Politics – Page 5 – Zombies Uncensored

Social Security: Wildly Popular and a Godsend?

This Week / Governors on Health Care

Ed Rendell compares the passage of health care reform to the passage of Social Security and Medicare; both were demonized at first, and are now a “godsend” to seniors.

It reminded me how often opposing views towards the changes in America’s health care system were dismissed, by pointing out that Social Security was at first met with similar opposition and is now “wildly popular” or a godsend.

It’s true: when the government returns your money, it is wildly popular! Income tax return checks are wildly popular, too. Unemployment checks are extremely popular as well. I guess it is important to point out times when government is magnanimous enough to give you your own money back!

In any other part of society, when someone gives you your own money back it’s not considered a godsend–it’s considered theft or fraud when you don’t get your money back. It’s only a godsend to get money back from an entity who has the power to take away money at will, under no obligation to give it back. As in a bully that takes a kids lunch money and “generously” gives some of it back later on.

Rendell does have it correct in describing Social Security as a godsend, because the definition of godsend is “something wanted or needed that comes or happens unexpectedly.” Any time the bully that is our federal government gives money back to the people they took it from, that is is a godsend.

Government has Munchausen syndrome when it comes to Social Security; the government takes your money away, making it harder to save for retirement, then pats itself on the back for saving you. They can’t be content with helping only those in need, and instead make everyone ill and dependent on government for the cure.

Unintended Consequences of Listening to Ron Paul

What do the following radio and TV hosts have in common?

Rachel Maddow
Glenn Beck
Larry King
Tucker Carlson
Jim Cramer
Alex Jones
John Stewart
Andrew Napolitano
Neil Cavuto
Bill Maher
David Asman
Montel Williams
Ed Schultz
Joe Scarborough
Stephen Colbert

These are the people I tune into to find out their political views. Its a very diverse group. They don’t share the same views, and often attack each other. How did this happen? You’d have to be schizophrenic to listen or understand this group as a whole. I didn’t start out seeking a wide perspective for political views, it happened quite accidentally.

During the 2008 Presidential election, I was following Ron Paul. Whenever Paul was on TV I tuned in regardless of the network or host. I paid attention to how Paul was treated by the host. If the host let Paul speak and didn’t interrupt and interacted with Paul, I started tuning into their shows more often. The issue was not if the host agreed with the views of Ron Paul, but if they gave him a chance for his views to be fairly expressed.

There are some big names not on the list, like Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. Keith Olbermann I don’t listen to because Paul is basically nonexistent to Olbermann; O’Reilly kept interrupting Paul and not letting him finish a thought. Ron Paul is one of the most polite people in politics; it says a lot about someone who is rude to someone as humble and polite as Paul.

Ron Paul was the person in the news that came the closest to representing my views. If the host was showing politeness and respect to Ron Paul, then I felt they deserved the same politeness and respect from me. Ron Paul has often spoken of unintended consequences of government policy; one of the unintended consequences of following Ron Paul has been a much broader view of politics.

Morality = Constitutionality?

From reading arguments about the constitutionality of health care reform, I’ve come to the conclusion that people equate morality with constitutionality. The legal arguments they make are really justifications following their own moral compass. When someone says they believe something is unconstitutional, often they mean immoral.

I don’t mean this as a criticism, but perhaps an insight into explaining what people accept or believe to be constitutional or unconstitutional. Often it seems to me that people cherry-pick what they believe is unconstitutional, and I scratch my head trying to figure out the underlying dynamic in their decision process.

Weigh these three issues separately, and ask yourself which ones are constitutional or unconstitutional.

Forced to buy health care insurance, or pay a fine, or go to jail.
Forced to buy firearms or pay a fine.
Forced to buy electricity or move out of your home. (An Arizona woman lived in her car after her home was condemned for lack of electricity.)
Forced to buy clothes to wear in public, pay a fine, or go to jail.

