Tuesday, July 31, 2012

High End Hypocrisy

A while back, my brother and I were discussing a gay online site that outs celebs and politicians. My take was that it was a completely inappropriate invasion of privacy and the fact that it was gays outing other gays was shocking to me. My brother went on to explain that they didn't out every famous homosexual that was currently closeted...only those that speak out against homosexuality or propose/pass laws against the that community's interest. I guess that's fair then. Exposing their hypocrisy through exposing their sexual preference. I get it.

I thought of that conversation this morning as I looked through pictures of Michelle Obama in her $6,800 J Mendel jacket at the pre-Opening Ceremony Buckingham Palace reception (source).

I have no class envy. I don't want to out Shelley for being able to afford higher end designers than I can (though, in all honesty, I wouldn't have paid $100 for that jacket). BUT, when the Obama's are campaigning as the champions of the middle class and painting Romney as the rich elite...to wear a jacket that would cost most of us in the middle class almost a month's wages...seems a bit like high end hypocrisy to me.

Caption It...

Friday, July 27, 2012


I am not a fast food girl, but Chick-fil-A does have a great grilled chicken salad with berry vinaigrette that I am suddenly craving...

ONCE AGAIN, the Left elucidates the sad truth that they only believe in the freedom of THEIR speech.

My sis and I were at the beach the past two days for my birthday and for the first time, in my too many years on this earth, I heard politics being discussed all over the beach. As I walked by various clusters of people I heard talk of the impending election, a flat tax, property taxes, soda bans and health care. Normally it's beer brands, fishing lures and baseball. I have never experienced this before and it leads me to believe that people are truly scared about the economy and the country in general...

So let's distract the folks with chicken sandwich bans?

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Guest from the Right: T. Paine

Science Over Subjectivity in the Abortion Debate

America since its very founding as a nation was predicated on the belief that our rights came from a Divine Creator, and not granted by a King or governments comprised of men. Further, our founders believed that the primary purpose of our government was to secure, protect, and defend those rights for all Americans. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson specifically penned in our founding document as a nation that paramount amongst those inalienable rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I shudder when I see what a tumble down the cliff we have taken in no longer protecting one of our most elemental rights since 1973 with the Supreme Court’s finding of the “right” to abortion existing in our Constitution, via their landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

The right to life is the sine qua non of all human rights; that is to say that without the existence of this right, there can be no others.

Now the pro-life versus pro-abortion divide is not over whether government should prevent the killing of innocent human life. I think it is safe to say that nearly all Americans agree that innocent human life absolutely must be protected. The divide exists over how to define human life; or more specifically, how government should define that human life which deserves the protection of the law against its intentional destruction. In other words the debate regarding abortion typically comes down to when life begins. The question at hand is at what point of development of the fetus does abortion actually constitute the killing of a human life?

Many pro-abortion advocates argue that most pro-lifers are strongly guided or at least influenced by religious faith and subjective opinions instead of science with their unwavering stances against abortion. They decry that pro-life advocates want to remove the choice of a woman to abort her unborn child, and thus remove her right to control over her own body. The argument is that we don’t know at what point a life is truly its own, so rather than succumb to religion and superstition, we should not infringe upon a woman’s choice in what to do with her own body, accordingly.

I would argue that precisely the opposite is true. It is the pro-abortion advocate that is ignoring science and using subjectivity and human opinion in their determination of when human life begins in the womb.

Most pro-life advocates support the concept that life absolutely begins at conception. This position seems far more rooted in science and objectivity than does the pro-abortion stance. Indeed, at the very moment of conception there is the creation of a life that is genetically complete and distinct that comes into existence. The gender and most all physiological traits of that human are in place at that moment of conception. Before conception, there was not a separate and distinct life; after conception, there is objectively and scientifically a unique human life that will continue to develop and change incrementally until his or her death.

Indeed, after conception all further change will be incremental. There will be a moment before the first fetal heart beat and the moment after it. There will be the moment that a newborn will take its first breath of air and the moment immediately after it. There will be the first moment a middle aged lady finds a gray hair and the first moment afterwards. Each moment in development, maturation -- in life-- will be just one more incremental step before and after each subjective moment in a timeline.

