Tuesday, March 30, 2010

CLEANSING


In these horrible days of economic recession and budget cuts where your total disposable income can maybe buy three chocolate bars and a Harry Potter book if you have a decent credit rating, school funding has to come up with ways to pinch pennies. School District 51 has to cut 1 million dollars from thier spending by next year.

Now I look at the dozen or so big yellow twinkie school-buses with maybe three dozen students between them and I wonder if maybe using taxi cabs or less buses could save money. But it seems that the school district can only find a way to do that by cutting an entire day off the week. That doesn't mean school will be any less hours or teachers will be paid less, but it means less days (by virtue of extending school hours) and thus less bus trips and heating.

However, there are doubts about the effectiveness this would have on actual budgeting, and concerns over the amount of damage it would do to extracurricular activities and family wellbeing.

I personally think that having to cut edjucation is stupid. Money could easily be made (and incarceration rates drastically reduced) by simply legalizing marijuana or cocaine for non-medical use and taxing it until its parts turn black and fall off. Druggies will get jobs and become productive (if unsightly) members of society so they can satisfy their expensive luxuries and eventually the stuff will lose appeal as forbidden fruit. OH, SO YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO COMPROMISE YOUR DRUG ABUSE POSITIONS BUT WILLING TO LET MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CHILDREN FALL DOWN THE EVER WIDENING SEWAGE HOLE THAT IS THE AMERICAN EDUCATION SYSTEM??

Well, maybe you're right. America has been the big dog around for a while so maybe a generation of second-rate bastard scientists and getting beat in the science race like a limbless kindergartner at tether-ball would be good to curb our rising policy gridlock, jingoism, and stupidity.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Because if you Beat a Dead Horse enough, its Twitching Corpse will at least have a Semblence of Life




But really, the health care debate isn't over yet.

Last week, Govenor Sonny Perdue filed suit against the health care plan.

Despite its flaws, the legislation does take a decisive step toward improving access to health care for the uninsured, including those locked out of coverage because of pre-existing ailments. That should help lower costs by using preventive care to help stave off expensive illnesses.

Uninsured people are a danger to the entire population: everyone pays if an uninsured person needs to use an emergency room, and people living in the same city pay when an uninsured person develops an infectious disease.

Yes, if the uninsured kid down the block contracts tuberculosis and can't afford treatment, there's the possibility that he can spread it on to your potentially unvaccinated child.

One aspect of diseases is that they mutate. Everytime a virus enters a cell and transcribes its DNA, the possibility arises for mistakes in the encoding. That's called mutation, and it happens every time a new virus is made, and millions of new viruses are made over the course of an infection.

And if a disease mutates enough, it can bypass the immune system because it looks like a new disease. That's why pennicilin is no longer the miracle drug. Anyway, imagine if our Polio vaccines became ineffective because one uninsured child developed it. In these enlightented times it is impossible to imagine a grainy 1930's town where children had to wear casts on their legs or breath through Iron Lungs, but it would be scary.

However, in Conservative's defense, this health care bill doesn't exactly solve the problem of the Infected. ahem:

"Insurance lawyers maintain that, while they would be required to pay for conditions of any child they insure, they are not obliged to take on the child in the first place. According to the newspaper, this could mean entire families get rejected if one of their children has a pre-existing condition, or that the policy simply specifies that it will not cover costs associated with it."

Well done you souless capitalist gits. Kick all the crying babies in the world so you don't have to give up your 2nd private jet.

7 of the top 12 insurance companies are in the top 500 richest companies in America, with UnitedHealth Group ranked at 37 and WellPoint at 38. Even if health insurance isn't the most lucrative industry in the world, WellPoint reported earning 61,579.2 million dollars in 2008, not including the money stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Profit margins were reported at 4.07%. That still means they have over 2,500,000,000 dollars profit. With 42,000 employees and an annual Income of 30,000 required to live relatively luxuriously (1,260,000,000), that still leaves a maximum buffer of over a billion dollars left for the occasional deal they loose money on.

It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but 1 billion dollars is a wide margin.


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/the-editorial-board-s-414848.html


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/29/2244789.aspx

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/dpgonc-insurance-companies-find-loopholes-in-new-health-bill-fc-20100329_6808217

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Then of course there's Minesweeper.

A.K.A Videogames pt. 2




If you took the time to read yesterday's post and agree with everything in it, then you've found some new depth of boredom incurable by Youtube and Solitaire or you're Mr. Coit. Hi Mr Coit! If not, please disregard the previous fifteen words.

So first of all, I'd like to clear up a bit on how yesterday's rant relates to politics. You see, there was this one California guy who wanted video games to have health warning label's attached to them or something. Anyway, here's the new Senate Bill.

But anyway, for you people devoid of all purpose in life, the reason why videogames should be available

ARGUMENTS BY PROMOTION

I could go on about games that are good for your creative thinking or conductive to your periphery learning or good for you to let steam off of: think of how much you learned about Greek Gods by playing games from one of the many developers who treat the murder-and-incest-filled bin of Mythology as a free Idea bucket or how you learned the creative uses for a fishing pole in those obsolete adventure games. Imagine if Charlie Manson had Prototype to blow off steam: dozens of young Milwaukee gay boys would be alive and uncanibalized today. But really, most of those points are a bit arguable and I don't want to get into a lengthy ordeal with them so:

Games are Art

First of all, there really isn't much difference between Video Games and other forms of Media: it's like an interactive Movie that writes a book as you play while occasionally flashing provocative canvases of story(if done right, of course).
Some opponents of video games have tried to classify violence in them the same way as obscenity. Barring the fact that they're all ignorant twats, etc., even some forms of obscenity are treated as protected as having cultural value.