My point is it’s rare when someone see all these as equally constitutional or unconstitutional. A lot of the thought process of deciding the constitutionality of something is based upon a personal moral compass. Most people would say its constitutional to force people to buy clothes, but would probably object to being forced to buy at least one of the other items on the list.

These are just examples of equating moral views with constitutionality. It doesn’t mean there aren’t other valid reasons to find health care reform constitutional/unconstitutional, or that people are incapable of awareness of their own moral objections.

Listening to the debate on health care using constitutional grounds is more akin to playing the board game Monopoly. We might just as well be arguing the house rules for what happens when you land on “free parking,” because the official rules become irrelevant when arguing your own moral values. It might be less confusing if the core moral value behind the positions were debated as opposed to trying to make legal arguments.

I’m not a constitutional scholar and wouldn’t pretend to be able to argue these issues constitutionality. I’m just as guilty in wanting the constitution to match my own morality. My own moral compass wants the constitution to protect the minority from having to buy what the majority is selling, even if it’s not specifically spelled out in the constitution.

Obese with Power: No More Toys with Happy Meals

From (MecuryNews.com) Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager wants to stop restaurants from offering toys with food.

If Santa Clara County Supervisor Ken Yeager gets his way, there may be no more dolls, race cars or toys of any sort to entice kids like Jena — and their parents — to feast on fried, fatty fast-food. The supervisor wants to stop — or at least limit — restaurants from offering toys that encourage children to eat fatty, sugary, high-calorie and generally unhealthful meals that can lead to childhood obesity. “They want the toy and have no idea what’s in the food,” Yeager said Monday. “You can’t expect a 3-year-old to say there are too many calories in that hamburger.”

Where I draw the line on these types of proposals is when it’s clear the regulation is aimed at modifying behavior and not at protecting consumers from harmful products. Yeager makes it sound like the legislation is aimed at protecting 3-year-olds, but 3-year-olds can’t buy happy meals on their own. Parents–nature’s own child protection–are the ones buying the meals, and this law is aimed at regulating parents’ behavior.

Happy meals have food that is safe to eat, and toys that are safe play with. The legislation is not intended to protect consumers from food poisoning or lead poisoning with the toys. Restaurants are not defrauding their customers, by selling a toy along with food. Governments role in protecting consumers is to protect from harmful and fraudulent products, and not to protect people from their own behavior.

Whenever the subject comes up as to when any government regulation is needed to protect consumers, remember to ask, “Is the product safe?” Fatty, sugary, high-calorie foods are unhealthy when eaten in excess, as basically anything you consume is unhealthy if you ingest too much. It’s strange but true: even drinking too much water can kill you and people have died because of it. If the product can be used safely, then odds are there is another agenda that has nothing to do with safety.

Governments that regulate individuals’ behavior are to be feared for becoming overweight and obese with power. The concern here should be about liberty, and the toy that should be taken away is the power of government to protect us from our own behavior.

38 States Challenge Healthcare; Enough to Amend the Constitution

38 States Looking To Challenge Healthcare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNPCDsqJXFs&feature=player_embedded

38 States? That is enough to change things! That is just enough states needed to amend the Constitution.

Article Five of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I hope the states plan on not only resisting health care reform, but taking away some of the Federal government’s power while they are at it. The health care debate might end up doing some good if it rallies the states together enough to remove some Federal power.

38ers anyone?

Bart Stupak Cave-In on Health Care

Bart Stupak Cave-In on Health Care

Sums up the news of the day.

Wanted: Universal Translator for Political Speech

Young Turks: Glenn Beck’s view of FDR

This discussion of Glenn Beck from the Young Turks sums up so neatly the political divide between the left and right in America. It shows how the left and right have very different definitions of the following:

Rights
Where the middle ground is in America
History
Communism
Health Care
Facts
Oppression

Just as Americans and the British are separated by a common language, so are the left and right in America. If someone from the UK said “I like a fag when I’m pissed,” (i.e. “I like a cigarette when I’m drunk”), I wouldn’t assume they are crazy, because I know they have different meanings for the same words.

