Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Miss California
Miss California; the right's new Sarah Palin. She's younger, she's hotter, she says all the right things and she is now a victim of the gay, liberal, media. She also thinks that homosexuals have a 'choice' to marry in this country (she probably meant that they have a 'choice' to be gay, but the question was about marriage) which is odd because she comes from CA, a state that just voted to amend the constitution to deny homosexuals just that. Opposite marriage is better because, in the famous words of Paula Abdul, Opposites Attract.
My take: Back off Perez. You hurt your case by calling someone a bigot for their opinion, especially when probably 60% of the audience agrees. The 'storm' they fear is apparently one of harsh words and condemnation for deep, often religiously held, beliefs.
My take: Back off Perez. You hurt your case by calling someone a bigot for their opinion, especially when probably 60% of the audience agrees. The 'storm' they fear is apparently one of harsh words and condemnation for deep, often religiously held, beliefs.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
What will they do after the revolution?
I've been thinking about tea baggers.
Now, I understand that they feel that they somehow work harder and are morally superior than everyone else. Awesome. And that somehow because of this everyone else wants what they have, everyone wants to be them.
BUT. Everyone is too lazy so the hard workers end up having to support the lazy do nothings. Via taxes. Taxes are used to pay the governments tab. Those lazy people now want to be able to order things and add it to the government tab!!
Quick! Close the restaurant, turn off the tea pots, shut the windows! Yell! Revolt! That's it, we want our own tab and we don't want you damn lazy liberals having anything to do with it!
What happens if they win? What then, will happen to all the other Americans that want to use the tab (that they help pay for too, also). Will they be jailed? Will they be silenced by the newly re-activated laser plane? What will happen to them, the majority? Comply or die?
Maybe they'll hold a beerfest protest on 4:20.
Now, I understand that they feel that they somehow work harder and are morally superior than everyone else. Awesome. And that somehow because of this everyone else wants what they have, everyone wants to be them.
BUT. Everyone is too lazy so the hard workers end up having to support the lazy do nothings. Via taxes. Taxes are used to pay the governments tab. Those lazy people now want to be able to order things and add it to the government tab!!
Quick! Close the restaurant, turn off the tea pots, shut the windows! Yell! Revolt! That's it, we want our own tab and we don't want you damn lazy liberals having anything to do with it!
What happens if they win? What then, will happen to all the other Americans that want to use the tab (that they help pay for too, also). Will they be jailed? Will they be silenced by the newly re-activated laser plane? What will happen to them, the majority? Comply or die?
Maybe they'll hold a beerfest protest on 4:20.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Between 1979 and 2006, real after-tax incomes rose by 256 percent — or $863,000 — for the top 1 percent of households...
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities just posted this information from the CBO regarding income gaps over the last thirty years. There is a trend one can see regarding income gaps and major recessions/depressions. Trickle down at it's 'best'.
More notes from the piece:
More notes from the piece:
The CBO data also show that between 1979 and 2006:
-The average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the population more than tripled, from $337,000 to over $1.2 million. As noted, this represented an increase of $863,000, or 256 percent.
-By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the population rose from $42,900 in 1979 to $52,100 in 2006 — a relatively modest gain of $9,200 or 21 percent over a 27-year period.
-The average after-tax income of the poorest fifth of the population rose only from $14,900 to $16,500, an increase of $1,600 or 11 percent. [3]
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Healthcare is complicated...
Which is exactly why we need the discussions going on right now. The Daily Dish has been having a great conversation about this and this reader's response was really interesting.
The problem is that this is one of those issues in which various sides of the argument make a lot of sense. The reader above makes a great case on terms of the rising cost of health care being due to the rising cost of innovation and the notion that all people should have access to the latest and greatest medical technology. Which leads us to another argument that, yes, actually all people are human and have the right to live - health care should not be subject to means. Even if you believe that all people should not have access if they can't afford it, it's very hard to make that case without sounding like, well, a jerk. It's starts out innocently enough -- if you can't afford it, I'm sorry but it's not free it must cost someone something -- I mean, if you walk into a jewelry store with $50 bucks you're not walking out with a diamond. To compare human lives to a jewelry store (or any type of market) is kind of hard when you realize that you just said that some lives are worth more than others.
