primary financial resource for the government and when tax revenue does not meet the demand on resources the government must borrow against future revenue. When demands continue to exceed resources only two solutions are available. The government can increase income by increasing taxation or it can reduce the demand by eliminating expensive services.
There comes a point where cutting services any more becomes counter-productive. There is a point where a society begins to deteriorate. When the structure of a government shrinks and puts a growing number of citizens on the margins the marginalized citizens are corrosive to the government. As more people become marginalized the motivation to force a change grows.
We are seeing indications of the marginalization of segments of society daily. Individual acts of desperation are becoming a daily occurrence. School shootings, workplace shootings, wide ranging gang activities and drug distribution organizations are everywhere. The more people are marginalized the greater the potential army of revolution. These people do not vote and politicians are not interested in them in any way.
The professional politicians who should be in positions to direct change are simply using their positions as jobs. They have developed the skills to promote themselves to the voting public and to court the money needed for the next re-election campaign. No one in Washington or any state capital is willing to promote the changes that we need to insure the survival of our country. No position that draws any public opposition will be supported. Personal power and wealth are more important than the country that politicians should be taking care of. They will say anything to get the support of the voters, realizing that once elected what they promise cannot be delivered.
Independent thinkers who will not be controlled by the party leadership have no chance of election. The leadership of both parties will not allow the election of independents. The resources of both parties will be poised against any promising independent. Both parties are intent on preserving their powerbases and will not let the existing power structure be threatened by rogue independence.
This party solidarity and the absolute refusal to compromise for the good of the people have made the government ineffective at best and dangerous in potential. As voters we need to refuse to support any candidate who hints at a party affiliation and receives any support from either of the national committees. Professional politicians must surrender their power to real people who want the country and people to survive and who are willing to do what is required. As people we need to stop believing the party propaganda and learn to think for ourselves. If we do not change the way the government works we (or at best or grandchildren) will loose the privileges our forefathers gave us.
The constitution gives us the means to correct some of the current failures. A couple of well though-out amendments that revise the party system and secure personal rights are needed. Any sign of positive effort by the elected leadership will ease the growing unrest we are experiencing.
The erosion around the margins can be neutralized by a forward-thinking government with the guts, integrity and willingness to make radical changes. Without these changes the country is in definite danger of collapse. A charismatic leader with the support of the poor and disenfranchised can look to foreign powers for assistance. We will find ourselves fighting for survival on American soil. Internal opposition groups can create enough confusion to weaken us to invasion. Another natural disaster might be all that is required to break the public’s trust in the government and allow anarchy to take over.
Friday, October 30, 2009
A somewhat less controversial posting on Science
Some rambling thoughts.
Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.
We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)
Intelligent human beings are in short supply.
Pure science is science done simply to improve understanding of a subject. This can be any of what I like to call hard sciences. Hard sciences can be verified and demonstrated in real world terms. Physics is a hard science. Much of medical research can be hard science. Astronomy is mostly a hard science. There are other examples but I don’t want to expand on a personal list that will certainly offend someone whose science I see as soft.
Any scientist who is on the payroll of a for-profit company and is working on any project that is approved or funded by any segment of that company’s management is not working on hard science. (My writing; my definition). Privately funded research is a very good thing and most of the advances that benefit mankind come from private research. The research that will make the breakthroughs required for humans to reach the stars will not be privately funded.
I have spent a small amount of time following the LHC project in Europe. This project has the potential to produce breakthroughs that can revolutionize particle physics. Understanding particle physics is the next step toward mankind’s destiny. The amount of international cooperation and international (not-for-profit) funding make The Large Hadron Collider the best example of current hard science. There is almost no way for any corporation to profit from the research.
Now to my point, why would the United States citizens even consider abandoning the space program? Sure there is no expected payback but that has not strangled the LHC project. Pure science is much more important than payback. The potential benefits of continued space exploration exceed any concept of profit or rapid ROI.
There may be disagreements about what killed the dinosaurs but the possibility of our little marble being struck by a high-speed rock is real. We need to be out there learning to survive and work in space so we can save ourselves when the need arises. If our civilization collapses, mankind’s true destiny in this universe evaporates.
Geology has some real benefits for profit-seeking companies. Precious minerals and energy sources are valid reasons for private research. On a more pure level though learning about the potential destruction of civilization from super-volcanoes is very important. Money spent to learn how to predict super-destructive eruptions will give us the time to save our technology and maybe millions of lives.
We need to restrict the resources accessible by the more animalistic members of our world society. As long as people are concentrating on killing each other our ability to survive as a civilized society remains in question. Look at the real reasons for any of the ongoing conflicts on the planet. In the end every conflict is some person or group trying to force their will on some other group. We should spend as much time and resources to learn to respect individual rights. Then we could cooperate for the good of humanity as a whole.
Of course someone has to be willing to pound anyone who is not working for the good of mankind into protein meal to feed the hungry. (Soylent Green?)
Intelligent human beings are in short supply.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Another health care proposal
OK, I realize health care reform has become a tired subject but I must address it again. I still believe the root cause of all opposition to reform is money. The insurance industry is afraid of loosing profits. People who have health insurance are afraid they will have to pay more. Legislators are being pressured by money to support the opposition. Rich people (compared to me) are too greedy to pay more taxes. Doctors are afraid the Government will set prices for services. Drug companies are afraid of loosing research subsidies. All in all it is just money and greed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my proposal. I realize no one asked for it but you’re getting it for free so don't complain.
The current health care system has the following failures:
The costs are steadily increasing and each price increase eliminates some people from access.