Trying to determine at which other point beyond conception in that incremental growth timeline of a person that human life actually begins is purely subjective, no matter what government, advocates, judges, pregnant women, or even doctors opine on the topic. And indeed, they are all nothing but subjective opinions based on human determined criteria. Conception is absolutely and unequivocally the most scientifically verifiable and defensible position for when life begins. It is, therefore, at that moment of conception that life, HUMAN life, should and indeed must be afforded the protections that God has granted and our government was founded to defend. After conception, the choosing of a point to allow the abortion of a human life is relegated to personal opinion and is simply an elevation of that subjective opinion above that of objective science.

When subjective opinion and ideology are the factors that comprise the rationale for government’s actions in their not exercising of a paramount responsibility, then all of rational government is jeopardized.

Now it may not seem intuitive or obvious to equate a newly conceived zygote with a twenty year old man, but from an objective scientific perspective, both are unique and individual creations of life. If left to take their natural courses, both will continue to mature, learn, love, and have the opportunities to reach their potentials for good or ill that they so desire. Aborting that unborn child, that zygote, is every bit the same as killing that twenty year old man in the fact that both lives are taken and prevented from ever further reaching that potential for which those lives were intended. Making a decision to abort that child based on some nuanced idea of viability or other subjective factor is absolutely wrong. I would far rather trust my stance on the abortion debate to be based on intellectually defensible science, accordingly.

(You can read T. Paine daily at Saving Common Sense)

Guest from the Left: J. Marquis


Hey, GOP- so you really want to take healthcare access away from millions AND increase the deficit?

"President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will reduce rather than increase the nation's huge federal deficits over the next decade, Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said Tuesday, supporting Obama's contention in a major election-year dispute with Republicans." (source)

(You can read J. Marquis daily at Major Conflict)

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Assault Weapons Part II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

As I stated yesterday, I completely understand and agree with a citizen's right to bear arms for protection and hunting along with all the reasons the settlers wanted the provision in place:

  • deterring tyrannical government;

  • repelling invasion;

  • suppressing insurrection;

  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;

  • participating in law enforcement;

  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.

  • Virtually another "check and balance" of government.

    But, I have to say that your arguments have yet to sway me insofar as the assault weapons:

    JRob wrote: "The 2nd Amendment ends with, "...shall not be abridged." The words, "...unless the gun looks scary" do not appear."

    Bram said: "Our Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment so they could hunt or even protect themselves from criminals. It was created so that we can, if necessary, overthrow a tyrannical government. So I for one will be keeping my "Assault" rifle (it's actually more of a battle rifle).

    Once you look at what an "assault rifle" really is - a medium powered semi-automatic rifle - it isn't very scary."

    But, here's where I'm getting hung up.

    If the founding fathers could have glimpsed into the future at how weaponry was going to evolve...would they have made the blanket provision they did? If they knew that there would eventually be a gun that could fire 50 rounds per second?!

    What type of guns existed when the Second Amendment was written?

    Arms in 1791

    Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.

    Guns in 1791 WOULD

    ...be made by a gunsmith.
    ...have rudimentary rifling.
    ...be single-shot weapons.
    ...be loaded through the muzzle.
    ...fire by means of a flintlock.

    Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

    ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
    ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
    ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
    ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
    ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
    ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890) (source)

    I just can't help but feel that the authors of the Second Amendment wouldn't have painted it with such a broad brush had they known what was to come...

    Monday, July 23, 2012

    Assault Weapons

    I'm sure we've had this discussion here before, and I should preface it by saying that I fully support the right for all citizens to own handguns for protection and rifles for hunting (if they must)...

    But can someone please explain to me why anyone should have the right or the need for automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry other than SWAT officers or military personnel?!

    I know this goes against all that is Libertarian, but what good ever came from civilian ownership of such high powered weapons of mass killing? Yes, the Joker-wanna-be could have used many things available online to kill those people in the movie theater, but the guns made it that much easier and more efficient. I think I'm with Bill Kristol on this one.

    The only argument I've heard is: If the government takes over, they can't possess all the high powered weapons! Really?! And I was worried about my tin foil hat for the Fair Share PBS game?

    I just don't get it... Maybe because I have lived my life in a very urban setting? It'll be interesting to see if anyone can make me see the "other side..."

    Sunday, July 22, 2012

    It's Philly, Yo!

    Philly: Redefining the meaning of the city-funded, public pool...

