Affordable Care Act

So here we are... the Supreme Court has begun listening to arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. (Of course, as usual, the legislation is named the exact opposite of what it will accomplish...but I digress.)

According to a New York Times poll, two thirds of Americans want congress to repeal all or some of the Affordable Care Act even while large majorities support a few of its major aspects. The parts that people want to keep crack me up, though. It explains a lot about why we are where we are as a country today.

The least popular part of the bill is the individual mandate. Here, I proudly stand up and say, "I am opposed to this, too!!!!" Okay, in the interest of fairness, I should just say up front that I'm opposed to the whole darned thing. But the government forcing me to buy a product of any kind in order to be alive in the US is ridiculous. I know that there are laws out there requiring me to purchase car insurance if I'm going to drive a car... but this is not the same thing. There is no law requiring me to buy a car... I can take the whole package or not, as I see fit. Having three children I have to drive around, I choose the car - and the insurance requirement that goes along with it.

The Obama administration is touting a new poll that shows (supposedly) an equal number of people wanting to repeal the law as want to expand it. Expand it to what, I am not sure -- expansion of what appears to be already in place sounds ludicrous to me. Supposedly, though, I am alone in that. Because David Plouffe of the Obama administration declares that people don't want to go back to square one.

It seems to me that too often people come to their conclusions about political ideas without putting enough thought into the consequences of seeing their ideas enacted. 85 percent of Americans polled approve of requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions. On an emotional level, this sounds lovely. But it's not reasonable or sustainable. (And I speak as one of those people who has been considered "uninsurable" because of a pre-existing condition.) To require insurance companies to accept folks like me would further raise the cost of insurance. Hate to break it to you, but insurance companies exist to make money. This being the case, they have to raise their rates on either the people with pre-existing conditions (which is fine), making the cost of purchasing the insurance ridiculous -- or they have to raise the cost of everybody's insurance, making things more difficult for everybody in order to make sure that I can get mine. Eventually, you have too many people dropping out of the insurance pool because the cost has become crazy, and then the cost goes up even more, etc... etc... So to require insurance companies to accept me is not a good option.

Sixty eight percent of Americans polled like the requirement that insurance companies have to allow "children" to remain on their parents' policies until they're 26 years old. Again, this is not going to happen for free. It's another one of those things that makes an emotionally compelling argument, but doesn't really stand up to common sense. **Rant Alert** At what point can we reasonably expect people to grow up? We're going to tell people that they're old enough to drink at 21. They're old enough to vote and influence national and local political policy when they're 18. But they can't manage their own health care concerns? How silly. If they can't take care of themselves properly, they certainly shouldn't have a say in who is going to make decisions for the country.

I have friends and family with chronic illnesses, and I know that this issue is a difficult one. But when we're making decisions about public policy and the constitutionality of laws, the decision should never be an emotional one. It's time to stop the government's overreaching. I would love to get back to the basics, where the government is actually limited as the Constitution says it is, but I don't foresee that happening anytime in the near future. As it stands, however, I will be happy with a Supreme Court ruling that at least goes along with the Constitution in this case.

The Affordable Care Act should go.

On Herman Cain... Again

I've been watching the Herman Cain fiasco. Fascinating... truly. For a while I was not quite sure what to think. I know that he habitually says stupid things, so I didn't think it impossible for him to have said something stupid to a woman somewhere along the line. Stupid and offensive? Sure, I can see that. Easily.

Woman after woman "coming forward" supposedly with claims that Herman Cain sexually harassed them... (insert big sigh here). But nobody willing to put their name out there? Nobody willing to actually say what the man did? Hmmm... somewhat suspicious, but possible. Given my cynical nature, I have to assume that it's possible that Herman Cain did something terrible to multiple women. Of course, given the same cynicism, I also have to believe it perfectly possible that Herman Cain said something stupid to one woman and Cain's opposition is feeding the "story" with false accusations to take him down.

