Dear Media,
You dont know me very well, but I have seen you around over the years, and have become pretty aware of who you are and what you are capable of. I remember, somewhat vaguely, how you were once very powerful and influencial in all the happenings of my childhood era, but that was before.
I remember when people would repeat things that were spoken by your anchor men about the important topics of the day. I remember when your writers still had the integrity to report news as if it was...well...news. But again, that was before.
"Before what?" you may ask. Before me.Before you became so impressed with your own influence that you forgot that your job was to report the news, rather that dictate what the news should be.
I would like to take a moment to tell you a little about myself, and the reason you should care who I am.
I am the reason you are dying. I refuse to blindly accept one sided stories that only recognise one side of the political spectrum.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that when thousands of people march on the capital of Denver, or hundreds of thousands march on Washington DC, it is a story worth covering.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that media can and should remain neutral, but if you are going to take sides it should be on the side of the American people, rather than the side of those who come here illegaly and steal jobs and services that could otherwise go to my..no, YOUR countrymen.
I am the reason you are dying. I believe that you have become a bully and your size and age likens you to the schoolyard kid that got held back a couple times and wants to take out his anger on the nearest member of the chess club.
I am the reason you are dying. I am the generation you once deemed "X" and I dont need you.
This page will be a running record of what goes on in my head. Most of it will be gibberish with no value whatsoever, and the rest will be garbage with no value whatsoever.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
As of the last several months, I have been on a reading tear that I think may be unmatched in my life previously. In an effort to make up for my educational shortcomings, I have been making an effort to read as many of the greatest books in history as I can get my hands on. Now the books I have chosen have been referred to me through various sources including word of mouth, press articles and by simply holding the status of "classic".
It is a very interesting thing to note how ones thought processes begin to change and the paradigms shift as the mind expands to accomidate new ideas. It is also quite interesting to note how some of the ideas that once changed the world due to their insight or originality, are now common place thoughts and it is pretty hard to see them as anything other than basics.
It is a very interesting thing to note how ones thought processes begin to change and the paradigms shift as the mind expands to accomidate new ideas. It is also quite interesting to note how some of the ideas that once changed the world due to their insight or originality, are now common place thoughts and it is pretty hard to see them as anything other than basics.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Why didnt I preach for a third party when Bush was president?
Lately, I have been very vocal about the political climate in this country. During a recent conversation, I was asked why I never touted a third party back when Bush was President. As a reply, I would like to re-post a blog I wrote in April of 2007.
Third party
Flip to just about any of the major news networks and chances are, on any given day, you will see a member of either major political party being exposed for some disgraceful activity. From the virtual vacuum of new ideas and strong leadership in the Democratic party, to the unbelievable levels of arrogance and corruption of the Republicans, we can clearly see a problem with the current two-party system.
Talk to just about anyone on the street, at school, or at work, and chances are, you will find them to be of relatively moderate opinions on many of the major political issues of the day. Why then, do we see only staunch ideologues take positions of authority in either party? For instance, John Kerry is often considered to be the second-most liberal Senator (second only to his Massachusetts colleague Robert Kennedy) in the country, yet he is considered to be one of the dominant members of his party.
Another very big, and little discussed issue is cronyism, the appointing of friends, family and big donators to key positions. An example of this would be the recent debacle around the presidential appointment of Robert Brown to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Mr. Brown, or “Brownie,” as president Bush so fondly referred to him, has no real credentials to land him in this prestigious position. As a matter of fact, his only “real” job was as president of a horse association, a position from which he was fired. Prior to this, Mr. brown was a non-practicing lawyer whose only qualifications for the FEMA position were connections. It can be reasonably assumed that people died during the complete mishandling of the hurricane Katrina emergency due to this man’s incompetence and the presidents embarrassing decision to hire him.
