Wednesday, November 11, 2009

It's For the Children

Bill Clinton is calling the Tea Party Protesters "Tea Baggers" a juvenile slur, that is sure to titillate his many followers. It diminishes the protesters in their minds, not realizing that it actually diminishes him and the followers. For those Democrats who want to use the slur, please feel free, in fact I encourage you to continue to slander the citizens of this country who for the first time feel compelled to protest. I know that they are not as accomplished as the Left is at protests, but that doesn't mean that they aren't as passionate.
If the Democrats are right, and the Tea Partiers are nothing but a fringe driven by Fox News, Rush, then they will not have an effect on the future. On the other hand, if these people are ordinary citizens who recognize that the usurpation of power and wealth for the betterment of the Democrat Party (and that is what this about, not the country) the Democrats are not going to be in power much longer.
In some ways, it is easy to feel sorry for the Democrats, because they haven't a clue. They only talk to those that they agree with, and yell and deride anyone who doesn't agree with them. They claim to be for "the people" but they are as far removed from them as Marie Antoinette was from her adopted countrymen.
But if there are any intelligent Democrats out there who are actually interested, here is an example of some of the people who are Tea Party protesters. When you read the article, you will notice a common theme: We are doing this for our children and grandchildren. That is because we (the Lamest Generation) are going to be the beneficiaries of the government largesse about to be doled out, but it comes at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
A young guy told me one day, that my generation had basically bankrupted the country, and that his generation was going to pay for it. And I agreed with him. Is it too much, not to add still more debt to my children and grandchildren for nothing more than a partisan program that is not designed to solve the uninsured problem, but is instead an attempt to cement a Democrat majority for the future?
The funny thing: It will do neither.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Freedom of Speech?

Mark Toharski can always be counted on for hours of pseudo-intellectual babble, and is usually harmless, since even the Left seems to see him for a fool. But I think that he is onto something in his Orwellian world where "free markets" aren't free, but regulated ones are. At least he is as consistent as when he says that he is in favor of capitalism, so long as the government is controlling the markets.
The reason that I think that he is onto something, is that the Obama administration seems to be in agreement with him. Nothing like admiring that fine upstanding democrat Hugo Chavez when we are talking about political speech in this country.
Essentially, Mark and others' argument is that the public airways need to be controlled, not only for the prevention of interference of signals, but the interference of ideas. For that reason, so many are in favor of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to restrict Talk Radio, and its lack of support for the current Leftist administration. Those darned Right Wingers keep raising unpleasant questions and facts that are getting in the way of implementing the utopia for the workers that they seek. Of course, in this utopia, they would be the masters, but that would be okay, because they would be benevolent.
So, what exactly are we talking about here? What is being impacted by the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? How about the Constitution?
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The speech element of the Constitution has been litigated from the beginning of the Republic. While not all speech is protected, political speech is. And guess what Right Wing Talk Radio is all about? How about political speech?
The Left's willingness to sacrifice the Constitution for the sake of their agenda is frightening. Do they not realize that by controlling the airwaves, they open the door to the Right doing the same thing to them with the over the air broadcast news? I know that they claim it is already being done through the conservative owners who dictate what the reporters say, which is just plain delusional. As Obama himself said, "Most of you voted for me, and all of you supported me, apologies to the Fox table." It is not the ownership that drives their agenda, it is the agenda of the so called "journalists" who conflate punditry with news reporting.
The last argument that they use, is that the airwaves are public property, therefore the government has the right to regulate them. It is true that the government has the right to regulate who uses frequencies, and how they are used. But that is not the same as regulating what is being said. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Thank God, that the Left has hit their high water mark, and will soon be on the way out. The threats they pose to the Constitution are too dire to ignore.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Fool Me Once . . .

Oh, hell, they'll probably fool me again. But the Republicans have seemingly stumbled upon the magic formula of fiscal sanity, and limited government as the touchstones of their 2010 campaign. I have always said that I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, even if they don't.
For those social conservatives, I would say to not fear the change. Limited government is less likely to force government mandated abortions or gay marriage, because that is not the proper role of government. A Win-Win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Republicans always said that government doesn't work, and when elected proved it. The Democrats of today seem to believe that the government can solve all problems, and they promptly show that they are horribly wrong. Maybe we should stick with the ones who were right.
On the other hand, if the Republicans decide to revert back to the previous eight years, there will be a quick turnaround again. You get one more chance Republicans. Don't blow it.


Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Democrat's Civil War Begins!

Much has been made of the disarray of the Republican Party (the untimely reports of its demise being greatly exaggerated) but while not literally true, does show some serious problems: Lack of willingness to self identify as Republicans; The punjabs who would pick Scozzafava to represent their party in the NY-23 race, who withdrew and threw her support to the Democrat; and the last remnants of a PR campaign to demonize G. W. Bush. But if you think that they have it bad, consider the Democrats: Jay Stevens is disappointed in his Party's slight rightward tug, and is offering a solution:
In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.
One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....
Earlier, Yellowstone Kelly put voice (or is it pixels?) to the disappointment felt by the failure of the Democrats to deliver on their many promises. I hope the Kelly doesn't think that it will get better, because we are talking about politicians for crying out loud.
Will we soon be seeing articles about how the Democratic Party is going to have to become more conservative in order to stay viable? Don't hold your breath. But by default, it does seem as if the Grand Old Party is rising from the dead. Just in time for Halloween apparently.

As Maine Goes . . .