To be honest, I had been considering both scenarios to be equally probable. But now here comes woman number 4. Ah... yes. Sharon Bialek. I had to watch the press conference. Of course I had to see it. I heard that she was "represented" by attorney Gloria Allred. (Her website describes her as "Gloria Allred - Discrimination Attorney/Feminist Lawyer" on Google.) Ms. Allred has sued the Boy Scouts for excluding girls (huh?), and she sued a drugstore chain for having toy sections labeled "boys" and "girls." She litigated a lawsuit against Arnold Schwarzenegger for... wait for it... sexual harassment while he was running for governor. This lawsuit was later dismissed. She has represented numerous famous people in various predicaments (child custody disagreements, sexual harassment cases, she was part of the OJ Simpson mess, Tiger Woods' mistresses, ad nauseam...)

So... this I gotta see.

So... I saw.

And I don't believe.

The story is just... too much. Allred starts out the press conference by establishing that Bialek is a "registered Republican." She goes on to give a general report of Bialek's credentials and lifestyle. According to Allred, Bialek is a college graduate, has hosted a cooking show, and has spent the last two years as a full-time, stay-at-home single mom. (Again, HUH?) The "evidence" presented by Allred at the press conference consists of two pieces of paper she waved around of which she would not release any copies (supposedly of affidavits signed by "pediatrician" and "businessman."), and a copy of Sharon Bialek's business card from the time she was supposedly vigorously harassed (copies released of this, of course). "Pediatrician" and "businessman" are the only names we have for the evidentiary corroborative statement makers.

Bialek then took the stage and read a statement. She was smiley and perky throughout most of her statement. She accuses Cain of upgrading her hotel room, taking her to the "offices" of the NRA, and then (perkiness suddenly gone, slightly choked up) "he suddenly reached over, he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch. I was very very surprised and very shocked. I said, 'What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn't what I came here for.' Mr Cain said, 'You want a job, right?' I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel, which he did. Right away." She said she didn't file a complaint since she wasn't employed by the Association when the harassment occurred. (Conveniently mentioned in her statement is her supposed tea party activism as well.)

Sharon Bialek has shot to instant morning-show fame. She supposedly wants Cain to "admit what he did and move forward." I do not believe her story. Certainly not in its entirety.

But here's the rub. The press has a lot of power. Far more power than is healthy, actually. Because while I do not buy the story, I do suffer from Cain fatigue. There is a part of me, and I must admit it's a rather large part, that just wants the entire thing to go away, including Cain. As I've said previously, there are some things about Cain that gave me pause (his enormous lack of tact being one of them). So now I'd like to just see him go away. And that's sad. Even believing Cain to be the victim of dirty politics and lynching by the press I still don't have any fight in me. Just... just go away.

Perhaps this, too, is the result of an ever-increasing cynicism within me. I should probably be troubled by this, but I'm afraid I'm too cynical for that as well.

Edge of Insanity

I spoke with a friend yesterday regarding our country's social and political structure. I must admit, I am left with some serious concerns.

My friend describes himself as a "social democrat." I had posed a question to him a year and a half ago regarding socialism... my question being a relatively simple one: What to do about human nature? Under a socialist system, human nature being what it is, there will always be more takers than workers. Thus, the system quickly will run out of either workers or freedom.

He went on a gentle rant last night about the inequities in our system. The disparity between the rich and the poor, the ever-widening gap... the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are unable to rise out of their station, etc. Are the rich getting super rich while the poor are not rising at all? Well, no... not really. The poor in this country have better lifestyles than poor people ever have. Is it true that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor? I honestly don't know, and I really don't care. If one person is getting far richer than another, how does this hurt? Is it true that a poor person cannot work hard and pull themselves out of being poor? NO. Is it true that many poor people have a mentality that gets in their way? YES. But there are examples of people who did not hold onto that same mentality, and they managed to work their way out of poverty.