Many people will say the existence and general failure of the Green and Libertarian parties are proof that alternatives do exist, and they are simply not of any real value. The major flaw of this idea is simple. Both of these parties are even more extreme Left and Right, respectively, of their mainstream counterparts. The Green parties affiliation with radical environmentalism and the Libertarians isolationist concepts tend to be too much for the average citizen. How, then, can we actually consider these two groups to be realistic alternatives?
Perhaps changing the major parties from the inside could be an option, but at what point do we decide to just tear up the page and head back to the drawing board? As the young up and coming members of either party begin making a name for themselves and rising to the upper echelons of their caucuses, party rhetoric and propaganda become the only tools available for further advancement. To speak of change or to go against the senior members by trying to “fight the tide” would only be political suicide. And those members with enough seniority and clout to feel confident in their ability to speak their minds have already become vested in the current stance of their political allies.
Many subjects such as: marijuana legalization, gay marriage, oil drilling in sensitive areas, affirmative action, and taxation are issues where a seemingly ever-increasing portion of our country are crossing party lines in both directions. As our leadership continues to lean farther and farther apart, the chasm of moderation between them grows exponentially larger. Where, then, is the representation for the average citizen? Are we to hope and pray that these men and women with such fringe positions and ideas are going to set aside their personal beliefs and work to achieve some compromise? Or do we simply accept that the career politicians who occupy our representative seats have become so far removed from the common citizen that we can no longer trust them to use common sense? In order for our government to be a body by the people and for the people, it needs, once again, to be of the people.
There is a saying, which states; if the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The time for the people to lead is now. By forming a third party and taking the power out of the hands of those who have abused it for so long, we will once again hold the reigns and control the direction in which our country moves. A party, which, instead of taking the most extreme stance on every position, tries to find ways to compromise and actually achieve progress. A party that recognizes cooperation as a key to social and fiscal progress. And most importantly, a party which can actually claim to be made up of the working class which the other guys so laughably claim to represent.
Third party
Flip to just about any of the major news networks and chances are, on any given day, you will see a member of either major political party being exposed for some disgraceful activity. From the virtual vacuum of new ideas and strong leadership in the Democratic party, to the unbelievable levels of arrogance and corruption of the Republicans, we can clearly see a problem with the current two-party system.
Talk to just about anyone on the street, at school, or at work, and chances are, you will find them to be of relatively moderate opinions on many of the major political issues of the day. Why then, do we see only staunch ideologues take positions of authority in either party? For instance, John Kerry is often considered to be the second-most liberal Senator (second only to his Massachusetts colleague Robert Kennedy) in the country, yet he is considered to be one of the dominant members of his party.
Another very big, and little discussed issue is cronyism, the appointing of friends, family and big donators to key positions. An example of this would be the recent debacle around the presidential appointment of Robert Brown to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Mr. Brown, or “Brownie,” as president Bush so fondly referred to him, has no real credentials to land him in this prestigious position. As a matter of fact, his only “real” job was as president of a horse association, a position from which he was fired. Prior to this, Mr. brown was a non-practicing lawyer whose only qualifications for the FEMA position were connections. It can be reasonably assumed that people died during the complete mishandling of the hurricane Katrina emergency due to this man’s incompetence and the presidents embarrassing decision to hire him.
Many people will say the existence and general failure of the Green and Libertarian parties are proof that alternatives do exist, and they are simply not of any real value. The major flaw of this idea is simple. Both of these parties are even more extreme Left and Right, respectively, of their mainstream counterparts. The Green parties affiliation with radical environmentalism and the Libertarians isolationist concepts tend to be too much for the average citizen. How, then, can we actually consider these two groups to be realistic alternatives?
Perhaps changing the major parties from the inside could be an option, but at what point do we decide to just tear up the page and head back to the drawing board? As the young up and coming members of either party begin making a name for themselves and rising to the upper echelons of their caucuses, party rhetoric and propaganda become the only tools available for further advancement. To speak of change or to go against the senior members by trying to “fight the tide” would only be political suicide. And those members with enough seniority and clout to feel confident in their ability to speak their minds have already become vested in the current stance of their political allies.