Even employer-provided insurance plans are increasing in cost; both for the employers and the employees.
As plan costs continue to increase increasing numbers of employers are forced to stop providing health care for employees.
Millions of people with chronic conditions are denied coverage even from employer-provided plans.
Disguised costs such as increased co-pays, higher deductibles, and coverage limits are being used to keep front end premiums down by adding the costs to the insured’s back end.
If you are happy with your current plan it is going to cost increasing more to keep your current setup. Sooner or later the cost will exceed your ability to pay or the plan will change in ways you can’t tolerate.
The problem of someone choosing your doctor instead of you is already part of your life. How many of you have to pay more to see a doctor “out of your network”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government alone has the power to fix this. There is no possible fix from the private sector.
We need a health care tax. This can take several forms but the purpose is to finance a public option.
The public option will cover people who for whatever reason are not and cannot be covered by private insurance – either by employers or privately funded. This means all the high cost patients can be eliminated from private insurance coverage. Private insurance premiums can be drastically reduced. Employers whose insurance plans deny coverage for certain employees will have to pay the equivalent premium into the public option fund. What this does is reduce the premium costs to businesses while keeping everyone covered. Private insurance providers will be able to tailor coverage to their clients’ needs. A standard will be developed for plan coverage where highly restrictive plans will be taxed at a higher rate than more inclusive plans. This tax will also be part of the funding of the private option.
Drug companies can and should do without any government subsidies.
Agreements between coverage providers and service providers for reducing costs will be encouraged.
This is just the basics of my proposal and there is nothing here I have not said before. I just have to say it again.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The failures of creationism
The failures of hard line creationism
I recently had to rewrite a review of a book by Richard Dawkins. The book under review was written in support of Darwin’s revelations about evolution and although I have not read the book, the review inspired me to share my opinions on the subject. Far too many otherwise intelligent people keep quiet about controversial subjects to avoid conflicts with their friends and associates. Since I have only a half dozen friends and they already know how I feel I have no fear of reprisal. I will say what I believe.
Evolution is a proven fact that has been demonstrated scientifically, both with natural history evidence and with recent scientific experiments. I say again: Evolution is a proven fact. In the opening paragraph I did not say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” I said “Darwin’s revelations” because evolution is not a theory. The argument that evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. If a scientific fact can be dismissed by labeling it a theory the people using the argument should climb a high structure, declare gravity a theory, and take flight.
Faith in God means faith in the gift of existence in an afterlife. This wonderful gift from God can only be realized by mortals as faith. We keep our faith in the face of uncertainty and in spite of the impossibility of getting any tangible, hard proof. This is faith. It is part of the message all religions try to pass on to us.
Hard line Creationism is not faith. It is a corruption of the faith concept. The origins of creationism are in the bible – a work of man even if it was inspired by a real God. We have to look deep inside ourselves to find our personal connection to our creator. We cannot rely on someone else’s overt connection no matter how divinely inspired. The preaching that the path to heaven is through individual acceptance is important. The message is not “follow your church elder or your pastor and he will lead you to heaven”. Blind faith in the strict interpretation of another person’s written work prevents the personal search for the inner connection we all have. In effect being too lazy to put forth the individual effort toward understanding puts us under the control of others. We can become slaves to someone else’s visions and plans.
Stepping back from established and proven facts in favor of blind faith in another person’s interpretation takes us further away from our own understanding. When we categorically deny our own intelligence and reasoning ability and allow ourselves to be led by well meaning but misguided opinion we also deny one of our Creator’s greatest gifts to us – our ability to seek personal understanding. Hard line Creationists have denied the most important thing that makes us human – advanced reasoning. Denying that which makes us human, in effect takes us a giant step backwards toward the very unreasoning animal ancestor we want so badly to prune from our family tree.
In the creation versus evolution argument, refusing to recognize established facts actually demonstrates the scientific proof of the one thing we try to disprove.
How’s that for circular reasoning?
I recently had to rewrite a review of a book by Richard Dawkins. The book under review was written in support of Darwin’s revelations about evolution and although I have not read the book, the review inspired me to share my opinions on the subject. Far too many otherwise intelligent people keep quiet about controversial subjects to avoid conflicts with their friends and associates. Since I have only a half dozen friends and they already know how I feel I have no fear of reprisal. I will say what I believe.
Evolution is a proven fact that has been demonstrated scientifically, both with natural history evidence and with recent scientific experiments. I say again: Evolution is a proven fact. In the opening paragraph I did not say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” I said “Darwin’s revelations” because evolution is not a theory. The argument that evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. If a scientific fact can be dismissed by labeling it a theory the people using the argument should climb a high structure, declare gravity a theory, and take flight.
Faith in God means faith in the gift of existence in an afterlife. This wonderful gift from God can only be realized by mortals as faith. We keep our faith in the face of uncertainty and in spite of the impossibility of getting any tangible, hard proof. This is faith. It is part of the message all religions try to pass on to us.
Hard line Creationism is not faith. It is a corruption of the faith concept. The origins of creationism are in the bible – a work of man even if it was inspired by a real God. We have to look deep inside ourselves to find our personal connection to our creator. We cannot rely on someone else’s overt connection no matter how divinely inspired. The preaching that the path to heaven is through individual acceptance is important. The message is not “follow your church elder or your pastor and he will lead you to heaven”. Blind faith in the strict interpretation of another person’s written work prevents the personal search for the inner connection we all have. In effect being too lazy to put forth the individual effort toward understanding puts us under the control of others. We can become slaves to someone else’s visions and plans.