    Saturday, July 21, 2012

    Guest Post by Rickvid in Seattle


    Let’s compare truth, facts, and events.

    This: Video 1, and this: Video 2, and this: Video 3, Versus this: Video 4.

    Yes, yes, yes, some say “If only all the guns were gone…” An idiot’s magical thinking. Guns don’t kill people; murderers, unopposed, kill people. “Gun free zones” kill people. Politicians who know that law abiding citizens will not shoot them as they pass law after law after law, from the safety of their well protected homes and work places, to keep the lawful people disarmed and at the mercy of killers, kill people.

    Finally, they call all this a “tragedy.” No, some poor folks killed when a bus goes out of control on an icy road is a tragedy. These murders are atrocities. But that word gets panties all in a stitch on certain people and groups, so, no, they have to be tragedies. The real atrocity is the way the same well guarded scum come out of the woodwork demanding a yet more disarmed populace. Always popular with tyrants and their minions.

    (Rickvid in Seattle is a Blonde Sagacity exclusive and can only be read here) :)

    Friday, July 20, 2012

    Guest Post by Bill Eccles

    "Yes, She Did That"

    Her name is not Julia.

    Her name is Terry M. Eccles, M.D., and she did that. She did build that business that President Obama is trying so hard to tax and regulate into nonexistence. She did work 100 hours per week to take care of her 3,000 patients. And it doesn’t take context to understand that she continues to do so, tirelessly, day in, day out.

    No, she alone built her business, and nobody else did it for her.

    But Senator Elizabeth Warren, President Barak H. Obama and Democratic apologists are trying to diminish that accomplishment, to reduce the illustrious achievement of making it, by saying that it’s only by the efforts of every other person in America that she somehow did it. That she couldn’t have done it without everybody else’s help, without the government’s help. That if those roads hadn’t been paved, she couldn’t have done it. That if those teachers hadn’t taught her, she couldn’t have done it. That if those student loans hadn’t been guaranteed, she couldn’t have done it. That if the government hadn’t been there to coddle her, that she couldn’t have done it.

    What they all fail to realize is that
    the people who do things are going to do them, with or without the government’s help, with or without the help of a larger community, with or without all the benefits of this great society of ours.

    They will find a way to go to school without a paved road or a bus ride. They will learn their ABCs in spite of the lack of a textbook or an attentive teacher. They will find a way to pay for college. They will fight government red tape to get the best health care available for their fellow citizens. And they will do so because they aspire to greater things. They will make good decisions in spite of the lack of a role model. They will overcome, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

    Though the President used the “i” word in his speech, he doesn’t understand that initiative is not legislated. Initiative is not granted or bestowed. Initiative is not earned. Initiative is not purchased with food stamps. Initiative is not available by mail order or court order.

    Initiative is part of us, and it is either fostered or hindered by the government and those around us. It is clear that President Obama and his administration believe that they foster initiative by taxing the rich, belittling the successful, devaluing hard work and giving trophies to every kid on the losing team just for showing up to the field.

    This childish mentality will not stand between those with initiative and their success, but it will certainly make achieving success significantly more difficult. And everything that makes it more difficult for them to succeed makes it more difficult for us and our country to succeed with them.

    The people in this country who are doers will do. Our country’s success is riding on their shoulders. So if you want them to succeed, get out of their way.

    In November, let’s get Barak H. Obama out of the way.

    (You can read Bill Eccles daily at Bill's Words)

    Thursday, July 19, 2012

    Guest from the Right: Rebel Yid

    The Dangers of Social Justice

    F. A. Hayek

    Hayek argues that the term “social justice” is “empty” and lacks “any meaning whatever”- at least within the context of a society affirming traditional liberal values. He compares a belief in social justice to a belief in witches or ghosts. Because of its effectiveness as a cloak for coercion, Hayek asserts, “the prevailing belief in ‘social justice’ is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization”. To talk of justice in terms of social justice is “an abuse of the word”. According to Hayek, “the term is intellectually disreputable, the mark of demagogy or cheap journalism which responsible thinkers ought to be ashamed to use because, once itc vacuity is recognized, its use is dishonest.”