Art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." By that definition, some of the more abstract video games would certainly qualify: journeys through the swirling gyres of geometric environment from the hallucinations of Frederich Chopin certainly offer 'more than ordinary significance', as do all those open to interpretation games that sacrifice fun for sending a message, and with the Playstation 3 having arguably the most advanced graphics system in the world (So much that the military buys them up for cheap processing power) meaning most of the games for it have ridiculously pimped-out graphics. For everyone else, there exists caricatures for games that want to paint a picture or send a message.
But I think art means something more than just pretty shapes and hidden messages. Books and Movies, the other literary art mediums, immerse you in a different world, assuming they're done right of course. Magical Schools? Rebel Alliances? Both offer an immersible world and interesting characters that provoke a response in the viewers. Whoever directed Wrath of Kahn said something along the lines of "Well, of course you can kill Spock, as long as you do it right", and Bill Waterson said "Entertainment can shock us, discust us, or provoke us, as long as it doesn't bore us". The goal of any entertainment is to entertain, whether it's through fear (horror), interesting facts (non-fictions) or green-skinned space aliens (sci-fi) etc., and that's what many games do.
Rather than rant further about those particualr attributes of those particular games, I encourage you to just check a "Games R ART!" forum or play some yourself. One game I will mention, however, is Bioshock. 18 hours of mucking about in an Objectivist distopia shooting people in the face after setting them on fire satisfies with immersive, well-developed worlds you get to discover all generated by a hormonally-supercharged evironment engine generating the imagination of several abstract artists satisfies all the definitions of art provided, so screw you Michal Atkinson.

Friday, March 26, 2010

More than Slightly more than Solitare




Let's get right into it. There has been raised the question of whether boyish fantasy violence in video games leads to violence in real life and by extension, whether games should be banned for such. There are also many other reasons why games should be banned.

I respectfully disagree, and I consider the argument misinformed.

There. You don't need to read any farther and get upset by a violent outburst of passion, because god forbid anyone get upset on the internet. And forgive me for not restraining myself in a blog that gets maybe skimmed maybe once a month by someone who's maybe awake.

:::::::WARNING: the following pages of text may contain great inarticulation, mild language, graphic metaphors, and blatant abuse of first amendment privileges. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNNNNNNNED!!!:::::::



ARGUMENTS BY REBUTTAL

Games depict women negatively

I listed this one first because I find it has the most backing to it. Yes, the game industry has a problem with depicting women as sex objects, allowing the lesbian romance choice but not the gay option, or equating "Strong, independent woman" with "Violent Psycho Bitch". I know there may not be many good arguments, but I'm going to ask you all to remember all the female marines, female professional football players, and favorable depictions of women in other media. Recall any? OF COURSE NOT. You can't assume any one aspect of culture will be a great degree progressive when most people's moms won't buy anything
An Excuse: Videogames are marketed to the young male demographic. Statistically, half of all gamers are female in the same way that statistically the average income of the average American is enough to by a slightly-more-than average Yaght, but while a good deal of male gamers are fat, bespectacled, socially-retarded nerds fighting trolls in real time in their parent's basement, most female gamers are sweaty moms playing yoga on Wii Fit or little girls living homoerotic fantasy in the Sims 3.
And 2: Video games are created by the same corporate conglomerate that has the same antediluvian mind point and discriminatory attitude, who hire mostly male game writers and I'm going to leave out the predictable masturbating social reject joke. No one blames 14-year-old fan fiction writing girls from author-inserting themselves into an orgy with Harry Potter or Spock, do they? Anyway, they usually make a point to be equal about it, with sickeningly muscular men as an alternative, which brings me to:

A Point of "You're looking at it one-sided": Yes, Lara Croft is featured with impossibly large melons (That Angelina Jolee couldn't measure up to even with the benefit of toilet paper) and every female character in the discustingly mispelled Mortal Kombat has greater than D cups, but the men in those games always look like walking triangles, with biceps larger than even their thick manly chins and enough steroids , but always the men are featured in more idealistic terms as well. Reminiscing about the time when heroes didn't need biceps larger than their faces, I sometimes find myself playing female characters (For ONLY that reason, mind your) or elves.

And lastly, there are a few games that feature decent female characters, like when you play Princess Peach instead of the fat Italian plumber.


Video Games Promote Violence

No, and I consider your argument misinformed, you ignorant scaremongering sperm-sandwich.
So every so often in the teenage world a young paragon of self control get's called a nasty name and decides murder would be the wittiest rebuttal. It's then found out he/she stood next to a video game sometime in the past because after events like the Columbine shooting and the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, everyone always looks for something to blame, and it's easy to pick on fat bespectacled social rejects in their parent's basement. WE HAVE FREAKING RIGHTS TOO.

