Anyone who's ever watched a football game, seen one team completely dominate the other in total offensive yardage, yet still lose the game, can understand why the current health care bill(s) being debated need to be fixed.
Most legislators, on the other side, understand the purpose of the game is to win - not both sides working together to rack up as many points for each other as they can.
I don't care what Harry Reid says, that the current legislation, as it's written, does a lot to fix what's broken. It does. A little. But too little. It is unacceptable in its current form. Agreeing to implement it is giving up.
"Gee, you guys played a pretty good first half, how about we call it a draw?"
If the other side cheats, uses sneaky, underhanded tricks to sway the game their way, you can't sit and cry that the ref didn't call it - you just have to play that much harder.
This isn't little league - both sides won't get trophies for just showing up. No one is going to congratulate you on game well-played, cheer you for scoring, no matter the outcome.
To my senators and congressmen: play well, or be traded next year.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
2010 California Marriage Protection Act | Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce
2010 California Marriage Protection Act | Safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce.
Best. Cause. Ever.
Seems some would like to choose from the scriptures like it was a buffet.
Best. Cause. Ever.
Seems some would like to choose from the scriptures like it was a buffet.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
if only we were running out of crazy people...
more of the same, this time with audio goodness
 clipped from www.huffingtonpost.com
* ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)
|
"Running out of rich people?"
It might be technically correct, as fewer and fewer collect and hoard more and more of the money, but is the biggest economic problem in this country really hurting the richest of us in a way comparable to how it's hurt everyone else?
 clipped from dccc.org
|
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
the pig likes it
There was one rule I used to espouse to others when entering into a flame war. "Do Not Feed the Bears." It just keeps them coming back, doesn't it? There's a reason they tell you not to feed the animals when going through the drive-through safari. You may have seen the videos of the hoards of baboons scrambling to get into someone's car after they made the mistake of rolling down their window to offer a peanut.
On the one hand, I should be grateful someone is reading what I write. But what to do when your new "fan" is someone whose time is occupied with "BLLARRGGHHH!!! DEMOCRATSARETHEWORSTEVAR!! OBAMA'S THE MOST FAILED PRESIDENT OF ALL TIMES!!!! HE'SCORRUPTANDEVILWE'REALLDOOOOMMED!!!!!"? So what if they're the only person to date who's ever thought enough about my blog to leave a comment?
It's like, "I really like what you say, it strikes a cord with me. By the way, I molest children."
Perhaps that's an extreme analogy, but when you're dealing with someone form whom the Biggest Threat to OWL (Our Way of Life) is gays marrying, well, there's not much reason you can interject into the discussion.
There's a part of me, a part that I'm finding difficult to let go of, that still believes there's something, some phrasing, some analogy, some way of illustrating the situation, some fact, that's just waiting to be said out loud, because the other party just hasn't heard it or considered it, and suddenly the lights will go on - there will be that "aha!" moment and all will be clear. I've been trying to do that with my mother for more than 40 years, and it hasn't worked yet. Sometimes the reason train runs express and doesn't stop at every station.
My first inclination, of course, is to wade into the fracas with, "but you realize Bush..." but that would immediately equate me with these very same people who responded to any criticism of George II with, "b-b-b-but Clinton..."
It doesn't matter how faulty their logic, you cannot win an "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
There really is no argument to win - and that's the issue. I had classes in how to argue in college. (Well, to argue anywhere, not just in college.) It was actually called Critical Reasoning and Argument. An "argument" makes a Claim, supported by Grounds and established with a Warrant. See, "reasoning" was the key. An argument was only valid when no one could refute your grounds or find fault in your warrant. We spent more than half the class covering fallacies - the ad hominem argument, the "appeal to authority," the straw man, etc. (there are scores of them) - or faulty reasoning. (or not reasoning at all.) Like all logical tests, you just have to find one instance - no matter how far-fetched - where it doesn't work to invalidate it. The grounds, or "facts," were often left to interpretation.