So goes the Nation is an old rubric that has a certain element of truth. I suppose that is because Maine is the first spot in America to see the sunrise of the new day (never mind that the westernmost islands of the Aleutian chain are technically across the 180 meridian). Another example is when the voters of Maine rejected same sex marriage at the ballot box yesterday. This means that everywhere the vote has been put to the public, the public has rejected it. The only places where same sex marriage is allowed were put into effect by either judicial, or legislative fiat.
I don't really understand the desire for gay marriage, mostly because it leads to gay divorce. The other thing is, that the institution of marriage (and we should all be institutionalized) holds a meaning beyond the normal understanding of the word. But to say that it provides for a stable relationship between a husband and wife for the rearing of children, would mean that I shouldn't be married, since I had that whole fertility problem solved before I married my wife. And what about the fertile octogenarian, which is a legal fiction to screw with law student's minds for no purpose other than the amusement of the law professors.
On the other side, the heavy handed approach that the proponents of gay marriage make, turns people off who might otherwise be agreeable to their cause. Sexual orientation is really nobody's business, and should not be flaunted for that very reason, whether straight or not. Throw in the lawsuits that seek to force churches to condone gay marriage, and people become very uncomfortable with the notion and its adherents.
If the gay community is going to accomplish their goals, they will need to change their tactics. This issue is never going to follow the pathway of the civil rights movement of the '60s. Then, the majority of the population supported equality, but the legislators, (especially Southern Democrats) rejected it. A sort of reverse of the present situation. But this is not to say that they don't have a certain segment of the general population who do support their cause. Mostly, it is made up of straight friends and family who realize the disparity of treatment given to their loved ones because of their sexual orientation. I myself, have a distant cousin who is living in San Francisco with his husband, and a step-grandson, who the women in my family all agree is probably gay. Me, I can't tell, so I don't bother. But I am worried about my step-grandson, because he is just a great kid. Kind, happy, intelligent, and just fun to be with. I wouldn't want him to suffer from what I saw happen to people who were "different" when I was growing up. He has done nothing to choose his orientation, it was thrust upon him.
No, the future of gay civil rights will have to come from us straights (or "breeders" in the vernacular) who love and care for our friends and relatives. Keep the flamboyance out of the picture, and there will be greater success. If on the other hand, it becomes an "in your face, you must accept me" thing, it will continue to fail at the hands of the voters.
The choice is clear: Feel good about moral vindication that accomplishes nothing, or agree to let others lead the way and get what you want.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Why I No Longer Fear Obama Care (as much)

My wife (The Good Democrat) is disappointed in me that I am not that happy with the coming Health Care "Reform." Part of it is that it was originally supposed to insure the 47 then 30 million people who are without health insurance. Sure, the numbers were problematic, but there was at least 10 million people who desired health insurance but were unable to obtain it. Somehow, we have turned the problem around, and it has become greedy insurance companies that make 2% profit, and greedy doctors who are pulling tonsils or amputating feet just so that they can pay for their country club dues. The net result is that we will still have around 17 million people without health insurance, and most of us will lose ours as employers figure out that it is cheaper to pay an 8% payroll tax than to maintain employer based health insurance. Using the government to implement the new Democrat mantra of choice and competition, (which will result in neither) made me fearful that eventually we are going to have the equivalent of medical sick call for the military, but without the benefit of an abnormally healthy population that will be calling for services.
When I mentioned to my wife, that I had less trust that the government could perform these functions well, she accused me of having "no faith" that Obama would solve the problem. And she is right. I pointed out to her the government's failure to provide the H1N1 flu vaccinations, and that her experience working for a lawyer in getting workers social security disability claims. She always is complaining about the arbitrary and ridiculous rules that the government puts in the way of obtaining what is legally theirs. My wife just dismisses my complaints because this time, it will be different.
Definition of insanity anyone?
But the more I thought about it, maybe it won't be such a bad thing if Obamacare is passed. Think about it, We will have employers dumping employees onto the public option as soon as they can. More people will be showing up starting on the day of passage demanding their "free" healthcare, only to be told that it won't be available until 2013. Then, once 2013 hits, people will find that there are a whole bunch of doctors who will refuse to see them under the public option, because the reimbursement rates will be too low to make practicing medicine anything but a losing proposition. Sure there will be those doctors who can't make a living because they are terrible, and they will gladly accept the government checks, and with some careful padding, they will probably make a fairly decent living.
But honest and ethical doctors are going to drop out of the system.
So, you are asking, how is this a good thing? Easy. Assume for a minute that the conservatives take control of both houses of Congress by 2012, never mind the Presidency. If they do, the first legislation that they should pass would be to remove state by state restrictions on the purchase of health care. Second, they should also institute a law that says punitive damages go into the state coffers, not to the individual or his/her lawyer. Punitives are not necessarily bad, since they make it inefficient to do wrong. But it is in society's interest that the money go to the state rather than just the innocent wronged. Since the lawyer will no longer have a one third to one half interest in the amount of punitives, there will be less of them requested, and thus lower malpractice rates. By removing the restrictions on sales across state lines, I will be able to buy whatever policies fit my needs, and not those that are determined by some agency that knows nothing about me.
By enacting these changes, you will now be creating two classes of medical coverage: One that is substandard and free but riddled with ignorant and useless bureaucrats and rules and run by the government; and the other which would be a free enterprise driven system without the non-payers and the uninsurable, who will now be on the government dole.
While it seems selfish, rational self interest certainly would recognize that it is in no one's interest to participate in a government run system that is doomed to the level of quality of the IRS when they can pick another plan that suits their needs.
I realize that this is the "So long, Suckas" philosophy, but since so few people seem to be willing to look at the long term, it's every person for themselves.
So Long, . . . Oops.