Sonia Sotomayor is being officially announced as the Obama appointee for the supreme court. Ms Sotomayor is the example of the American dream. Starting out poor with a father who didn't go to high school and then died young, she was raised by her mother with little money. She worked hard and changed her circumstances in life through that hard work. She worked her way up through the legal hierarchy to become a judge on the court of appeals. I respect her for that, but her appointment as a Judge should not be based on her personal stories but on her job performance.
Ms Sotomayor has what Obama wants and that is empathy. The one thing that our legal system is NOT supposed to have. Justice is blind. This means that the rule of law is applied without consideration of the ethnic, religious or financial background of the parties involved. Look at the rule of law not the individuals involved. But Obama wants the blindfold removed from justice, and Ms Sotomayor has a history of stripping that blindfold and making decisions based on the background of the people.
The most glaring example of this "empathy" is in the New Haven fire department case. The fire department told the firemen that promotions would be given based on the results of a test. However, they turned around and changed the guidelines when the test results didn't show them what they wanted. Unfortunately, the people who did the best on the test were white men and a Hispanic man. The New Haven fire dept decided they couldn't promote those people because of the color of their skin. An obvious and glaring example of racism and discrimination. When the firemen sued, Ms Sotomayor threw the case out with no explanation as to why. No legal standing for the dismissal. No constitutional basis for the dismissal. Based on other things she has said, it becomes apparent that she dismissed it because it was a bunch of white men bringing the case.
This same case is now going to the Supreme Court. How awful for the men suing to then have to present the case again to the same person who summarily dismissed it.
If she were to give her opinions based on the law with equal protection for all, I'd be all for her. But that's not what she'll do. She will do in the future what she has done in the past, and that is to favor some demographic groups over others in spite of the law. Not a good place to be.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Society Vs Government
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine lists out the difference between society and government. These are two very, very different things, and yet instead of our society dictating our government, we have switched to our government dictating our society.
Paine said "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
He also said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."
What Paine is really saying here is that if we behaved the way we should, the best we could be as a society, that we would not need government at all. This is the antithesis of what our government keeps telling us. Our government tells us, you don't need to take care of your neighbor, we'll do that for you. You don't need to worry about your mistakes, we'll take care of those for you. You don't need concern yourself with others, we'll take care of them for you. In essence, they are encouraging us to be our worst so that we need them more. If we stopped allowing government to usurp our best behaviors as a society, we would be much better off. This is not something government wants. By taking over the role of society, they ensure their own existence, and that's all they want to do. Government's first concern is the continuation of it's own power.
What would it be like to have a leader who inspired us to be better as individuals so we needed government less? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't focus us on our worst qualities but inspired us to show only our best? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't apologize for our past but embraced the accountability we used to have as a society? Does a leader like that even exist?
We are a great country and a great people. We pull together in tragedies and are among the most generous people in the world. We have incredible qualities that have become dormant and now only show in a crisis. Why is this? Because government has taken the need for our everyday expression of these qualities from us to increase their own power. Take it back from them. We long to be inspired. So where is the person to do it? I pray he or she appears soon.
Paine said "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
He also said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."
What Paine is really saying here is that if we behaved the way we should, the best we could be as a society, that we would not need government at all. This is the antithesis of what our government keeps telling us. Our government tells us, you don't need to take care of your neighbor, we'll do that for you. You don't need to worry about your mistakes, we'll take care of those for you. You don't need concern yourself with others, we'll take care of them for you. In essence, they are encouraging us to be our worst so that we need them more. If we stopped allowing government to usurp our best behaviors as a society, we would be much better off. This is not something government wants. By taking over the role of society, they ensure their own existence, and that's all they want to do. Government's first concern is the continuation of it's own power.
What would it be like to have a leader who inspired us to be better as individuals so we needed government less? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't focus us on our worst qualities but inspired us to show only our best? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't apologize for our past but embraced the accountability we used to have as a society? Does a leader like that even exist?
We are a great country and a great people. We pull together in tragedies and are among the most generous people in the world. We have incredible qualities that have become dormant and now only show in a crisis. Why is this? Because government has taken the need for our everyday expression of these qualities from us to increase their own power. Take it back from them. We long to be inspired. So where is the person to do it? I pray he or she appears soon.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Let's Focus On The Past - About 230 Years In The Past
There has been a lot of talk about letting go of the past and focusing on the future. I disagree with this. We need to look back. All the way back to our origins. We have already moved too far away from who and what we were supposed to be, and when leaders tell us not to focus on the past, they're telling us they don't want us to pay attention to how much further from our original purpose we're moving.
Obama doesn't want us to look back because he doesn't want us to really know these "principles and values on which we were founded" that he keeps quoting. This is due to the fact that he is violating almost every one of our true principles. Thomas Jefferson said to educate the people on their past, so that's what I am going to do today.
We talk a lot about common sense. That it's just common sense that a 50% tax rate is absurd. It's just common sense that government telling us what to do is bad. Well let's look at Common Sense, the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and distributed in January of 1776. The Common Sense that rallied the colonists to revolution. The Common Sense that was the precursor to our Declaration of Independence. If' you've never read Common Sense, I highly recommend it.
Thomas Paine's pamphlet was incredibly powerful, and a past we should definitely focus on. All I will post today is part of the introduction, but that alone is a strong condemnation on where the colonies were at the time, and where the new nation has gone again.
"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. How very true that statement is. We have accepted the growth and increasing power of our government as not being wrong, and as a result, current leadership is pushing the appearance that it is right. It is not right.
We have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of our government and to equally reject the usurpations of either. I don't think there's any question that our leaders have become pretentious, and that they are usurping our rights. But are we exercising our privilege of inquiry? Are we holding our leaders accountable for the usurpations of our liberty and independence? Or are we accepting the superficial appearance of it's rightness. That's a question that only you yourself can answer.
Look back. Focus on our nation's past. Know where we started and he principles on which we were built. Educate yourself and others. And most importantly, take a long hard look at where we are and compare that to where we were supposed to be.
Obama doesn't want us to look back because he doesn't want us to really know these "principles and values on which we were founded" that he keeps quoting. This is due to the fact that he is violating almost every one of our true principles. Thomas Jefferson said to educate the people on their past, so that's what I am going to do today.
We talk a lot about common sense. That it's just common sense that a 50% tax rate is absurd. It's just common sense that government telling us what to do is bad. Well let's look at Common Sense, the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and distributed in January of 1776. The Common Sense that rallied the colonists to revolution. The Common Sense that was the precursor to our Declaration of Independence. If' you've never read Common Sense, I highly recommend it.
Thomas Paine's pamphlet was incredibly powerful, and a past we should definitely focus on. All I will post today is part of the introduction, but that alone is a strong condemnation on where the colonies were at the time, and where the new nation has gone again.
"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. How very true that statement is. We have accepted the growth and increasing power of our government as not being wrong, and as a result, current leadership is pushing the appearance that it is right. It is not right.
We have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of our government and to equally reject the usurpations of either. I don't think there's any question that our leaders have become pretentious, and that they are usurping our rights. But are we exercising our privilege of inquiry? Are we holding our leaders accountable for the usurpations of our liberty and independence? Or are we accepting the superficial appearance of it's rightness. That's a question that only you yourself can answer.