When he finished his rant, I pointed out that he still had not really answered my question regarding human nature. His answer? He doesn't want a perception that human nature is flawed to get in the way of change. Also, he doesn't believe that human nature IS inherently flawed. My friend is a humanities teacher -- I pointed to history and asked him to show me a time when we were able to clearly see that humans, at some point, operated without flaw. I then went on to say that one cannot rationally argue that human nature is not flawed. "Ah...," he says. "I am not a rationalist." I asked him, "So what does that make you - a wishful thinker?" He laughed and said that he prefers "dreamer."

My concern: There is a group of people who are wanting to change the entire social and political structure of the world. These people appear to wish to deny reality in order to hold on to their dream of a utopian society. To eschew rationalism in favor of dreaming is the height of foolishness. To see reality and refuse to admit it's real because it doesn't fit with what you would like to be real is folly.

An even greater concern is his assertion that the fix to the world's problems is "literacy." He specified that he meant real literacy -- not just the ability to read and write, but the ability to digest and think about information, drawing conclusions and coming up with real results. Yes, yes, YES! But... but... how can one claim to be literate in such a fashion if one is rejecting rationalism? Can a person be a literate thinker while living in a dream reality that denies the existence of what is really real? It seems to me the person who believes such a thing is possible is tip-toeing to the edge of insanity.

The stakes get higher and higher all the time.

Herman Cain

I like him... Herman Cain. I do. I'd vote for him - and gladly. Are there some things about him that give me pause? Sure. There would be about anybody, I suppose. But generally speaking, I like him and I trust him. Trusting a candidate is a rare commodity these days.

The WaPo had an interesting article on him in today's paper. Fascinating stuff they write in the press!! As if I needed something to destroy the last vestige of faith I had in the media, they come out with a new genre -- let's call it "political fiction." In the beginning of the article (written by Sandhya Somashekhar), it is stated, "Four years after Barack Obama campaigned for president, steering clear of provocative statements about race, Cain has floated to the top of presidential polls doing just the opposite." Either Sandhya Somashekhar was sleeping through Obama's election bid or she is being disingenuous or the color of her own skin has colored her vision. Obama did not steer clear of provocative statements about race.

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes comes out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society.

-Barack Obama, March 2008

But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

-Barack Obama, March 2008

Michelle Obama, in January of 2008, said in an interview that race is an important issue in this country -- and went on to say that a disproportionate number of African American women are dying of breast cancer because of "health disparities."

In my view, these are provocative statements.

The difference between the Obamas and Herman Cain is that the Obamas see race as an issue that holds back black people. They take skin color very seriously... and the fact that Barack Obama sees a "typical white person" as somebody who is naturally afraid of any black men they don't know is telling. Herman Cain has a sense of humor about race, he calls out the black community for mindlessly voting Democrat, and refers to himself as a "black walnut."

Cain doesn't believe that racism is something that holds people back. Black people don't care to hear this, according to Edward DuBose of the NAACP. Edward accuses Cain of "engaging in very dangerous, irresponsible...rhetoric" and goes on to say that Cain is doing this in order to be accepted by white people. But why would Cain think that a person's skin color holds them back?? He's a black man who has been a successful businessman, a preacher, and now a presidential candidate. I think his life is a testimony to the accuracy of his point of view.

Herman Cain is not perfect - nobody is. He is not the "ideal candidate." He has his folksy 9-9-9 plan. While I support a fair tax (i.e., a tax in which all citizens would participate), it seems that his 9-9-9 plan would leave in place a tax on income as well as instituting a tax on purchases, which would leave the door open for extreme taxation in the future.

I have a natural aversion to a "progressive" tax code. I don't think that success should be punished with higher tax rates. I don't think that any particular class of people should be allowed to pay no taxes, and I certainly don't think that there should be a government check coming to you if you didn't make "enough money." I just don't know that the 9-9-9 deal is the best answer to a real problem.

Another count against Cain is his lack of diplomacy. Some of his statements have caused me to wonder what he would say while dealing with foreign dignitaries.

I left that Democrat plantation a long time ago, and I ain't goin' back.

- Herman Cain

The liberal mainstream media... they are doubly scared that a real black man might run against Barack Obama.