So, then we find ourselves in another argument relating to the "it must cost someone something" line. In other words, okay fine everyone should have access to health care and it's hard to define degrees of health care so then how do we pay for that? Well then we've come full circle to the original argument. So you look at it another way and if we can define "health care" any differently. If the main cost is innovation or the drastic pace in which treatments gets more advanced and more expensive can we look at that any closer? The cost associated with new techniques is usually related to the costs to develop it (R&D), once that's paid for it becomes one of these "older treatments" because it's not only had the R&D phase paid for (or patent worn out) but it's also been in market for a couple of years with no horrible, unexpected side effects so there is a "tried and tested" appeal that develops. It's now standard. Is there a way to limit access just during the "R&D payment" period? If we ended up with public health care, like a lot of other government programs (and health insurance companies) could we establish tougher guidelines on treatments that were available to those with 'public' health care? Of course, it does seem vital that an alternative private insurance "choice" was still available. Then to eliminate too much push back regarding the class wars and how those without the means would still not have access to 'cutting edge' treatments, grants and assistance programs could be established. Treatments that are just expensive because of the actual materials required would probably still need to remain expensive because no matter how you try you can't limit the rising cost of those because as more treatments become 'standard' the number available will only increase resulting in increases in cost. Damn.
Okay so health care will continue to be a HUGE cost but that's if the requirement for health care remains at it's current level. These days the prohibitive cost is enough to keep most people from seeking treatment until they're pretty far gone. Result? More expensive treatment. So, treatment is expensive, prevention is not. Prevention! There is another side of the argument we haven't looked at yet (other than 'preventing' universal access to cutting edge treatment). Regular doctor visits, dental checkups, etc. are cheap and often help catch ailments before they become a problem allowing for natural or pharmaceutical intervention before expensive treatment is needed. Pharmaceutical? Ugh, now we're back to expense aren't we? As easy as it is to demonize the drug companies, like any innovation or new product there is R&D that must be paid for. Someone has to pay for it so who will do this? The patient? The government? The insurance companies? Surely no one expects pharmaceuticals to develop pro-bono and it seems a no brainer that while government shouldn't' be forbidden from development, private sector will remain a key player.
We could go on and on and people are but as long as we keep the discussion going I know that we will eventually find a solution. It won't be perfect but it will be better than what we have now.
The problem is that this is one of those issues in which various sides of the argument make a lot of sense. The reader above makes a great case on terms of the rising cost of health care being due to the rising cost of innovation and the notion that all people should have access to the latest and greatest medical technology. Which leads us to another argument that, yes, actually all people are human and have the right to live - health care should not be subject to means. Even if you believe that all people should not have access if they can't afford it, it's very hard to make that case without sounding like, well, a jerk. It's starts out innocently enough -- if you can't afford it, I'm sorry but it's not free it must cost someone something -- I mean, if you walk into a jewelry store with $50 bucks you're not walking out with a diamond. To compare human lives to a jewelry store (or any type of market) is kind of hard when you realize that you just said that some lives are worth more than others.
So, then we find ourselves in another argument relating to the "it must cost someone something" line. In other words, okay fine everyone should have access to health care and it's hard to define degrees of health care so then how do we pay for that? Well then we've come full circle to the original argument. So you look at it another way and if we can define "health care" any differently. If the main cost is innovation or the drastic pace in which treatments gets more advanced and more expensive can we look at that any closer? The cost associated with new techniques is usually related to the costs to develop it (R&D), once that's paid for it becomes one of these "older treatments" because it's not only had the R&D phase paid for (or patent worn out) but it's also been in market for a couple of years with no horrible, unexpected side effects so there is a "tried and tested" appeal that develops. It's now standard. Is there a way to limit access just during the "R&D payment" period? If we ended up with public health care, like a lot of other government programs (and health insurance companies) could we establish tougher guidelines on treatments that were available to those with 'public' health care? Of course, it does seem vital that an alternative private insurance "choice" was still available. Then to eliminate too much push back regarding the class wars and how those without the means would still not have access to 'cutting edge' treatments, grants and assistance programs could be established. Treatments that are just expensive because of the actual materials required would probably still need to remain expensive because no matter how you try you can't limit the rising cost of those because as more treatments become 'standard' the number available will only increase resulting in increases in cost. Damn.
Okay so health care will continue to be a HUGE cost but that's if the requirement for health care remains at it's current level. These days the prohibitive cost is enough to keep most people from seeking treatment until they're pretty far gone. Result? More expensive treatment. So, treatment is expensive, prevention is not. Prevention! There is another side of the argument we haven't looked at yet (other than 'preventing' universal access to cutting edge treatment). Regular doctor visits, dental checkups, etc. are cheap and often help catch ailments before they become a problem allowing for natural or pharmaceutical intervention before expensive treatment is needed. Pharmaceutical? Ugh, now we're back to expense aren't we? As easy as it is to demonize the drug companies, like any innovation or new product there is R&D that must be paid for. Someone has to pay for it so who will do this? The patient? The government? The insurance companies? Surely no one expects pharmaceuticals to develop pro-bono and it seems a no brainer that while government shouldn't' be forbidden from development, private sector will remain a key player.