Look back. Focus on our nation's past. Know where we started and he principles on which we were built. Educate yourself and others. And most importantly, take a long hard look at where we are and compare that to where we were supposed to be.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama Says - It's All Bush's Fault
During the Obama press conference, which I'm still watching while I type, Obama states that he has no plan to close Guantanamo, but it's all Bush's fault. He says he doesn't want to constantly relive the last 8 years, but it's all Bush's fault.
The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?
The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.
And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.
Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.
For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.
Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.
The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?
The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.
And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.
Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.
For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.
Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another Government Agency - Oh Goodie
There was talk today about the possibility of a new government agency as the result of the banking crisis and credit card issues. What would this agency do that no other agency is already responsible for? Who knows. Probably nothing.
Being told that we need yet another government bureaucracy made me wonder just how many we already have. I couldn't find an actual count, but I found a listing of the agencies here, http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html. When I went through and counted them up, aside from blood shooting from my eyes, I found that we have 1,278 governmental agencies. These range from NASA to the office of the first lady. Then I started wondering how many people work for the federal government. More blood shot from my eyes. According to the Bureau of Labor And Statistics, the US government is the largest employer in the nation. Doesn't that give you a warm tingly feeling inside. The US government, not counting the postal service, employs 1.8 MILLION people. This is larger than the population of Philadelphia. And these are only the CIVILIAN employees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the number is that big because of our fighting men and women because that's not the case. These are non-military personnel. If we add the postal service into the mix, then we exceed the entire population of Dallas. Reassuring isn't it.
So although we already have nearly 1,300 agencies and over 2 million employees, nobody can take on the additional burden of looking over credit cards. Hmmmm. How about we get some Industrial Engineers or Six Sigma specialists in there to see what it would take to get the existing staff to be able to take on these additional responsibilities. Unlike the private sector, the government just takes it's money so has not incentive to improve efficiency, and the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger.
Is this the small federal government that our founding fathers envisioned? Somehow I just don't think so. And what is Obama's plan for creating jobs? Well, the federal government is hiring.
Looking at these numbers it's obvious that what this country really needs is one more government bureaucracy.
Being told that we need yet another government bureaucracy made me wonder just how many we already have. I couldn't find an actual count, but I found a listing of the agencies here, http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html. When I went through and counted them up, aside from blood shooting from my eyes, I found that we have 1,278 governmental agencies. These range from NASA to the office of the first lady. Then I started wondering how many people work for the federal government. More blood shot from my eyes. According to the Bureau of Labor And Statistics, the US government is the largest employer in the nation. Doesn't that give you a warm tingly feeling inside. The US government, not counting the postal service, employs 1.8 MILLION people. This is larger than the population of Philadelphia. And these are only the CIVILIAN employees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the number is that big because of our fighting men and women because that's not the case. These are non-military personnel. If we add the postal service into the mix, then we exceed the entire population of Dallas. Reassuring isn't it.
So although we already have nearly 1,300 agencies and over 2 million employees, nobody can take on the additional burden of looking over credit cards. Hmmmm. How about we get some Industrial Engineers or Six Sigma specialists in there to see what it would take to get the existing staff to be able to take on these additional responsibilities. Unlike the private sector, the government just takes it's money so has not incentive to improve efficiency, and the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger.
Is this the small federal government that our founding fathers envisioned? Somehow I just don't think so. And what is Obama's plan for creating jobs? Well, the federal government is hiring.
Looking at these numbers it's obvious that what this country really needs is one more government bureaucracy.
Change Obama's Name to Abami
The nation that Barack Obama is trying to create, the nation that we were never supposed to be, is being called the Obama nation. It already sounds like what it really is, so why don't we just change his name and make it official. Let's change the Obamanation into the Abomination that it is. If we're going to cut through the crap and translate the rhetoric, why not do it right?
Wouldn't it be fun to start referring to him as President Barack Abomi. I think I will.
Wouldn't it be fun to start referring to him as President Barack Abomi. I think I will.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Is There Only One Way to Fight For Your Country
During a pretty heated discussion on Fox and Friends this morning, Jesse Ventura told Brian Killmead that because Brian did not serve in the military he is not fighting for his country. Brian objected to that indicating that there are other ways to fight. This raised an interesting question for me. Is there only one way to fight for your country?
I in no way diminish the service of those in the Armed Forces. I respect, honor and appreciate the service they do to our country. We would not be a country without those men and women out there fighting for our freedom and our sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that these men and women are fighting for our country. The question is whether or not those of us who have not served, can still fight for our country and what we believe our country should be?
Different people have different talents and approach the fight in different ways. Is the person who pays attention to what's going on, writes their congressmen and speaks out, is that person not fighting for their country? Are people who organize grassroots campaigns to advance a cause they believe in not fighting for their country? Are the people who take to the streets with signs and passion to make themselves heard not fighting for their country? Are bloggers, such as myself and many others, who seek to inform and educate and persuade involvement in the political process not fighting for our country? I like to believe that we are.
Different people approach the fight on different planes. I know that as I sit safely behind my laptop computer in the comfort of my own home that my fight is not the same as the men and women in the military. It cannot compare to the sacrifices that those in the armed services make for our country. I could not be in the military and I know that. I do not have the qualities required to make those sacrifices. Mainly, I can' keep my mouth shut and I don't run unless I'm being chased by something that plans to eat me. I admire and thank God for those who do have the necessary qualities. But does this mean that I do not fight for my country?
I would really like to know the thoughts and opinions of others on this issue. What do we consider fighting for our country. If you consider yourself a fighter, please let me know what your fight is and how you approach it.
I in no way diminish the service of those in the Armed Forces. I respect, honor and appreciate the service they do to our country. We would not be a country without those men and women out there fighting for our freedom and our sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that these men and women are fighting for our country. The question is whether or not those of us who have not served, can still fight for our country and what we believe our country should be?
Different people have different talents and approach the fight in different ways. Is the person who pays attention to what's going on, writes their congressmen and speaks out, is that person not fighting for their country? Are people who organize grassroots campaigns to advance a cause they believe in not fighting for their country? Are the people who take to the streets with signs and passion to make themselves heard not fighting for their country? Are bloggers, such as myself and many others, who seek to inform and educate and persuade involvement in the political process not fighting for our country? I like to believe that we are.
Different people approach the fight on different planes. I know that as I sit safely behind my laptop computer in the comfort of my own home that my fight is not the same as the men and women in the military. It cannot compare to the sacrifices that those in the armed services make for our country. I could not be in the military and I know that. I do not have the qualities required to make those sacrifices. Mainly, I can' keep my mouth shut and I don't run unless I'm being chased by something that plans to eat me. I admire and thank God for those who do have the necessary qualities. But does this mean that I do not fight for my country?
I would really like to know the thoughts and opinions of others on this issue. What do we consider fighting for our country. If you consider yourself a fighter, please let me know what your fight is and how you approach it.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Fat People - Acceptable Descrimination
There has been a lot of talk about the impact of the overweight people on our health care system and even on global warming. Don't you know fat people are to blame for everything? It has been said by some that the obese are putting undue stress on our health care system because of their "lifestyle choices". I say butt out of my lifestyle choices.
