Monday, July 20, 2009

Government Mandated Abortion Coverage

One of the issues being debated on the national healthcare issue is whether or not abortion should be covered under the plan. But it goes even further than that to a requirement that ALL plans cover abortions. So the government will force companies to offer abortion coverage to their members. So what's wrong with this? It's a medical procedure, right?

Here's how I see it, because I'm sure you're just dying to know. Any abortions that are truly medically necessary due to a threat against the life of the mother is between the woman and her doctor and that can be argued as a medically necessary procedure. However, an abortion just because a woman got knocked up and doesn't want a baby is not a medically necessary procedure. It is a completely elective procedure that treats neither an illness nor an injury, and that's what the healtchare coverage should be about. Preventative check-ups and the treatment of an illness or injury.

If the government is going to dictate the coverage of abortion, are they also going to dictate the coverage of infertility treatments? If you can receive treatment for being pregnant and not wanting a baby can you also receive treatment for not being pregnant and wanting a baby? And why stop there? If we're going to cover elective surgeries, paying to have things done just because of what you want and not what you need (nobody NEEDS to have an abortion as a form of birth control) then are we also going to cover cosmetic services? I can argue that I would be a lot healthier with liposuction and a tummy tuck, so will that be covered under the new government plan? That's a great way to control the costs.

How can the government mandate that private companies offer a procedure that is not medically necessary and may be against what the company stands for? Think about this for a minute. The government would be forcing the Catholic Archdiocese to cover abortion. The government would be forcing catholic hospital organizations and churches of all denominations to offer abortion coverage to their employees. They will be forced to offer something they find morally reprehensible, and for what reason? This is not a treatment of illness or injury but a totally elective procedure.

The argument is being made that abortion is legal in this country and it is a medical procedure, but so is a boob job, rhinoplasty, a face lift, etc, but these are not covered under most medical plans. Why should the rest of us pay for the irresponsibility of another. If the woman didn't want to have a baby, there are other forms of birth control out there that she should have used. So now not only does she not have to deal with the consequences of her actions in the form of the pregnancy, but she won't even have to bear the cost of the abortion herself.

It is insanity to require coverage of a procedure who's only purpose is to extinguish human life and call it healthcare.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Politcs As Usual

One of the promises made on the campaign trail was that Barack Obama was going to clean up Washington and do away with politics as usual. How refreshing that would be, and what a promise. To finally get the politicians working for the people. So have we seen an end to politics as usual? Not from my perspective. It appears more that he fired some gamma ray radiation at it and turned wimpy politics as usual into the Incredible Hulk of PAU.

So what is politics as usual? How would we really define it? My personal definition is putting the re-election campaign fund above all other priorities, partisanship, corruption and useless bickering. Considering that definition, have we really seen even the slightest attempt to stop politics as usual? Hell no!

What was the first step in this process, appointing one of the most partisan people in the country as Chief of Staff. Good first step. Then we have a man who can't do his own taxes correctly appointed as the head of the Treasury Dept and the IRS. Then after promising bi-partisanship, excludes the Republicans from any policy committee discussions. His answer to this was that "we need more than the failed policies of the past" which to me translates into "I already know what they're going to say and I don't want to hear it." We also have even more pandering to special interests and anybody who contributes to the campaign fund than before. ACORN anyone? Definitely not a decrease in this situation. So you and me, if we can't make a $20,000 campaign contribution, mean nothing at all to our representative. We also have some of the most blatant cronyism going on, and nobody seems to care. Finally, have the personal attacks or the vitriol coming out of Washington lessened in the slightest? Nope. And then there are the Czars. I don't know if this falls into the definition of politics as usual, but the President now has a Czar for pretty much anything and everything and it's all paid by the taxpayer. So which of his powers has ne NOT delegated to a Czar?

So here we are, nearly 7 months into the administration, and in order to pass his agenda before the American people can figure out exactly how much it's going to cost them at a time that the economy needs it least, they are playing politics as usual at the championship level. This administration could take the Olympic gold medal in politics as usual.

The bribes put into the cap and trade bill, in order to buy the votes of opposers, is the pinnacle of politics as usual.

The promise to work together and change Washington DC was the very first promise to get broken without even an attempt to keep it. And wasn't this what many people found most appealing?

