Dodging the Real Issues

Why all of the dodging of the real issues? seems to me that focusing on alleged racist teabagers is irrelevant. Yes some are racist. So what? How is that relevant to the public option? Focusing on how fat or how few the tea baggers were is also just a dodge to avoid the real issues. Same thing with how wealthy Dick Armey is....who cares? and how is that relevant to the HC debate?

Take away all of this smoke and mirrors and what do you have that supports a public option? Tons of emotion. And emotion that seems to lack any focus.

If they would focus on a) Should the Fed's be doing this? i.e. what in the Constitution supports the Public Option? b) Will it work? and c) Can we afford it? ... if they would focus on these issues, then maybe they'd have a chance. But instead they chose to dodge the core issues.

I wonder why?

Healthcare Is NOT a Right

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/281590/Healthcare-Is-%22Not-a-Right%22-and-Obama's-Plan-Will-Cost-Way-Beyond-1T-Ron-Paul-Says?tickers=%5Edji,%5EGSPC,pph,jnj,mrk,pfe,unh

If it's not a right, then what the heck is Congress doing? Absolutely baffling.......

Independents edge away from Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090709/pl_politico/24717;_ylt=Ah3mcpveNM8UWHDIBL_LqT4DW7oF

"...a source of the shift appears to be independent voters, who seem to be responding to...complaints of excessive spending and government control."

No Duh.

But...what happened to "I am my brother's keeper & Yes we can......and, Hope & Change"??? Yup, nuttin but fluff, hot air, balloon juice, soup coolin spray, and echo parts........

Now they see reality is the excessive spending and expanse of government! Ooops too late. Now all we can do is HOPE it works.

Promises Already Broken

"The health care bill is a long way from Obama's desk, but tax experts say the debate illustrates a stark reality: It is simply implausible for the vast majority of Americans to get a free ride while the nation tackles such an incredibly difficult — and expensive — issue."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_tax_promise;_ylt=AjBxR76rXQLKWXQZu_Yets8DW7oF

Is the US Government going into the health care business Constitutional? I doubt it.

Will it work? I doubt it. Without a profit incentive, it will be as efficient and effective as the rest of Government.

And who will pay for it? We all will. Um, Mr. President, please don't make me pay for something that the Federal Government shouldn't be doing and that won't work.

Openess? and Transparency?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5vzOAEQ-A&feature=player_embedded

Is this really an open and transparent Presidency? or are they really just using their mandate for every ounce of political power that they can drain from it?

Hat Tip: Blonde Sagacity

Citi boosting salaries to offset lower bonuses

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_citigroup_compensation

You asked for it. All of you folks that don't understand that bonuses are just another form of compensation and were apparently so upset about bonuses. Well now, "By shifting the mix in compensation packages, it will allow Citi to pay most employees as much as they received in 2008 while adhering to bonus caps.".....except now the company loses leverage because the bonus portion of the compensation is no longer tied to goals!

How is removing goals going to make Citi a better company?

What they needed, was to do the opposite. They should have decreased their salaries and paid them primarily with bonuses based on goals. It's called pay for performance. You don't perform; you don't get paid. But noooooo, the silly public demanded LOWER bonuses....well, you got it.

PROFIT makes sense to me

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

So the President says this, "If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care ... then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business?" Obama said in response to a question at a White House news conference. That's not logical, he scoffed..." Nice sound bite Mr. President, but the answer is PROFIT.

He then later answers his own rhetorical question with, "Obama said he understood the legitimate concerns of insurers that private plans wouldn't be able to compete with "the government just printing money." yeah, duh... So he later admits that his plan is flawed.

Why the soundbites and flip-flopping? Because it's not a solid idea? Maybe.

Kid gets HS and College Degrees two weeks apart

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Two-Caps-Two-Gowns-But-Not-Too-Busy.html?yhp=1

"If the radio-TV-film thing doesn't work out, Abrams said he plans to return to school for pre-med studies."

Pre-med currently 2nd choice,,,hmmmm. I wonder what impact taking the Profit out of health care will have on tenacious driven motivated people like this? Hmmmm....

Short Term vs Long Term

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_re_us/us_rubber_rooms;_ylt=As026L.6DYaG2VBZ7C8dlCIDW7oF

This article highlights what I see as a problem with Unions. Namely that they can occasionally put the short term protection of a few of their members as a higher priority than the long term benefits of the whole organization.

In the short term I can see how the Union is protecting it's members. It has set up what is likely a very thorough system of due process. I get that.

But in the long term are they really helping their members? Isn't a $65 Million price tag every year detrimental to the city's budgets? Isn't a $65 million annual loss detrimental to the kids' educations? If the Union is contributing to the demise of education, shouldn't the contract and the system of due process be changed, and sooner rather than later?

Yes, there should be an established agreed upon system for due process, and any system will have some cost. But there is a point where if the costs get too high, then a new system should be explored, or else the whole enterprise can be in danger of ceasing to exist. Sure the Union can rest on the strength of the contract and take a "Not my problem" short term approach. But is that what's really best....in the long term?

I was once told that perfection is the enemy of good enough. It seems to me that their current due process system has the high cost of expecting perfection. I bet that a change to "good enough" would be better for all parties....in the long term that is.