Many subjects such as: marijuana legalization, gay marriage, oil drilling in sensitive areas, affirmative action, and taxation are issues where a seemingly ever-increasing portion of our country are crossing party lines in both directions. As our leadership continues to lean farther and farther apart, the chasm of moderation between them grows exponentially larger. Where, then, is the representation for the average citizen? Are we to hope and pray that these men and women with such fringe positions and ideas are going to set aside their personal beliefs and work to achieve some compromise? Or do we simply accept that the career politicians who occupy our representative seats have become so far removed from the common citizen that we can no longer trust them to use common sense? In order for our government to be a body by the people and for the people, it needs, once again, to be of the people.
There is a saying, which states; if the people will lead, the leaders will follow. The time for the people to lead is now. By forming a third party and taking the power out of the hands of those who have abused it for so long, we will once again hold the reigns and control the direction in which our country moves. A party, which, instead of taking the most extreme stance on every position, tries to find ways to compromise and actually achieve progress. A party that recognizes cooperation as a key to social and fiscal progress. And most importantly, a party which can actually claim to be made up of the working class which the other guys so laughably claim to represent.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
some conservative approaches to health care
After having many conversations about health care in the recent past, I seem to continually run into the same, baseless argument over and over again in defence of the socialised systems being proposed today. Generally the argument sounds like this, "I know the current proposals have some flaws, but at least the Democrats are trying. What have the Republicans done other than 'just say no'?"
Now the first issue I take with this question in simple. While buying a new car is indeed one way to fix a flat tire, it is not really the most economical or intelligent way of operating, and that is what the current plans (including what I have seen of the Baucus bill) are proposing. The fact of the matter is that we as Americans enjoy the worlds longest survival rates for most of the common types of cancer among many other terminal illnesses, and the ideas being debated today would put that at risk so that less than 10% of our population can have an option other than the emergency room!
Next off, lets talk about why we don't hear any ideas coming from the conservative camp. We currently have large Democrat majorities in both the house and senate. Period. The majority position has the ability to control the dialogue in congress, in terms of which bills get brought forward for discussion and, ultimately, the vote.
Lastly, I would like to touch on a couple of the ideas I have heard, so that any of you who are truly interested in free market solution can see that some interesting possibilities exist.
1-REMOVE LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS INTER-STATE COMPETITION.
The first idea that out there is also my favorite. During a recent speech before a joint session of congress, President Obama spoke of how wrong it was for one or two insurance companies to be able to monopolize an entire state. This practice stifles competition, and allows the companies to raise rates with absolute certainty that no other company will come in and take away their business. Mr Obama was right. The issue here, is what our Dear Leader did not say. He did not say that it is Government regulation that outlaws competition between insurance companies from different states. Let me make that more clear. THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS COMPETITION IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Removal of this legislation would be relatively inexpensive, require no intrusion on the lives of the citizens, and foster the spirit of competition that has the folks in the auto insurance industry practically fighting each other for your business.
2-TORT REFORM
In every industry, liability insurance is a big expense that is considered part of the cost of doing business. This expense is added into things like rent, utilities and salaries to make up what is known as overhead. This overhead is then divided up by the hours of anticipated work for a given period of time, and the result is an amount, sometimes called a margin, that makes up a portion of the bill which is presented to the customer.
Do to the general litigiousness of our society, these insurance costs are disproportionate in the medical Field. Allowing the government to institute some protections for the medical industry against frivolous lawsuits would help to lower insurance premiums, and therefore, the bills that eventually end up in the hands of the consumer.
3-GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE SAME TAX BENEFITS FOR PURCHASING INSURANCE AS BUSINESSES GET
To date, I have still not heard a single reasonable answer to my question of why we as individuals cannot purchase our own insurance, and utilize the same tax write-offs as businesses do. While this option would not apply to everyone, it would ABSOLUTELY benefit the young and healthy who are generally in need of little more than catastrophic coverage. By covering just one individual or even a family, the insurance company has the ability to gauge the risk of that customer and adjust it's prices accordingly, without needing to consider the overweight or sickly that would otherwise be part of any larger group plan.