We could go on and on and people are but as long as we keep the discussion going I know that we will eventually find a solution. It won't be perfect but it will be better than what we have now.
Stepping on the soapbox
I am cool with protesting government spending and all but I am damn sick of hearing "don't take from the hard working conservatives to give to the lazy liberals". Seriously?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
5.1 million unemployed Americans = LAZY
That's not including all us lazy mothers that have claimed maternity leave (or fathers claiming paternity), or those jerks that get hurt on the job and claim disability. Or the poor mentally ill that need state assistance, or the abused, or the veterans, or the sickly kids that need health care or all those other "lazy" Americans that claim the government assitance paid for the tax dollars of hard working conservatives that have enough extra money to buy millions of bags of tea to throw on socialism funded public parks everywhere.
Really?
Protest your taxes, protest your loss during the election, protest your strange fear of a communist-socialist-facist-hybrid but don't protest other Americans that need help. Just don't.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Since the recession began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds (3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months.
5.1 million unemployed Americans = LAZY
That's not including all us lazy mothers that have claimed maternity leave (or fathers claiming paternity), or those jerks that get hurt on the job and claim disability. Or the poor mentally ill that need state assistance, or the abused, or the veterans, or the sickly kids that need health care or all those other "lazy" Americans that claim the government assitance paid for the tax dollars of hard working conservatives that have enough extra money to buy millions of bags of tea to throw on socialism funded public parks everywhere.
Really?
Protest your taxes, protest your loss during the election, protest your strange fear of a communist-socialist-facist-hybrid but don't protest other Americans that need help. Just don't.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Palin update:
Nice review of the last few weeks.
Courtesy of Andrew Halcro.
For another great read (and image above), check out Mudflats as well.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
I was watching this clip and...
...my husband came into the room and said, "I don't agree with anything this guy is saying, who is this?".
Enough said.
(Glenn Beck is political news' answer to Jim Cramer...one used wild-eyed noise making to get people to buy stocks [many of which probably lost a lot based on his encouragement, and earned depending on the timing] and the other is using extreme rantings to get people to hate their government.
Enough said.
(Glenn Beck is political news' answer to Jim Cramer...one used wild-eyed noise making to get people to buy stocks [many of which probably lost a lot based on his encouragement, and earned depending on the timing] and the other is using extreme rantings to get people to hate their government.
By increasing the defense budget, we are really cutting it...
Yes, it's a mad mad world.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| ThreatDown - Robert Gates, Dog Seders & Obama | ||||
| ||||
It's like some crazy code for sexual deviance!
There are two big right-wing frenzies going on right now;
1. Tea bagging (see post below)
and
2. 2M4M
Well, 2M4M apparently stands for "Two million for marriage" a movement against gay marriage (because the thought of two people committing themselves in a loving relationship is HORRIBLE!). The funny part is that according to the urban dictionary, M4M stands for, wait for it..."men seeking men"! hahahaha.
Reject pop culture long enough and you just look like you live in some sort of strange, angry, bubble that has no relevance to or idea what the outside world is doing!
Of course, constantly making fun of them will only piss them off more and the fact that they don't know these terms kind of works in favor of their "moral" message. It doesn't however, excuse their apparent lack of the foresight or ability to use the "Google" prior to branding their movements.
1. Tea bagging (see post below)
and
2. 2M4M
Well, 2M4M apparently stands for "Two million for marriage" a movement against gay marriage (because the thought of two people committing themselves in a loving relationship is HORRIBLE!). The funny part is that according to the urban dictionary, M4M stands for, wait for it..."men seeking men"! hahahaha.
Reject pop culture long enough and you just look like you live in some sort of strange, angry, bubble that has no relevance to or idea what the outside world is doing!
Of course, constantly making fun of them will only piss them off more and the fact that they don't know these terms kind of works in favor of their "moral" message. It doesn't however, excuse their apparent lack of the foresight or ability to use the "Google" prior to branding their movements.
Evil giggles...she said "Tea bagging"
[updated again] Sometimes the best part of the blogosphere is the fantastic discussion that happens immediately. Immediately enough to settle you down quickly, or enrage you faster. Either way, it's good in my opinion. Here is Sullivan's latest update based on some response from readers to the one just a few hours ago.
[update] Andrew Sullivan has a great summary of what these could be about. The conclusion:
I know I shouldn't make fun but since I have yet to figure out exactly what the tea baggers are protesting (Gov't spending? eight years too late; taxes? largest tax cut EVER just took place; Socialism? uhhh...) I can't help but laugh.