As a perpetually pudgy person, I object to these statements. They make is sound like being thin is an easy thing and obesity is just a matter of being lazy. Different body types deal with food and exercise differently and it's not always easy to be thin. For some people it's very difficult to be thin. It takes incredible sacrifice. So if you're thin, good for you, but don't assume it's that easy for everybody.
My mother was very thin when she was younger, but 3 kids in 3 years changed her metabolism and the weight kept piling on. Now in her 60's she's doing a real battle to get her weight under control. She's making progress but it's not coming easily. Her diet is very, very strict and includes foods that I don't want to eat. Not only that, but the weight loss is causing her to lose her hair as well. And she didn't have much to start with. She says that giving up fast food helped her the most but sometimes she just really craves a hamburger.
I've tried changing my eating habits and have not lost weight. I've tried exercising, something I despise, and have not lost weight. Even if I lose some, if my routine gets interrupted, I gain it right back. So according to critics, my lifestyle choice is to blame, and to satisfy them I need to choose a lifestyle I don't enjoy. By the way, I rarely go to the doctor and my biggest health care issue is insomnia, totally unrelated to my weight. So these general statements about the burden fat people put on our health care system is a stereotype and pretty offensive to some of us pudgeballs.
For many overweight people, the lifestyle choice they must make in order to lose weight is to make their whole life about their weight. Nearly every decision my mother makes now is based on her weight loss plan. I don't want my life to revolve around my calorie intake to usage ratio. If I want to read a book from cover to cover, I don't want to have to think about the exercise I'm not getting. If I go out to dinner with friends I don't want to have to analyze the menu to determine what's the safest vs the tastiest option. I don't want my every thought and my every action to center around the size of my body. Would I like to be thin? Of course I would. But just because I'd like to be doesn't mean that getting there is easy.
Losing weight is very, very difficult for many people and to say we are obese due to our "lifestyle choice" trivializes the battles many of us go through daily. And yet, even though our difficulties may be genetic and not something we can control, we are stigmatized, ridiculed and discriminated against. So what will they do with us if we go to nationalized health care? Will we be denied coverage if we don't get to an acceptable weight? Will our choice about what we eat and the activities we engage in be taken from us? I'm afraid that's where we're going.
As a perpetually pudgy person, I object to these statements. They make is sound like being thin is an easy thing and obesity is just a matter of being lazy. Different body types deal with food and exercise differently and it's not always easy to be thin. For some people it's very difficult to be thin. It takes incredible sacrifice. So if you're thin, good for you, but don't assume it's that easy for everybody.
My mother was very thin when she was younger, but 3 kids in 3 years changed her metabolism and the weight kept piling on. Now in her 60's she's doing a real battle to get her weight under control. She's making progress but it's not coming easily. Her diet is very, very strict and includes foods that I don't want to eat. Not only that, but the weight loss is causing her to lose her hair as well. And she didn't have much to start with. She says that giving up fast food helped her the most but sometimes she just really craves a hamburger.
I've tried changing my eating habits and have not lost weight. I've tried exercising, something I despise, and have not lost weight. Even if I lose some, if my routine gets interrupted, I gain it right back. So according to critics, my lifestyle choice is to blame, and to satisfy them I need to choose a lifestyle I don't enjoy. By the way, I rarely go to the doctor and my biggest health care issue is insomnia, totally unrelated to my weight. So these general statements about the burden fat people put on our health care system is a stereotype and pretty offensive to some of us pudgeballs.
For many overweight people, the lifestyle choice they must make in order to lose weight is to make their whole life about their weight. Nearly every decision my mother makes now is based on her weight loss plan. I don't want my life to revolve around my calorie intake to usage ratio. If I want to read a book from cover to cover, I don't want to have to think about the exercise I'm not getting. If I go out to dinner with friends I don't want to have to analyze the menu to determine what's the safest vs the tastiest option. I don't want my every thought and my every action to center around the size of my body. Would I like to be thin? Of course I would. But just because I'd like to be doesn't mean that getting there is easy.
Losing weight is very, very difficult for many people and to say we are obese due to our "lifestyle choice" trivializes the battles many of us go through daily. And yet, even though our difficulties may be genetic and not something we can control, we are stigmatized, ridiculed and discriminated against. So what will they do with us if we go to nationalized health care? Will we be denied coverage if we don't get to an acceptable weight? Will our choice about what we eat and the activities we engage in be taken from us? I'm afraid that's where we're going.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Don't Let Your Faith Keep You From Reason
Towards the end of President Obama's indoctrination speech at Notre Dame, he actually told the students not to let their faith cloud their judgement.
"But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds."
So what Obama is really saying here is that doubting your faith is good and natural. And that if you don't have a reason for for stance on an issue other than your faith, that you have no reason for your stance at all. According to our president, any belief that you have which is founded in your faith is an illegitimate stance and you should be "open minded" to the opinions and stances of others. So basically, your a right wing nut job if you make your issue decisions based on your religious and moral beliefs. This is the speech at a Catholic college.
My other blog is about how the rest of this speech was all about him, but the one thing that needed it's own blog was how he more or less told the graduating students at a catholic college that their religious beliefs were irrational. Nice!
"But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds."
So what Obama is really saying here is that doubting your faith is good and natural. And that if you don't have a reason for for stance on an issue other than your faith, that you have no reason for your stance at all. According to our president, any belief that you have which is founded in your faith is an illegitimate stance and you should be "open minded" to the opinions and stances of others. So basically, your a right wing nut job if you make your issue decisions based on your religious and moral beliefs. This is the speech at a Catholic college.
My other blog is about how the rest of this speech was all about him, but the one thing that needed it's own blog was how he more or less told the graduating students at a catholic college that their religious beliefs were irrational. Nice!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Be Judgemental
Mitch Daniels, Indiana Governor, gave a commencement speech at Butler University in which he advised the students to be judgemental. While taking responsibility for the mistakes of his generation, he encouraged the next generation to undo the damage his own has done. Personal responsibility and accountability, and holding yourself and others to a standard of conduct. Wow! What a concept.
In calling for them to be judgemental he was not calling for them to be intolerant. Instead, he was calling for them to let others know that there are standards of behavior, and some behaviors are unacceptable. We have to stand up and speak out against racist or bigoted comments. We have to stand up against hateful tirades. We have to hold ourselves to a high standard and let those with low standards of behavior know that we disapprove. A civilized society has standards for acceptable conduct. Some of these standards are set with laws, but others by the disapproval of the masses.
Over the last 2 decades people have become more self-centered, ruder, and more hateful in their speech. I'm often frustrated in public but the rudeness of the masses and their total lack of consideration for others. Common courtesy is becoming increasingly UNcommon and we must be judgemental about that.
Part of the problem we've run into is that any criticism of some behaviors is seen as racist or bigoted speech itself. We allow ourselves to be silenced with their unfounded accusations. This must stop. If a behavior, such as excessive profanity in public, and especially in front of small children, is committed by a black man and we condemn it, we may be called a racist. If this happens, we have to push back and condemn that behavior as well. Assuming racism because of the color of the skin of the person whose BEHAVIOR is being criticized is not acceptable either.
