Friday, September 26, 2008

Throw 'em all out

With the resultant politicization of the bailout, arguably one of the most important issues of the past decade, both parties have shown their true colors. It's not about the American economy, let alone the American people. It's about each side attempting to save face and score points leading up to the election. Shame on everyone involved, including both candidates. Shame on Bush for letting it happen.

Time to kick everyone out of Congress. Time to start fresh with new blood and new ideas. Time to invoke term limits on all members of the House and Senate. It's time to see real 'change', not just rhetoric.

These bozos better get back to the table and hammer out a deal that will 1) help liquidity, 2) give stabilization to the markets (the rest of the world needs to help as well, since as we know, as America goes so goes the world) and 3) NOT REWARD SPECULATORS, EXECUTIVES or any other asshole attempting to benefit from this meltdown. The only 'person' that should conceivably receive any 'return' on this investment should be the taxpayers. In effect, value the debt as low as possible so that 1) it creates almost an automatic return for investors (i.e. taxpayers) and 2) it creates a feasible market for these securities as banks attempt to place true value and buy accordingly.

It's time the government governed, but I'm too cynical to think lawmakers will ever do anything outside their own interests. Fukk I hate politics.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Churchill knew what he was saying

Let me give you an analogy of our upcoming brain trust coming out of college: Father/Daughter Talk: A young woman was about to finish her first year of college Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth..She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition tohigher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors hadto be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded byasking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting thatshe was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because s he spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.' Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!' The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party'. THIS explains politics in simple terms that even a Democrat can understand.

The above was lifted from here.

Exactly. Churchill's comment springs to mind here. It's not that Republicans aren't about helping others (look at studies of giving and you'll see they actually give more than self-proclaimed progressives), it's that Republicans don't want the government attempting to redistribute wealth under corrupt/idiotic pretenses.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Rape victims billed for rape kits

There is no excuse for this. Palin is wrong, as are the many other elected officials that allow this to take place. If one of the few duties (in my opinion) of the government is to protect citizens (meaning arresting/prosecuting/incarcerating), the governement (tax payers) should foot the bill for the rape kits.

UPDATE 9.23.08
There are reports abounding now in the internet that Palin likely did not know of this practice in Wasilla, mostly because it was never used. It became illegal in 2000. It's still reprehensible that this would occur, but apparently it didn't under Palin's watch. Score one for the good girls.


...since June 6, 1955. Yep, Sandra Bernhard.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Ahh, Canadiaville, Bastion of Eugenics


Most notably, this statistic (which I'm sure is close in the United States and elsewhere in the world:

Published reports in Canada say about 9 out of 10 women given a diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate the pregnancy through abortion.

And yet these are the same crew decrying BusHitler?! Amazing.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Taxes are for the 'others'

Democratic hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong; all politicians are hypocrites. They say whatever it takes to get elected, then work towards their own self interests. However, this points to a fascinating manner in which a Democrat (certainly not the first, last or only) argues for INCREASED taxation of the public to pay for poorly managed, government-run programs, but decides he wants to keep more of his money out of the tax bucket.

This reminds me of the "abortion is killing, unless the mom is 1) raped/victim of incest or 2) mom's health is in danger". Sorry, it's either killing or not. Either Rangel is for higher taxation of wealthy individuals to provide for government programs, or he's not. His actions point towards the latter, but his liberal rhetoric points towards the former. What is the cliche about judging a man by his actions?

Bill Maher: Unbelievable Douche

Following in the steps of my Kerry comment from years ago, Bill Maher earns the honors this month. If you haven't read his speech, just google it (I'm too lazy to find the link). Basically, he says the attacks on Obama as elitist stem from jealousy of a Magna Cum Laude Harvard Grad by Wal-Mart going rednecks.

Hmm...I remember when I was younger thinking of myself as 'above' others thanks to my education. I used to think my views were the only ones worth having. As I've matured, lived a little, I've learned that my views are still the only ones worth having I just don't need to be smug about it. I can respect those who think differently than me without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Also, Liberals are far from the only intellectual olympians they make themselves out to be. There are plenty of smart individuals that despise liberal ideals, they just don't make themselves known openly due to hubris.

Lastly, how does Maher explain me supporting fiscally conservative, socially moderate, libertarianesque views when I've got multiple undergrad degrees (not magna cum laude, just cum laude :( ), an MD and board scores above the 90th percentile for my specialty? Am I just a confused, lost Democrat? Can someone forward me directions to the next meeting?

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Tired of the '47 Million Uninsured' Argument

Michael Tanner, health policy expert @ the Cato Institute, wrote this ( well-researched article on different healthcare systems outside the United States. Be sure the read the entire thing.

The following is what I would like everyone to remember each time '47 million uninsured' is thrown about.

11. Carmen DeNavas-Walt et al., “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2005,” Current Population Reports (Washington: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). This number should be approached with a great deal of caution, however. A study for the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that the Current Population Survey “appears to overstate the uninsured substantially compared to other surveys.” Cathy Callahan and James Mays, “Working Paper: Estimating the Number of Individuals in the United States without Health Insurance,” Actuarial Research Service, prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005), p. 22. Other studies put the actual number of uninsured at 21–31 million. Congressional Budget Office, “How Many People Lack Health Insurance and for How Long?” (Washington: Congressional Budget Office, 2003). Moreover, all those estimates include people who could obtain coverage. For example, as many as one-third of Americans without health insurance are eligible for existing government programs such as Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program but have failed to sign up for the program. BlueCross BlueShield ssociation, “The Uninsured in America,” January 2005, Roughly another third live in households with annual incomes above $50,000, suggesting that many could reasonably afford to purchase insurance if they chose to do so. Devon Herrick, “Crisis of the Uninsured: 2007,” National Center for Policy analysis Brief Analysis no. 595, September 28, 2007.

Everyone get that?! Closer estimates are 21-31 million uninsured, of which 33% (7-10 million) are eligible for Gov't programs but have not signed up and another 33% (7-10 million) could afford health insurance without reasonable hardship (especially if the Gov't furthers HSAs). So, Michael Moore, 7-11 million sounds more reasonable for the number of uninsured in this country (roughly 2-3.7% of the population).

Is that enough reason to destroy the de facto 'best' health care provider in the world by turning it into a socialized system? No. Read the above-linked study and you'll understand.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Way to go Brokaw

blah, blah, blah.....McCain is redefining himself at the convention...blah, blah, blah...against what Obama defined him as last week....they'll make a move, checkmate, another move....blah, blah, blah

So, Brokaw basically states McCain has already lost the defining of McCain after what Obama portrayed last week @ the DNC. Way to be impartial you ancient boob.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Little Medical Information

With regards to the Palin/Bristol pregnancy thing....4 weeks early is not 'premature'. STFU if you don't know what you're talking about.