When we are fed up with how Washington operates, and support somebody who promises to clean it up, only to find that the promise was just the "politics as usual" meaningless campaign promise, how do we keep from drowning in apathy and indifference? It does appear to me that not even our votes matter, because the information we base our votes on, can't be trusted at all.

So what's my solution? Throw the bums out. Every last greedy, power hungry and corrupt one of them.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

The Arrogance of Power

I've been trying to read the cap and trade bill, but it is so large that when I tried to pull it up it crashed my computer. That alone tells me that it is not a good piece of legislation. But I finally did find the text of an early version, this one only 936 pages long. Therefore, it is missing all of the additions used to buy the votes of the dissenting Congressmen, many of which accepted that bribe.

So why is the bill so long? Is it because it sets the goals for reductions of carbon emissions and the creation of alternative clean energy? No, it's because it attempts to lay out exactly how this is to be achieved. Congress, in their immutable arrogance, has decided that they are the only people who know how to make this happen. Not the engineers. Not the scientists. Not those who have been researching and experimenting for years. But a bunch of lawyers, most of which have never had a job in the private sector.

It would be one thing if the legislation set goals for reduction of emissions and a deadline to achieve them, and then stated a company would be fined if they don't meet them, but instead it levies a heavy tax on them based on where they are now. The belief being that the heavy taxes will incentivize them to reduce their emissions. But the problem is, that these companies will not have the capital to expend on research and innovation for their energy usage, because they are sending that money to the federal government. So the method by which Congress hopes to achieve their goal, will actually serve to defeat their goal. And is the money collected from these taxes going to fund energy research? Maybe some of it. But a lot of it will go to fund the new government agencies and organizations set up to administer this convoluted new plan.

As I read more and more of the bill, one thing became quite clear. The bill sets up organizations to determine further regulations. In nearly every section is an area dedicated to researching what additional regulations will be required. This bill, like so many that have come out of Congress in the last 50 years, is a power grab. They are setting up more government agencies with unelected authority to slap the American people and American companies with more regulations.

They even have a section in this bill to use the American taxpayer dollars to explore carbon emissions in other countries, and they give themselves the right to tell those other countries what to do. This one has me scratching my head just a bit.

So when it comes right down to it, Waxman-Markey is not an energy bill, it is legislation to set up government agencies to explore regulation. Again, believing that only the federal government can determine what needs to be done and how.

If the only true wisdom is knowing that you don't know everything, then our Congress is sadly lacking in wisdom.

Think I'm kidding? Think I'm exaggerating? Think I'm just being angry, bitchy and confrontational? Then please read the bill yourself. I encourage you to do so. We must be informed on what Congress is doing in order to hold them accountable. Our form of government cannot work if we the people abdicate our power over our elected officials.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Fashion Cents

I am no fashionista myself, but even I have started to question Michelle Obama's taste in clothing. During the campaign she responded to the comments about Sarah Palin's wardrobe costs with surprise, saying that she shops at Lands End or whatever. But now we see her serving the homeless in $600 sneakers and in other pictures carrying a $6,000 handbag. And now we have the outfit at the Vatican. I wonder how much that monstrosity cost us.

I understand that a black dress and a veil are traditional attire at the Vatican, and I applaud her for showing that respect, however, that doesn't make the dress any less hideous. That giant bow has got to go. Hey, I rhymed. I'm sorry here, but it's starting to look like she's taken a page out of Sarah Palin's book and is trying to hide a pregnancy. Either that or all the heavy French food on her taxpayer paid vacation through France went straight to her midsection.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, you might ask. Well, the issue for me is that while the rest of us are tightening our belts, losing our jobs, losing our homes and run the risk of paying much higher taxes to pay for the President's agenda, she seems to be having a great time spending the money they're taking from us.

And it only adds insult to injury, and offends me on even more levels, when she is spending my hard earned money on something that ugly.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Why A Government Option?

When it comes to healthcare reform it's become pretty obvious that the Liberal Democrats in congress want a public option, government run and paid, and a free market solution is not to be considered. But now a fee market solution is on the table. And I like it.

Arizona Representative John Shadegg has come up with a healthcare reform bill which encourages patient choice and competition. The only role the government would play would be to assist people who are unable to afford insurance to pay for the plan of their choice. Imagine if you could shop for your health insurance the way you shop for your car insurance or, for that matter, how you shop for the car itself.