Stepping back from established and proven facts in favor of blind faith in another person’s interpretation takes us further away from our own understanding. When we categorically deny our own intelligence and reasoning ability and allow ourselves to be led by well meaning but misguided opinion we also deny one of our Creator’s greatest gifts to us – our ability to seek personal understanding. Hard line Creationists have denied the most important thing that makes us human – advanced reasoning. Denying that which makes us human, in effect takes us a giant step backwards toward the very unreasoning animal ancestor we want so badly to prune from our family tree.
In the creation versus evolution argument, refusing to recognize established facts actually demonstrates the scientific proof of the one thing we try to disprove.
How’s that for circular reasoning?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Taxes, Public Flogging, and the public option
I have three separate issues to discuss in this post.
1. Another example of how refusing to pay taxes costs us all indirectly
Recently a local crime involving a convicted criminal who was sentenced to eight years in prison less than three years ago renewed questions about sentencing rules. The Nashville Chief of Police held a news conference during which he expressed his extreme disgust with the judicial system. The convicted criminal had been sentenced to eight years in prison for a violent crime, only to be released after only 30 percent of the sentence. The police chief said he had been told it was a money issue but he was convinced the justice system was at fault.
I see this as a money issue related to one of my favorite complaints. In our self-centered focus on taxes we continue to strangle our local governments. Local news reports are regularly populated with stories about the extreme efforts local school boards make to keep schools open with inadequate funding. Incarceration of state and local criminals is funded by state and local taxes just like the schools. Prison overcrowding forces early releases and we all know prisons rarely provide effective rehabilitation. The only way to protect citizens is to keep the criminals separated from law-abiding citizens as long as possible. The way to do this is to provide funding for prisons to keep these criminals away from us. Every time local voters vote down a legitimate tax increase the repercussions are broad and long lasting. Inadequate school funding creates more young people being unprepared for life. Unprepared young people are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. Underfunded prisons are forced to release un-rehabilitated criminals early into a society under-protected by under-funded police departments. The root cause is self-centered greed on the part of local taxpayers.
2: Discipline and punishment
As noted above, current punishments for criminal activity are largely ineffective and unnecessarily costly. I have a solution to propose: public flogging. This should be the second-level punishment for non-violent crimes like burglary. More serious crimes with violence against victims should get this as first-level punishment. The public aspect would serve as a graphic example of the consequences of doing a crime. It just might be a better incentive to obey the law than a few months in jail. To take this a bit further, we could provide for combination punishments where a weekly public flogging was part of a reduced prison sentence. Saves money and maybe reduces recidivism.
3: Why health care reform is in trouble
The heavily funded private insurance companies are using their “influence” to buy opposition to the public option in an effort to maintain their un-defensible profit margins. This protection of profits comes at the cost of some poor, uninsured sick people dying. The connection is unverifiable but the motive is certainly there. The Democrats who are apparently being paid off with some promise of wealth and power should be exposed. If you know the facts about why a Democrat opposed the public option, please let the world know. Maybe I’m wrong. If I am wrong I need to be corrected publicly. Do it here.
DRP
1. Another example of how refusing to pay taxes costs us all indirectly
Recently a local crime involving a convicted criminal who was sentenced to eight years in prison less than three years ago renewed questions about sentencing rules. The Nashville Chief of Police held a news conference during which he expressed his extreme disgust with the judicial system. The convicted criminal had been sentenced to eight years in prison for a violent crime, only to be released after only 30 percent of the sentence. The police chief said he had been told it was a money issue but he was convinced the justice system was at fault.
I see this as a money issue related to one of my favorite complaints. In our self-centered focus on taxes we continue to strangle our local governments. Local news reports are regularly populated with stories about the extreme efforts local school boards make to keep schools open with inadequate funding. Incarceration of state and local criminals is funded by state and local taxes just like the schools. Prison overcrowding forces early releases and we all know prisons rarely provide effective rehabilitation. The only way to protect citizens is to keep the criminals separated from law-abiding citizens as long as possible. The way to do this is to provide funding for prisons to keep these criminals away from us. Every time local voters vote down a legitimate tax increase the repercussions are broad and long lasting. Inadequate school funding creates more young people being unprepared for life. Unprepared young people are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. Underfunded prisons are forced to release un-rehabilitated criminals early into a society under-protected by under-funded police departments. The root cause is self-centered greed on the part of local taxpayers.
2: Discipline and punishment
As noted above, current punishments for criminal activity are largely ineffective and unnecessarily costly. I have a solution to propose: public flogging. This should be the second-level punishment for non-violent crimes like burglary. More serious crimes with violence against victims should get this as first-level punishment. The public aspect would serve as a graphic example of the consequences of doing a crime. It just might be a better incentive to obey the law than a few months in jail. To take this a bit further, we could provide for combination punishments where a weekly public flogging was part of a reduced prison sentence. Saves money and maybe reduces recidivism.
3: Why health care reform is in trouble
The heavily funded private insurance companies are using their “influence” to buy opposition to the public option in an effort to maintain their un-defensible profit margins. This protection of profits comes at the cost of some poor, uninsured sick people dying. The connection is unverifiable but the motive is certainly there. The Democrats who are apparently being paid off with some promise of wealth and power should be exposed. If you know the facts about why a Democrat opposed the public option, please let the world know. Maybe I’m wrong. If I am wrong I need to be corrected publicly. Do it here.
