Die Quickly

I had a discussion this past week with a fairly “progressive” client on a wide variety of topics. Mostly cordial, of course. He was the client.

One of his positions was that access to healthcard should be a right, not a privilege. I took the position that while I agree that individuals should be given access to healthcare, it was just as moral to make sure our country was fiscally solvent if it was to take on the role of healthcare. To do otherwise would limit healthcare for all and simultaneously lead the USA down the road of fiscal ruin.

I fear for my country the last couple of years. I see the amount of spending from our government seen as a “right” by progressives. And if they can’t tax and spend, then at least they’ll spend and worry about taxing later. And before you jump all over me for being partisan, I include George W. Bush (and George H.W. Bush) and Barack Obama.

From today’s Wall Street Journal, James Taranto discusses a possibly fabricated quote from Aristotle (or possibly Aristotle Onassis), and includes this statement:

Whatever Aristotle might or might not have said, the flip side of establishing a “right” to medical care is that it also entails empowering the government to define the limits of that right.

I think he’s right on. While compassionately I care that all people receive full healthcare, I also compassionately care about the country we leave to our children, one that isn’t bankrupt. In order to provide “affordable” healthcare, the government will be forced to “limit healthcare to the lowest common denominator. That means cutting edge technology will no longer be used, which means future innovations will be canceled.

There are many good reasons to oppose letting the government into our healthcare decisions. Find some other, simple way if you must – a minimum guaranteed payment or tax credit or something. But if the government takes over healthcare, they will both bankrupt our country and hope we will “die quickly” as the Democratic representative Alan Grayson has been saying.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Conviction versus Tolerance

LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 12: A wreath of pla...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

My wife showed me an article this week; I *think* it was from the Museum of Natural History, but I can’t be sure. The article was mostly well-written and talked about how by a very early age, 6 months, humans begin rational thinking. Babies know that hidden objects haven’t disappeared but are still there, that sort of thing.

Then the author went into how some knowledge is influenced by our environment and is wrong, though it takes critical thinking to see the flaws. Children know that object fall down, but trying to picture us on a spherical planet is harder, and children want to know why people on the other side of the planet don’t fall off.

Then the author discussed how also at a very early age we learn to trust adults over other children and some adults more than others, and how we trust our parents over scientists.

Then came the twist. Most Americans believe Darwinism has flaws, and God created the world. Children believe God created animals, even if they are the children of atheists.

The conclusion was that humans that doubt Darwin must be flat-earthers and must be trained to trust scientists over their parents. Obviously I have a problem with that.

Dr. Young has a wonderful essay today in the Houston Chronicle about the intolerance of the psuedo-tolerant and how we can stand by our convictions and yet be tolerant of those intolerant toward us. But part of his essay lists scientists who doubt Darwin.

Darwinian evolution is a major doctrine in the humanist religion at whose altars so many of America’s supplicants of political correctness bow. The keepers of the high PC religion apparently don’t want students to know that scientists like Henry Schaefer (nominated five times for the Nobel Prize), Fred Sigworth, Robert Kaita, Dean Kenyon, Carl Koval, William Dembski, Siegfried Scherer, David DeWitt, Theodore Liss, William Pelletier, Muzaffar Iqbal, Walter Bradley, Theodore Saito, Marvin Fritzler, Keith Delaplane, Clarence Fouche, Hugh Nutley, Fazal Rana, and 82 others signed a statement reading, “I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

I would suppose, if the museum article had read this, that the author would then suggests that not all scientists are trustworthy and must be vetted against Political Correctness first. Which is also Dr. Young’s point, that those with convictions are systematically being excluded from the secular debate because people with convictions infuriate those that call themselves “tolerant.”

This is why I am not only against government intrusion in my life but I also want a realistic alternative to government funded public schooling. The government will choose what our children are taught, regardless of whether the parents care for that teaching. *And* we’re forced to pay for it through our taxes. I want to redirect my taxes toward schools that reflect the morals and values I hold.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Condom Conundrum

Liberal conundrum:

US Agency for International Development has distributed 10 billion US-made condoms around the world. To save money, they can switch to Chinese-made condoms. They’re less than half the price. But that will eliminate jobs in Alabama. Should the US government insert a “buy American” provision back into the stimulus bill, even though it’s known that protectionist trade policies hurt long term GDP? To save US jobs, it’ll cost more money and extend the recession.