-Herman Cain

By the way, it's OK to call me black... I am an American black conservative. An ABC. OK. It's OK. It's OK. I'm not hyphenated.

-Herman Cain

I'm ready for the "gotcha" questions and they're already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I'm going to say, you know. I don't know. Do you know?

-Herman Cain

Yeah... not so sure about that.

But here are my choices... do I want someone in office who might offend some foreign dignitary, but will stick to our Constitution? Or do I want someone in office who will bend over backwards NOT to offend, but will inflict damage of all kinds on our country? Do I trust Mitt Romney? NO. I'd have to be a complete fool to trust that slick son-of-a-gun. He's an opportunistic politician. Do I trust Rick Perry? NO. He's a step up from Romney, but still playing politics rather than trying to solve problems. And when he does "try" to "solve a problem" I don't think I care much for his methods. (Forced immunization against sexually transmitted diseases for tweens anyone?)

No, Herman Cain is not the perfect candidate. But, so far, he's the one I like the best.

The American Dream

The Washington Post has a story today titled "Beyond the Tea Party: What Americans Really Think of Government." That's kind of a big subject to attack in a single news article... the truth is that American opinion ranges far and wide. Frankly, that's part of the beauty of being in America. We have the freedom to speak, write and in any way proclaim whatever opinion suits our fancy.

I am a true, red-blooded American. I find it difficult to understand how someone can admire Che Guevara, Mao Tse-tung, Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, etc... But, clearly - there are those who do. In fact, there are many in charge today who admire these people.

There are also people who are true, red-blooded Americans who cannot understand how I admire people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, etc... for some, these people are simply dead, white men who hungered for power and encouraged the blight of slavery.

When you get down to the heart of the matter, however, things get a little more complicated. I don't admire our founding fathers because I think they were perfect men - or even that they set up our government exactly perfectly. They were, in all likelihood, like other men... flawed in many ways. I'm certain they all had things about them that, were I to know them today, I would find less than admirable. But the idea of freedom is something I cling to. And our founding fathers did give us that.

For centuries, the American dream has been one of freedom... people living in oppressed countries would travel far - and yes, sometimes even risk their lives - in order to participate in the great freedom experiment that is the United States of America. In 1931, James Truslow Adams defined the American dream as: that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

That dream, as defined, is one to which I subscribe. Freedom to be. Freedom to live... and to work to attain the lifestyle I choose. This is why I admire our founding fathers... this is why I value freedom over comfort and security. Without the freedom to live, to be ourselves, to achieve and realize our dreams, life becomes less meaningful.

Granted, our dreams must have meaning in order for their fulfillment to give our lives meaning... but this, too, is a personal choice. A cursory glance at the rich and famous shows us that fame and fortune do not a fulfilled life make. If we don't dream meaningful, we cannot be meaningful.

Freedom. Independence. Liberty. Self-government. Self-rule.

There are people who would argue that freedom is dangerous. People need to be protected from themselves. I've heard it said that "the masses are asses." And, okay, even the Bible says that people are like sheep - which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Human nature being what it is, I'm certain that there will always be people who make poor choices and have horrible natural consequences while living in freedom.

But if we're going to truly consider this line of thinking... that people are not smart enough to rule themselves... then how smart is it for us to let people rule over us? Don't they succumb to the same human pitfalls?

Living in freedom, people exercise poor judgment and pay the price on an individual and family level. This is a horrible circumstance and cannot be ignored within the scope of this discussion. BUT... living without freedom is worse. The consequences are felt on a national level... as a whole collective.

Captivity. Confinement. Dependence. Vulnerability. Defenseless. Tyranny. Slavery.

Antonyms of freedom, all of them. If we no longer value freedom, this is what we have left. I'm not a fan of being vulnerable and defenseless... I refuse to be dependent on my government. I do not wish to be a slave to the state.

There are two sides to every coin. Heads... or tails.

The American dream isn't owning your own home. It's not a BMW or Mercedes Benz. It's not indulging your every whim on a moments notice. The American dream is freedom. If we've lost that, we've lost the very heart of America.