DRP
Friday, September 25, 2009
Religion and human accomplishment
There are three major religions with origins in belief in the same deity. The root messages of all three religions are almost identical; only the rituals and surface trappings differ. If I report that a religion promotes honesty in one's dealings with others, charity for poor and needy, respect for oneself and others, humility, acceptance of the existence of a deity and wholehearted efforts to lead a good life all three of the great religions can accept this as a generic description of the teachings. People are still too uncivilized to see past the surface differences and accept the commonalities.I believe it is wrong to hold onto grudges either as individuals or as members of one or another religious group. As human beings we are rapidly approaching a barrier to our societal maturity. We need to learn to work together for the common good of all people and sincerely put aside arguments over the correct way to worship our common deity. If we continue to put more effort into proving ourselves better than the other group we will remain distracted from our real problems and never achieve the things we as human beings can accomplish.
Some things we can do might include:
1. Vastly improved life spans for everyone by advancing our real understanding of the mechanisms diseases and aging while learning how nutrition and lifestyle apply to lifespan
2. We can work through the barriers of knowledge that limit our understanding of the physical universe. With this knowledge we will become able to exercise the human nature of curiosity and exploration beyond this tiny little piece of the universe. This universe was not created just for decorating our sky. It is a tease to give us incentive to work together and spread humanity to the millions of worlds available to us.
3.Full medical knowledge will eliminate human suffering, especially that suffering caused by other humans.
The list of possibilities is limitless. Each of us, if we decide to, can think of something humans might achieve with cooperation. We each possess a built-in tendency to believe. The beliefs we accept are generally fed to us by religious leaders trained in certain styles. Religious style is very much like language. It provides for communication of abstract concepts in terms of concrete existence. The abstract concepts are the same - only the language differs. Once we accept this we begin the erode the barrier to our true destiny as the masters of this physical universe until we decide, each of his own accord, to pass on to the next level and share the next existence with our deity of choice and those who go before or come after.
DRP
Some things we can do might include:
1. Vastly improved life spans for everyone by advancing our real understanding of the mechanisms diseases and aging while learning how nutrition and lifestyle apply to lifespan
2. We can work through the barriers of knowledge that limit our understanding of the physical universe. With this knowledge we will become able to exercise the human nature of curiosity and exploration beyond this tiny little piece of the universe. This universe was not created just for decorating our sky. It is a tease to give us incentive to work together and spread humanity to the millions of worlds available to us.
3.Full medical knowledge will eliminate human suffering, especially that suffering caused by other humans.
The list of possibilities is limitless. Each of us, if we decide to, can think of something humans might achieve with cooperation. We each possess a built-in tendency to believe. The beliefs we accept are generally fed to us by religious leaders trained in certain styles. Religious style is very much like language. It provides for communication of abstract concepts in terms of concrete existence. The abstract concepts are the same - only the language differs. Once we accept this we begin the erode the barrier to our true destiny as the masters of this physical universe until we decide, each of his own accord, to pass on to the next level and share the next existence with our deity of choice and those who go before or come after.
DRP
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
We are lazy, misinformed Americans
The following text was sent to me in an email. I cut and pasted it here so I could respond to it. The facts presented here are most likely true. I will not deny the intent of the text is, on the face of it, is positive. I disagree with the conclusions presented though and I have to respond. Please read the entire document. Take a moment to let what was said sink in. Then read my opinion that follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original text from an email:
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason... They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do..
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ---.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What has happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion:
Yes there are 545 people making our decisions for us. There is a reason. The fathers of our country did not imagine a population of 300,000,000 and the evolution of the media. When the constitution was crafted the average person was no less than weeks away from breaking news and the elected representatives were elected by people who knew them and what they stood for. It was a good system and it worked for many years.
Things have changed. There are more of us but we have immediate access to any information we choose to get. What do we do with this access? We watch untold hours of television all the time bombarded by 30-second messages from advertisers. We spend many hours enraptured by discussions of our favorite sports teams and the latest “reality show” results. We invest much of our work time actually thinking about our fantasy team strategy. We have let the media take charge of our country by letting it numb our minds. Instead of studying the voting records of our elected officials, reading their resumes, looking up their financial reports, and asking important questions we let our opinions and votes be managed by the most prevalent and slickest 30-second political ad. We accept these professionally produced messages when they connect with values inserted into our psyche by other slick, professional ads. We have abdicated the control of our country to the media. The media is controlled by the money. The money is controlled by the businesses and people who believe they have the right to rule the country.
Yes, the 545 people discussed in the text do the actual “work”. They get away with what they do because we’re too lazy to interfere. Too lazy that is until a series of sound bites and slick advertisements rouse the mob mentality in us. We still do not think for ourselves though. We are manipulated by the people in charge. They shouldn’t be in charge. They should be serving our demands. We now have the information to make socially viable decisions. We do not have to be told what to think. We need to take back our government and demand the elected officials at all levels stop being self-serving, power-hungry whores and be the public servants they should be. We (most of us anyway) are intelligent enough to listen to serious, fact-based discussions, and, with open minds, make good decisions. Given facts and unbiased scientific analysis the combined mental power of 300,000,000 people will make this country what it was meant to be. The 545 can do the grunt work. We’ll make the decisions.
Or we can remain lazy, misinformed pawns doing the mob work of the money people.
DRP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
original text from an email:
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason... They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do..
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ---.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What has happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion:
Yes there are 545 people making our decisions for us. There is a reason. The fathers of our country did not imagine a population of 300,000,000 and the evolution of the media. When the constitution was crafted the average person was no less than weeks away from breaking news and the elected representatives were elected by people who knew them and what they stood for. It was a good system and it worked for many years.