But I could be wrong. I often am.

More Proof 2.0

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12620262?source=rss

Here's more proof that just because people vote for "it" or legislate "it" does not mean that it's legal.

"A federal judge has struck down two Northern California city ordinances banning military recruitment of minors."

You know, kinda like the Confederate States making up their own rules....um no.

More Proof

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/47930647.html

"In a 38-page decision, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper wrote, "This is a case where the proposed ordinance's reach exceeds its grasp.""

Reach exceeding drasp. i.e. just because the people vote for it does not mean it's right.

Bill Maher - 1; Pres Obama - 0.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid6555681001?bctid=26316540001

I used to not be able to watch Bill Maher for more than 10 seconds, but this clip is spot-on!

Here is a liberal media type openly criticizing the President.

Good stuff! If not, why not?

H/T http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/

The Constitutional Roots of Liberalism & Progressivism

I've recently been told that the root of Progressive thought is the fact that the Constitution can be changed. Hmmm. I have never thought of it that way. Based on precedents, I thought amendments were only to right wrongs such as freeing slaves, granting women the right to vote and repealing prohibition. I never saw the amendment process as carte blanche for the citizen voters of the US to get what ever they want from the Government as long as they lobbied & protested hard enough.

What do you (my 4ish readers) think? Is Article V the Constitutional root of progressive thought? If so, why? If not, why not?

And more importantly for me....if this means that we are all Constitutionally bound to be steering this ship, not only with Voting, our free speech and the Press, and Jury duty etc....BUT ALSO with developing new edits to the Constitution itself, then what does that do to my POLITICAL PARADIGM? I mean before, I could just cast off the commies, lol, because I could not understand where they were coming from. If Article V is indeed legitimately where they are coming from, then what impact does that now have on my politics? Maybe I've been wrong all along?

Heavy stuff.

H/T http://blueracine.blogspot.com/

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The Obama administration grants Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/605iidws.asp

I have just one comment. I thought Miranda Rights were only for U.S. citizens, but I must be wrong. hmmmm....

Hat tip to Bobby G's FB page.

The Opposition

"Talking to each other is a lot better than talking about each other.” Ronald Reagan

I have a great deal of respect for people with opposing views that can stay civil and have a legitimate conversation. It is such a breath of Fresh Air in this blogosphere that seems to be full of vitriol (that's a big word for poopy criticism).

But, big ups go to Zach and Kay for the freshness of the air that they pump into their blogs.

Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_budget;_ylt=AsYACqgkHP5xr5UGKTK1BpoDW7oF

So much for the moral high ground......hmmm, seems like: Do as I say, not as I do.

"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

Except for stuff that he thinks will get him re-elected....then he'll give exceptions.

tsk tsk, shame shame, and a finger wave.

Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090609/pl_politico/23510

So President Obama invokes Jesus more than President Bush did, so what? Does that mean that there's some irony between the Coexist folks and the President that they voted for. Maybe.

I think all it really means is that the President is a master showman. That he will use any tool available, including Jesus, in order to sell his agenda. And it seems to be working quite well for him. So, I don't blame him one bit for that. Jesus might, but I don't.

However, aint it time to stop selling and actually get some stuff done? Hop to it. Chop chop.

Obama calls for new beginning between US, Muslims

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

This seems like walking softly but carrying a big stick.

That makes sense to me.

Will it work? maybe.

But it's often extremely difficult to communicate with what seem to be fanatics. Perhaps we can reach out to everyone else but the fanatics, and perhaps that will resemble progress towards peace.

It just might work.

Cheney on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cheney;_ylt=At1NWkjN5rUcOXAbLsAB1V8DW7oF

This really is about liberty and justice for all.

Abortion Doctor Killed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting

OK I'll admit that I am making some huge assumptions: a) that this murderer was a conservative and b) that liberals will twist this murder against the GOP.

But given that, anyone else see this as another nail in the coffin of the GOP? I aint saying it's right to blame the GOP for this, but that will not stop liberals from extracting some momentum for their issues from this tragic murder. The issues that I speak of are duh, #1 Abortion rights. #2 Gun control. And #3 Oppression and intolerance from self righteous social conservative Christians.

I'd like to think that this is an isolated case. I'd like to think that the suspect is just a deranged wacko. I suppose that we'll find out eventually.

But perhaps many of his conservative friends, relatives, and associates could have noticed something brewing and said, "Whoa, dude, that aint right." If so, then this truly is very very sad, because then .... the liberals that are twisting this, just might have a point. Because if this guy was given an environment for his toxic thoughts to take hold, and grow, and thrive....then who is responsible for that environment? Answer: I am....that is IF I do not call out the haters that I relate with, then I am tacitly approving of their hate.

We all need to be the change that we wish to see in the world....and the change that I'd like to see is Conservatives that don't put up with wackos like this. I'd like to see Conservatives that have the juevos to stand up to haters, intolerance, and harassment. I'd like to see Conservatives that are not afraid to appear liberal aka, a bit soft here and there when the fact is that it's just liberty and justice for all.

But I could be wrong. I often am.