Now the first issue I take with this question in simple. While buying a new car is indeed one way to fix a flat tire, it is not really the most economical or intelligent way of operating, and that is what the current plans (including what I have seen of the Baucus bill) are proposing. The fact of the matter is that we as Americans enjoy the worlds longest survival rates for most of the common types of cancer among many other terminal illnesses, and the ideas being debated today would put that at risk so that less than 10% of our population can have an option other than the emergency room!
Next off, lets talk about why we don't hear any ideas coming from the conservative camp. We currently have large Democrat majorities in both the house and senate. Period. The majority position has the ability to control the dialogue in congress, in terms of which bills get brought forward for discussion and, ultimately, the vote.
Lastly, I would like to touch on a couple of the ideas I have heard, so that any of you who are truly interested in free market solution can see that some interesting possibilities exist.
1-REMOVE LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS INTER-STATE COMPETITION.
The first idea that out there is also my favorite. During a recent speech before a joint session of congress, President Obama spoke of how wrong it was for one or two insurance companies to be able to monopolize an entire state. This practice stifles competition, and allows the companies to raise rates with absolute certainty that no other company will come in and take away their business. Mr Obama was right. The issue here, is what our Dear Leader did not say. He did not say that it is Government regulation that outlaws competition between insurance companies from different states. Let me make that more clear. THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS COMPETITION IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Removal of this legislation would be relatively inexpensive, require no intrusion on the lives of the citizens, and foster the spirit of competition that has the folks in the auto insurance industry practically fighting each other for your business.
2-TORT REFORM
In every industry, liability insurance is a big expense that is considered part of the cost of doing business. This expense is added into things like rent, utilities and salaries to make up what is known as overhead. This overhead is then divided up by the hours of anticipated work for a given period of time, and the result is an amount, sometimes called a margin, that makes up a portion of the bill which is presented to the customer.
Do to the general litigiousness of our society, these insurance costs are disproportionate in the medical Field. Allowing the government to institute some protections for the medical industry against frivolous lawsuits would help to lower insurance premiums, and therefore, the bills that eventually end up in the hands of the consumer.
3-GIVE INDIVIDUALS THE SAME TAX BENEFITS FOR PURCHASING INSURANCE AS BUSINESSES GET
To date, I have still not heard a single reasonable answer to my question of why we as individuals cannot purchase our own insurance, and utilize the same tax write-offs as businesses do. While this option would not apply to everyone, it would ABSOLUTELY benefit the young and healthy who are generally in need of little more than catastrophic coverage. By covering just one individual or even a family, the insurance company has the ability to gauge the risk of that customer and adjust it's prices accordingly, without needing to consider the overweight or sickly that would otherwise be part of any larger group plan.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Some simple gun rules
OK, so I'm no gun expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel the need to post a few simple, unoriginal rules for all of you first time gun buyers to keep in mind as you are looking for a new firearm. These rules are not of my creation, and they are really simplistic. They will also keep you from being beaten to a pulp by a fellow gun lover.
1- Do not cover anything with the barrel of a gun that you are not willing to destroy. That includes your fellow customers, the sales clerk and if that thing even comes close to my child's direction, you and I are gonna have a MAJOR problem. Comprende, sport?
2- ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded. While this is not technically true, you had better get used to the mindset. By treating the weapon as if it's loaded, we can avoid allot of the problems with rule number 1 while in the store, and you wont have to have your head bashed in with the butt of the aforementioned firearm.
3- Now this one is important, so pay attention, numb nuts. Keep your finger off the trigger until you have acquired your target and are ready to fire. I don't care if it just came off the shelf of the store, and I don't care if you know it is unloaded. Most accidents happen because the idiot who pulled the trigger thought the gun was unloaded. You want to dry fire the gun? No problemo, just do it in a safe and unpopulated direction, and no one has to pistol whip you for your stupidty, ok fucktard?