This would empower the consumer of healthcare by allowing them to choose the plan that best suits them, and not relying solely on what their employer offers. If you prefer alternative medicine, you could find a plan that covers that. If you have a pre-existing condition, you could find a plan that doesn't exclude that. If you want only catastrophic coverage, you could get that kind of plan. You could choose something that really meets your own individual needs. This would also enable you to choose a plan that your doctor participates in instead of choosing a doctor from your plan. The cost of the plan would also come into play. The competition on price would necessarily drive the price down.

So why does a healthcare bill that empowers the consumer to control their own plan and encourages competition have little to no chance of passing? Possibly because it does nothing to increase the power of the federal government. This is really the main goal of many of those in our Congress today. And in years past.

If you, like me, like John Shadegg's idea, please let your Congressmen know. There will be no chance of this being considered if we the people do not let our representative in congress know that this is what we want. Without the pressure from us, they will pass the bill that is less concerned with our benefit, than with the increase of their own power.

I offer you this challenge, when a bill is proposed in Congress and up for a vote, ask yourself whether or not that new law will increase the power of the federal government. Then ask yourself if the same end could have been achieved without an increase in federal power. You might be surprised by what you find.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

A Hypochonriac's Dream

I'm going to start this out by saying that I don't go to the doctor unless I'm dying. Or at least I think I am. I broke my arm a few years ago and it took me 3 days to go to the ER because I was sure it was just a sprain and it would heal on it's own. When it swelled up like a rubber glove balloon, I finally went to the doctor. I drove myself. This becomes relevant with the information below.

Do we really want healthcare to be cheap? Changing from the old indemnity plans (deductible then 80% paid) to the HMO actually drove the cost of healthcare up! This was because the cost was so low for the consumer that they went to the doctor for everything. Costs went up because demand went up, but availability stayed the same. Do we really want everybody to be able to afford to go for every little thing? Isn't that just a hypochondriac's dream? And we the people would be footing the bill for somebody else's neuroses.

I'm not saying that the access should be expensive, but it should stop and make you think about whether you really need to go to the doctor, or if it's something you can handle yourself. Taking the patient's responsibility for the cost out of the equation will only increase demand, without increasing the supply, and then our healthcare system turns into one giant Black Friday.

If people will beat each other up over the last hot toy on sale, what will they do in order to be able to see the last available doctor?

If you have a product that you want people to use, that you want them to buy, you put it on sale or just decrease the cost. This makes it more attractive and you'll sell more. The problem with doing this with the healthcare system is that we don't have any more healthcare to offer. We're already down to a back order situation. So is it really smart to put what's already on back order on sale?

My big question is whether the people like me will even be able to get in to the see the doctor, or whether the available resources will be taken up by the hypochondriacs giddy with the fire sale of their favorite product.

What do you think?

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Insurance - What You May Not Know

There is an important part of medical insurance coverage that many people are unaware of. This is that your employer may actually be paying more than your premium, they may be paying your medical bills.

There are 2 different types of funding arrangements when it comes to health insurance. The first, the one most people associate with insurance, is that the insurance company pays all your bills and administers your plan. They offer standard benefits with some options, you select what you want, and pay the premium. This type of coverage is subject to state mandates and the oversights and rules of the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners).

But there is another finding type. This one is commonly referred to as either Self-Funded or Administrative Services Only. In this situation an employer writes their own benefit plan, deciding what they will cover and what they will not, and what the deductible, copay and benefit percentage will be. The employer then absorbs the cost of those medical bills and pays an insurance company to administer the plan that they themselves have written. Most of the large employers in the country offer this type of coverage. These plans are also not subject to the rules of the NAIC, so should the government pass regulations on what must be covered or what deductibles have to be, since these are not insurance companies, they would not be subject to these regulations.

As a result of how these are funded, the cost of the employee health benefit may be much more than we think it is. Knowing that, could we really blame employers if they stopped offering health care coverage to their employees if a government option is created? Eliminating that benefit could potentially save employers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Having all of these different plans also increases the administrative costs of insurance. Things are much easier to admminister if it's a cookie cutter plan. But when things vary greatly from one employer group to another, the administration of the plans becomes more complicated, and the administrative costs go up. So should the government offer that cookie cutter plan only, they will have an administrative cost advantage as a result. Of course you won't have as many options, but they know more about what we need than we do anyway, right?

