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.

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.

Hypocrisy Continued

In my last blog, I spoke of how both major political parties were actively engaging in betraying their own position in ways that threaten the liberty and freedom of average Americans. I then went on to illustrate how the Republican party was inconsistent in it's stances, and would now like to move on to the democrat party.



Let us first look at immigration policy. As the "Party of the working man," the democrats should logically take the position that helps the blue-collar workers in this country. Instead what we see are the power players standing side by side with their Republican brethren, albeit for different reasons.



Think about this for a moment. By making sure our borders remain wide open, we allow enormous quantities of people to flood our job market with cheap, often unskilled labor. This helps to fill all those jobs that "Americans wont do" such as farm worker and house cleaning right? WRONG!! People who cross our borders illegally are poor and some are quite desperate, but not necessarily stupid. These people are taking jobs that keep America running. Jobs like sheet metal installers, mechanics, tile settiers, ironworkers and electrician! Jobs that traditionally occupy a significant portion of our middle class are rapidly becoming minimum wage jobs because the Dems work to keep the steady stream of future potential voters pouring in! Imagine, at nearly 10% unemployment what those thousands of jobs could do if the Democrats weren't selling us out!



The next idea I would like to touch on, is tolerance. While we have been battered over the heads for most of my life time with speech about tolerance and peace, the Democrats have been altering the way these words are defined. By describing an idea that stands in opposition to their own as hate speech , the Dems have found a way to silence people. Any idea that they deem inappropriate is called "intolerant" or "closed minded" while they shut down discussion in college campuses and other places all over the country.

While indeed bigoted and racist statements are difficult to hear, the ability to say those things is part of the foundation of our country. People have the freedom to say what they please (with certain limitations) regardless of how offensive or distasteful. The party that has been basking in that freedom for decades by burning the American flag is now working to shut it down by invoking Orwellian thought police whenever a valid political argument arises that they cannot otherwise counter!!! We already have hate crime legislation, and I predict hate speech legislation will come soon.

Lastly, I would like to bring up entitlements programs. By this term, I mean social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and the current health care debate. These programs are unarguably strongholds for the Democratic party from which they draw a tremendous amount of voters, but here is the rub. While I am not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, I cannot see the difference between these programs and the illegal pyramid scheme! While the system can function quite well when the people at the top are few, and the bottom are many, everything starts to crumble when the system approaches even, and it completely falls apart when it becomes top-heavy. Now this isn't complicated mathematics that only a brilliant mind can see, but simple common sense that the Democrats are arguing against when they fight to bring more people into the system at the higher level. Why are they trying to expand these programs if they are destined to fall apart you ask? My response is simple. Power. They are seeking to create an entire class of people who are completely reliant on the government and would therefore only vote for politicians who promised to keep the paychecks coming. By expanding these programs and creating more government dependants, the Democrats are purchasing a higher level political power with our freedom as the payment.

Moderation

I often feel compelled to cringe a little whenever I hear someone proclaim proudly that they are a moderate. The look of moral superiority shines in their eyes while their chest swells ever so slightly as if they were stating some bold position that none but the truest of patriots would dare to utter in the public arena. I sometimes feel bad for them before I dismiss them altogether.

"But why would you dismiss someone says they are a moderate?" you may ask. "shouldn't people be less partisan?" you may wonder. To you I say shut up. Shut up and think before you waste another moment of you're life repeating that senseless gibberish. Can you be moderately concerned for your own well being, or that of your loved ones? Can you be a moderate on issues concerning your life? I say no. Not just no, but Hell no! You are passionate in the pursuit of what you deem right for yourself, as you should be, and so should you be for the positions you take in the political realm!

I can respect the person with whom I disagree, no matter how passionately, but I cannot feel the same towards one who doesn't have the courage or the honesty to proclaim their positions. Stand up, take your position and defend it as long as you feel it is right! Foam at the mouth with passion and spit venom in defence of what you believe is the truth!

I'm not saying to follow blindly in the path of your chosen party, and I'm not claiming that everyone should opine on every subject. But please, stand and fight for what you believe, either with me when we agree or against me when we don't, because this is America and our ability to have passionate discourse, not moderation, is truly the lifeblood of our system!