    To give the concept of social justice any meaning within a free society one would have to completely transform the social order. To make sense of “social justice”, Hayek tells us, we would be required to “treat society not as a spontaneous order of free men but as an organization whose members are all made to serve a single hierarchy of ends” To achieve this transition, central values that formerly governed that society- most notably the value of personal freedom- would have to be sacrificed. Instead of laws taking the form of impersonal rules equally applicable to all, laws would increasingly need to take the form of specific commands issues by authorities on the basis of information only they would be in a position to hold….Distributional justice is not the realization of the liberal promise of equal freedom: it is the betrayal of that promise.
    From Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi

    HKO comments:

    Our system of liberty is based on a distinct and clear set of rules that apply equally to everyone. This equality of opportunity rewards risk and work. To change this dynamic to one of social justice requires that rules are not equally applied. Witness the 1400 exemptions given to select groups after the passage of Obama care.

    The fear of a “living, breathing constitution” is that it will betray the equality under the law to create special benefits for distinct groups of people.

    One could argue, and many have, that certain institutions are required to promote true equal opportunity- such as quality education and health care. Some social free market economists such as Hayek have agreed. But it does not necessarily follow that these institutions must be centrally run by only government institutions.

    Government initiatives into education and health care (and housing) has driven up costs making access more difficult rather than less, and in many cases have caused quality to deteriorate.

    (You can read Rebel Yid daily at: Rebel Yid: Beyond Left & Right)

    Guest from the Left: J. Marquis


    I have to say I was pretty shocked when I saw this quote. I don't know if it says more about McCain being out of touch or Romney's potential for self-destruction.

    "Mitt Romney's tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a "better candidate."' (source)

    (You can read J. Marquis daily at Major Conflict)

    Tuesday, July 17, 2012

    Indoctrinating Pre-Schoolers at PBS

    My little one was playing on the PBS games site the other day while I was making jewelry and I couldn't believe what I was hearing...

    A game called Fair Share that was scolding him for giving one dog more treats than the other and then instructing him that "everyone is happier when they have their fair share."

    OMG, really?

    What if one dog did a bunch of tricks and the other two just destroyed all your toilet paper rolls...? Then why should the bad ones get a "fair share?"

    "Oh, it's just a game," some will claim...but true indoctrination always seesm innocuous. I think this game, with Obama's own catch phrase, is a disgrace.

    I taped this with my phone for those that can't go on the games website at work:

    "The dogs sure are happy with their fair shares!"

    What do you think...are you shocked too or do I need to start crafting my tin foil hat?

    Saturday, July 14, 2012

    Conservatives "Much Happier" Than Liberals

    This OpEd article was actually published in the New York Times...

    Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

    "Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why." (Read the entire article)

    Of course, this doesn't come as a shock to any of us, but I'm sure it spoiled the morning coffee of more than a few of the NYT's readership...

    Friday, July 13, 2012

    Brad Pitt's Mom & Romney's NAACP Speech

    All work and no play is making ALa a dull girl...but, these are the two things I would have liked to post about if I had the time:

    If you haven't read it yet, Here is Brad Pitt's Mom's letter to the editor about voting for Mitt Romney

    Of course the pro-choice left doesn't think Jane Pitt has a right to choose and now she is getting death threats. Angelina Jolie's dad, Jon Voight, has come out publicly to support her...but only crickets from the Brangelina camp? Oh Brad, a real man would defend his mother from garbage like this whether they agreed with her or not.

    As for Romney's NAACP speech. I watched the entire thing (which is rare these days) and was nominally impressed. Talk about a tough room. The MSM is talking about the booing over "Obamacare repeal" but not mentioning the standing ovation for "traditional marriage." I guess NAACP members would agree with Brad Pitt's Mom. But, unfortunately for Romney and subsequently all of us, at the end of the day this is America and people just want the "free stuff."

    Caption It...

    Wednesday, July 11, 2012

    Sanctimonious Liberals

    Not sure why, but Facebook has made my disdain of sanctimonious liberals 1,000 times worse than the blogs ever did. Little things like this:

    "Sick and goddamned tired of people posting negative shit about food stamps and welfare. THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET KEPT ME FED AND HOUSED AS A KID. If you think today's kids don't deserve the same, please unfriend me and go fuck yourself."

    (Oh trust me, if I was friends with you I would have never seen this because I would have 'hidden' your statuses long ago like most of my other left-leaning contacts...but I was tempted to friend you JUST so I could unfriend you.)