Now, I would like to apologise to every responsible, knowlegeable gun owner for the fact that I simply walked away from this idiot instead of confronting the situation and maybe educating him a little on proper firearm handling, but, as I mentioned earlier, I am no expert and I dont even play one on tv.
1- Do not cover anything with the barrel of a gun that you are not willing to destroy. That includes your fellow customers, the sales clerk and if that thing even comes close to my child's direction, you and I are gonna have a MAJOR problem. Comprende, sport?
2- ALL guns are ALWAYS loaded. While this is not technically true, you had better get used to the mindset. By treating the weapon as if it's loaded, we can avoid allot of the problems with rule number 1 while in the store, and you wont have to have your head bashed in with the butt of the aforementioned firearm.
3- Now this one is important, so pay attention, numb nuts. Keep your finger off the trigger until you have acquired your target and are ready to fire. I don't care if it just came off the shelf of the store, and I don't care if you know it is unloaded. Most accidents happen because the idiot who pulled the trigger thought the gun was unloaded. You want to dry fire the gun? No problemo, just do it in a safe and unpopulated direction, and no one has to pistol whip you for your stupidty, ok fucktard?
Now, I would like to apologise to every responsible, knowlegeable gun owner for the fact that I simply walked away from this idiot instead of confronting the situation and maybe educating him a little on proper firearm handling, but, as I mentioned earlier, I am no expert and I dont even play one on tv.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why I protest
Yesterday, September twelfth, I had the pleasure of joining four thousand like minded individual in Denver Colorado, and Millions of people nation wide in a protest of our government. After arriving home, I began searching for the media coverage of the events both locally and nationally and found to my utter dismay a pathetic amount of attention being paid to the gatherings. To add insult to injury, what coverage I did find was either very brief, or very misinformed. Political pundits talking about the motives of the protesters is almost as unrealistic as our politicians speaking for us! Because of some of the ridiculous claims I have heard espoused, I have decided to talk about some of my reasons for taking part in this, and one prior protest of the same nature.The list of reasons I have for my dissatisfaction with the government is long and maybe a bit too much to write in a single day, so I'll keep it to a few key points that I consider to be of the utmost importance.
The first issue that I find terribly concerning is health care reform. Not because I believe the representatives of our nation have concocted some devious conspiratorial plot to bring our country down into the bowels of communism, but because it is, thus far a plan wrought with potential for severe unintended consequences and massive corruption. I do not see included in the bills that I have looked through, any reasonable means of financing these plans, nor any real consideration for the fact that we are a free, capitalist society that has,not in spite of, but because of capitalism, brought forth most of the greatest advances in medical technologies and techniques the world has ever known. Freedom is in my blood, and no crises will ever scare me away from that.
The second issue may be directly tied to the first, as well as many others. I am truly upset..No, I am PISSED OFF that our elected representative have the nerve to pretend to have the best interests of their constituents in mind while they are signing bills that they do not read. This is an idea that offends me more than I have the words to express. I would never sign a contract without reading it, and I simply cannot except the idea that these men and women are doing it regularly in the name of the people! This must stop, and I want to see prosecution of ANY elected official, of either party, that signs a bill without reading and understanding the potential ramifications of the legislation.
Next, I want to discuss what is, in my opinion, a filthy word. Debt. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson all spoke at length about the dangers of a national debt. They, like many more of the founding fathers were very clear in their belief that each generation should consider it a matter of the utmost urgency to pay off the debt that they accrue in order to hand to the next generation a clean slate, free of an overwhelming burden that could inhibit the ability to act freely. As a man much smarter than I once said, "Debt is slavery." Our government is spending money faster that they take it from us, and I do not wish to see these corrupt and power hungry people mortgage the future of my son for the sake of political expediency.