People like to point out that the number of violent crimes has gone up in the last fifty years in conjunction to the number of violent videogames and other media. I would like to point out that many other things have gone up too, like POPULATION and OVERCROWDING IN PRISONS DUE TO PRISON SENTENCES FOR MINOR DRUG USERS. Life is turning to shit, being flushed away in the chunky quagmire of terrorist attracts, economic recessions, politics, the fact that 50% of families spend at least a year in poverty, that 51% of marriages end in divorce, and the numerous, small ways your life is made a unique hell.

So let's look at these arguments case by case:


Video Games Depict Violence as Good
: Wrong. Games, like most media, often feature violent crime as a tool of Italian Mobsters, the Oppressive Military and the general Bad Guy. They will almost always be punished for such (and a measure of an effective villain is how violently you want to crush his face for burning down a churchful of people or shooting the dog), and if they don't you feel disappointed and start to hate the film. Videogames too are the same way, and good guys use guns for the same reason police officers and soldiers do; to kill bad guys, who in most games are crudely-rendered aliens or expy's of Russians or Iraqis and who gives a shit about them? So I guess what I'm trying to say is that games don't do anything that TV or Political demagouges don't do either, and while I don't condone linking evil with a specific nationality that's not the Nazis, that point is not much brought up much and most games feature an actually reasonable enemy. Like evil gods or Ayn Rand.

I also would like to bring up the fact that not all games include violence, and that I do not support all kinds of violence. Yes, there are some otherwise-wonderful games that catch flak for their blood and gore, but Sturgeon's Law dictates that there are many irredeemable gore-fests. In that case, the resolution is simple: Don't buy the game. It's just like how you shouldn't buy movies of things you don't like. No one is forcing you to buy Manhunt for your 12-year old, and that's even condemned judging by the 'Mature' Rating of the game.

Video Games Cause Violence
: Alright, this one is a bit harder (not really, but I wanted to acknowledge that the arguments have gotten slightly, slightly, slightly less scare-mongering pants-on-head retarded) but I will extend the above argument, and divide this into:

Video games Teach Violence: Former West Point psychologist David Grossman wrote a few books specializing on "killology" (No joke), notably On Killing and Stop teaching our kids to Kill that defamed videogames for unethically training children in the use of weapons and desensitizing children to violence. His first argument has led me to conclude he's too busy writing crappy fiction and neglecting his wife to actually notice that pushing the 'A' button on a play station is as far removed from shooting a gun in real life as my ass is from Uranus. Arguing that

Video Games convince Children to Imitate their violent Acts: Assuming you're not talking about MySims or Barbie Horse Racing, Yeah, they do. Talking about garrote wire and shotguns is a great way to win friends in Middle School, as was learning to brawl in Middle School earlier this century when Body-Building was in or emulating a Gladiators in ancient freakin Greece. All of these fall under the heading "Being Male" and the only reason there is an alleged link to violence and emulating media is the 1987 Hungerford massacre, when Michal Ryan shot 16 people with an AK 47 while wearing a Headband, and apparently this was enough liking to Rambo for people to blame First Blood for the massacre and for less ethical Journalists, meaning all of those mainstream attention whores, to televise the link between violence and videogames. One documentary investigated it, and it is not known whether he actually owned a video recorder or even rented videos. Other cases exist where a purported link has been founded, most notably the Sefan Pakeerah murder in 2004 of the UK, conveniently in time for the UK general election, was linked to the game Manhunt. Now yes, in Manhunt you can take everyday objects and stab or bludgeon people to death with them, and Warren LeBlanc was described as being "obsessed with the game" and that his murder was done similarly to the methods employed by Manhunt's protagonist. This may look incriminating before I slap you and ask you to think of how many ways you can hold a knife. Essentially there are two, and stabbing people takes a general thrusting motion. You could probably hold it with your feet or while jacking off, but if so you've got other problems and the young California tard you're trying to kill will get away. There are even less ways to hold a gun, unless you're a tard etc, but games don't prepare you for the recoil or weight of an actual gun, and many games feature fictional guns, so unless your weapon was manufactured by Matel, then you'll have to ask a cop or something. And in regard to the Manhunt, "‘The prosecution and defence barristers insisted at Leicester Crown Court that the video game played no part in the killing’ (The Leicester Mercury, 3rd September, 2004).".

Video Games arouse people to violence who are mentally predisposed to: Avoiding the obvious joke, yes, I'll admit that games may do that, just like football and political shouting matches arouse people to anger. However, none of the studies looking at how children are affected by the arrival of television found much change at all, despite all the talk of violent TV increasing crime. The last case was St. Helena, a British Colony in the South Atlantic Ocean which received television for the first time in 1995. Before and after studies
showed no change in children’s anti-social or pro-social behavior. On top of this, the most
comprehensive analysis looking at whether violent crime rates changed alongside the growth of
television in different countries have concluded there has been no link.


Video Games Desensitize us to Violence
: Why? You surely won’t feel less upset if you are mugged, or less angry if your neighbour is or less distressed by the next brutal murder of a child today than you did before watching all the video violence that you have to watch in your job. Will you? In any case, as we’ve seen, people are far more likely to report less serious violence these days than they have ever been. Those who don’t like screen violence often look away and hide their eyes when they expect something nasty. If you get them to look, they will usually agree that it wasn’t as bad as they thought it would be. We might get ‘used’ to screen violence but I really don’t think this has anything to do with our sensitivity to the real world.