Some of what we can do is to set an example ourselves as well as calling out others. Hold a door open for someone else. Be courteous in traffic. Say please, thank you and excuse me. And, for the love of God, control your children. Be aware of how your behavior impacts others, and the example it sets. Sit in judgement of yourself first, and then hold others accountable for their behaviors as well.
For coverage of Governor Daniels' speech see Peter Robinson's article in Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/obama-republican-party-baby-boomer-opinions-columnists-mitch-daniels.html
In calling for them to be judgemental he was not calling for them to be intolerant. Instead, he was calling for them to let others know that there are standards of behavior, and some behaviors are unacceptable. We have to stand up and speak out against racist or bigoted comments. We have to stand up against hateful tirades. We have to hold ourselves to a high standard and let those with low standards of behavior know that we disapprove. A civilized society has standards for acceptable conduct. Some of these standards are set with laws, but others by the disapproval of the masses.
Over the last 2 decades people have become more self-centered, ruder, and more hateful in their speech. I'm often frustrated in public but the rudeness of the masses and their total lack of consideration for others. Common courtesy is becoming increasingly UNcommon and we must be judgemental about that.
Part of the problem we've run into is that any criticism of some behaviors is seen as racist or bigoted speech itself. We allow ourselves to be silenced with their unfounded accusations. This must stop. If a behavior, such as excessive profanity in public, and especially in front of small children, is committed by a black man and we condemn it, we may be called a racist. If this happens, we have to push back and condemn that behavior as well. Assuming racism because of the color of the skin of the person whose BEHAVIOR is being criticized is not acceptable either.
Some of what we can do is to set an example ourselves as well as calling out others. Hold a door open for someone else. Be courteous in traffic. Say please, thank you and excuse me. And, for the love of God, control your children. Be aware of how your behavior impacts others, and the example it sets. Sit in judgement of yourself first, and then hold others accountable for their behaviors as well.
For coverage of Governor Daniels' speech see Peter Robinson's article in Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/obama-republican-party-baby-boomer-opinions-columnists-mitch-daniels.html
Friday, May 15, 2009
I Don't Need A Nanny
The Declaration of Independence says that "history hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provider new guards for their future security." My question is, does becoming my unwanted Nanny count as an abuse and usurpation? Does is count as Despotism?
I've suffered about all I've suffered at this point, and the idea of bailing out other states really chaps my ass. Being middle aged and fully self-sufficient, and at the same time being treated by my government as if I were a drooling infant incapable of running my own life, looks like an abuse and a usurpation to me. I don't need a nanny and the Democratic Nanny party needs to back off, butt out and let me be an adult. They're not even a good nanny. One of the main things a nanny should teach is that there are consequences to your actions. Our nanny government is spending millions and billions of dollars paid by responsible citizens to protect irresponsible citizens from the consequences of their actions.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Well, we didn't prevent that. Too many people thought they DID need a nanny. And our Nanny has gone on a major power trip expanding her power to cover every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a Despot to me. And if we start squalling? What happens then? Well the Nanny party offers us a pacifier in the form of a new entitlement program. Wasting the fruit of our labors yet again. And we buy it. But you know the problem with a pacifier don't you? No matter how hard you pull on it, no milk will come out. So while they offer us sustenance and satisfaction, what they give us is empty air.
So I urge you to spit out the pacifier, kick the nanny to the curb, and stop the abuse and the usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They claim to be taking care of us, but all they're doing is taking our money to take care of themselves. Decide whether or not these evils are still sufferable, and if they are, then ask yourself how much farther you'll let them go before you can suffer them no longer.
I've suffered about all I've suffered at this point, and the idea of bailing out other states really chaps my ass. Being middle aged and fully self-sufficient, and at the same time being treated by my government as if I were a drooling infant incapable of running my own life, looks like an abuse and a usurpation to me. I don't need a nanny and the Democratic Nanny party needs to back off, butt out and let me be an adult. They're not even a good nanny. One of the main things a nanny should teach is that there are consequences to your actions. Our nanny government is spending millions and billions of dollars paid by responsible citizens to protect irresponsible citizens from the consequences of their actions.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Well, we didn't prevent that. Too many people thought they DID need a nanny. And our Nanny has gone on a major power trip expanding her power to cover every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a Despot to me. And if we start squalling? What happens then? Well the Nanny party offers us a pacifier in the form of a new entitlement program. Wasting the fruit of our labors yet again. And we buy it. But you know the problem with a pacifier don't you? No matter how hard you pull on it, no milk will come out. So while they offer us sustenance and satisfaction, what they give us is empty air.
So I urge you to spit out the pacifier, kick the nanny to the curb, and stop the abuse and the usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They claim to be taking care of us, but all they're doing is taking our money to take care of themselves. Decide whether or not these evils are still sufferable, and if they are, then ask yourself how much farther you'll let them go before you can suffer them no longer.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
But Don't You Remember Bush Lied
Nancy Pelosi in her briefing today, in her attempts to explain what she didn't know and why she didn't know it, kept reminding the press that it was Bush that lied. Her comments had common themes, and she repeatedly stated that Bush was misleading them and it was "her job" to change the leadership in congress and the white house which she did. The change in leadership, to her, seemed to be the end of the story. Why question HER when the leadership has now changed and it was all Bush's fault anyway.
So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.
The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.
And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.
Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....
So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.
The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.
And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.
Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Soda Hits the Fizz
Congress is studying a proposal to tax soda pop. What in the world is happening to us? They believe these sugary drinks are bad for us and should be discouraged. Sounds like behavior modification to me. Does anybody remember "Demolition Man"? There's a line from that movie that comes to mind. "Salt has been deemed bad for you, hence it is illegal." Sounded silly at the time didn't it?
What Congress is really saying is that if they're going to have to pay your medical bills then they're going to make it difficult for you to have anything unhealthy. When did taxation become a punishment or behavior modification tool? Aren't our taxes supposed to be used to support our defense and infrastructure? How did this progress to using taxes to control us? Well, they've been doing it for years.
It started with taxes on alcohol and tobacco but people thought this was OK. After all, people really shouldn't drink and smoke. Punishing those people with higher taxes is fine. But now it's creeping farther out. Taxes on soda will be just a start. And are they looking at what will happen to our soda companies? Will we then need bailouts for Coke and Pepsi because they're too big to fail?
This is one of the most glaring violations of our rights as individuals. When we decide that the government should pay for our health care (which means you're actually paying for it) then they think they have the right to control your behavior in the name of "controlling costs". This is a frightening development. What rights do we really have when the government is trying to control what we drink with our pizza? Oh, and pizza is probably the next thing on the list to tax.
What Congress is really saying is that if they're going to have to pay your medical bills then they're going to make it difficult for you to have anything unhealthy. When did taxation become a punishment or behavior modification tool? Aren't our taxes supposed to be used to support our defense and infrastructure? How did this progress to using taxes to control us? Well, they've been doing it for years.