Although we are told we will still have the option to keep the health care plan we have if we are satisfied with it, how can we do that if our employer decides not to offer it? And their incentive to no longer offer it will be high. So here we have another unintended consequence of legislation which our leaders are not considering.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Why Adultery

Why do people commit adultery? One of the most selfish acts they can ever commit? Why do people risk their families, their friends, their children for sex? Why?

I found out today from a friend that her husband has been cheating on her. They have been married for 22 years and he has pissed that all away. And what's worse is that he's re-writing the last 22 years in his head in order to justify his actions. He won't move out so she is forced to deal with the betrayal, the ongoing betrayal, every day. As are his children who are both old enough to know what's going on.

So why do people do this? The woman he is having an affair with is also married, so this is not limited to men. Adultery hurts everybody. It tears people apart. I'm hurt by this, though of course to nowhere near the level my friend is, but I would never have seen this coming. When she told me it rocked me back on my heels and caused me to re-evaluate everything I know about relationships. How could this happen and why? His friends have deserted him, his children hate him, and his family (who never liked his wife) are the only people still talking to him. And of course the whore he's been screwing.

To make matters worse, the whore's husband is in denial over the whole thing. And my friend's husband won't leave her until his bit of stuff on the side leaves her husband. Too big a coward to strike out on his own. So why, why, why would these 2 people risk everything for their affair? Somebody please explain it to me because I can't understand how this can happen. Can it be love if neither is willing to leave the spouse they were cheating on? I don't think so. And falling in love with somebody else is not an excuse anyway. The best bit of advise I ever got from my mother was that being married did not mean you would never fall in love again, it only meant you couldn't do anything about it.

This was a couple that had been happily married for over 20 years before this started. They were affectionate with each other and supportive. But then my friend is blindsided when she finds out he's been having an affair with a married friend and co-worker. And then he won't leave. Luckily she has a very supportive family because I can't imagine going through this alone.

So somebody please explain adultery to me. And why sexual satisfaction with somebody other than your spouse is more important that everybody you know.

Separate But Equal Marriage

I got into a debate on gay marriage with a gay friend of mine, and the "separate but equal" issue around civil unions vs marriage was raised. One man commented saying that civil unions are tantamount to the civil rights issue of separate but equal programs and facilities , and even suggested that we'd prefer the gay people to ride in the back of the bus. A bit of a stretch don't you think? So this raised the question of whether gay marriage is actually separate from heterosexual marriage. I say yes.

To me, if you cannot say "I now pronounce you husband and wife" at the end of the ceremony then it is not marriage. A marriage was designed to bring 2 individuals together, and at the end of the ceremony they are no longer those 2 individuals, but a husband and a wife. Two halves of the same whole. This is why I believe that a gay union, though it can have the same emotional commitment, the same love, and should have the same rights as a marriage, is not a marriage.

Try asking a gay couple which is the husband and which is the wife and see what kind of reaction you get. This is the reaction I got from the question, "I have never thought of an answer to that question and never will. It is offensive to even ask an ignorant question like that. In any relationship that I am in there are two men and we would both be a "husband." The terms husband and wife are strictly titles as they should be. This is setting the entire female movement back 40 years. What "role" would you define as a woman's role? Dishes? Laundry? At home in the kitchen with a baby on the hip? If you are talking about sexual roles we refer to that as top and bottom. However some people are adventurous and go both ways. Regardless of any of that information I am not going to be emasculated by some bullshit title that you want to try to slap on me or any other gay man." The fact that you would even have to ask that question makes it separate from a heterosexual marriage. And do you think if you asked a heterosexual couple that same question you'd get the same defensive answer? Nope. Therefore, it is different. It is not the same. And this is not about roles of women vs men, but the titles of the parties involved in a marriage.

The separate but equal stance on the racial issue was wrong because the blacks were no different from the whites. They weren't asking that anything be redefined to include them, but that they, as people, were already included. The gays on the other hand are asking for marriage to be re-defined. That alone makes the reference to the civil rights issue baseless and not just a little bit offensive. In things other than marriage, relating to discrimination due to their sexual orientation, I can see the reference. But not as far as marriage goes. Their unions are separate. They are incoherently different from a heterosexual union. Therefore a separate but equal benefit is the logical solution.