And Lastly: Banning Video Games will help these problems, assuming they exist: No. Assuming that videogames are spawns from Satan and turn people into ninja zombies the moment you touch a copy of Lego Batman, and Assuming that banning violent games is not a restriction on First Amendment rights or I am forced to recall the recent politcal attempt to regulate the media: the V Chip. In theory, the chip would scan channels and shows and block ones the parent's set as too obscene and stuff. Partly because it took time to create a rating system for all the shows, partially because the rating system was shit, after 3 years only 1 in 12 households used the system.


In short, I'm not saying that violence in videogames is good, just that it doesn't cause violence in gamers, and that any legislation denouncing videogames as causing violence is completely stupid for more than one reason.

(This blog took way too long)

(Also, the proponent will be tomorrow)

(In the meantime)

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Quake 3



(The epicenter was in Mindaro, which is right at the center of this map)


A magnitude 6.0 (ish. Estimates vary slightly) earthquake struck the northern Philippines on Tuesday.

There have been no reported casualties. Actually, there haven't been very many reports; look at what Travelagent:

"A 6.1 earthquake hit the Philippines today, Thursday, March 25, in the Mindoro region of the country. The epicenter was approximately 86 miles from capital Manila and was felt in Quezcon City on the island of Luzon and also in Lubang Island, according to CNN."
At this time there is no immediate report of damage or injuries.
Stay tuned for more updates."

I could link six news sources and they won't tell you much more than that. They too seem to have my idea of filler by taking space to describe the Richter scale or the Philippines.


http://www.timesasia.net/manila-earthquake-earthquake-philippines-earthquake-march-25-2010-21192861.htm


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018192192?Earthquakes%20Rumble%20Northern%20Philippines

http://www.therichmarksentinel.com/rs_headlines.asp?recid=4233


http://news.puggal.com/manila-earthquake-28377/



http://www.google.com/url?q=http://uktodaynews.com/2737/manila-earthquake-philippines-struck-by-6-2-magnitude-earthquake-today/&ei=CD2sS4-UEo3ysQP-u-yXDA&sa=X&oi=news_article&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CDkQqQIoATAA&usg=AFQjCNGSXD4oQ8Kfnmy3OeSUlCzJpeGnVg


But anyway, this is the third earthquake this year. 2012 is approaching alright. But considering the US's chummy relationship with the archipelago, one might think we could spare some aid if it turns out some buildings were destroyed or people found dead. Yay foreign policy

For Quake 1, check here.

For Quake 2, try here.

No relation to the actual game Quake.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Should have used a Resurrection instead

So stop the party! The health care bill still isn't in the clear!

So I've been brushing up on my post-war presidents for May. Not that you actually care about it, but it means I have grown some respect for the Republican party, at least as they were at mid-century when they weren't passing bills declaring communists and homosexuals to be second-class people. But I guess I can't blame them, really, everyone hated communists and homosexuals for understandable reasons and at least they were branching out from the usual butt-monkeys; women, black people, and the poor. But really, Eisenhower was a pretty great president.

Which makes modern day Republicans look to azsholes what azsholes are to normal people. Seriously;

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana -- herself the target of scrutiny for securing a so-called "sweetheart deal" for her state -- blasted McCain's amendment as purely political, the Hill reports. She reportedly called the amendment "for television or the Internet... not for any serious debate."

"It is beneath the senator from Arizona, who at one time was a candidate for president of this country," Landrieu said. "Normally the only time I see the word 'sweetheart' is when my husband sends me a dozen roses on Valentine's Day... To actually draft an amendment like this that uses the words 'sweetheart deal' is really an insult to the people of our country, and I would expect more from him."

That was a reference to the republican stalling tactics used on the reconciliation bill that needs to be passed to appease and fix all the problems with the original manuscript.

Although i feel there are legitimate reasons to oppose the health care bill, I have not heard any of them from the Republicans. I'm sure there are some competent Republicans out there, otherwise I'd just move to Australia and put up with their silly hats and exorbitant video-game tariffs, so in the name of hope I believe that the media must assume that smart people don't sell news as much as strawmen.

Although this just in: abortion and stuff: with the bill released, states will have the ability to ban policies that subsidies abortion from their transactions. Amendments are currently being proposed by conservative democrats to ban abortion from the exchanges altogether. In short, this bill promises to seriously erode all reproductive rights gains made in the past century.

I don't really know much about the abortion debate but some people I sometimes pretend to respect care very much about it, and with the passage of this bill they are all totally fu- screwed, and forced to conceive any cross-eyed bastard result of the ungodly union and contribute to the enormous messed-up child rate. In my outsider point of view, I view this setback as worth a society a bit closer to Utopia, but that makes me comparable to the Nazis, so I should feel a bit offended that such discrimination has infiltrated such a necessary bill.

(And if you're nerdy enough to get the title, I congratulate you for being bored enough to actually read this blog)


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001018-503544.html

Monday, March 22, 2010

Back from the Dead




"Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Republicans were unanimous in opposition, joined by 34 dissident Democrats."

"This is what change looks like," Obama said a few moments later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of Change we can believe in"

"Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage."

"change we can believe in."



So after I tried to brainstorm other blog topics, I wondered if some obscure bill passed in a land has any relevance to my life as an ignorant dependent student.