It started with taxes on alcohol and tobacco but people thought this was OK. After all, people really shouldn't drink and smoke. Punishing those people with higher taxes is fine. But now it's creeping farther out. Taxes on soda will be just a start. And are they looking at what will happen to our soda companies? Will we then need bailouts for Coke and Pepsi because they're too big to fail?
This is one of the most glaring violations of our rights as individuals. When we decide that the government should pay for our health care (which means you're actually paying for it) then they think they have the right to control your behavior in the name of "controlling costs". This is a frightening development. What rights do we really have when the government is trying to control what we drink with our pizza? Oh, and pizza is probably the next thing on the list to tax.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Well If The Taliban Says So
The Taliban made an announcement that US Troops had killed civilians and President Obama and Sec of State Hillary Clinton apologized to the Afghanistan President for the tragedy. An investigation, standard procedure in the loss of civilian life, shows that it was the Taliban themselves who killed civilians just so they could accuse the US. Most intelligent Americans would have told the President and Sec of State that this was a a likely possibility, but instead they took the word of the Taliban. What's up with that?
So what they're really saying is that they trust the word and the behavior of the Taliban, an organization known for it's lies and propaganda, over the honor and integrity of our military. But is this really surprising? Going back to the punish the innocent and protect the guilty mentality that I've mentioned before, this is just another example. The President doesn't want to offend the terrorists so he throws the troops under the bus. It is well known that the Taliban uses just these kinds of situations to recruit people and prove that America is really the evil one, but still we took their word. How hard would it have been for the President to say, "An investigation is underway and I am secure that the findings will show that the loss of civilian life was not due to the US air strikes. However, the loss of civilian life, no matter by who, is always a tragedy and you have our deepest sympathies." Not hard at all. But the President simply blamed the US and apologized. Yet another stop on the apology tour.
After giving terrorists that ammunition by all but admitting our culpability, he's going to release photos of interrogation methods. Way to go Prez. Why do I feel like my president has pushed me aside to embrace terrorists instead? Because I he has. Political correctness can be taken too far, and changing the war on terror to an overseas contingency operation, and taking the word of the Taliban over that of our troops, is going way too far.
So what they're really saying is that they trust the word and the behavior of the Taliban, an organization known for it's lies and propaganda, over the honor and integrity of our military. But is this really surprising? Going back to the punish the innocent and protect the guilty mentality that I've mentioned before, this is just another example. The President doesn't want to offend the terrorists so he throws the troops under the bus. It is well known that the Taliban uses just these kinds of situations to recruit people and prove that America is really the evil one, but still we took their word. How hard would it have been for the President to say, "An investigation is underway and I am secure that the findings will show that the loss of civilian life was not due to the US air strikes. However, the loss of civilian life, no matter by who, is always a tragedy and you have our deepest sympathies." Not hard at all. But the President simply blamed the US and apologized. Yet another stop on the apology tour.
After giving terrorists that ammunition by all but admitting our culpability, he's going to release photos of interrogation methods. Way to go Prez. Why do I feel like my president has pushed me aside to embrace terrorists instead? Because I he has. Political correctness can be taken too far, and changing the war on terror to an overseas contingency operation, and taking the word of the Taliban over that of our troops, is going way too far.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Overspending Used To Justify Overspending
President Obama held a press conference today (imagine that) to announce that the growing gap between the revenue and the spending shows just how necessary it is to get health care reform. Siting costs for entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, he stated that the amount of money that the government spends on these programs shows just why his Health Care Reform bill needs to be passed.
Working with Lobbyists to address health care costs, he will of course be able to close that gap. Yeah right. What he's really saying is that he needs to get the existing entitlement programs under control so that he can create new ones. What I find so funny is that on the one hand he is admitting just how much these entitlement programs cost the taxpayer, and on the other hand he's talking about creating so many more. He already knows we can't afford the government health care programs we have, but is using that to justify expanding it.
At no time will he admit that the gap between spending and revenue could mean that he shouldn't push his new programs through yet. Instead, that gap will be used to create yet another crisis that they can take advantage of. The overspending will be used to show that health care is a crisis that must be addressed now, with no time to read the proposal.
Of all of the justifications I've ever heard this has got to be the most bizarre.
Working with Lobbyists to address health care costs, he will of course be able to close that gap. Yeah right. What he's really saying is that he needs to get the existing entitlement programs under control so that he can create new ones. What I find so funny is that on the one hand he is admitting just how much these entitlement programs cost the taxpayer, and on the other hand he's talking about creating so many more. He already knows we can't afford the government health care programs we have, but is using that to justify expanding it.
At no time will he admit that the gap between spending and revenue could mean that he shouldn't push his new programs through yet. Instead, that gap will be used to create yet another crisis that they can take advantage of. The overspending will be used to show that health care is a crisis that must be addressed now, with no time to read the proposal.
Of all of the justifications I've ever heard this has got to be the most bizarre.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wanda Sykes Sums Up The Administration
In the midst of her racially based jokes and tasteless jabs at Rush Limbaugh, at the White House Correspondence Dinner Wanda Sykes actually made a perfect analogy for the administration.
While attempting to poke fun at Dick Cheney for wanting to show the information we received through the enhanced interrogation techniques, Ms Sykes said that was like robbing a bank and saying "But look at the bills I paid." But isn't that exactly what the current administration is doing? Whenever they are questioned or criticized for the amount of money they are spending and the debt they are creating they respond with "but look at the great stuff we're doing." Very similar to justifying paying your bills with stolen money. The only difference is that instead of robbing a bank (they're taking those over instead) they're robbing the American people. And all to say "but look what I did with the money I stole from you."
The problem is that Ms Sykes, and too many others at the dinner, didn't see the reality in her joke. And what is happening is not funny. If the spending spree and the robbing of the American people continue, we may end up following Iceland's lead and be forced to declare the country bankrupt.
While attempting to poke fun at Dick Cheney for wanting to show the information we received through the enhanced interrogation techniques, Ms Sykes said that was like robbing a bank and saying "But look at the bills I paid." But isn't that exactly what the current administration is doing? Whenever they are questioned or criticized for the amount of money they are spending and the debt they are creating they respond with "but look at the great stuff we're doing." Very similar to justifying paying your bills with stolen money. The only difference is that instead of robbing a bank (they're taking those over instead) they're robbing the American people. And all to say "but look what I did with the money I stole from you."
The problem is that Ms Sykes, and too many others at the dinner, didn't see the reality in her joke. And what is happening is not funny. If the spending spree and the robbing of the American people continue, we may end up following Iceland's lead and be forced to declare the country bankrupt.
Obama Compares Himself to God
At the White House Correspondence Dinner President Obama, while cracking jokes, compared himself to God. Unfortunately this is a comparison that, to him, isn't really a joke.
Patting himself on the back for what he accomplished in his first hundred days, he said he would do so much better in the next hundred that he would complete it in 72 days. And on the 73rd day he'd rest. Like God on the 7th day. So is Obama saying he is God? I think he believes that he is all powerful and all seeing. After all, he believes that he is the only one with the answer to the World's problems. Sounds like a God complex to me.