Things have changed. There are more of us but we have immediate access to any information we choose to get. What do we do with this access? We watch untold hours of television all the time bombarded by 30-second messages from advertisers. We spend many hours enraptured by discussions of our favorite sports teams and the latest “reality show” results. We invest much of our work time actually thinking about our fantasy team strategy. We have let the media take charge of our country by letting it numb our minds. Instead of studying the voting records of our elected officials, reading their resumes, looking up their financial reports, and asking important questions we let our opinions and votes be managed by the most prevalent and slickest 30-second political ad. We accept these professionally produced messages when they connect with values inserted into our psyche by other slick, professional ads. We have abdicated the control of our country to the media. The media is controlled by the money. The money is controlled by the businesses and people who believe they have the right to rule the country.
Yes, the 545 people discussed in the text do the actual “work”. They get away with what they do because we’re too lazy to interfere. Too lazy that is until a series of sound bites and slick advertisements rouse the mob mentality in us. We still do not think for ourselves though. We are manipulated by the people in charge. They shouldn’t be in charge. They should be serving our demands. We now have the information to make socially viable decisions. We do not have to be told what to think. We need to take back our government and demand the elected officials at all levels stop being self-serving, power-hungry whores and be the public servants they should be. We (most of us anyway) are intelligent enough to listen to serious, fact-based discussions, and, with open minds, make good decisions. Given facts and unbiased scientific analysis the combined mental power of 300,000,000 people will make this country what it was meant to be. The 545 can do the grunt work. We’ll make the decisions.
Or we can remain lazy, misinformed pawns doing the mob work of the money people.
DRP
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Some Science opinions (random and unconnected)
Random science opinions volume I
1: What kind of person actually believes lights in the sky could be some extraterrestrial visitation. What kind of alien would fly around showing lights if they were trying to hide their presence. If they were not trying to hide their presence why not announce themselves and start some interaction.
2: Some current science disciplines are only slightly removed from art and imagination. What kind of science can describe a 5-ton 200 million year old lizard from a couple crumbling rocks weighing a few pounds? There is a lot of legitimacy in paleontology but imagination also plays a significant part. Paleontologists have a lot of hard evidence but come on, how can they describe the size, shape and lifestyle of an extinct creature from a couple old, rocky bones?
3:Astronomers and astro-physicists like to believe they have a grasp on their subject but their theories are based on imagination filtered through incomplete science. In a way similar to paleontologists, they describe complete systems based on interpretations of measurements with very wide ranges of inaccuracy. The understanding of our universe has not yet reached the equivalent of the earthworm's concept of automobiles. I enjoy the theories but I have always been a fan of science fiction.
4: Psychology is another art and imagination based science. From what I see in the news and TV crime shows (kinda qualifies my opinions, right?) you can always find a psychologist to support your personal opinion on a subject. Any diagnosis is always a personal interpretation based on some hard behavioral science combined with the Doctor's personality.
5:Medicine. Doctors are not allowed to practice their craft the way it should be practiced. The pressures of profit and liability require them to limit the time they spend actually getting the information they need to make accurate diagnoses. With a need to see as many patients as possible in the shortest period of time the average doctor treats the patient's first described symptom and brushes aside anything else. With lawyers lurking behind every patient, every doctor must practice defensive medicine: expensive tests that would not be ordered without the liability threat. As patients we like to believe our doctors are concerned about our well being and know what they're doing. Most doctors actually know what they're doing but get in a habit of quick, simple, defensible diagnoses instead of looking for real problems.
1: What kind of person actually believes lights in the sky could be some extraterrestrial visitation. What kind of alien would fly around showing lights if they were trying to hide their presence. If they were not trying to hide their presence why not announce themselves and start some interaction.
2: Some current science disciplines are only slightly removed from art and imagination. What kind of science can describe a 5-ton 200 million year old lizard from a couple crumbling rocks weighing a few pounds? There is a lot of legitimacy in paleontology but imagination also plays a significant part. Paleontologists have a lot of hard evidence but come on, how can they describe the size, shape and lifestyle of an extinct creature from a couple old, rocky bones?
3:Astronomers and astro-physicists like to believe they have a grasp on their subject but their theories are based on imagination filtered through incomplete science. In a way similar to paleontologists, they describe complete systems based on interpretations of measurements with very wide ranges of inaccuracy. The understanding of our universe has not yet reached the equivalent of the earthworm's concept of automobiles. I enjoy the theories but I have always been a fan of science fiction.
4: Psychology is another art and imagination based science. From what I see in the news and TV crime shows (kinda qualifies my opinions, right?) you can always find a psychologist to support your personal opinion on a subject. Any diagnosis is always a personal interpretation based on some hard behavioral science combined with the Doctor's personality.
5:Medicine. Doctors are not allowed to practice their craft the way it should be practiced. The pressures of profit and liability require them to limit the time they spend actually getting the information they need to make accurate diagnoses. With a need to see as many patients as possible in the shortest period of time the average doctor treats the patient's first described symptom and brushes aside anything else. With lawyers lurking behind every patient, every doctor must practice defensive medicine: expensive tests that would not be ordered without the liability threat. As patients we like to believe our doctors are concerned about our well being and know what they're doing. Most doctors actually know what they're doing but get in a habit of quick, simple, defensible diagnoses instead of looking for real problems.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Party politics is ruining our country
Party politics is ruining our country.
I have always been an opponent of the party-based political system we practice in this country. By letting political parties exercise influence and control over our elected legislators, we abdicate our roles as citizens. When we release ourselves from responsibility for the actions of our elected officials we become simple spectators and commentators. As citizens we have rights and responsibilities. We have the right to express our opinions in a community of valid media including the internet. We have the responsibility to become informed about the facts and to respond to our government’s activities. As citizens we have become lazy. We let others do our thinking and we seem to feel that the ability to quote or even paraphrase the latest sound bite or political headline demonstrates our understanding.