But that separate but equal is just not good enough. It's an all or nothing stance that many have taken. Instead of being happy with the legal rights for now and continuing to move forward, they won't accept the compromise and continue to push and push hard. And wasn't it Newton's Law of Physics that said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Which means that the harder they push, the more resistance they meet. And who is suffering due to this refusal to compromise? They are. By not accepting the legal rights compromise, they are losing out on the main point they wish to secure. Interesting approach to the problem.

And now I have been informed that I am still violating the rights of the gays by not supporting their right to define marriage how they want. So the argument has basically come down to the belief that they have a right to define marriage how they want, but I do not have that same right. Interesting stance. And any position I take against it is illogical, while the stance they take for it is logical. How can you have a debate with somebody who believes they are the only ones allowed to make the rules?

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Shall Not Perish

On this Independence Day, while our liberty and our forms of government are under attack from within their own ranks, while I sit in fear that this great nation and the principles on which it was built will be forever lost to the ever increasing hunger of power from our leaders, there is one phrase that keeps me going and keeps me fighting.

That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth. - Abraham Lincoln

That government is on life support right now, it's power being usurped by a government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians. That government is working in tandem with a government of the special interests, by the special interests, for the special interests.

Those 2 governments are the ones that put our government on life support and they are reaching out their hands to pull the plug. They are not only allowing that government to perish from the earth, they are pushing it into it's grave.

Are we the people referenced in that government going to allow this? Will we allow the corruption, the limitless thirst for power, the willingness to set aside principle for a campaign contribution and the complete disregard for our great history force OUR government to perish from this earth?

Or are we, as a people, finally going to stand up and fight to ensure that it shall not perish. That it shall remain a shining light of freedom and liberty, that it shall remain an example to all peoples of the world who wish to shake off their tyranny and live free? Are we? If we are, now is the time.
Stand up and reclaim our nation from those who wish to turn us into Europe. From those who seek to make us what our founders fought to free us from. From those who wish to re-make this nation instead of restore it. Speak up, speak out, get involved and make sure you know where your Congressmen stand and that they know where you stand. Make sure they know that this government is by YOU and not by THEM. Let them know what will not be tolerated. And let them know now!

Friday, July 3, 2009

Is It Better To Have High Standards, Or None At All

Which is better for a person, to set high standards for themselves and fall short of meeting them, or to have low standards and just make them? To me the answer would be obvious. Shouldn't we strive to be the very best that we can be? Set the bar high and always strive to achieve it, but at the same time knowing that we may not always attain that level?

When it comes to politics we know the answer too. In politics, it is best to set a low standard and do enough to get by. Should you set a high standard for yourself and others, always striving for us to be our best, and then you stumble, the airwaves will resound with the gleeful laughs of those willing to point out your mistake. You'll have 24 hr a day coverage of any mistake that you make and it will be used to define you for the rest of your life.

However, if you have a low standard, and there are no expectations that you will be anything but self-serving and corrupt, well then nothing can touch you. You cheat on your taxes and get appointed to the cabinet. You may even get to investigate and potentially arrest others for doing what you got away with scot free. You can funnel millions of dollars in tax payer money to an airport whose only passengers are you and your entourage, and nobody bats an eye. You can tell bold faces lies to the American people, but it's only what they expect.

Is this where we're at? That in the political arena you are better able to hold your office by setting LOW expectations.

The worst part of this is that this same philosophy is being applied to our liberties. We once were a nation that expected much in the way of our freedoms and our liberties. We set the standard and sought to hold to that standard ourselves and encourage others to reach for it. But now..... well where do you think our standards for personal liberties are?

On our Independence Day, of all days, we should be thinking of where the bar of liberty is set, and if it needs to be raised once more. Because think about this, what if they are working so hard to lower the bar so we won't mind so much when they remove it altogether

Palin Steps Down

Sarah Palin has stated that she will resign as governor of Alaska effective the end of the month. Some say it's so she can run for President, it's possible, but I don't think so. As a single term governor who resigned, she isn't a great Presidential candidate. Even though we currently have a one term senator who spent most of that first term campaigning for the white house, in the white house. So maybe she will run. And maybe she just wants to protect her family from the attacks that just won't stop. The attacks that took up way too much of her time to defend. She did mention how much of the state's time was taken up defending the attacks. There were 15 ethics attacks, all of which she won. This has taken the attention away from the real work of the people. The Vanity Fair article is a case in point.