    And then her explanation:

    "I've seen it a lot lately. A stupid thing about parks posting signs about not feeding animals because it makes them dependent on handouts (and poor people are like animals, duh!) is making the rounds again. But I agree w XXXX - the "some people abuse it so no one should have it" argument is dumb. By the same token, "some people commit war crimes, let's abolish the army and never go to war again" ... no one thinks THAT makes sense, right? Same logic..."

    Which means she was seeing this as it made the FB rounds:

    Has anyone advocated for abolishing welfare or just putting tighter restrictions and cleaning up all the fraud and bureaucracy?

    And, though I have a strict NO POLITICS ON FACEBOOOK rule for myself, it grated on me until I had to go in and point out that TRUE compassion reaches into their own pocket and doesn't rely on a government that gives welfare recipients 24 cents on the dollar to do so... And then I have to go back and delete my comment because I broke my own rule and I don't want to get sucked into some pissing match with a friend's friend. It's maddening... And no, I can't just get off facebook because I have a social media job that requires my facebook presence 3-5 times a day...

    So, this morning, a few days after all this transpired...I was afforded a harty guffaw thanks to this girl that has decided to channel her anger at those pissed off at the problem instead of the cradle to gravers out there perpetuating it.

    Philly Mayor Imposes a Homeless Outdoor Feeding Ban.

    Our liberal Democrat Mayor has taken that newspaper clipping to a whole new level.

    Monday, July 09, 2012

    A National Disgrace

    "There is something horribly wrong in America when a soldier is jailed for killing the enemy." -Pamela Geller

    That's exactly what has happened to 1st Lt. Michael Behenna. Behenna was an Army Ranger now serving a 15-year sentence after being found guilty of unpremeditated murder in the shooting death of Ali Mansur, a known Al-Qaeda operative.

    Michael Behenna Loses Final Military Appeal, by Bob McCarty

    "Short of a presidential pardon or Supreme Court decision in his favor, which isn’t likely in this day and age, it appears Army Ranger 1LT Michael C. Behenna will remain behind bars at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., until he turns 40 years old. The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C., has upheld the 29-year-old Edmond, Okla., native’s conviction stemming from a May 16, 2008, shooting in Iraq."

    The majority opinion:

    We granted review in this case to determine whether the military judge provided complete and accurate self-defense instructions, and whether the Government failed to disclose favorable and material information to Appellant’s prejudice. We hold that, although the military judge’s instruction on escalation was erroneous, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because escalation was not in issue. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, withdrawal also was not in issue. We further hold that, even assuming that the information Appellant asserts the Government failed to disclose was favorable, it was immaterial in regard to findings and sentencing because the evidence substantially overlapped with other evidence presented by other defense experts, Appellant was not entitled to an escalation instruction, and the members clearly rejected the Government’s theory of premeditated murder. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).

    The dissenting opinion:

    A death occurred in the theater of operations. A soldier has been convicted of murder. Was it murder or self-defense? By law, the responsibility for making that factual determination rested with the court-martial panel, not with this Court. The ambiguous, confusing, and incorrect instructions from the military judge deprived Appellant of the right to have a panel of officers make that decision. The military judge compounded that error by failing to take corrective action with respect to the Government’s failure to provide timely disclosure of exculpatory evidence. This Court should reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and authorize a rehearing.

    Atlas Shrugs has more

    You can read more about the case HERE and HERE.

    Not making light of this horrific situation, but I can't help but thinking that this is where a show like Undercover Boss would really come in handy. Obama could go undercover in the USMC or the Army to see first hand how new ROEs effect the boots on the ground. He could experience the confusion of being given orders and then being jailed when he followed through on those orders... It would be the most eye-opening episode to date.

    Caption It...

    Thursday, July 05, 2012

    Guest from the Right: Proof

    Obama's "Evolution" on Gay Marriage

    One of the charges that Obama wants desperately to avoid this November is that of being a "Flip flopper". To that end, a story was concocted that Obama somehow "evolved" on his position on gay marriage.

    Now, whether or not you believe in evolution, since evolution is typically portrayed as a linear progression from the simple to the complex, you must admit that this must have been one strange and unusual evolutionary process to flip flop, er, change back and forth between his positions.

