I have vision; everyone else is wearing bifocals

So which part of the Healthcare Reform will Republicans campaign against in November?

2010-03-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

1. Expands coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

2. Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable

3. Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

4. Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment.

5. Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.

6. Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

7. Tightly restricts new plans' use of annual caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

8. Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans until age 26.

9. Fades in the closing of the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" (an annual dollar-range currently not covered by Medicare). Coverage gap closed completely by 2020.

10. No Medicare co-payment for preventive medicine.

The Far Right's worst nightmare

2009-06-24T18:44:00.000-07:00

The Far Right media continue to criticize the President's every move and position. That means he must be doing something right. Actually, he's done most everything right thus far.

Iran

Conservatives do not understand our country acting like a citizen of the world, instead of the vigilante, imperialistic, aggressive nation it is under a Republican regime. The Right have made it clear that a Republican president would have seized the Iranian protests as sufficient reason to invade that country and run it as we see fit. They fail to understand that invading a country to change its form of government is an unjustifiable act, no matter which form of government is being ousted and which form is being instituted. Our unwarranted invasion of Iraq - like our meddling in Vietnam and Korea before it - was just as morally wrong as would be another country's invasion of the U.S. From China's perspective, perhaps they would view an invasion of the U.S. justifiable if it were to "liberate" the citizens from the inequities of capitalism. Would such an act be justifiable? Of course not. Neither would our interference with Iran's domestic squabbles. If human rights are being violated, the proper course of action would be to encourage a response from the United Nations.

President Obama

2009-03-10T19:10:00.000-07:00

Well, I was wrong to be pessimistic. He won. Hallelujah. Change. It's hard to know whether to be happier that we won the Whitehouse, or that the far-Right media is beside itself. Rush's rants have drifted from the land of illogic to the shores of distemperment. Fox News has now openly abandoned its "fair and balanced" sheep's clothing as even the previously-innocuous anchors find it impossible to hide their disdain.

The criticisms from the far right are launched with such disregard of Dubya's failed presidency that one wonders if amnesia is a symptom of their mass hysteria. "My God, have you seen the Dow Jones? It's down nearly 1,500 points since the inauguration!" As if the SIX-THOUSAND-POINT drop during Bush's last 15 months in office never happened. I don't remember this many President-to-market correlations being drawn during the past year and a half.

And the spending ... Gasp! Yep, the stimulus package is expected to cost $787 billion. That's a lot. But at least some good is expected to come from it. At least the American people acquire some benefits. The Iraq War, on the other hand, has, so far, cost $603 billion - and there are estimates of long-range costs topping $3 trillion - and the benefits to the American people? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? That's right - nothing. This is far too voluminous of a topic to tackle here, but to summarize once again for those suffering from the aforementioned amnesia: 1. There was no impending attack upon the U.S. by Saddam. 2. There were not even any "weapons of mass destruction." 3. There is no evidence whether our unprovoked invasion lessened - or increased - the danger of terrorism (keep in mind that terrorism is not caused by weapons - it's the result of a desperate hatred for the U.S.). But most of all: 4. We don't care whether Iraq is a democracy or not. We just don't care. The fact is, with so many competing factions in that country, a ruthless dictatorship may be the the only workable form of government. And the fate of the Iraqi people? Don't care.

But by far the most entertaining reaction of the far Right has been the one of incredulous surprise. They are running around like a schoolgirl trying to tattle on the new kid that is suddenly more popular than she is. "But he's a .... my God ... he's a socialist!" Uh, yeah, we know, honey. That's what we voted for. Duh.

The Coming Election

2008-10-10T18:38:00.000-07:00

So I'm finally posting on this thing. It's October 10, 2008, some 25 days before the election. The current polls show Obama ahead by 10 points, which is encouraging; however, I am naturally very pessimistic and still expect John McCain to be our next president. First of all, as we all know, the actual total number of people who vote for a candidate is practically irrelevant. Seems strange, doesn't it? Almost laughable. But that's exactly what this thing we call the "electoral college" is - laughably outdated. I wrote the following as a response to a blogger back during my dreamy state of disenfranchisement following the notorious 2000 election:

The electoral college was useful in the 18th century when viewpoints from the different states could differ drastically, and thus, each needed a separate, distinct voice. In the present time, Americans are Americans - their experiences do not differ to any strong degree. And more importantly, each individual's voice is important and needs to be heard. The electoral college disenfranchises those whose views differ with the majority of their state. If my political views are in contrast to the views of the majority in my state, my vote becomes irrelevant, even though my view may be in agreement with the majority of other states - and even with the majority of the populace at large. The system is outdated, faulty, and needs to be scrapped now to ensure real a democracy in the U.S.
You say you are "disinterested in having large urban centers determine the future of the country." But if the majority of PEOPLE reside in urban centers, then, yes, their vote should count equal to those individuals who happen to reside in rural areas. In my opinion, the entire notion of states is outdated. We are a transient society, with a large percentage of people having resided in 3, 4, or 5 different states during their lifetime. To suggest that a "state" of people have shared or common political views is ridiculous. We would be better off as a country, if we simply erase the state boundaries for every reason other than as names for certain geographical areas of our country.

So, before allowing poll numbers to inflate expectations, one must always keep in mind that the system is flawed to an astounding degree, always leaving open the possibility of the "winner" losing.

But another reason I'm not very optimistic of an Obama win is because I'm astutely aware of human nature. I'm also aware that modern day elections are decided by the most moronic among us - those without any established political beliefs. The fence-sitters. The ones who vote based merely on their impressions of each candidate without any pre-conceived notions whatsoever. That's right - the "undecided voters." These are the people who pay so little attention to politics or our system of government - and news in general for that matter - during the normal course of their lives, that they choose a candidate based on the most inane factors imaginable. I grew up in rural America, and I can still remember the 1980 election when a good number of "God-fearing" (and thus, conservative) locals did not vote for Reagan because his full name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. Don't get it? Count the number of letters in each name. 6...6...6. "Why, that's the sign of the Devil. If he's President, the next thing ya know, they'll be installing microchips under our scalps." Amazingly, these people are allowed to vote. It's astounding. Moreover, these are the people that decide presidential elections. The republicans vote for their guy; the democrats for their guy; and the rest decide the election !

So it's pretty easy to predict the outcome - just ask yourself who the morons are likely to vote for. Both candidates did pretty well in the first two debates. Both have presented themselves to be equally palatable - if not devoid of any flavor. So what distinguishes them to the average moron? Well, there's that race thing.... Yep. Here's where human nature comes into play. We, as humans, inherently feel comfortable with people who look like us. Ever wonder why every image we've always seen of Jesus looks like a white guy from Iowa? White people feel most comfortable with white people. Black people feel most comfortable with black people.

Now, add up your morons. According to a poll released by Fox today, Barack Obama leads with 46 percent to John McCain's 39 percent. That leaves a moron vote of 15 points. One can safely assume that whites make up the vast majority of the undecided. Let's face it, after 300 years in this country, the African Americans finally have a guy running for President. They are not among the undecided - they are going to vote for Obama. Thus, the question comes down to: Who is a white moron likely to vote for? Final tally - McCain 54% Obama 46%. McCain wins.

But that's assuming that the total number of people who vote for each candidate is a factor remotely determinative of the outcome of the election. We all know it's not.