See, Logic doesn't tolerate hypocrisies. If it's right, it's right, if it's wrong, it's wrong. I have very little compassion for the hate-filled hearts that are white supremacists (OK, none). But I do feel poor little Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation should be returned to their parents. It doesn't matter than some would like to see the parents beaten with pipes, the state, so far, hasn't provided adequate grounds for removing them.
Likewise, President Obama has taken an oath of the office - he's sworn to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. It doesn't matter the exact wording used. It doesn't matter what kind of bible his hand was on, if it was on one at all, or which hand was raised. For 8 years we were told, "he was elected, he's president, suck it up, deal with it." Yet now it seems open to discussion.
There's another aphorism that goes, "you're the one who ends up stinking if you get into a fight with a skunk." The point of dictionary definition argument is to resolve conflict - to present ideas to come to agreement. There is nothing to be gained from endlessly hurling "you suck!" "no, you suck!" at each other. Put another way, what do you get when you get into an argument with an idiot? Two idiots. You'd be better arguing with the cat you just ran over that it shouldn't be dead, or with the rain that it shouldn't be falling out if the sky.
There are some, unfortunately, who revel in the slugfest. They'll hurl barbs and insults, the more outrageous and unfounded the better, for the whole point of getting you to enter into the pissing contest - but only to point out to their compatriots how "unreasonable" you're being. And that's the point of all this. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
(I ended up replying to the thread anyway. They set the bait and I took it. I'm weak that way.)
On the one hand, I should be grateful someone is reading what I write. But what to do when your new "fan" is someone whose time is occupied with "BLLARRGGHHH!!! DEMOCRATSARETHEWORSTEVAR!! OBAMA'S THE MOST FAILED PRESIDENT OF ALL TIMES!!!! HE'SCORRUPTANDEVILWE'REALLDOOOOMMED!!!!!"? So what if they're the only person to date who's ever thought enough about my blog to leave a comment?
It's like, "I really like what you say, it strikes a cord with me. By the way, I molest children."
Perhaps that's an extreme analogy, but when you're dealing with someone form whom the Biggest Threat to OWL (Our Way of Life) is gays marrying, well, there's not much reason you can interject into the discussion.
There's a part of me, a part that I'm finding difficult to let go of, that still believes there's something, some phrasing, some analogy, some way of illustrating the situation, some fact, that's just waiting to be said out loud, because the other party just hasn't heard it or considered it, and suddenly the lights will go on - there will be that "aha!" moment and all will be clear. I've been trying to do that with my mother for more than 40 years, and it hasn't worked yet. Sometimes the reason train runs express and doesn't stop at every station.
My first inclination, of course, is to wade into the fracas with, "but you realize Bush..." but that would immediately equate me with these very same people who responded to any criticism of George II with, "b-b-b-but Clinton..."
It doesn't matter how faulty their logic, you cannot win an "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.
There really is no argument to win - and that's the issue. I had classes in how to argue in college. (Well, to argue anywhere, not just in college.) It was actually called Critical Reasoning and Argument. An "argument" makes a Claim, supported by Grounds and established with a Warrant. See, "reasoning" was the key. An argument was only valid when no one could refute your grounds or find fault in your warrant. We spent more than half the class covering fallacies - the ad hominem argument, the "appeal to authority," the straw man, etc. (there are scores of them) - or faulty reasoning. (or not reasoning at all.) Like all logical tests, you just have to find one instance - no matter how far-fetched - where it doesn't work to invalidate it. The grounds, or "facts," were often left to interpretation.
See, Logic doesn't tolerate hypocrisies. If it's right, it's right, if it's wrong, it's wrong. I have very little compassion for the hate-filled hearts that are white supremacists (OK, none). But I do feel poor little Adolph Hitler and Aryan Nation should be returned to their parents. It doesn't matter than some would like to see the parents beaten with pipes, the state, so far, hasn't provided adequate grounds for removing them.