I’ve heard countless discussions just like this one, where one side refers to opposing views as making “no sense at all.” When people start with completely different definitions and make no attempt to understand other side’s definitions, it should come as no surprise that the other side sounds crazy.

I wonder if the universal translator on Star Trek would work for political speech?

Did CNN Fake Gulf War Story? Nope.

I stumbled across this YouTube video of former CNN reporter Charles Jaco during the Gulf War. The rumor that the video was fake has been floating around the internet for some time.

Charles Jaco CNN 1990 Persian Gulf War

The poster on YouTube said, “Google his name and read the results.” There were so many Google hits labeling this video fake, I thought I would save others some time searching for the answers.

At first glance, I thought the video had been faked, but after digging into it, they were really just shooting on the roof of the hotel at night. What appears to be a studio blue screen is really just the color of the hotel where they were shooting.

Charles Jaco sent an email to several blogs that mentioned the video.

First the facts of the case: our coverage was on the roof of a hotel and military facility near the intersection of the two main runways at the Dhahran Air Base, Western Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The plywood background was erected as a guard against sand and wind storms. The clowning around on the video is just that. We used black humor to deflect the tension of covering SCUD missile assaults.

If you look at 1:36 in the video, you can see what appears to be a small satellite dish. Here is the frame, the bottom edge of the satellite dish is between the crewman’s hand the wall just above the electrical cord. Using a satellite dish outside makes sense; inside a studio using a satellite dish does not make sense.

If there was any question if Jaco was really in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, I think this video answers that question. At two minutes in the video, you can tell its being shot outside.

Jaco in Dhahran

Senator Sanders: Single-Payer Could Start in 2017

Senator Bernie Sanders Seeking Public Option Vote “in the Next Few Months”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQWJAeXk6Gw

Bernie Sanders: What we have right now in the bill is language, unfortunately it doesn’t kick until 2017, that would give states a great deal of flexibility to go forward in variety of ways. Including my preferred method, would be a Medicare for all single payer way…

I hope very much that we will give states more flexibility, so that they can go forward for a Medicare for all single-payer bill.

Nope…no hidden agenda in the health care bill. Nothing that would lead to a government takeover of healthcare. The goal isn’t a single-payer system where the government takes the place of private insurance companies. That’s just crazy talk.

HealthCare Debate has Just Begun

After viewing these videos, I see no end in sight on health care quarrels. I’m starting to believe if the health care bill passes, it will become as contentious as abortion with decades of court cases to follow.

The first video has Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell arguing the health care bill is unconstitutional, because it violates article one section seven. McConnell said it violates the rule that before the President can sign the bill, it has to have been voted on separately by the House of Representatives and the Senate. McConnell also points to article one section five, that the votes have to be recorded in a journal if one fifth of the members present request a vote.

Stanford Law Professor Michael W. McConnell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v6YUrP77gE

But then you have Andrew Napolitano arguing the Supreme Court would not rule deeming the health care bill as ‘passed’ unconstitutional, because the Constitution states the houses write their own rules for how bills are passed. The Constitution states a bill that has ‘passed’ the House of Representatives and the Senate can go to the President, the key word is ‘passed.’ The house can define how it chooses to pass a bill.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyQ_fMmfD8s

Someone probably will contest to the Supreme Court asking them to define what ‘passed’ means. If the votes were there, they would just vote on it and be done with it and not have to declare it as passed. If the houses can define what ‘passed’ means through rule changes to mean hypothetically voting on a bill, it should be taken to the Supreme Court.

Throw in states challenging the health care bill by means of the 10th amendment along with how the bill passed the house, and there will be no end in sight to Supreme Court challenges over this issue.

I was foolishly starting to believe that someday the health care debate would be over, but it looks like it’s really just begun.