One-liners, sound-bites and thirty-second television ads are not informative; they are manipulative. That such tactics exist and persist is demonstration of the power the parties wield over our public opinions. Legislators should exist to inform us then listen to us and carry our desires onto the voting floor. They should not be part of any power-and-money centered organization working to influence our opinion. Many citizens have realized the influence of money on politicians and how susceptible they can be to the machinations of special interests. Political parties are, in effect, special interests disguised as social groups. No candidate has a real chance of success without allying himself with one of the two parties. Sure, there is a sprinkling of independents but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. In order to gain the support of a party a candidate must express agreement with most of the party’s philosophy and be willing to follow the party’s direction on issues. For any candidate the party alliance effectively isolates him from his constituency and the opinions and desires of the very people who elected him.
Voters have been guided by the party system for so long they see is as the law. It is not law as envisioned by the men who drafted the constitution. Party-centered activities are not described in the constitution. Cooperation between individual legislators on common issues is a good way to get important work done. This cooperation should be the choice of each individual lawmaker; not the choice of some party leadership. Inter-personal cooperation should be based on each legislator’s mandate from his constituency on specific issues, not a tacit agreement to be guided by the minority whip or some other imaginary position. When two or three people are effectively in charge of voting, these people wield a power over the legislature far beyond the intent of the constitution. They also serve as a single point of influence for special interests. It is easier to influence one person with offers of money, power, or other desirables than to spread the same resources over the entire group. This serves to subvert the legislative process.
As voters we should make every effort to support candidates who express refusal to be managed by party leadership. A candidate with the guts to stand alone against the party structure may well be the type of leader we need to take back our government. There is no reason why, as citizens, we cannot become knowledgeable on the issues and express our desires to our elected representatives. If we can do this we should then expect our representatives to respect our whishes; not the party line.
DRP
I have always been an opponent of the party-based political system we practice in this country. By letting political parties exercise influence and control over our elected legislators, we abdicate our roles as citizens. When we release ourselves from responsibility for the actions of our elected officials we become simple spectators and commentators. As citizens we have rights and responsibilities. We have the right to express our opinions in a community of valid media including the internet. We have the responsibility to become informed about the facts and to respond to our government’s activities. As citizens we have become lazy. We let others do our thinking and we seem to feel that the ability to quote or even paraphrase the latest sound bite or political headline demonstrates our understanding.
One-liners, sound-bites and thirty-second television ads are not informative; they are manipulative. That such tactics exist and persist is demonstration of the power the parties wield over our public opinions. Legislators should exist to inform us then listen to us and carry our desires onto the voting floor. They should not be part of any power-and-money centered organization working to influence our opinion. Many citizens have realized the influence of money on politicians and how susceptible they can be to the machinations of special interests. Political parties are, in effect, special interests disguised as social groups. No candidate has a real chance of success without allying himself with one of the two parties. Sure, there is a sprinkling of independents but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. In order to gain the support of a party a candidate must express agreement with most of the party’s philosophy and be willing to follow the party’s direction on issues. For any candidate the party alliance effectively isolates him from his constituency and the opinions and desires of the very people who elected him.
Voters have been guided by the party system for so long they see is as the law. It is not law as envisioned by the men who drafted the constitution. Party-centered activities are not described in the constitution. Cooperation between individual legislators on common issues is a good way to get important work done. This cooperation should be the choice of each individual lawmaker; not the choice of some party leadership. Inter-personal cooperation should be based on each legislator’s mandate from his constituency on specific issues, not a tacit agreement to be guided by the minority whip or some other imaginary position. When two or three people are effectively in charge of voting, these people wield a power over the legislature far beyond the intent of the constitution. They also serve as a single point of influence for special interests. It is easier to influence one person with offers of money, power, or other desirables than to spread the same resources over the entire group. This serves to subvert the legislative process.
As voters we should make every effort to support candidates who express refusal to be managed by party leadership. A candidate with the guts to stand alone against the party structure may well be the type of leader we need to take back our government. There is no reason why, as citizens, we cannot become knowledgeable on the issues and express our desires to our elected representatives. If we can do this we should then expect our representatives to respect our whishes; not the party line.
DRP
Thursday, September 10, 2009
My personal health care story (all true)
How the lack of health care affects me personally.
I have been unemployed for going on 6 months now. I am 57 years old and have a cluster of chronic conditions needing regular medications and doctors visits to assure survival. I have absolutely no form of insurance. It’s been several months since I saw a doctor and I don’t know how my conditions have progressed. My unemployment checks provide enough income (along with my wife’s disability check less than $800 month) to pay rent, utilities, a few groceries, and a weekly bankruptcy payment. By the way, the bankruptcy was caused in no small part by medical conditions and expenses. I have managed to get help from PPA for my maintenance medications such as insulin. A proper diabetic diet is more expensive than we can afford. Without the support from drug manufacturers (via PPA) I’d probably already be dead. Every week we have to decide where to most effectively spend the unemployment check – food, medicine, electric bill…etc. My wife’s disability check is eaten by the rent so everything else falls to me. I have managed to maintain an internet connection so I can keep up my job search. I have a recent degree in Information Technology and a Linux+ certification. The longer I remain unemployed the less likely it becomes that I will find work. My physical problems pretty much limit the kind of work I can do but no-one wants to hire a 57year-old entry-level computer programmer. I’ve been looking into freelance work and bidding on projects but I cannot compete with Indian, Pakistani, or other offshore software development companies.