Finally, an issue that I find increasingly appalling, is the treatment of our service men and women. I cannot recall the number of stories I have heard about poor conditions in our VA hospitals, poor rehabilitation of our soldiers who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, or poorly equipped soldiers on the field of combat. Senator Barbera Boxers' recent display of arrogance toward a man who deserves far more respect then she ever will, was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Here we sit, stateside in our comfortable homes, working our jobs and enjoying rights and liberties that these people protect while no one seems to be standing up and fighting for them here in our own government! This must change, and it must change NOW!!
My reasons listed are not in any way an attempt to speak for anyone else. I neither pretend to be anyone elses mouthpiece, nor will I allow another to act in this capacity for me. I protest because I am free, and I plan not only to stay that way, but to hand to my son the very same right.
"I would rather die on my feet than live on my Knees."
The first issue that I find terribly concerning is health care reform. Not because I believe the representatives of our nation have concocted some devious conspiratorial plot to bring our country down into the bowels of communism, but because it is, thus far a plan wrought with potential for severe unintended consequences and massive corruption. I do not see included in the bills that I have looked through, any reasonable means of financing these plans, nor any real consideration for the fact that we are a free, capitalist society that has,not in spite of, but because of capitalism, brought forth most of the greatest advances in medical technologies and techniques the world has ever known. Freedom is in my blood, and no crises will ever scare me away from that.
The second issue may be directly tied to the first, as well as many others. I am truly upset..No, I am PISSED OFF that our elected representative have the nerve to pretend to have the best interests of their constituents in mind while they are signing bills that they do not read. This is an idea that offends me more than I have the words to express. I would never sign a contract without reading it, and I simply cannot except the idea that these men and women are doing it regularly in the name of the people! This must stop, and I want to see prosecution of ANY elected official, of either party, that signs a bill without reading and understanding the potential ramifications of the legislation.
Next, I want to discuss what is, in my opinion, a filthy word. Debt. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson all spoke at length about the dangers of a national debt. They, like many more of the founding fathers were very clear in their belief that each generation should consider it a matter of the utmost urgency to pay off the debt that they accrue in order to hand to the next generation a clean slate, free of an overwhelming burden that could inhibit the ability to act freely. As a man much smarter than I once said, "Debt is slavery." Our government is spending money faster that they take it from us, and I do not wish to see these corrupt and power hungry people mortgage the future of my son for the sake of political expediency.
Finally, an issue that I find increasingly appalling, is the treatment of our service men and women. I cannot recall the number of stories I have heard about poor conditions in our VA hospitals, poor rehabilitation of our soldiers who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, or poorly equipped soldiers on the field of combat. Senator Barbera Boxers' recent display of arrogance toward a man who deserves far more respect then she ever will, was the straw that broke the camels back for me. Here we sit, stateside in our comfortable homes, working our jobs and enjoying rights and liberties that these people protect while no one seems to be standing up and fighting for them here in our own government! This must change, and it must change NOW!!
My reasons listed are not in any way an attempt to speak for anyone else. I neither pretend to be anyone elses mouthpiece, nor will I allow another to act in this capacity for me. I protest because I am free, and I plan not only to stay that way, but to hand to my son the very same right.
"I would rather die on my feet than live on my Knees."
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
On Rules for Radicals..
After reading about half of this book in two days and covering it with highlighters and notes, I feel compelled to compliment the author, Saul Alinsky on his many shrewd observations and thorough understanding on the nature of people. Make no mistake, I do not agree with the mans politics, but his tactics are unarguably Machiavellian.
An idea that I find particularly interesting is this: "Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray."
I am made to think of the way anyone who denies global warming is called a Flat Earther, one of the modern versions of heretic, an intellectual death-sentence in today's politically correct thought.
"If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent,you're 30 percent ahead."
Fundamentally, this is a fairly simple idea, and I think most people are somewhat familiar with it, conceptually at least. It is when this idea is taken to a grand scale, and applied repeatedly that this becomes a powerful tool in moving any agenda foreword.
