Category: Politics

Really?  Citizens aren’t able to judge how the government should balance privacy and protection?

  Wow…I’m glad we have the 4th amendment.  I just wish the government respected that

#rsasummit

I just hears this guy from maccsa.net talking about common I’d cards and tools.

Wow.

#rsaummit

I must be missing something here?  How is making people prove they are eligible to vote voter suppression?  Why is going to the polls on election day such a hardship?  I don’t buy it…those things simply maintain the integrity of the vote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/republican_voter_suppression_rationales_why_voter_integrity_is_nonsense.html

Firstly, I’m not making a political point here.  Don’t read one into this.  Don’t assume anything.  I generally don’t understand the differences.

In 2008, Kosovo unilaterally–without approval from Belgrade–voted to become independent.  The vote was held, the Serbs boycotted, and the province declared their independence.  Very much like this Crimea thing.

Crimea voted to leave the Ukraine in 2014.  Kiev didn’t approve, the vote wasn’t legal according to the law there; however, they voted to leave and join with Russia.

What’s the difference?  The only thing I can see is that the “west” didn’t like the Serbs so they sided with Kosovo at that time.  Now, the “west” doesn’t like Russia so they are siding against them here.  Can someone help me out?

Image from kosovo future maker via flickr

I saw this headline today:

Obama to reportedly call for end to NSA’s bulk phone data collection

My question:  Does anyone seriously trust Pres. Obama?  Especially after the “you can keep your doctor” thing?

Perhaps the NSA could pass along to Barry that the public mood is that no one believes him and this isn’t going to help his opinion polls.

Image from brett tatman via flickr

We all want to be rich, right?  But, it seems, that no one can get ahead, right?  No matter how much you skrimp and save and do without, you never have extra at the end of the month, right?  Then along comes a report like this:  85 people have 1/2 the wealth on all the earth.  Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?  You can’t get ahead because **they** have it all.  If **they** wouldn’t have so much you could have more.  It isn’t fair that **they** have so much.  What they lose in a rounding error could fund you for the rest of your life.

Have I got the thinking right?

The next step in that thinking is having the government mandate something.  Perhaps a maximum limit on what one can earn in a year.  Perhaps a 90% tax on what people make over a certain amount.  Perhaps something else.  I think that is the wrong approach.  Government shouldn’t be involved in that sort of thing:  people should have the freedom (read incentive) to make as much as they would like.  Without that, there is a limit that people can’t go beyond.

I hear it now:  so you think it is right?  No.  I think that CEOs making a metric ton of money more than other employees is just wrong.  There’s no reason for it.  Sure, he should make more; however, there’s more to it.  Remember Henry Ford?

What did Henry Ford do?  Besides invent the assembly line.  Invent charcoal briquettes.  He paid his workers $5 per day.

Now, it wasn’t all what you think.  There was some bonus in there along with a bonus for living like Ford thought you should.  But it was still enough to afford his product.  As Forbes points out, that isn’t a golden standard (Boeing can’t pay its employees enough to make an airplane); however, I think one can see the ideal.  I think CEOs have fallen prey to the “I’ve made it I’m going to get mine” mentality that is so prevalent in America now.  All the way up to Pres. Obama with his jetting off to Hawaii and having secret birthday parties for Michelle, people who have “made it” have a feeling entitlement and are going to milk it for all they can.

I think they have forgotten that there are people who support them.  Without those people, the leader wouldn’t be anywhere.  But, I don’t think it is for a government to mandate a certain level of income or earning.  Why?  Just like the government has no business telling me what I can think or say, I don’t think they should be able to tell me what I could earn.  That is for me (and my employer) to decide.  Why?  Principle.  

While the idea of someone else controlling public speech seems ok, it quickly turns south if the person doing the controlling disagrees with you.  Earnings are the same.  As long as the limit is “enough” you are ok with it.  But what happens when someone else decides you have too much?  The same thing.  The same thinking applies for speech and earning potential.

Image from jon bennett via flickr

Earlier this week, there was a furore in the media when some actors were “caught” smoking electronic cigarettes at the Golden Globe awards.  Senators have also gotten on board.  Their charge?  Well, it is one we heard many years ago when I was a kid:  things like this glamorize smoking and shouldn’t be allowed.  Now, don’t lose me here…I’m not going to rail against smoking (but I don’t smoke and don’t think others should).  This is going to be a “let’s think about” type article.

Let’s take everyone at face value:  when kids see people smoking (or certain ads, etc…) they want to smoke too.  Have I got the argument correct?  Ok.  Super.  Are you with me?  Again…great.