So, I looked it up

For me, if I move out of my parent's basement and fail to find a job due to IT STILL BEING AN ECONOMIC RECESSION, I can still be covered on my parent's plan as a dependent until I'm 26. By 2013, presuming I can get a job cleaning the accumulated dust from sugarless vending machines, then, because I'm not worth employee health coverage, I can be eligible for state subsidies for health insurance assuming my employer doesn't pay me more than four times the poverty level (and what a weird employer that would be.)

For my parents, by the end of this year they will recieve a $250 rebate on their keeping-old-people-alive pills. Assuming the pills work, by 2020, the doughnut hole gap will supposedly be completely closed and they will only have to pay 25% of prescription drug costs.


So lets talk about complexity. It was recently brought up, rhetorically, in one of the rooms full of mewling zombies with which I'm forced to coexist with, that the Highway Act of 1956 created the most revolutionary acts in history, revolutionizing the way individuals travel from one shining sea to another, while the Health Care bill takes up over 2,000 pages. I didn't answer by calling them an ignorant twat and pointing out that the myriad manifestations of unhealthiness and the even greater number of ways to deal with them that is affected by every possible age, gender, relationship status, business ownership, employment, and how you squeeze your toothpaste, and every combination thereof, was definitely NOT comparable to pouring asphalt over a road for people who drive either cars, trucks, or motercycles (although I'm not sure of the latter was invented yet). In short, medicine is complicated, and medical insurers manage to muck up the system even more by discriminating against different demographics. It's good to see that all that work has not been to waste.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Patience


I have to admit, health care is one of the only issues I really know anything about (What? Research?) and I find the irony of beating the dead horse about them beating the dead horse delightfully inane and spiteful. So let's not beat around the bush:

It is my personal opinion that health care reform is like having a baby; if it's time for it to come out there's not much you can do about it. However, under this tortured metaphor, there is still the chance that the mother could have done one too many belly flops or taken too much thalidomide, or the baby could be born perfectly healthy but still brain itself on the floor when it slither's out of its mother's womb, so in the interest of having a baby with the least amount of birth defects or mental damage, it's important to actually think things through and stop complaining about old people's patience (so they tell me).

By this reasoning, we can assume the intelligent opposition to health care reform want's to wait a bit before deciding to take the responsibility of a child because they want to do it right.

The first valid reason is that progress comes with a price tag. Yes, we could make everyone rich and happy and healthy and free from fear and malady, but forcing people to fight for a doctor's time means Doctors can do a more adequate job. With so many people fighting to spend money, any newcomer to the field can be sure to be motivated to do well, because if he sucks, people will turn to next year's graduates. This also motivates progress, because, no matter how expensive gene therapy or or stem cell research (Screw morality! SCIENCE MARCHES ONWARD!) can get, some rich person will cough up the dough, and fighting for a piece of bread and private grants someone will make a breakthrough, which may eventually help all of us, like penicillin or advanced cancer treatment. Inevitably, breakthroughs demand competition (look at how productive the Cold War was. Now everyone can have a magic talking I-phone that's more valuable than you are), and a cure for cancer or thalidomide babies necessitates that some poor sod has to live with his cancer or his baby having birth defects.

Secondly, it's not 'right' to force someone to pay for his neighbor's cancer, broken hip, or thalidomide baby. True, we feel sorry for them, and may or may not voluntarily donate money to help when the insurance pit dries up, but we don't like being forced to give up our hard-gotten gains. We'd never accept the premise that some outside body can force us to pay money to help someone, even if it's nobody's fault, especially not ours. (Here)

Third is the fact that in trying to craft a "universal" health care alternative, you need to provide bits for everyone, which inevitably ties in other issues like illegal immigration and abortion. See yesterday's copy and paste. So let's give it some more time, hmm?

There are several other arguments out there, mostly involving money problems, I don't have much of an interest in them but check them out if it tickles you. There are also many, many stupid argument's out there too, but don't let that dishearten you: 90% of everything is stupid. Just do it right if you're going to be against health care reform. But just for giggles: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_ten_dumbest_arguments_against_health_care_reform



Oh, and because I've been sorta obsessed with it: thalidomide babies.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Undead


Let's talk about Health care. Again. If you've been paying any attention to the news or what the pretentious politically-informed pricks in your study hall are ranting about, then you'll know the Health Care Debate has already beaten the horse into a pile of extra-chunky salsa and properly disposed of the thing in one of the waste recepticles convieniently located at all theater exits (cause that's all politics is nowadays).

And dead things at the bottom of trash cans brings me effortlessly to the abortion issue, in which fear of federal funds to fund abortions has swayed several congressmen into dissenting the bill (and by congressmen I mean house democrats, because republicans never change thier mind.) Bart Stupak of Michigan and several others said they would vote against the Senate bill as written but would consider supporting it with significant changes. Stupak leads a coalition of conservative Democrats who may play a key role in the health care vote calculus. These lawmakers favor modifying the Senate health care bill to include an amendment from Stupak that will further restrict ways abortions can be funded. During the House health care overhaul debate, 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak amendment.

In rebuttal, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, who recently discussed his concerns over the abortion issue with Stupak, said Monday night: "If they brought the bill down, they're not stopping any abortions. They are stopping millions of people from getting health insurance."