Class, Culture, and Word Wars

I am so sick of the tired arguments I am hearing and reading. Really. Really sick. There are folks who are beating the drums for government growth in the name of economic prosperity and it makes me want to tear out my hair...

Argument number one: Extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" across the board is like giving a "present" to "rich people," and why should we do that? Here's the problem with that... the government is incapable of "giving a present" through a legitimate tax cut. Meanwhile, nobody is calling the misnamed Earned Income Tax Credit a gift - even though it very clearly is. See, when the government decides to allow someone to keep their own money, this is NOT a gift. This is what would happen with extending the tax cuts or making them permanent. The Earned Income Tax Credit, though, is when the government sees that someone didn't make very much money on their own and so, instead of them paying taxes the government gives them extra money. THAT is a gift.

Argument number two: The economy is better stimulated by giving out money to the poor because the poor spend all their money while the rich save theirs. Hoo-boy. This is a really annoying one for me. First of all, the "rich" don't "save" their money by cutting a hole in their mattress and sleeping on the stuff. In fact, I would argue that the rich don't really "save" their money at all - at least not in the sense that "poor" people might be tempted to. See, people with money don't want to put it in a jar and stare at it. The sorry fact is that money won't grow there. And rich people like to get richer. So... their method of "saving" is actually "investing." This means that they take their money and decide where it is most likely to grow... and they invest it in these things. This actually creates growth in the private sector of the economy... creating jobs and allowing more people to get to work and spend their own darned money. If you take that same money and simply hand it to poor folks, they spend it - but it hasn't created a job for them. So, essentially, they need another handout next week.

Argument number three: There are many different ways to grow the economy. A tax cut is only one of them. Building public infrastructure is another. Adding government jobs is another. This one kills me. Government jobs are a part of the economy, much the same way that a drain is part of the overall plumbing system of a house. The government doesn't produce anything, doesn't retain a profit... it's an endless sinkhole into oblivion. So, to "create jobs" through the government they must first take money from the private sector to pay that person - and, likely, to put them in some beautiful brick building since we also just created a job through "public infrastructure." This ensures that the new government employee also gets a corner office with a view and plants in the lobby. But all that money to build the building, pay the employees and maintain both has to first get pulled out of the private sector where legitimate job creation through profit and supply and demand could be taking place. So where that money in the private sector could be invested in new innovative technologies... in new products... and yes, in new sales pitches to get the American public buying the product... it is now sucked into the vortex that is government spending. But HEY. Someone has a job.

Argument number four: What we're really worried about is growing income inequality. We just want to make life fair. Well, buck up, little camper. Life isn't fair. And income inequality, to some degree, makes sense. If you want to make more money, get out there and better yourself. Use your creativity... use your gray matter to figure out what needs doing and get it done. Charge for it. This is the way capitalism works. Frankly, if you're sitting around complaining because someone else makes more money than you do -- and holding out your hand to the federal government, expecting them to "even things up," you're sitting in a mess of your own making. This is the land of opportunity... but nobody promised opportunity was going to beat down your door, drag you out of bed, light the way for you, and make you drink from its fountain. You actually have to find opportunity for yourself.

If our country chooses to continue listening to these four arguments, we will no longer be the beacon of freedom and opportunity we once were. And we will all be sitting together in a mess of our own making.

Flotilla Fiasco

The news coverage regarding Israel recently has been, in a word, horrible.

Yes, I'm biased. I have written blog posts before about my love for Israel. My viewpoint includes compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people - but it does not lay the blame for their situation at the feet of the Israelis.

I have been watching the news reports regarding the flotilla incident... regarding the recent deaths of the four divers... regarding the next "aid" convoy being offered Iranian escort... and I am troubled. Seriously, Israel has always gotten a bum rap from some. International expectations of them as a nation are completely unrealistic. But the anti-Israel rhetoric has been ratcheted up to new levels.

Sure, Helen Thomas spewed some vitriol their way... anybody seriously surprised by this hasn't been paying attention to her viewpoints. And she's well known for asking "tough questions" of certain people -- and cozying up with others. She's not a serious journalist... she's kind of the Sean Hannity of the left... with less drama and scarier looks.