At a correspondence dinner packed with as many Hollywood celebrities as reporters, Obama thanked them all for voting for him, apologizing only to the Fox News table. So now we see why the President stated that we are not a Christian country. This is because he believes we worship him, or at least because he believes we should.
What I found the most entertaining though, was the joke that he would learn to go off the teleprompter. This was entertaining because he was reading the joke off of the teleprompter.
So what's next? Will he condemn so evil "hedge funds" who forced Chrysler into bankruptcy to wander the desert for the next 40 years?
Patting himself on the back for what he accomplished in his first hundred days, he said he would do so much better in the next hundred that he would complete it in 72 days. And on the 73rd day he'd rest. Like God on the 7th day. So is Obama saying he is God? I think he believes that he is all powerful and all seeing. After all, he believes that he is the only one with the answer to the World's problems. Sounds like a God complex to me.
At a correspondence dinner packed with as many Hollywood celebrities as reporters, Obama thanked them all for voting for him, apologizing only to the Fox News table. So now we see why the President stated that we are not a Christian country. This is because he believes we worship him, or at least because he believes we should.
What I found the most entertaining though, was the joke that he would learn to go off the teleprompter. This was entertaining because he was reading the joke off of the teleprompter.
So what's next? Will he condemn so evil "hedge funds" who forced Chrysler into bankruptcy to wander the desert for the next 40 years?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Is Being Wanted What Makes Us Human?
The right to abortion reared it's ugly head the other day and the age old argument that what a woman does with her own body was used. Also the argument that the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. People talk about it like it's an elective surgery to get rid of a tumor. Is that how they see a fetus? As a tumor growing inside the woman that she needs to get rid of?
I've heard it said that a fetus is not person, that it's just a mass of flesh until it is born. But then why, when a woman who wants the child is carrying , does she refers to it as a baby? And if she miscarries we say she lost the "baby". In that case it's not just a mass of flesh but it is a baby. Would you ever dare tell a woman who just miscarried that it was nothing but a mass of flesh anyway? Not if you value your life.
So why is a fetus referred to as a baby in some situations and as not yet a human in others? The only difference is whether or not the fetus, the baby, is wanted. This lends the question of whether or not what really makes us human is being wanted. And isn't that a dangerous place to go.
Can we use that same justification elsewhere? If a woman or a man no longer wants their child and they kill it we call it murder. Why is it different before the child is born? Because it's not yet human? I don't think so. Conception to birth is a stage of human development just like childhood, adolescents and adulthood. It would be very easy to prove me wrong on this. All it would take would be to present me with one person who was never a fetus. Never an embryo. I don't think you can. So people tell themselves that the fetus isn't human in order to justify it's murder. But it's a poor justification.
People say that what a woman does with her own body is her business, and I agree. She can pierce it, tattoo it, nip it, tuck it, wax and pluck it, paint it blue and march it down the street. But there is more than one body involved in an abortion and it's not what the woman is doing to her own that I have a problem with.
In the end, what makes one fetus disposable while another has it's sonogram picture posted on refrigerators? It's whether or not that fetus is wanted. So to a point, we define our humanity by whether or not we're wanted and not our genetic make-up. How terribly sad is that.
I've heard it said that a fetus is not person, that it's just a mass of flesh until it is born. But then why, when a woman who wants the child is carrying , does she refers to it as a baby? And if she miscarries we say she lost the "baby". In that case it's not just a mass of flesh but it is a baby. Would you ever dare tell a woman who just miscarried that it was nothing but a mass of flesh anyway? Not if you value your life.
So why is a fetus referred to as a baby in some situations and as not yet a human in others? The only difference is whether or not the fetus, the baby, is wanted. This lends the question of whether or not what really makes us human is being wanted. And isn't that a dangerous place to go.
Can we use that same justification elsewhere? If a woman or a man no longer wants their child and they kill it we call it murder. Why is it different before the child is born? Because it's not yet human? I don't think so. Conception to birth is a stage of human development just like childhood, adolescents and adulthood. It would be very easy to prove me wrong on this. All it would take would be to present me with one person who was never a fetus. Never an embryo. I don't think you can. So people tell themselves that the fetus isn't human in order to justify it's murder. But it's a poor justification.
People say that what a woman does with her own body is her business, and I agree. She can pierce it, tattoo it, nip it, tuck it, wax and pluck it, paint it blue and march it down the street. But there is more than one body involved in an abortion and it's not what the woman is doing to her own that I have a problem with.
In the end, what makes one fetus disposable while another has it's sonogram picture posted on refrigerators? It's whether or not that fetus is wanted. So to a point, we define our humanity by whether or not we're wanted and not our genetic make-up. How terribly sad is that.
Friday, May 8, 2009
No ACORN Investigation
Today Senator Conyers decided not to launch an investigation into ACORN. Great move senator. Way to cave to pressure. ACORN is facing charges of voter fraud in 14 different states and they have a history of embezlement. But why would we want to investigate them? Instead of that let's give them more money. Yes, that sounds like a brilliant idea.
When Conyers announced that he would not be investigating ACORN what he was really saying was that he could be bought and that ACORN and the other senators on the committee had paid his price. There is no excuse for not investigation this organization.
If ACORN were a publicly traded company instead of a supposedly not for profit group, then they would be all over this in a heartbeat. They'd already have fired the CEO and started congressional hearings and an independent council for review. And the federal government would also own at least 51% of the stock. But instead, it's an organization that gives big campaign contributions and works to get out the vote for them. So does the integrity, or even the legality, of their process really matter? I guess not. We've already heard from strong armed debt holders in the Chrysler mess that Obama is the most "ends justify the means" person ever. Well, this is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, at least as far as congress is concerned.
This display of congressional corruption is shocking in it's total lack of discretion. Not only are they not going to investigate, but they are pushing hard to give them more of our money.
Write your congressmen and demand the investigation into ACORN and to stop any possible funding.
When Conyers announced that he would not be investigating ACORN what he was really saying was that he could be bought and that ACORN and the other senators on the committee had paid his price. There is no excuse for not investigation this organization.
If ACORN were a publicly traded company instead of a supposedly not for profit group, then they would be all over this in a heartbeat. They'd already have fired the CEO and started congressional hearings and an independent council for review. And the federal government would also own at least 51% of the stock. But instead, it's an organization that gives big campaign contributions and works to get out the vote for them. So does the integrity, or even the legality, of their process really matter? I guess not. We've already heard from strong armed debt holders in the Chrysler mess that Obama is the most "ends justify the means" person ever. Well, this is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, at least as far as congress is concerned.
This display of congressional corruption is shocking in it's total lack of discretion. Not only are they not going to investigate, but they are pushing hard to give them more of our money.
Write your congressmen and demand the investigation into ACORN and to stop any possible funding.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Banks Are Off The Treadmill
So the banks have jumped down off the treadmill and the stress test is completed. But oh my, my, my the government doesn't like what it sees. Was there ever any doubt that the government would identify problems?
The funny thing is that on the one hand they're telling us that their stimulus package was great and the downturn is bottoming out, and on the other hand they're telling us that we have to test the banks to see if they can survive if things get worse. So which is it? Are things getting better or worse?