But what is this health care bill, you may ask. What is it going to do? Well, the whole thing is one long list of reform measures and political necessities, but there are a few things that would be felt immediately by you, the constituant:


Eliminating caps
: If you buy a policy, a health care company will not be able to place a lifetime -- or annual -- cap on how much they will cover. This is will be especially important for those diagnosed with serious illnesses, such as cancer, who face steep medical bills.

Pre-existing conditions: The Senate bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. The money would help you until the new health care exchanges in the Senate bill are put into effect in 2014.

Children and pre-existing conditions
: Another thing that's going to be very important, CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger said, is that there will be no exclusion of children with pre-existing conditions.

Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26.

"Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy," Borger said. "That's very important to a lot of families."

Small business tax credits: Those tax credits are aimed at helping small businesses buy health insurance for their employees. Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that offer coverage, according to the Senate's plan.

Preventive care: All new insurance plans, Obama said, will be required to offer free preventive care in order to "catch preventable illnesses and diseases on the front end."

Appeals process: A new independent appeals process will be set up for those who feel that they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.

Help for seniors: If you fall into the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit coverage gap, dubbed the "donut hole," you will receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/house.vote.count/index.htmlP

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/health.care.immediate/index.html

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Quake




The fifth most powerful earthquake since 1900 hit Chile yesterday morning. The 8.8 magnitude quake has leveled buildings, mared roads, and already killed an untold number of people and may cost insurers $2 billion to $8 billion, according to estimates from catastrophe- modelers AIR Worldwide and Eqecat Inc.


Not much from the White House yet on the earthquake in Chile, but it's still very early and we are told Obama is monitering the situation. Meanwhile, other countries are already sending aid and assesing damages.
The tsunami generated by the quake topped at 3 feet, much milder than feared.

The Chilean government has deployed several thousand troops in effort to halt the massive looting in cities affected by the quake. Many people are still missing and some communities in the worst-hit central region of the South American country are still largely cut off by mangled roads.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Looking foward


The Olympics are one of the great unifying events, one of the events that allow us and the world to share in triumphs and come together around the spectacle. (so that's how it relates to government.)

So The 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics has ended. The United States wound up in 1st place with a phenomenal 37 medals, with Germany coming in 2nd with 30 and Canada in 3rd with 26.

Check it out at the official website.

However, only 9 of thsoe 37 medals were gold, with 15 being silver and 13 bronze medalions. Canada won 14 gold medals, but only 5 bronze. Korea recieved 6 gold medals with Kim Yu-Na grabbing the gold in many ice-skating events. And let's not forget our speed skater Apolo Ohno or our victorious hockey team. And of course we encourage you to look into all the dedicated athletes who broke records and defied boundries. And don't forget the few who've died or been unfortunately disqualified.

Wow, it's been a really packed few weeks, hasn't it?

The United States triumph has led to a renewed invigoration of patriotism in America. Indeed, the federal government has at least some say in the budgeting and training of athelets and competing of them too: we boycotted the 1980 summer games in Moscow because of the war in afganistan.

So look into it.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Animals have rights too

They may not be human rights, but they still deserve the same protections. Or think of it in the way that humans have rights to own animals and they have the right to uphold thier rights through upholding animals. Assumer the former if you wish an unhurt head.

There are many opposing arguments for that assumption, but I'm not here to indoctrinate you. Look it up, or consult your local library.

So Anyway, there exists an animal welfare bill that is requiring animal rights officers to have adequate background checks and undergo longer periods of training.

This has arisen controversy over an already low-budget service requiring more expensive training. Proponents of the bill point to corruption and incompetence in undertrained officers that results in more animal rights abuse. Dissenters claim the agency is already streched too thin and cannot keep up with the instances of animal rights abuse.

We could give them more money, but nobody wants to spend any. Not even the politicians.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

give up.

Explaining the title: Its not that I am against Public Health Care: I am all for the public option. BUT THE DEBATE WAS KILLED! PEOPLE ARN'T GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN!

Plus, the plan's all revamped now and has major changes, incorporating a bridge between the house and Senate bills.

Here's the meaningless mumbo-jumbo of exact articles and stuff.

Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans
Title II. The Role of Public Programs
Title III. Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care
Title IV. Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health
Title V. Health Care Workforce
Title VI. Transparency and Program Integrity
Title VII. Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies
Title VIII. Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act)
Title IX. Revenue Provisions
Title X. Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act

Below is the lobotomized explanations of the stuff.

Paying:
"The House and Senate health insurance bills lower premiums through increased competition, oversight, and new accountability standards set by insurance exchanges. The bills also provide tax credits and reduced cost sharing for families with modest income. The President’s Proposal improves the affordability of health care by increasing the tax credits for families."

Consumer Protections
The Senate bill includes a “grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. The President’s Proposal adds certain important consumer protections to these “grandfathered” plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover adult dependents up to age 26, prohibits rescissions, mandates that plans have a stronger appeals process, and requires State insurance authorities to conduct annual rate review, backed up by the oversight of the HHS Secretary.

Invest in Community Health Centers.
Community health centers play a critical role in providing quality care in underserved areas. About 1,250 centers provide care to 20 million people, with an emphasis on preventive and primary care. The Senate bill increases funding to these centers for services by $7 billion and for construction by $1.5 billion over 5 years. The House bill provides $12 billion over the same 5 years. Bridging the difference, the President’s Proposal invests $11 billion in these centers.