What happens after school shootings, mall shootings, etc…?  The call is for more gun control.  What happens when people suggest that perhaps the violent movies influence the actions of the shooters?  We get articles talking about how violent movies don’t play a role.  But wait.  We’re told that seeing people smoking influences kids to smoke…doesn’t it stand to reason that if that were true that seeing people shoot up others influences them too?  I’m all confused now.  If it happens one place, why isn’t the same thing true in another circumstance.

I think there is more at play here.  I think the truth is somewhere in-between.  And I think that truth reveals a lot about American Culture and the Media.  I think the people pushing to condemn the e-cigarette use but allow violent movies have an agenda.  The fact that they don’t like one but don’t have a problem with the other shows this.  If we are honest, the truth is somewhere in the middle:  no, seeing violence doesn’t make everyone want to shoot up a bunch of people just like seeing people smoke (even fake cigarettes) won’t make everyone smoke.  Yes, some people will be influenced to start.  Yes, others won’t.  If you are honest, I think you’ll agree with me.

So, if that is the case, why push one (banning cigarettes) while wanting to keep another (violent movies)?  I think they have an agenda and that is influencing their positions.  This also shows through in other areas too:  trans-fats, coconut oil, sugary drinks, and others.  All this while pushing for things like legalizing pot, mandating abortion coverage, and others.  Some things are allowed and encouraged while other things are looked to be banned.  And the only reasons is “they” (whoever happens to be in charge at the time) is pushing “their” agenda.

We need to be careful.  The media has, if everyone is honest, it is nothing more than yellow journalism (on both sides).  No one is honest.  The news isn’t reported.  The media narrative of the day is reported from certain perspectives instead of the news.  Our country can be great once again; however, we need to be honest.  Honest with each other.  Demand real news from our news…not commentary.

Image from lindsay fox via flickr

This morning, I read this article in the Daily Mail that is dogging the US because 23% don’t believe in Climate Change (aka Man Made Global Warming).  Here’s a few quotes:

‘The great majority of climate scientists have concluded that global warming is happening, mostly human caused and, if left unchecked, will have serious consequences for human societies and the natural world,’ the report’s authors said.

‘Yet, over the years, there has been considerable confusion within the American public about the level of scientific agreement on the subject.’

The study, conducted in November, found About two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening.

‘Relatively few – only 23 percent – believe it is not,’ they said.

‘The proportion who believe global warming is real has remained steady since Spring 2013.

‘However, the proportion who do not believe global warming is happening has increased 7 percentage points since Spring 2013.

‘The proportion of Americans who say they ‘don’t know’ whether or not global warming is happening has dropped 6 points – from 20 to 14 – since Spring of 2013.

The researchers also say Americans believe that even if it exists, global warming is not their problem.

One can hear the tone of the article:  we all know this is happening but these stupid American’s just won’t believe.  Look at them…how stupid are they.

I think most people would consider me a “climate change denier” and one of the 23%; however, that is not the case.  Is the climate changing?  Perhaps or perhaps not.  I don’t really know and don’t think there is enough evidence to say either (records go back to the 1800s).  I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old and records for–let’s be generous–300 years mean we only know for sure what has happened for 5% of the time.  If you believe in Darwin’s monkeys to man evolution, percentage wise, you know even less.

Even if the climate is changing, we don’t know enough to know if it is naturally cyclical or not.  We can’t say whether any change we see puts us at the top of a warming cycle only to cool back down.  Perhaps we’ve got another 20 degrees to go before we start.  Or, perhaps–since there has been no warming in the past 15 years–we are getting ready to head back down.  The point is we don’t know.

The global warmers can’t even get their story straight.  Remember the polar vortex?  In 2013, Time Magazine blamed it on Global Warming.  Did you know that in 1974, they blamed the exact same thing–the vortex–on global cooling?  Which is it?  Global Cooling?  Global Warming?

Given the fact we don’t know, I–as an American–refuse to believe that I am the problem.  Even if the earth is warming.  Even if humans are responsible.  Why?  Have you seen pictures of the air in Beijing China?  The air there is so stinking polluted they have a name for it:  airpocalypse.  What about India where the Ganges is also way way polluted?  If anyone needs to worry about reducing pollution, it is them…not me and the US.

The US doesn’t have a great record either.  In 1969, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire it was so polluted.  I’m sure there are many more examples; however, since then, we’ve cleaned things up.