To add to this situation, my wife also has some significant health conditions requiring expensive medications. We have managed to keep her prescriptions filled so far this year but this month she reached the gap in her Part-D coverage. Now we have to pay full price for her medicine which is not possible. Regular price for her medicines (using generics where available) exceeds our total income per month. I don’t know what we’ll do next month. We’re planning to make decisions based on her needs and our ability to pay and select one prescription to refill per month and try to stretch the medicines out like water in a desert.
We applied for additional help from TennCare – the Tennessee version of Medicaid but our total income is a few dollars over the limit. Before my unemployment checks started we had one month of extra coverage from the TennCare/QMB. My wife was reimbursed for her $98 Medicare premiums and for her prescription co-payments. That helped a lot. We lost this help once my unemployment checks started.
My most recent job loss was influenced in no small part by my increasing inability to perform the physical parts of my work to suit the company. It is after all a young man’s world. I have a strong set of marketable skills and experience to share even if I can no longer climb ladders all day, can’t see as well as I once did, or have trouble hearing. I want to work at something productive and constructive. I want to spend my time writing and debugging code and developing the next great website.
DRP
I have been unemployed for going on 6 months now. I am 57 years old and have a cluster of chronic conditions needing regular medications and doctors visits to assure survival. I have absolutely no form of insurance. It’s been several months since I saw a doctor and I don’t know how my conditions have progressed. My unemployment checks provide enough income (along with my wife’s disability check less than $800 month) to pay rent, utilities, a few groceries, and a weekly bankruptcy payment. By the way, the bankruptcy was caused in no small part by medical conditions and expenses. I have managed to get help from PPA for my maintenance medications such as insulin. A proper diabetic diet is more expensive than we can afford. Without the support from drug manufacturers (via PPA) I’d probably already be dead. Every week we have to decide where to most effectively spend the unemployment check – food, medicine, electric bill…etc. My wife’s disability check is eaten by the rent so everything else falls to me. I have managed to maintain an internet connection so I can keep up my job search. I have a recent degree in Information Technology and a Linux+ certification. The longer I remain unemployed the less likely it becomes that I will find work. My physical problems pretty much limit the kind of work I can do but no-one wants to hire a 57year-old entry-level computer programmer. I’ve been looking into freelance work and bidding on projects but I cannot compete with Indian, Pakistani, or other offshore software development companies.
To add to this situation, my wife also has some significant health conditions requiring expensive medications. We have managed to keep her prescriptions filled so far this year but this month she reached the gap in her Part-D coverage. Now we have to pay full price for her medicine which is not possible. Regular price for her medicines (using generics where available) exceeds our total income per month. I don’t know what we’ll do next month. We’re planning to make decisions based on her needs and our ability to pay and select one prescription to refill per month and try to stretch the medicines out like water in a desert.
We applied for additional help from TennCare – the Tennessee version of Medicaid but our total income is a few dollars over the limit. Before my unemployment checks started we had one month of extra coverage from the TennCare/QMB. My wife was reimbursed for her $98 Medicare premiums and for her prescription co-payments. That helped a lot. We lost this help once my unemployment checks started.
My most recent job loss was influenced in no small part by my increasing inability to perform the physical parts of my work to suit the company. It is after all a young man’s world. I have a strong set of marketable skills and experience to share even if I can no longer climb ladders all day, can’t see as well as I once did, or have trouble hearing. I want to work at something productive and constructive. I want to spend my time writing and debugging code and developing the next great website.
DRP
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Re-visit some of my older posts
If you are part of the ongoing debate about health care reform you should read some of my older posts. Click on the [older posts] link near the bottom of the page. Scroll down to read the posts from last month.
Comments on the President's stay-in-school PSA
The president’s speech to school children
The absolutely unreasonable opposition to the president’s speech outrages me. People have full right to mount any valid opposition to President Obama’s policies. I don’t have to agree with them to let them express their opinions or opposition. The speech in question was not presented as a promotion of the President’s agenda. It was a valid non-partisan inspirational message to encourage children to stay in school. I think people are sending the wrong message to their children when they disallow the speech on partisan grounds.
Children who are old enough to be influenced by a politician’s speech are also susceptible to their parents’ influence. Parents should teach respect for the office of the president and basic human respect for the individual holding the office. Parents also have a responsibility to teach their views to their children. A well prepared child will listen to a politician’s speech and filter what he says through the standards and beliefs provided by the parents. If you are afraid your children will be unduly influenced by a political speech maybe you are not being effective in your teaching at home. Talk to your kids and prepare them for the world. Denying them exposure to the world and not teaching them how politicians, teachers, and even clergy promote their own agendas actually makes them more vulnerable to the influences you are trying to protect them from.
Another personal opinion: I believe the message sent to children by forbidding their access to a public service announcement from the leader of our country helps continue the erosion of support for our government. Parents should become more personally involved in the political growth of their kids. Let them hear the messages then teach them how to recognize spin, propaganda, and partisan messages. They will be better citizens for your efforts and less likely to succumb to the mob mentality promoted by sound bites and professional spin doctors. Maybe I’m being too generous with my opinion of parents today. I know I was never taught anything politically constructive by my parents. It has taken me 50 years to develop a valid political thought process. Someday I might take time to write down the influences my childhood had on my politics and the true crap I had to unlearn before maturing.
drp
The absolutely unreasonable opposition to the president’s speech outrages me. People have full right to mount any valid opposition to President Obama’s policies. I don’t have to agree with them to let them express their opinions or opposition. The speech in question was not presented as a promotion of the President’s agenda. It was a valid non-partisan inspirational message to encourage children to stay in school. I think people are sending the wrong message to their children when they disallow the speech on partisan grounds.