Lets look at the current health care debate as an example. Currently, The argument is between two sides who basically consist of two positions. The first is; the system is fundamentally sound and needs only minor modifications; the second calls for drastic, if not complete overhaul. At the time of this writing, bills that have been produced in congress are very unpopular, and will probably be rejected outright. Those who stand in opposition to these bills, of which I may be counted, should not consider this a victory though, because now, the minds of the American public have a very extreme reference upon which to measure all future plans. In comparison, all future proposals will appear moderate and the word compromise will be proclaimed by people with a much longer field of vision. With this tactic,as in football, the opposing team can win by moving foreward only by inches.
I will continue to write on the this book, as I believe it should be required reading for anyone who has an interest in how and why this administration is moving in the way it is.
An idea that I find particularly interesting is this: "Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had to be all evil, tied to the devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever been gray."
I am made to think of the way anyone who denies global warming is called a Flat Earther, one of the modern versions of heretic, an intellectual death-sentence in today's politically correct thought.
"If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent,you're 30 percent ahead."
Fundamentally, this is a fairly simple idea, and I think most people are somewhat familiar with it, conceptually at least. It is when this idea is taken to a grand scale, and applied repeatedly that this becomes a powerful tool in moving any agenda foreword.
Lets look at the current health care debate as an example. Currently, The argument is between two sides who basically consist of two positions. The first is; the system is fundamentally sound and needs only minor modifications; the second calls for drastic, if not complete overhaul. At the time of this writing, bills that have been produced in congress are very unpopular, and will probably be rejected outright. Those who stand in opposition to these bills, of which I may be counted, should not consider this a victory though, because now, the minds of the American public have a very extreme reference upon which to measure all future plans. In comparison, all future proposals will appear moderate and the word compromise will be proclaimed by people with a much longer field of vision. With this tactic,as in football, the opposing team can win by moving foreward only by inches.
I will continue to write on the this book, as I believe it should be required reading for anyone who has an interest in how and why this administration is moving in the way it is.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
One possible piece of the healthcare puzzle
Bear with me as I work through a rough draft of an incomplete concept. With the whole health care debate raging on, I encountered a lady who is in a situation that I think I have an idea of how to help. Please, please correct me if any of the following suppositions or concepts are wrong, as I am woefully uneducated on this particular topic, and could be flailing wildly for something beyond my grasp.
Many Americans find themselves in something of a situation when they work and try to live responsible lives, meanwhile struggling with the dreaded "pre-existing condition", or they make too much money to qualify for medicaid, while their income is insufficient to cover insurance expenses. Here is my question/idea.
What if a new level were added to the medicaid system where people who make too much money to qualify could buy into the system through a voluntary increase of their federal taxes to offset the additional burden they place on the system?
To illustrate, lets say I am a 30 year old male with an existing condition who makes roughly $30,000 to $50,000 (I'm not sure where the numbers would actually work, these are just arbitrary) annually. Now because of my condition, I have been denied coverage by my employers program, into which I WOULD have paid several hundred dollars monthly, and find myself with limited options.
Now lets just imagine that the govt had a program where people in my situation could sign up to have several hundred dollars taken from my salary or paycheck in the form of additional FICA taxes and I would be allowed to receive all the benefits of other Medicare recipients, with maybe some additional co-pays and or deductibles comparable to those I would have dealt with in the private program offered by my employer.
This is not a panacea and I recognize it would not help everyone. I do think, however that this concept could be utilized to allow the government to assist people in need without placing undo financial strain on the system.
Again, this is a rough idea. Something like this may already exist, or it could just be stupid. Pleas let me know what you think.
Many Americans find themselves in something of a situation when they work and try to live responsible lives, meanwhile struggling with the dreaded "pre-existing condition", or they make too much money to qualify for medicaid, while their income is insufficient to cover insurance expenses. Here is my question/idea.
What if a new level were added to the medicaid system where people who make too much money to qualify could buy into the system through a voluntary increase of their federal taxes to offset the additional burden they place on the system?