What they're really saying is that they have to show that the banks need even more help so that the government can take even more control. So in the event of a catastrophe the banks would need more money so we better give it now, with all of our strings attached of course. The goal is to turn the banks into marionettes who move only to the government strings to which they're tethered. It's all about control of an industry that the government should not control.
I have an image in my head of the White House staff behind a curtin moving their puppets like Julie Andrews in The Sound Of Music. Oh said the Czar to the lonely banker, lae-de o-de-lae-de 0-de-lay-e-hoo, I'll give your job to Barny Frank o lae-de-o-de-lae-de-o-de-loo.
The funny thing is that on the one hand they're telling us that their stimulus package was great and the downturn is bottoming out, and on the other hand they're telling us that we have to test the banks to see if they can survive if things get worse. So which is it? Are things getting better or worse?
What they're really saying is that they have to show that the banks need even more help so that the government can take even more control. So in the event of a catastrophe the banks would need more money so we better give it now, with all of our strings attached of course. The goal is to turn the banks into marionettes who move only to the government strings to which they're tethered. It's all about control of an industry that the government should not control.
I have an image in my head of the White House staff behind a curtin moving their puppets like Julie Andrews in The Sound Of Music. Oh said the Czar to the lonely banker, lae-de o-de-lae-de 0-de-lay-e-hoo, I'll give your job to Barny Frank o lae-de-o-de-lae-de-o-de-loo.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Nobody Will Abuse This Legislation
A hate crime bill was drafted in Congress yesterday which could potentially give protection to pedophiles. This is not the intent of the bill, but the current wording can be misinterpreted to cover pedophiles. When this potential misinterpretation was brought up, and an amendment to exclude pedophiles was proposed, the drafter became quite angry. She said it was offensive, and I can understand her point, but not her stance.
The potential pedophile protection (say that 3 times fast) would fall under the protection for crimes based on sexual orientation. This is what she found offensive. That both homosexuality and pedophilia are grouped together under sexual orientation. The problem with that is that heterosexuality falls under that same categorical umbrella. She was quite adamant about her offense and waved off the objection by stating that nobody would interpret the bill that way. But who ever would have thought that somebody would argue we have a constitutional right to be naked in public under the 1st amendment? But the ACLU did.
Here's my problem with what happened; a possible ambiguity in the bill was identified and brought up, and instead of changing the wording of the bill to either define sexual orientation or to exclude pedophilia, they left the ambiguous language and just got huffy that anybody would dare find a problem with their wording. So the ambiguous language is still there. A fairly systematic problem with the legislation coming out of congress. When any possibly ambiguity is identified it should be addressed in the wording and the ambiguity eliminated. Our laws should be left open to broad or erroneous interpretations resulting in outcomes the legislation did not intend.
I don't agree with hate crime legislation anyway. I believe that the crimes are already covered under standing legislation. I have a philosophical disagreement with making crimes against certain groups more important than crimes against others. It flies in the face of our "all men are created equal" belief system. Also, I believe it encourages the culture of victimology that we have been descending into for the last 2 decades. But primarily, it encourages us to look first at what makes us different from each other instead of what makes us the same. We are all Americans and in so very many ways we are alike. Over the last few years we have become more and more divided into demographic groups and too many see themselves that way first and as an American second.
We are Americans and we should stand together and see each other as Americans first. Why is it that we can come together with so much tolerance, acceptance and patriotism in a crisis and bicker like ill behaved siblings at other times? And how can we stand united, as one people, one nation, when we pass legislation that separates certain groups from others?
I am an American and I am proud to share my country with other Americans of all races, religions, ethic backgrounds and sexual orientations - excluding pedophiles.
The potential pedophile protection (say that 3 times fast) would fall under the protection for crimes based on sexual orientation. This is what she found offensive. That both homosexuality and pedophilia are grouped together under sexual orientation. The problem with that is that heterosexuality falls under that same categorical umbrella. She was quite adamant about her offense and waved off the objection by stating that nobody would interpret the bill that way. But who ever would have thought that somebody would argue we have a constitutional right to be naked in public under the 1st amendment? But the ACLU did.
Here's my problem with what happened; a possible ambiguity in the bill was identified and brought up, and instead of changing the wording of the bill to either define sexual orientation or to exclude pedophilia, they left the ambiguous language and just got huffy that anybody would dare find a problem with their wording. So the ambiguous language is still there. A fairly systematic problem with the legislation coming out of congress. When any possibly ambiguity is identified it should be addressed in the wording and the ambiguity eliminated. Our laws should be left open to broad or erroneous interpretations resulting in outcomes the legislation did not intend.
I don't agree with hate crime legislation anyway. I believe that the crimes are already covered under standing legislation. I have a philosophical disagreement with making crimes against certain groups more important than crimes against others. It flies in the face of our "all men are created equal" belief system. Also, I believe it encourages the culture of victimology that we have been descending into for the last 2 decades. But primarily, it encourages us to look first at what makes us different from each other instead of what makes us the same. We are all Americans and in so very many ways we are alike. Over the last few years we have become more and more divided into demographic groups and too many see themselves that way first and as an American second.
We are Americans and we should stand together and see each other as Americans first. Why is it that we can come together with so much tolerance, acceptance and patriotism in a crisis and bicker like ill behaved siblings at other times? And how can we stand united, as one people, one nation, when we pass legislation that separates certain groups from others?
I am an American and I am proud to share my country with other Americans of all races, religions, ethic backgrounds and sexual orientations - excluding pedophiles.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Ecouraging Companies to Stay By Raising Corporate Taxes
On Monday President Obama said that he was going to crack down on companies and individuals who abuse the overseas tax shelters. Good for him. The abuses he is referring to are already illegal but I'm all for enforcing the law. I'm a little leery about paying for the 800 new auditors in the IRS this is going to require, but enforcing the law is still a good thing.
However, and this is a really big however, in addition to enforcing those laws he's also going to increase corporate taxes. He talked about taxing corporations on the money they make overseas and aren't currently paying taxes on. He made this sound like it was criminal and that they were avoiding paying taxes, but the truth is that they are paying taxes in the other country and paying the taxes here too would be double taxing. And we are the ONLY country who would be doing that. So what he was really saying was that he intends to raise corporate taxes. Obama states that this would encourage companies to keep jobs here, but what about retail stores that have to have employees in stores overseas in order to sell their products? What about companies that need to manufacture in a country in order to be competitive there due to high tariffs and import charges?
If you think this sounds perfectly reasonable, that if they're an American company then the money they make globally should be taxed here, let's put it in perspective of individuals instead of companies. Sales tax is based on where you buy the product not where you live, and sales tax is deferred if the product is shipped elsewhere. But what if this wasn't the case? And what if in addition to paying the sales tax for the area where you bought it or where it was manufactured, you also had to pay the sales tax for where you live? This is the basic principle of Obama's corporate tax plan.