Strengthen Oversight of Insurance Premium Increases.
Both the House and Senate bills include significant reforms to make insurance fair, accessible, and affordable to all people, regardless of pre-existing conditions. One essential policy is “rate review” meaning that health insurers must submit their proposed premium increases to the State authority or Secretary for review. The President’s Proposal strengthens this policy by ensuring that, if a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, health insurers must lower premiums, provide rebates, or take other actions to make premiums affordable.

Improve Individual Responsibility
All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans.




According to Hills,
But the proposals — few of which are new — lack any ideas aimed at wooing Republicans, who have expressed intense skepticism about Obama’s stated intention to reach out to them. Pfeiffer emphasized that the plan does not represent a compromise package negotiated between Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress

Well good. Obama must be tired of compromising and getting nothing for his trouble. He must be a better man than most, though, if he's willing to extend a hand untarnished by spite and resentment.

Read More Here: http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/27103/Obamacares_Last_Stand.html
And Here: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/02/22/obama-health-care-plan-explained/

Sunday, February 21, 2010

“If we’re honest, part of the controversy also is that despite the extraordinary work that has been done through the Recovery Act, millions of Americans are still without jobs,” Mr. Obama said. “Millions more are struggling to make ends meet. So it doesn’t feel like much of a recovery yet. I understand that.”

(From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/us/politics/18obama.html)

The economy has indeed lost jobs on Mr. Obama’s watch, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently calculated that the recovery package, formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, had saved or created between 900,000 and 2.3 million jobs.

The economy has shed some three million jobs over the past year, but it would have lost closer to five million without stimulus,” said Mark Zandi, “The economy is still struggling, but it would have been much worse without stimulus.”

But how efficient was it? putting 800 billion dollars into the economy may have helped, but could we have spent it better? Some people say yes.

Money is just green paper. Putting more money into the econom without increasing production will just lead to inflation. Likewise with benefit packages: giving people money won't help revitalize the economy.

But it will help the person.

Read more about it.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Broken


Two months into the new year, Congress is at a standstill, stuck in party-line votes, heated debates and electoral politics.

Democrats are afraid to take chances on anything that might alienate voters, and Republicans can stand pat and hope the anti-incumbent mood brewing in the country will help weaken Democrats' control of Congress.

And we're still in a recession. No matter what economists predict and analysists observe, the unemployment rate is high and stuff.

According to a national poll , Eighty-six percent of people questioned say that the system of government is broken, with 14 percent saying no.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released February 16 found that 56 percent of those sampled said most Democrats in Congress do not deserve to be re-elected. An equal amount also said that most of their Republican counterparts don't deserve re-election.

Republicans are blaming it on democrats. "Obama has't reached out his hand to the conservative part of america." Is it someone elses fault you're not more open-minded? Is it the African American's fault that you're racist because he didn't "Reach out his hand to you"? Unclench your fist, Bish.

That's not to say Democrats are perfect either. Who was Scott Brown's opponent? Oh that's right, some chick who didn't get out enough to win one of the MOST DEMOCRATIC STATES IN AMERICA.

The main problem I have with republicans complaining about the economy is that they had 8 years in power to prevent and fix the crisis AND FAILED. What have republicans accomplished in the last decade? Not much. And they think they deserve a second chance? Your second chance is available now.

Unfortunately Democrats haven't accomplished much either in the past few years. Lets keep our fingers crossed

Friday, February 19, 2010

And I Hear He Was Such a Great Author





Once upon a time people smoked cigarettes. Everyone smoked some sort of way: housewives and the proletariat smoked Virginia Slims or Marlboro Lights, Career women smoked Mores, and teenagers go for menthols and anyone who didn't smoke was usually a uptight square, ambiguously gay or a puritan. (or so I've heard)

That's part of the reason why the general populace was reluctant to heed the Surgeon General's 1964 announcement that smoking was bad. Nowadays it is accepted that, say, ingesting smoke while pregnant could mess up your baby, and smoking in much of America is taboo.

So After the 2009 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed nearly all of the impositions a trial judge placed on tobacco businesses in 2006, which limited tobacco marketing and required potential health risks to be made known, the Tobacco industry decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. The main charge is whether the tobacco business is guilty of misleading the public on the adverse health risks involved with inhaling foreign substances.

RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was also invoked. I admit I am a bit confused because RICO targets criminal organizations that are involved with stuff, not corrupt businesses who bend the morality line trying to make money.


(And that's Kurt Vonnegut acting all cool up there, folks. At least he admitted it was "A classy way to commit suicide" Ironically, he died of brain injuries when he fell in his apartment. At age 84.)

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Fire and Rain

Prince Saud al-Faisal said the threat posed by Iran demanded a "more immediate solution" than sanctions.

"Sanctions are a long-term solution. They may work, we can't judge. But we see the issue in the shorter term maybe because we are closer to the threat... So we need an immediate resolution rather than a gradual resolution."

Earlier, aides to Mrs Clinton - who is on a tour of the Gulf to try to build support for more sanctions on Iran - revealed she would press Saudi Arabia to help persuade China to support a tougher stand against Iran's nuclear ambitions.


Well, on one hand, nukes are bad. Radiation that lingers for centuries, and even nuclear power-plants break down sometimes. Terrorists could overthrow Iran and get access to the power to use against the western world.