Or for actual discussion (and some giggles)
[update] Andrew Sullivan has a great summary of what these could be about. The conclusion:
"What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum."
I know I shouldn't make fun but since I have yet to figure out exactly what the tea baggers are protesting (Gov't spending? eight years too late; taxes? largest tax cut EVER just took place; Socialism? uhhh...) I can't help but laugh.
Or for actual discussion (and some giggles)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Agendas.
So this story came out today about cyberspies hacking into the electrical grid. Of course, the horror is that they could use it as a terror tactic against us, which would actually be quite horrible considering what smaller blackouts have led to.
What's interesting is that when reading some of the comments on other sites I saw a few similar ideas regarding scare tactics and comparing this to the WMDs threat prior to the start of the Iraq war. Other ideas didn't necessarily point to smoking guns but did state that this would not have leaked without an agenda. Good point.
All still conspiracy type theories but interesting none the less. I like the agenda idea but wonder if perhaps it's less be afraid so you'll be distracted and we can go to war based on a false threat or, be afraid because our entire infrastructure is actually pretty out-dated and vulnerable and even though you might not support this kind of spending on a normal occasion, this is actually a serious threat HERE at home, on our soil. And oh, by the way, that is one of our agenda items...to, you know, update our infrstructure to help make us more secure.
Just a thought. Perhaps not all 'agendas' turn out to be bad things.
UPDATE: It's come true...sort of.
What's interesting is that when reading some of the comments on other sites I saw a few similar ideas regarding scare tactics and comparing this to the WMDs threat prior to the start of the Iraq war. Other ideas didn't necessarily point to smoking guns but did state that this would not have leaked without an agenda. Good point.
All still conspiracy type theories but interesting none the less. I like the agenda idea but wonder if perhaps it's less be afraid so you'll be distracted and we can go to war based on a false threat or, be afraid because our entire infrastructure is actually pretty out-dated and vulnerable and even though you might not support this kind of spending on a normal occasion, this is actually a serious threat HERE at home, on our soil. And oh, by the way, that is one of our agenda items...to, you know, update our infrstructure to help make us more secure.
Just a thought. Perhaps not all 'agendas' turn out to be bad things.
UPDATE: It's come true...sort of.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Quote of the day...
Good ol' Sullivan.
My first thought (out of fairness) was to add some other qualifiers like, shoots guns, goes to church or hates Obama, but after thinking about it no matter how victimized they may feel right now, they are still completely protected and free. Their feeling of their rights being "threatened" is, in my opinion, much better than not having the right at all.
"And I'm tired of hearing that the basic rights of Americans are unimportant - just because those Americans are gay or, God forbid, smoke a little weed."
My first thought (out of fairness) was to add some other qualifiers like, shoots guns, goes to church or hates Obama, but after thinking about it no matter how victimized they may feel right now, they are still completely protected and free. Their feeling of their rights being "threatened" is, in my opinion, much better than not having the right at all.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Thank you, Charles from Chicago.
A caller let Rush Limbaugh have it today and it wasn't a damn liberal or an Obama apologist, it was an-I-voted-for-McCain-and-served-in-the-military-Republican. We need more of these "Charles from Chicago" Republicans to start calling out the crazy in their party. I'm more liberal than conservative but I respect a lot of conservative principles and I respect even more the need for AT LEAST one other party in Washington (ideally we'd all be independent and just debate, but that would require a complete overhaul in the education system and social system in general...but I digress).
Anyway, it's worth listening to and it's worth noting that at the end Rush basically says, "You're not a real Republican because you don't support torture or me".
Source: Media Matters
Anyway, it's worth listening to and it's worth noting that at the end Rush basically says, "You're not a real Republican because you don't support torture or me".
Source: Media Matters
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The damn media is always to blame.
Do people really think that the media is more powerful than their own minds? I understand that our education system is failing but I also accept responsibility that even if the system is flawed, it's ultimately our own decision to take it, leave it, or change it. I am amazed at how often I read, from both sides, the media is to blame. Yes, the media gives platforms to opinions and yes opinions seem to trump truths these days, but why? Could it be our American Idol culture has created an environment in which even the 'news' has to be dolled up in order to be watched? Or have we become so intellectually lazy that hearing news presented in a way that does not agree with our own opinion annoys and infuriates us into thinking that the other side isn't being properly represented? One side revolts against the idea of requiring fairness on the radio, why? Because it would be unfair, adding the opposing view would somehow force the current views to shut up? Really? In protecting our own opinions we keep trying to silence opposing opinions simply because we think they're wrong or misleading. But THAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Does it annoy the hell out of me that crazy, partisan, idiots that appear to know nothing about what they are talking about other than what their viewers want to hear are allowed to have prime airtime? Yes, but if we were to shut them up we would be violating one of the most important rights we have in this country, free speech. Just as it is terrifying to realize that guns are absolutely horrible and seem to somehow end up in the hands of crazies far more than they should, but if we were to take them away we would again be infringing upon a vital freedom in this country.