In conclusion, I don’t think we know enough to say for certain that the earth is warming or not.  The climate changers–just today’s code word for the 1980s global warmers–can’t even get their story straight (they can’t even make their data work without faking it).  But even if it is happening as they claim, they come across as attacking the west and America.  The problem isn’t with us…it is with China, India, and the rest of the developing world who pollute way more than we do.

Image from mark sardella via flickr

I finally got a reply from Sen. Brown regarding an email I sent him during the shutdown.  Here it is:

Thank you for getting in touch with me about the government shutdown and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

 

Despite the costs to our economy, the majority in the House of Representatives chose to hold the federal government hostage in an attempt to defund or dismantle the ACA. Without a spending bill in place, the federal government shut down on October 1, 2013.

 

Even though shutting down the government did not stop the implementation of the ACA, the majority in the House of Representatives continued to hold the federal government hostage for 16 days. In the weeks following October 1, hundreds of thousands of government workers were furloughed, and many government services were shut down or curtailed.

 

The consequences of the shutdown were felt across the country. Seniors could not apply for Social Security benefits. Widows of veterans were denied death benefits. National parks and monuments were shuttered. Food inspections were halted. Head Start preschools closed their doors. Government-backed mortgage applications were stalled. Cancer patients were turned away from the National Institutes of Health. Despite the shutdown, the implementation of the ACA continued, because the majority of ACA funding does not come from Congressional spending.

 

The shutdown was also extremely costly. It led to the largest drop in consumer confidence since the 2008 financial crisis. Economists estimate that the shutdown has cost tens of billions of dollars and will significantly slow economic growth in the quarter, affecting employment, business earnings, and borrowing costs.

 

A bipartisan agreement to fund the government and lift the debt ceiling without defunding or delaying the ACA was agreed to on October 16, 2013. The agreement reopened the government at current funding levels through January 15, 2014, and lifted the debt ceiling through February 7, 2014. It also provided back pay for all federal workers who were furloughed, and called for broader budget talks by December 13.

 

Like most laws, the ACA is not perfect, and I will continue to work with my colleagues from both parties to make this law better. Americans deserve access to affordable, comprehensive insurance coverage without fear of losing coverage, and those who can pay for their own coverage should do so.

 

The reckless extremism and political brinkmanship over the ACA that caused this shutdown are no way to govern. This kind of manufactured crisis hurts our economy and distracts from the important work before us. With stopgap bills in place, we can sit down and work together to find common ground on ways to address our fiscal challenges and strengthen our economy.

 

Thank you also for sharing your concerns regarding how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) applies to Members of Congress and other employees of the federal government.

 

Like most working Americans, Members of Congress and other federal employees receive health insurance through their employer. The federal health insurance program, known as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), allows federal employees, retirees, and their survivors to choose among a range of different insurance options, from catastrophic risk protection with higher deductibles to fee-for-service plans.  

 

In general, employer-provided health insurance is unaffected by the ACA.  This is true for most of the millions of workers and retirees in the federal health plan.  But Congress enacted a provision within the new law to require that Members of Congress and their staffs participate in the new health exchanges created by the law.  The intent and effect of this decision was to ensure that Members of Congress and their staffs would go through the same process and have the same choices as the millions of American expected to be provided insurance through the ACA.

 

I support this decision, since health reform legislation should provide Americans with the same type of insurance options that Members of Congress currently receive.  This is something that I have felt strongly about since coming to Congress in 1993.  Until the passage of health reform, I refused to accept health insurance through the FEHB program because too many Americans had no coverage at all.

 

Beginning in 2014, the new health reform law will enable Americans who lack insurance, who work for small businesses, or who have individual coverage to opt in to an exchange to purchase affordable health insurance.  Some 80 to 90 percent of these individuals will be eligible for assistance in the form of tax credits or subsidies.  Lawmakers and Congressional aides, since they receive a subsidy from their employer, will not be eligible for the tax credits and subsidies that will be available to many other individuals who buy private insurance in the exchange.  If you are interested in more information on the new law, you may want to visit www.healthcare.gov.

 

Thank you again for being in touch with me. Please do not hesitate to contact my office in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

 

                         Sincerely,

              

                         Sherrod Brown

                         United States Senator

Did you see the last paragraph?  The first line says “Beginning in 2014, the new health reform law will enable Americans who lack insurance, who work for small businesses, or who have individual coverage to opt in to an exchange to purchase affordable health insurance.”  I guess by “enable” and “opt in” he really means “must under penalty of a fine.”  Heh…what a way to wordsmith that.

How long until this happens at the Federal level?  It will happen…when is the only question.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/06/massachusetts-rationing-shows-whats-coming-to-america-under-obamacare/