Children who are old enough to be influenced by a politician’s speech are also susceptible to their parents’ influence. Parents should teach respect for the office of the president and basic human respect for the individual holding the office. Parents also have a responsibility to teach their views to their children. A well prepared child will listen to a politician’s speech and filter what he says through the standards and beliefs provided by the parents. If you are afraid your children will be unduly influenced by a political speech maybe you are not being effective in your teaching at home. Talk to your kids and prepare them for the world. Denying them exposure to the world and not teaching them how politicians, teachers, and even clergy promote their own agendas actually makes them more vulnerable to the influences you are trying to protect them from.
Another personal opinion: I believe the message sent to children by forbidding their access to a public service announcement from the leader of our country helps continue the erosion of support for our government. Parents should become more personally involved in the political growth of their kids. Let them hear the messages then teach them how to recognize spin, propaganda, and partisan messages. They will be better citizens for your efforts and less likely to succumb to the mob mentality promoted by sound bites and professional spin doctors. Maybe I’m being too generous with my opinion of parents today. I know I was never taught anything politically constructive by my parents. It has taken me 50 years to develop a valid political thought process. Someday I might take time to write down the influences my childhood had on my politics and the true crap I had to unlearn before maturing.
drp
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Personal Attacks on Barak Obama
I received another email today trying to convince me that President Obama is not a real citizen and does not deserve to be president. My response to such claims is the focus of this article.
What is the ultimate intent of this movement? Do you want Joe Biden as our president? Do you want another election? Are these claims being supported by international anti-American groups wanting to tear down our government? Do you people propagating these attacks really know where the claims actually originate? Such disruptive statements serve no purpose except to weaken this country through divisiveness. I'm sure there are people in the CIA who could explain this process better because they have used the same process to cause disruption in target countries. It is entirely possible we are being attacked by the Taliban, AlQueda, or some other anti-American organization. If we let these unfounded claims divide us, we are much more vulnerable to more overt attacks and less likely to mount a cohesive response to a real attack.
If you people are anti-American at heart and you believe in disrupting the American government you have to be careful how far you go. All you have to do is make one overt threat and the government you hate will be acutely aware of you. (and all that implies)
If you are propagating this stuff because you think there is truth in it, I want to know who your actual sources are and I want to research this myself. I happen to know that anyone can make up any story along with "photoshopped" images to support that story. Truth is not required. You people must think for yourselves and think about why this stuff keeps coming around. Do you want to be a part of an attack on our country because you're too stupid to choose DELETE instead of FORWARD.
As the Geico Gecko said: "c'mon people"
DRP
What is the ultimate intent of this movement? Do you want Joe Biden as our president? Do you want another election? Are these claims being supported by international anti-American groups wanting to tear down our government? Do you people propagating these attacks really know where the claims actually originate? Such disruptive statements serve no purpose except to weaken this country through divisiveness. I'm sure there are people in the CIA who could explain this process better because they have used the same process to cause disruption in target countries. It is entirely possible we are being attacked by the Taliban, AlQueda, or some other anti-American organization. If we let these unfounded claims divide us, we are much more vulnerable to more overt attacks and less likely to mount a cohesive response to a real attack.
If you people are anti-American at heart and you believe in disrupting the American government you have to be careful how far you go. All you have to do is make one overt threat and the government you hate will be acutely aware of you. (and all that implies)
If you are propagating this stuff because you think there is truth in it, I want to know who your actual sources are and I want to research this myself. I happen to know that anyone can make up any story along with "photoshopped" images to support that story. Truth is not required. You people must think for yourselves and think about why this stuff keeps coming around. Do you want to be a part of an attack on our country because you're too stupid to choose DELETE instead of FORWARD.
As the Geico Gecko said: "c'mon people"
DRP
Saturday, August 29, 2009
A short letter about handgun laws.
Recently my state (Tennessee) passed a law that allows persons with state handgun carry permits to carry their guns in parks. The same law provides local municipalities the option to ban guns in the parks within their jurisdictions. The complications exceeded anything I ever imagined and TV news stories about the issue have been far too frequent. After one such story where local school boards were refusing to hold school activities in parks where guns were allowed I reacted. I sent the following letter to the TV station that aired the story and I decided to publish it here also.
Please post some comments or tweet me at twitter.com/wyoknott
Guns in parks
As a handgun permit holder I feel more than a little insulted by some recent reactions to the guns in parks decision by the Tennessee Legislature. Opponents to guns act like I’m some crazy person who is subject to shooting wildly about. I am not! Like all legal permit holders I have established a record of non-violence and law abiding stability. I have never been charged with a felony, I have never been accused of domestic violence in any form, I am not and have never been a drug user, and I have never been judged mentally incompetent. In effect I am just about as safe a person to be around as any one you know. If I have my weapon with me it is not being brandished in a threatening manner, in fact you will never know if I have it or not.
Look around you in any public place. What can you say about the people you see? You really have no way to know what kind of person you may be looking at. If you know I have a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit you can be sure I am not an unstable, violence prone felon. I am in fact a safer person to have next to you than some of the people you may know. Please stop acting like permit holders are dangerous. We have met the background checks and we have passed classes on proper safety procedures. We are not a danger to you and especially to your kids. The person carrying a gun without a permit is already a felon and he is not worried about what the law says.
D. Page
Please post some comments or tweet me at twitter.com/wyoknott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