Sarah may also be taking herself out of the elected office in order to have influence behind the scenes. That I could see. What the press, the Democrats, and even the Republicans did to her was abhorrent. This is the reason we are stuck with professional politicians instead of common sense individuals running our country? And if Sarah went on a campaign to remind our politicians of what our real principles are and who they really serve, that would suit me just fine. She's one of the few who appears to remember that she represents the people, not the party, not the lobbyist and not the special interest groups. I would love to see her drag our professional politicians into American Principle Boot Camp and send them back out to us armed with the skills to save our nation.

After all, isn't Sarah Palin the TYPE of person that we want in our offices? I'm not talking about her ideology or her personal political beliefs, or even her style, but somebody who started out small, did a good job and kept getting promoted. Somebody who brings the basic principles of the country to the fore front of the minds of the people. Somebody with some common sense which is a commodity there is far too little of in the political realm right now.

I'd love to see Sarah in the background influencing politicians, putting them and keeping them on the right track. The track that thinks about the founding principles of the country and the good of the people. I'd love to see her as a talking head, a political pundit, voicing her common sense, though not always well educated, viewpoint on the issues. I'd love to see the wink and the "you betcha" become synonymous with who America really is at her core.

Would you be willing to subject yourself to the hatred that was thrown at Sarah Palin? Picked on for her hair, her clothes, and her state? Would you subject your family to the miscroscopic view and public exposure of every one of their transgressions?

I love Sarah for her no nonsense approach and plain speaking. She was a fresh breeze in a city teeming with bullshit. And even though I'm not so sure I'd want her running the country, some of the attacks that were levied against her are why we end up with politicians instead of statesmen.

The people who should run, the people we as a nation need to run, are the people who will not run.

The united States of America

The little u in the title is not a mistake. Nor was it a mistake when it was written with a little u in the Declaration of Independence. The beginning of the Declaration is what most people remember, but the end really shows where we planned to go.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

It wasn't that we were a fee and independent nation, but the colonies were free and independent states. If you have any question at all over the issue of the rights of the states vs the rights of the federal government, this paragraph from the Declaration of Independence should tell you what you need to know. The federal government was established to make interstate commerce easier, and to ensure the same basic principles for each, but the states were still Free and Independent. At least that was the plan.

Think the EU (European Union) and you have what the federal government was supposed to be. It was the federal government because it was a federation of the states. And what is a federation? One definition I found was this; the act of constituting a political unity out of a number of separate states or colonies or provinces so that each member retains the management of its internal affairs This is basically what the EU is also supposed to be. The European Union was created to help the European nations work together and improve commerce. They have developed a single market through a standardised system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the freedom of movement of people, goods and capital. This defined from their treaty. So the EU actually mirrors what our federal government was supposed to be.

The EU is also strongly suggesting that North America follow in it's footsteps and create a similar union of our nations. And we're resisting, because we know that these federations or unions will eventually usurp the power of the independent member states in the union. Gee, why would we think that? Maybe because we have seen our federal government take more and more power from it's own member states, and we're watching the EU attempt to do the same thing.

The Constitution protected the right of the states in the Bill of Rights with the 10th amendment. That amendment is very straightforward in saying that anything not specified in the Constitution reverted to the power of the states. It preserved the states Independence and power over their own internal workings. But somehow, the 4,000 words of our Constitution manages to include everything that ever was or ever could be. At least that's how it's interpreted, because fewer and fewer issues are believed to be the right of the state to decide.

I don't believe that we should be 50 nations instead of 1, but I do believe that the rights of the individual states should be protected, and that we need to know what we were supposed to be and compare it to what we've become.

As we celebrate our nations Independence, more important the the fireworks, friends and food, is the memory and the understanding of our own history as a nation. Perhaps the reading of the Declaration of Independence should be as much a part of the celebration as the hotdogs and the fireworks.

God Bless America!

Thursday, July 2, 2009

There's Hypocrisy, And Then There's Hypocrisy

Governor Sanford angered so many people because of the hypocrisy of what he did. Preaching family values while simultaneously committing adultery, outraging the masses over his hypocritical behavior. He had passed no laws based on family values that cost the tax payers any money, and yet the hypocrisy of his actions was enough to bring him down.