I recently went on vacation to Florida and did quite a bit of shopping while I was there. I paid only the FL sales tax and not the MO sales tax. If we applied Obama's corporate tax plan to me, then I would have paid both sales taxes on everything I purchased there. So let's say that you buy something on-line from an area that has an 8% sales tax and the area you live in has a 6.5% sales tax. Under Obama's proposed plan it would be the equivalent of corporations paying 14.5% tax instead of 8%. And according to Obama, paying double taxes on the same profits is only paying their fair share.
We already have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. And when the state taxes are added on to the federal, some of our states have the highest corporates taxes in the world. For example, our federal tax rate is 25% and Ireland's tax rate is 13%. Which would you rather pay? This, and labor costs, are the reasons that our corporations are moving overseas. But instead of decreasing our tax rate in order to be more competitive, the current administration is raising it.
Instead of encouraging companies to stay by offering a competitive tax rate, they punish corporations for wanting to sell their products in other countries through double taxation. Once again, where is Obama's touted fairness?
However, and this is a really big however, in addition to enforcing those laws he's also going to increase corporate taxes. He talked about taxing corporations on the money they make overseas and aren't currently paying taxes on. He made this sound like it was criminal and that they were avoiding paying taxes, but the truth is that they are paying taxes in the other country and paying the taxes here too would be double taxing. And we are the ONLY country who would be doing that. So what he was really saying was that he intends to raise corporate taxes. Obama states that this would encourage companies to keep jobs here, but what about retail stores that have to have employees in stores overseas in order to sell their products? What about companies that need to manufacture in a country in order to be competitive there due to high tariffs and import charges?
If you think this sounds perfectly reasonable, that if they're an American company then the money they make globally should be taxed here, let's put it in perspective of individuals instead of companies. Sales tax is based on where you buy the product not where you live, and sales tax is deferred if the product is shipped elsewhere. But what if this wasn't the case? And what if in addition to paying the sales tax for the area where you bought it or where it was manufactured, you also had to pay the sales tax for where you live? This is the basic principle of Obama's corporate tax plan.
I recently went on vacation to Florida and did quite a bit of shopping while I was there. I paid only the FL sales tax and not the MO sales tax. If we applied Obama's corporate tax plan to me, then I would have paid both sales taxes on everything I purchased there. So let's say that you buy something on-line from an area that has an 8% sales tax and the area you live in has a 6.5% sales tax. Under Obama's proposed plan it would be the equivalent of corporations paying 14.5% tax instead of 8%. And according to Obama, paying double taxes on the same profits is only paying their fair share.
We already have the second highest corporate tax rates in the world. And when the state taxes are added on to the federal, some of our states have the highest corporates taxes in the world. For example, our federal tax rate is 25% and Ireland's tax rate is 13%. Which would you rather pay? This, and labor costs, are the reasons that our corporations are moving overseas. But instead of decreasing our tax rate in order to be more competitive, the current administration is raising it.
Instead of encouraging companies to stay by offering a competitive tax rate, they punish corporations for wanting to sell their products in other countries through double taxation. Once again, where is Obama's touted fairness?
Monday, May 4, 2009
How Dare You Expect To Be Paid Back!
The other day, President Obama spoke out against those debt holders who would not accept pennies on the dollar for the Chrysler debt they held. He spoke very harshly about their insistance that they could get a better deal in bankruptcy court and held them (and of course not the company itself) responsible for Chrysler's bankruptcy.
Well first, these debt holders were supposed to be first in line to get repaid and they were getting the worst deal. Where's his touted fairness in that? Second, they are responsible for 401Ks (possibly yours) and they were doing the right thing by their customers. But when Obama said he didn't stand with them what he was really saying was that he was incensed that they would expect to be paid for the debt they bought.
This is really interesting considering that at the same time Obama is spending money we don't have and relying on other countries to buy our debt in order to do that. So on the one hand he's asking for countries to buy our debt and on the other hand admonishing debt holders for expecting to be paid. What message do you think this sent to China? I believe what China heard was "Don't ever expect to get paid back for this debt you're buying." Paradoxically, China is no longer all that interested in buying our debt. So now we've spent trillions of dollars we don't have and our credit has dried up. This could get really interesting.
But this is just another example of President Obama having one set of standards for himself and another for everybody else.
Educate yourself and speak out.
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Well first, these debt holders were supposed to be first in line to get repaid and they were getting the worst deal. Where's his touted fairness in that? Second, they are responsible for 401Ks (possibly yours) and they were doing the right thing by their customers. But when Obama said he didn't stand with them what he was really saying was that he was incensed that they would expect to be paid for the debt they bought.
This is really interesting considering that at the same time Obama is spending money we don't have and relying on other countries to buy our debt in order to do that. So on the one hand he's asking for countries to buy our debt and on the other hand admonishing debt holders for expecting to be paid. What message do you think this sent to China? I believe what China heard was "Don't ever expect to get paid back for this debt you're buying." Paradoxically, China is no longer all that interested in buying our debt. So now we've spent trillions of dollars we don't have and our credit has dried up. This could get really interesting.
But this is just another example of President Obama having one set of standards for himself and another for everybody else.
Educate yourself and speak out.
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
Friday, May 1, 2009
Justice Was Blind But Now She Sees
Justice is blind. This is the cornerstone of the American Judicial system. The non-negotiable belief that the law should be applied the same way to all people. That no matter who you are, the law applies and it applies the same way regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. This is who we are as a nation. This is about to change.
President Obama announced that he will be seeking a new Supreme Court Justice who will bring "empathy" to the bench. Somebody who can understand what it means to be black, to be poor or to be gay in America. What he's really saying is that he is looking for somebody who will apply the law differently based on an individuals personal situation in life. Justice will no longer be blind. The law will no longer apply the same way to all. Special considerations will be given to different demographics. Lady Justice's blindfold will be removed.
He has also stated that he is looking for a Justice who will take a "broader view" of interpreting the Constitution. This means that he is looking for somebody who sees our Constitution as a suggestion. Somebody who will, in effect, legislate from the bench. Somebody who will take us farther away from the core of who we are.
What will happen to the truth that is held to be self-evident when our Supreme Court makes their decisions based on the idea that all men are NOT created equal? This is one Supreme Court Justice, but we have at least 2 more who could retire during Obama's first term. What will our Justice system look like with one third of our bench deciding cases based on the antithesis of what this country was built on? I shudder to think.
President Obama announced that he will be seeking a new Supreme Court Justice who will bring "empathy" to the bench. Somebody who can understand what it means to be black, to be poor or to be gay in America. What he's really saying is that he is looking for somebody who will apply the law differently based on an individuals personal situation in life. Justice will no longer be blind. The law will no longer apply the same way to all. Special considerations will be given to different demographics. Lady Justice's blindfold will be removed.
He has also stated that he is looking for a Justice who will take a "broader view" of interpreting the Constitution. This means that he is looking for somebody who sees our Constitution as a suggestion. Somebody who will, in effect, legislate from the bench. Somebody who will take us farther away from the core of who we are.
What will happen to the truth that is held to be self-evident when our Supreme Court makes their decisions based on the idea that all men are NOT created equal? This is one Supreme Court Justice, but we have at least 2 more who could retire during Obama's first term. What will our Justice system look like with one third of our bench deciding cases based on the antithesis of what this country was built on? I shudder to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