Likewise, President Obama has taken an oath of the office - he's sworn to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. It doesn't matter the exact wording used. It doesn't matter what kind of bible his hand was on, if it was on one at all, or which hand was raised. For 8 years we were told, "he was elected, he's president, suck it up, deal with it." Yet now it seems open to discussion.
There's another aphorism that goes, "you're the one who ends up stinking if you get into a fight with a skunk." The point of dictionary definition argument is to resolve conflict - to present ideas to come to agreement. There is nothing to be gained from endlessly hurling "you suck!" "no, you suck!" at each other. Put another way, what do you get when you get into an argument with an idiot? Two idiots. You'd be better arguing with the cat you just ran over that it shouldn't be dead, or with the rain that it shouldn't be falling out if the sky.
There are some, unfortunately, who revel in the slugfest. They'll hurl barbs and insults, the more outrageous and unfounded the better, for the whole point of getting you to enter into the pissing contest - but only to point out to their compatriots how "unreasonable" you're being. And that's the point of all this. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.
(I ended up replying to the thread anyway. They set the bait and I took it. I'm weak that way.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
it's a matter of timing, isn't it?
Hits the nail on the head. You cannot legislate behavior. (e.g Prohibition) Few refrain from killing simply because it's illegal to do so.
 clipped from raphael.doxos.com
the issue is not Pro-Abortion Laws, it is the culture that creates the need for abortion.
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
so long, and sorry about all the fish...
some of the images are pretty remarkable
 clipped from www.boston.com
|
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Fed helps those who help themselves (to your money)
Why can we so readily approve giving away public funds (at a deficit, with no tax base to recover them) to banks and brokerage firms, but we have a hard time allocating money for regular Americans with genuine need?
I don't wish to debate the wisdom of helping the most wealthy out of a situation their own greed created, because they're "too big to fail." I believe business runs on access to available credit, and credit markets need to be relieved.
But if we all agree that the economy thrives when money changes hands, does it make better sense to bail out a corporation so they can cut their losses, bolster their profit, so stockholders have value in their holdings (emphasis on "holding"), or to give the money to people who will actually spend it?
I don't mean the stereotypically irresponsible things like flatscreens and Nintendo Wii's (I believe the huge corporate retail chains like Walmart will endure). But if instead of giving insurer AIG some $80 billion to keep them afloat, we floated some of those funds to people who've been most impacted by the economy, they could afford things - things like health insurance - and give companies that provide goods and services their much needed capital.
Now I'm going to speculate. (You may want to get your tinfoil hat.) Why can't we do this? You're still going to buy that flatscreen and latest-model iPod, aren't you? (if you're a good American, and do what you're told, you're going to go out and shop to help the economy.) But without available cash, you're going to buy them on credit. And for that, the banks make money, in the form of interest.
On the other hand, it's been shown that many people, with large consumer debt, given the funds would choose to lower their debit position. (e.g. pay off some of their credit cards.) This is good for consumers - it lowers their unsecured debt, lowers their interest payments, and gives them more funds to save, if only for that new iPod.
It is, however, bad news for a bank. It lowers their interest income and reduces their assets. Yes, the money you owe them is an asset. It is only "unsecured" to you, in that you don't have an asset (e.g. a house) to offset the debt. Recent changes in bankruptcy laws mean the bank will get its money, somehow. There is no risk that the poor, defenseless bank, who was only trying to help everyone it could by extending them all ridiculous amounts of credit, even to those evil cheats who lied about the stability of their employment, would get left twisting in the wind.
And if you don't get your own, personal infusion of bailout cash - if you can no longer pay your bills - even better for the bank. They now get to charge usury... I mean, the default interest rate, meaning it's going to cost you more money to not have any.
(You can take your hat off now. If the above made sense, then it was working.)
[the following text is stolen from TrueMajority.org]
The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it.
The economy is hemorrhaging jobs at a frightful rate. For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost.
More than 300 of the country’s leading economists have called for immediate passage of a significant and broad-based jobs and economic recovery package.