But why is the hypocrisy of an affair the only hypocrisy important enough to end a political career? What about all of the other hypocrisy that's out there in the political arena? And there's a lot of it to be had. Why is that hypocritical behavior immune from punishment, or even admonishment? Why do we only appear to care about one kind of hypocrisy?

How about preaching fiscal responsibility while spending money faster than Paris Hilton on crack? Oh, wait a minute, a bunch of people did lose their jobs over that one.

Let's try this one then. How about screaming about deficit spending and how it is ruining the country, and then quadrupling the deficit? Isn't that hypocrisy? And isn't that hypocrisy going unpunished? In fact, aren't we applauding that behavior while asking them to spend even more?

Here's another one. How about preaching for transparency in politics while simultaneously holding a town hall meeting with staged attendees and pre-screened questions. Isn't that hypocrisy? But that one's OK too I guess.

Next we have preaching bi-partisanship and an end to business as usual, while at the same time blaming the opposing party for everything that's wrong and refusing to include them in any discussions. Hypocrisy? You decide.

Then there's decrying the salary of others while simultaneously voting themselves a raise. Not to mention promoting a cap on salaries, while charging an arm and a leg for their own speaking engagements. Hypocrisy?

This ones my favorite, passing a huge bill that will cost Americans thousands of dollars each in order to reduce CO2 emissions, then climbing in their private jet for a little jaunt home. I won't even ask if this is hypocrisy because if you can't see that one you simply don't want to. Al Gore getting paid millions for his speaking engagements on global warming, but getting to those speeches in his private jet. Hypocrisy!

Try this one. Condemning credit card companies for increasing your interest rate, while working to increase your taxes. Hypocrisy? Maybe.

And of course, how could I forget, preaching tolerance of others and then screaming insults at anybody who disagrees with you. Hypocrisy? Oh yeah, you betcha.

These are the hypocritical actions that have popped into my head. So why is a sexual driven hypocrisy more egregious that the rest of them? And what other hypocrisy do you see? I'd love to know your favorite hypocrisy pet peeve.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Where's My Gerard Butler?

In watching a clip from The Ugly Truth with Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl (it looks awesome) I was thinking that I could use a coach of my own. Of course he has to look and sound exactly like Mr Butler. Though I'd prefer him with his natural Scottish brogue. (insert big heaving sigh here)

Like Katherine's character in this movie I don't understand men. At all. At least not on a romantic level. I have lots of male friends and can hang out, watch football, drink beer and play poker with them and have the time of my life. I'm actually pretty good with a man / woman friendship. But I can never seem to get a relationship with a man that isn't friendship. Of course some of this is because most of the men I know are married. Or gay. But mainly it's because I don't understand the rules of attraction. If a man speaks to me I assume he wants to have an intelligent conversation. This is where that oh so sexy Gerard Butler comes in to play.

In one of the movie clips I saw, he tells Abby (Heigl) that he can help because he knows lust, seduction and manipulation which is something she knows nothing about. Wouldn't I love to find a man who knows about lust and seduction and is willing to teach me a thing or two about them. Although the manipulation I could live without.

So where can I find a romance coach like that? And more importantly, how can I seduce HIM.

New York Senate Playground Plolitics

The New York State Senate has perfectly illustrated exactly what is wrong with politics in this still great, (for now), nation. The legislature has been engaged in petty political grandstanding and refusing to do the work of the people for months now. Neither party seems to actually care about the people in the state. But what has happened now has reached a new level.

The Democrats in the NY Senate actually refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because a Republican was leading it. Are you kidding me?! How petty can you possibly get. This is a blantant and glaring example of putting the party above anything and everything else. How can our government system work when our politicians refuse to pledge their allegiance to our flag because of who is leading the call. Isn't allegiance to the nation, and to the state, the one thing that should be non-negotiable?

The New York nonsence is simply a more blatant example of what is going on across the nation. The politicians are more concerned with securing their own power than doing the work of the people. Getting there early to claim control of the podium? Are you kidding me? Refusing to work for anything because you're not the party in control? What the Hell!

If our politicians insist on behaving like children, maybe it's time we put them all in time out.