To illustrate, lets say I am a 30 year old male with an existing condition who makes roughly $30,000 to $50,000 (I'm not sure where the numbers would actually work, these are just arbitrary) annually. Now because of my condition, I have been denied coverage by my employers program, into which I WOULD have paid several hundred dollars monthly, and find myself with limited options.
Now lets just imagine that the govt had a program where people in my situation could sign up to have several hundred dollars taken from my salary or paycheck in the form of additional FICA taxes and I would be allowed to receive all the benefits of other Medicare recipients, with maybe some additional co-pays and or deductibles comparable to those I would have dealt with in the private program offered by my employer.
This is not a panacea and I recognize it would not help everyone. I do think, however that this concept could be utilized to allow the government to assist people in need without placing undo financial strain on the system.
Again, this is a rough idea. Something like this may already exist, or it could just be stupid. Pleas let me know what you think.
Friday, September 4, 2009
My intellectual short mans' complex
A few months ago I was driving with a few buddies of mine and college life came up in conversation. The subjects studied, the teachers and the interesting people all spent time at the center of the conversation before I realized that I was merely listening, unable to participate intelligently in the topic. Suddenly, after thinking about it, I realized that most of the people I choose to associate with have some form of higher education while I was a high school drop out! When I say suddenly, I mean it. This fact hit me like a hammer and did not leave my mind for the remainder of the day.
After a few months of wrestling with this reality, I have come no further towards a conclusion to some of the questions I asked myself. Now I pose them to you, dear reader, to help me tackle.
The first question I have is; Do I lose credibility when I speak as a man with only part of a 10Th grade education behind me? This is definitely the hardest question because I cannot feign to answer it with any honesty. How can any man truly know how he is perceived in other people eyes?
The second question I ask is one that I think I can answer on my own, but would love to know if I am missing part or all of the answer. Am I unable to recognise/grasp significant ideas and or concepts due to my limited exposure to them? I never read the books that get assigned in the latter half of high school, much less college, and am often finding new and revolutionary ideas in books that most people read years ago. Is it safe to assume that my thinking is several years behind the thoughts of my educated counterparts, due to their having years to mull these things over? Or do I have an advantage in being a bit older with more life experience behind me as I try to dissect some of the great works on politics, philosophy and literature?
Finally,(and this sort of ties into the first question) can I honestly expect others to take my thoughts and ideas seriously if they know that I have only a few years of schooling behind me when they have dedicated so much time and effort toward their degrees? Does it display too much arrogance on my part to believe I can grasp so many complex ideas and concepts without the aid of teachers, fellow students and considerable amounts of discussion?
I would love to hear your ideas and thoughts on this subject, and appreciate all feedback.
After a few months of wrestling with this reality, I have come no further towards a conclusion to some of the questions I asked myself. Now I pose them to you, dear reader, to help me tackle.
The first question I have is; Do I lose credibility when I speak as a man with only part of a 10Th grade education behind me? This is definitely the hardest question because I cannot feign to answer it with any honesty. How can any man truly know how he is perceived in other people eyes?
The second question I ask is one that I think I can answer on my own, but would love to know if I am missing part or all of the answer. Am I unable to recognise/grasp significant ideas and or concepts due to my limited exposure to them? I never read the books that get assigned in the latter half of high school, much less college, and am often finding new and revolutionary ideas in books that most people read years ago. Is it safe to assume that my thinking is several years behind the thoughts of my educated counterparts, due to their having years to mull these things over? Or do I have an advantage in being a bit older with more life experience behind me as I try to dissect some of the great works on politics, philosophy and literature?
Finally,(and this sort of ties into the first question) can I honestly expect others to take my thoughts and ideas seriously if they know that I have only a few years of schooling behind me when they have dedicated so much time and effort toward their degrees? Does it display too much arrogance on my part to believe I can grasp so many complex ideas and concepts without the aid of teachers, fellow students and considerable amounts of discussion?
I would love to hear your ideas and thoughts on this subject, and appreciate all feedback.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Counter