    In 1996, when he ran for the Illinois senate, as liberal Democrat, he believed it was in his best political interests to support gay marriage. Which he did. Eight years later, when he was running for national office, he determined it might not be in his best political interests to support gay marriage, so he came out against it - a view which he still publicly held in 2008 when he ran for president. Finally, in yet another election year, he came out with a supposedly more "enlightened view, where he would now recognize gay marriage, (providing enough gays support him, contribute to his campaign, etc). In other words, it has once again been perceived as beneficial to his campaign (and fund raising) for him to "evolve" into his current beliefs.

    A couple of questions: One, if his "evolution" is genuine, perhaps Mr. Obama would tell us what were the pivotal moments in his beliefs, what events and circumstances, caused him to flip flop, er, retreat from his position on gay marriage between 1996 and 2004? (Other than political expediency, I mean!) Some crisis of conscience? Some observed aberration from what he believed? Surely there must have been some tragic event, some seismic cataclysm on his way of thinking that would cause him to change his mind. What was it?

    If his change was principled at all, and not merely sticking his finger in the wind to see what positions would garner him the most votes, perhaps the man who has written two autobiographies to date, and never seems to tire talking about himself, could explain the thought processes and soul searching involved in making that retrograde portion of his "evolutionary" journey? Or was the man who voted "present", like Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, merely trying to "preserve his political viability"?

    Two, how can one say he has "evolved", when the end result sees him in the same place as as where he started, at the beginning of his "evolutionary" process? How is that "evolution" and not the "F-F" word? And if the acceptance of gay marriage is the most enlightened position, how can you describe it as "evolutionary" to regress as he must have between 1996 and 2004? (Unless it was simply the most crass of political opportunism, telling prospective voters whatever he thought they wanted to hear, and adapting or hiding his beliefs to bamboozle the greatest number of people to vote for him?)

    Funny, too, how all the major changes of Obama's "evolution" can be traced to different election years and different bases of voters, isn't it? That's right! You're looking for the "H" word now!

    Some of Obama's more rabid supporters will try to paint Romney as a "flip flopper" between now and November. Without even getting into all the campaign promise made and broken by Obama, Mr. Romney has a long way to go before he fills Obama's sandals!

    (You can read Proof daily at Proof Positive Blog, Cartoon by Bok)

    Guest from the Left: J. Marquis

    "One Trick Turtle"

    Does anyone else have this problem? No matter what subject Mitch McConnell is supposed to be talking about, all I can hear is him saying his main goal is making sure Obama is a one-term president.

    Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy?: Be it ideology or stratagem, the GOP has blocked pro-growth policy and backed job-killing austerity – all while blaming Obama.

    (You can read J. Marquis daily at Major Conflict)

    Tuesday, July 03, 2012

    Single Payer Health Care VS. Obamacare

    Please, anyone, set me right if my thinking is out of alignment here, BUT...

    I've been thinking about my goalie camp scenario:

    "Mom, why can't I go to goalie camp...my coach said I should?"
    "We can't afford it this summer."
    "But, Jimmy's going and his Dad doesn't even have a job."
    "That's because 20% of Daddy's pay comes off the top to pay for our healthcare and another 33% in taxes and those taxes pay for Jimmy's family's healthcare so they can afford goalie camp."
    "That's not fair."

    And then The Man got me thinking about the 26 yr old OWSer living in his mom's basement and the 26 year old healthy, industrious engineer that is now forced into heath care or pay a tax to cover the aforementioned man-child succubus.

    And, the sheer burden this bill will be to the average, working family hit me like a ton of bricks. The rich are rich...so, while their load might be larger, they won't notice it as much. The poor will ride the rides for free and it will be the working class folks that will labor under this new health care plan.

    Now I must be losing my mind because I'm thinking that a Single Payer Health Care system might be better...or easier on the middle class. Is full blown socialized medicine better than the welders, teachers, electricians and nurses shouldering the entire load of an entitled loafing class...?

    I don't know.

    Unless we can convince the naysayers to hold their nose and vote in November, we're doomed I think. We need Obama out and more (R)'s in the Senate. I think I read we only need 50 or 51 for a repeal since it was declared a tax by SCOTUS. REPEAL or full blown socialized medicine. I think that's where we're at people. Obamacare won't work as it stands.

    Caption It...

    Monday, July 02, 2012


    ...My goalie and I started Insanity this morning. I'll post as soon as I can breathe again.