Conservative conundrum:

What the *&#% is the US Government doing paying for 10 billion condoms?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Something Besides Obama

Ok, “B” asked me to talk about something besides the political landscape. I’ll try, but somehow just saying I’m not talking about it makes me want to talk about it.

There are a lot of topics that are a possibility. There’s the Study that sexually explicit lyrics lead to teen sex. I’m actually encouraged so many teens are still abstaining. It also leads me to question again whether sex education in our schools makes sense. Teaching them responsibility for their actions makes more sense to me.

The number of people in America that say they have no religion at all has doubled since 1990 to 15%. Where should the blame lie? Media? Education? Government?

Illegal immigrants looking for work are causing traffic accidents in front of Home Depot. They admit they are in the country illegally. Seems to me a simple solution would be to call INS and say, “hey, there are a bunch of illegal immigrants here.” Our US government is responsibile for protecting our borders. Why don’t they do their job?

What do you want to talk about?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Another Reason Not to Be a Democrat

Reason number 76372 not to belong to the Democratic Party:

They target a private citizen to silence him from using his constitutionally-protected first amendment right to free speech.

It’s ok to disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I happen to agree with much of what he says, and think he’s a positive influence. And if you disagree, that’s your opinion, too.

But government entities have no business harassing private citizens’ free speech. This must be part of the “change” Obama promised to inflict upon Americans.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

State Sovereignty

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments t...
Image via Wikipedia

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When the U.S. government is taxing our grandchildren for the purposes of increasing spending, the rights of the state are trampled. Thank goodness states are fighting back.

Lawmakes in 16 states have joined what’s become known as the Tenth Amendment Movement. And it’s picking up speed. At least that many are considering the same. Read more here and here and here.

Call your state representative. Tell them you want to govern your own state, not Washington. Before we’re all broke.

These states have already passed or have resolutions pending to pass the Tenth Amendment Movement: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington.

Soon to come: Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania.

Is your state on this list?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama Urges Spending Curbs for Somebody, But Not Him

Associated Press headline, “Obama urges spending curbs, hands out $15 billion.”

After not quite a month in office, I’ve begun to change my opinion on the President. I thought at first he was a useful idiot, a tool of the powerful Democrat Spending Machine.

I no longer think he’s useful, and “idiot” may be too high a compliment.

“If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it we risk sinking into another crisis down the road,” the president warned. “We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation.”

It’s barely a week since Obama disregarded calls to trim the so-called Stimulus Package, the Porkulus Bill. Billions of dollars of non-stimulus spending items went into that bill, then Obama followed up with another $250 billion or so for the mortgage industry.

Obama has spent more money in 30 days than any President in history. I would not be surprised to find he spent more than all previous Presidents combined.

And he has the gall to say we have to get spending under control? Does he even have a clue what he’s doing? First he says we must spend for the good of our economy, then he says we need to stop spending for the good of the economy.

What the heck is he doing? He’s not just saying an doing two different things – he’s actually saying to different things at the same time.

I see today he’s also pledged $900 million to rebuild Gaza. Didn’t we also sell Israel the weaponry to destroy Gaza to halt terrorist attacks? When the Palestinians re-attack Israel, will we also help rebuild Jewish settlements? Where did Obama suddenly get this $900 million?

Next up, nationalized banks, nationalized healthcare, a few more trillion dollars in spending, followed by another call for fiscal responsibility?

What got us into this mess was government intervention pressuring banks into lending to people who couldn’t pay their loans back and individual and corporate greed and a attitude of immediate gratification and a complete disregard for the debt our grandchildren will inherit. And somehow, the fix for this mess is to pressure banks into lending to people who can’t pay their loans back and individual and corporate greed and a attitude of immediate gratification and a complete disregard for the debt our grandchildren will inherit. Are these people nuts?

No wonder there’s a movement afoot for a Chicago Tea Party. We’re taking money away from the grandchildren in red states and giving it to inept governments in blue states. And now Obama says those same grandchildren better get their spending under control. It’s worse than Orweillian. It’s obtuse and deranged. It’s destructive.

Please stop helping, Mr. President, before we become a third world country.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]