And honestly, the fact that Obama refused to stand with Israel in the face of international condemnation isn't a huge surprise, either. I don't think anybody truly expects him to stand with Israel when push comes to shove regardless of what's going on. He tried to cloak his refusal to stand with them behind a wishy-washy, "We need to wait until we know the facts," but we pretty much knew what had happened already. It was all on film, after all.

The news organizations, in general, insist on reporting the flotilla incident as if Israel had "attacked" some peaceful ships with humanitarian aid. The language used continues to give this impression, regardless of any facts that surface to the contrary. Now there is some lip service paid to the fact that the people aboard the ship attacked the soldiers, but we are meant to believe that this is only because the mean, nasty Israelis scared them into doing so. One publishing made it sound as if these people were afraid for their lives and so they quickly sawed off pieces of the ship in order to protect themselves. What a joke!

Now the NYT has an article out there titled, "Washington Asks: What To Do About Israel?" According to this article, Israel has recently "ignored the national security concerns of its biggest benefactor, the United States, and instead have taken steps that damage American interests abroad." A Mr. Cordesman (with the Center for Strategic and International Studies) states, "It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it tests the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews."

... Seriously? The United States, while supporting Israel militarily and monetarily, has also consistently pushed Israel to make ridiculous concessions with their enemies - endangering her people and putting them in more and more awkward positions. Frankly, I think it's high time she stood up for herself and said, "No more!"

The very next paragraph of the article reads as:

The list of recent moves by the Netanyahu government that potentially threaten American interests has grown steadily, many foreign policy experts argue. The violence that broke out when Israeli commandos stormed aboard a Gaza flotilla last week chilled American relations with a key Muslim ally, Turkey.

Ummm... wait a minute. America's relations with Turkey should be chilled by the fact that Turkey played a key role in trying to break the blockade that has been in place for Israel's security for the last three years. I realize that this isn't the case... that our current administration is more intent on fostering cozy relationships with radical muslims (like Iran) than it is on continuing a long-standing friendship with the only beacon of freedom in the Middle East. But I think that trying to befriend the countries who are interested in seeing the West destroyed - at the expense of our friendship with Israel - is stupid.

The article goes on:

The Gaza fight also makes it more difficult for America to rally a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim states against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Netanyahu's refusal to stop Jewish housing construction in Arab East Jerusalem also strains American ties with Arab allies. It also makes reaching an eventual peace deal, which many administration officials believe is critical to America's broader interests in the Muslim world, even more difficult.

So wait a minute. The fact that Israel is protecting itself from Hamas is what is making it difficult to get other Arab states to join the West in its concern about a nuclear Iran? If only Israel would give in and allow Hamas to bomb its citizens, then the Arab world would be okay with the United States? Really? Two things... one, if this is true, then that tells us huge things about the Muslim world. And two, it's not true. If there's one thing we know, it's that the Muslim world - in general - despises the United States. Please understand that I'm not saying all Muslims despise the United States. But, in general, countries governed by Sharia law are not going to be on our side - even if we bomb Israel ourselves. They don't like us.

The article continues to talk about a statement made by General Petraeus in which he said that if progress toward peace wasn't made, it gives the extremists a "stick to beat us with." No word from Petraeus in the article on how one is to go about achieving "progress toward peace" with an entity that will not be satisfied until you are "wiped off the map."

Israeli officials are becoming alarmed at our current administration's lack of support - as well as people within our own national politics, both Republican and Democrat. Representative Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, has spent hours with the President trying to impart his concerns.

Things are lining up in such a way that I believe the United States is going to desert Israel in her time of greatest need. I'm sorry to see it - I love Israel and I think that the United States can only be benefitted by befriending her, regardless of how the rest of the world sees it. However, due to various other beliefs I hold, I don't worry for Israel simply because the United States won't stand behind her. After all, with the God of the universe on one's side, who really needs the measly United States government for protection?