So what is the solution and why can't we respect our freedoms instead of constantly abusing them? Education. But education faces the same damned, idiotic, fury that everything else faces these days. Liberals have taken over our institutions! No, creationists are trying to force their views! No, recess is unfair and promotes hurt feelings! Dammit, shut the hell up and focus people! FOCUS FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND ON WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
We, the adults, have to realize that we do not know everything. No one ever has. The wisest humans in history have not only accepted but embraced that fact. They have understood that "knowing is knowing that you know nothing". While 'nothing' is a bit strong we cannot be frozen in our current state of knowledge and that is what this country has let itself do, become frozen in the tar pits of twentieth century knowledge. MOVE ON.
We are furious that we are in the current state we are in and we want to look back and blame. Of course those to blame then become wrong in EVERYTHING versus just those things that didn't turn out. Capitalism is evil because corporations have become so powerful they are now 'too big to fail'. Let em' die, but don't kill capitalism along with them. Socialism is evil because Russia ended up with bread lines and everyone was poor. Cancel the 'equality of wealth' but don't dismiss the concept of setting up safety nets for when those capitalist companies need to fail.
Education does not fail because of what they try to teach us, facts change, right and wrong shifts. Education is fluid. Education fails when we forget that the point is to teach people how to learn. Education teaches us how to raise our hands, ask questions, take in new information and make an edit, know our sources, debate without hate and most of all, enjoy the intellectual quest. Education succeeds when students come out intellectually curious, with the ability to change their minds and are dedicated to the quest. Education fails when students graduate and think the quest is over.
The media only holds power when education fails. Education fails when it focuses on the subject matter and not the process. Look at it this way; learning to swim is not about learning the backstroke, it's about learning how not to drown.
So what is the solution and why can't we respect our freedoms instead of constantly abusing them? Education. But education faces the same damned, idiotic, fury that everything else faces these days. Liberals have taken over our institutions! No, creationists are trying to force their views! No, recess is unfair and promotes hurt feelings! Dammit, shut the hell up and focus people! FOCUS FOR ONE FUCKING SECOND ON WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
We, the adults, have to realize that we do not know everything. No one ever has. The wisest humans in history have not only accepted but embraced that fact. They have understood that "knowing is knowing that you know nothing". While 'nothing' is a bit strong we cannot be frozen in our current state of knowledge and that is what this country has let itself do, become frozen in the tar pits of twentieth century knowledge. MOVE ON.
We are furious that we are in the current state we are in and we want to look back and blame. Of course those to blame then become wrong in EVERYTHING versus just those things that didn't turn out. Capitalism is evil because corporations have become so powerful they are now 'too big to fail'. Let em' die, but don't kill capitalism along with them. Socialism is evil because Russia ended up with bread lines and everyone was poor. Cancel the 'equality of wealth' but don't dismiss the concept of setting up safety nets for when those capitalist companies need to fail.
Education does not fail because of what they try to teach us, facts change, right and wrong shifts. Education is fluid. Education fails when we forget that the point is to teach people how to learn. Education teaches us how to raise our hands, ask questions, take in new information and make an edit, know our sources, debate without hate and most of all, enjoy the intellectual quest. Education succeeds when students come out intellectually curious, with the ability to change their minds and are dedicated to the quest. Education fails when students graduate and think the quest is over.
The media only holds power when education fails. Education fails when it focuses on the subject matter and not the process. Look at it this way; learning to swim is not about learning the backstroke, it's about learning how not to drown.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Good Read.
Always the Victim, by John Cole
An Excerpt:
An Excerpt:
The liberal NY Times, ACORN, the Democrats, and Obama all conspired to steal the election from John McCain. John McCain wasn’t doomed by the fallout of decades of Republican rule. He wasn’t doomed by his poor performance in the debates, his choice of an idiot for a running mate, or his ridiculous response to the financial meltdown. No. Instead, we learn that the Republicans lost because a “game-changer” was suppressed by a liberal cabal of evildoers designed to keep the man down.
You are probably laughing, but what you don’t understand is that these guys actually believe this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