A package must include investments in alternative energy technology to create millions of new jobs and generate billions in public revenue and tackle the issue of climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We must also provide grants to state and local governments so that they will not be forced to raise taxes, layoff workers and cut services in the middle of a downturn.
Finally, we need investments in public infrastructure that will provide a crucial shot in the arm for the economy and create hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs to strengthen our middle class.
I don't wish to debate the wisdom of helping the most wealthy out of a situation their own greed created, because they're "too big to fail." I believe business runs on access to available credit, and credit markets need to be relieved.
But if we all agree that the economy thrives when money changes hands, does it make better sense to bail out a corporation so they can cut their losses, bolster their profit, so stockholders have value in their holdings (emphasis on "holding"), or to give the money to people who will actually spend it?
I don't mean the stereotypically irresponsible things like flatscreens and Nintendo Wii's (I believe the huge corporate retail chains like Walmart will endure). But if instead of giving insurer AIG some $80 billion to keep them afloat, we floated some of those funds to people who've been most impacted by the economy, they could afford things - things like health insurance - and give companies that provide goods and services their much needed capital.
Now I'm going to speculate. (You may want to get your tinfoil hat.) Why can't we do this? You're still going to buy that flatscreen and latest-model iPod, aren't you? (if you're a good American, and do what you're told, you're going to go out and shop to help the economy.) But without available cash, you're going to buy them on credit. And for that, the banks make money, in the form of interest.
On the other hand, it's been shown that many people, with large consumer debt, given the funds would choose to lower their debit position. (e.g. pay off some of their credit cards.) This is good for consumers - it lowers their unsecured debt, lowers their interest payments, and gives them more funds to save, if only for that new iPod.
It is, however, bad news for a bank. It lowers their interest income and reduces their assets. Yes, the money you owe them is an asset. It is only "unsecured" to you, in that you don't have an asset (e.g. a house) to offset the debt. Recent changes in bankruptcy laws mean the bank will get its money, somehow. There is no risk that the poor, defenseless bank, who was only trying to help everyone it could by extending them all ridiculous amounts of credit, even to those evil cheats who lied about the stability of their employment, would get left twisting in the wind.
And if you don't get your own, personal infusion of bailout cash - if you can no longer pay your bills - even better for the bank. They now get to charge usury... I mean, the default interest rate, meaning it's going to cost you more money to not have any.
(You can take your hat off now. If the above made sense, then it was working.)
[the following text is stolen from TrueMajority.org]
The U.S. faces the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Just how deep we go and how long the recession lasts depends upon how quickly we take steps to counter it.
The economy is hemorrhaging jobs at a frightful rate. For all of 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.6 million jobs. That was the most since 1945, when nearly 2.8 million jobs were lost.
More than 300 of the country’s leading economists have called for immediate passage of a significant and broad-based jobs and economic recovery package.
A package must include investments in alternative energy technology to create millions of new jobs and generate billions in public revenue and tackle the issue of climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We must also provide grants to state and local governments so that they will not be forced to raise taxes, layoff workers and cut services in the middle of a downturn.
Finally, we need investments in public infrastructure that will provide a crucial shot in the arm for the economy and create hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs to strengthen our middle class.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Commies are Pink, Herrings are Red; Republicans stink, you heard what I said
"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it." - Samuel Clemens
Last week, Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann accused progressives of not being "real Americans."
This week, conservatives have decided to brand progressives as "Communists," "Socialists," "Marxists" and "Redistributors" for supporting tax policies that help middle-class families.
We’ve had enough.
http://www.iamproamerica.com
We believe that in difficult times, it's been Progressive leadership that has put our country back on track.
We believe that we can rebuild our economy in a way that helps every American - not just the richest.
We believe that health care is a right, not a privilege.
We believe that we can build an education system that truly leaves no child behind.
We believe in the American Dream.
I am Pro-America. I am Progressive.
http://www.iamproamerica.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)