But informed people know that nuclear power-plants do not equal nuclear warheads: the enrichment grade for nukes is much, much higher than for power-plants, that nuclear power-plants are encased in concrete and more safeguards than the Death Star and that the only instance in history where a power-plant has blown up was when the soviets took out all the safeguards to see what would happen, and that terrorists could more easily ask the underground in Russia or China for old nukes, which wouldn't need massive amounts of inrichment.

Furthermore, the UN would watch Iran nuclear power, with on-the-sight delegates as well as satalites that can see mosquito scratching themselves.

So why is Mrs. Clinton worried about Iran and Nuclear Power?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Scared

Keeping with the terrorism motif of last time, read this:

"Asked if another attack like the underwear bomber or the Christmas attack would actually happen, vice president Joe Biden said, "Well, I think there are going to be attempts."

The vice president expressed optimism about Iraq, saying it could end up being "one of the great achievements of this administration."

"You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer," Biden said. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

He said he had visited Iraq 17 times, going every two or three months.

"It has impressed me," Biden said. "I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.""

Lets look at the first line: "Well, there are going to be attempts."

What does this mean? Frankly, it means he doesn't know. But rather than admit that there is no way to know and that there probably won't be another devastating terrorist bombing, he dodges responsibility and inadvertently may induce unfounded panic. Read more here.


Now that last quote is worrying. If you do the math, going to Iraq an average of two times every five months means he has been to Iraq means he has been visiting the middle eastern country for almost five years. And he's "impressed {by} how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns."

While this may be directed at the new regime moving for a representative government, in which he is surprised that change is coming non-violently, or the old regime opposed to the constitution, the fact remains that Iraq, as well as many other middle eastern countries, are not barbarians and are perfectly capable of politics and government and were for years. Where do you think the first assassins came from? True, they may not share all our values, such as separation of church and states and woman's rights, but they know how to vote:

On October 15, 2005, more than 63% of eligible Iraqis came out across the country to vote on whether to accept or reject the new constitution. On October 25, the vote was certified and the constitution passed with a 78% overall majority, with the percentage of support varying widely between the country's territories.

And have known for a while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Law

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Terrorism

Read: (Skip to the end if you are bored)

In a transparent display of theatrics, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asked the three administration officials if another “attempted attack” on the US was likely in the near future. If the witnesses answered that such an “attempt” was unlikely, they would be accused of offering a false sense of security to the country. A vague answer would land them in hot water for not appearing to know that which they are paid to find out. A definitive “yes” would add to the oft-times irrational fear that many of those in the Congress stoke that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are lurking on every airplane with a “dirty bomb.”

The appropriate answer for intelligence professionals would be, “Madam Chairman, the possibility of attempts to commit further terrorist acts against our country and its people is always present, but trying to assign a definite percentage or liklihood to such an occurrence would add nothing to the public’s or the Senate’s understanding of the problems we face and of our abilities to detect and deter such efforts.” Instead, all three officials succumbed to the theatrics of the moment and dutifully opined that “an attempted attack . . . is certain.” (From Here.)


Also:

Criticisms of post-9/11 efforts to protect the United States from attack range from claims that America is more vulnerable than ever to the contention that the transnational terrorist danger is vastly over-hyped.[1] A review of publicly available information on at least 19 terrorist conspiracies thwarted by U.S. law enforce­ment suggests that the truth lies somewhere in between these two arguments.

U.S. agencies are actively combating individuals and groups that are intent on killing Americans and plot­ting mayhem to foster violent extremist political and religious agendas. A review of the data suggests several important conclusions:

* Combating terrorism is essential for keeping Amer­ica safe, free, and prosperous.

* Counterterrorism operations have uncovered threats that in some cases, although less sophisticated than the 9/11 attacks and at most loosely affiliated with "al-Qaeda" central, could have resulted in signifi­cant loss of life and property if they had been con­ducted successfully.

* The best means to prevent terrorist attacks is effective intelligence collection, information sharing, and coordinated, determined counterterrorism opera­tions that can stop attacks before they are mounted.

* Effective operations often require federal, state, local, and international cooperation.



Such approaches leave one crucial thing out: WHY terrorists are attacking America. We can stop a body from sneezing by plugging up the nose, or we can try to treat the root of the disease. (HAHA, cringe at my analogies!)

So let's look: in 1940, Al-e Ahmed created a philosophy known as Gharbzadegi- hatred of westernism. Al-e Ahmad argued that Iran must gain control over machines and become a producer rather than a consumer, even though once having overcome Weststruckness it will face a new malady - also western - that of "machinestruckness."

Gharbzadegi does not encompass all of the motivation behind terrorists, but its a start. Nothing can condone terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, but look at what was targeted: The World Trade Center, symbol of Western Economy. For years the middle East and its unique culture and society have been maligned for being too different. Bombs send a message speeches can not. This is simply for your information. Look into it further, for I am tired.

Read more http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/17659.html

Wednesday, February 3, 2010





Government Health Care programs are reaching a record cost of 1 trillion dollars, accounting for half of total government health care expenditures. in 2008, 47% of the 2.34 trillion dollar health care expenditure went to government health care programs. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates in a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs that the proportion will rise to 50.4% by 2011. Last year, the federal actuaries had predicted the 50% mark wouldn't be reached until around 2016.


"It's going to be a desperate issue five to 10 years out," said Gail Wilensky, the former top Medicare official in the George H.W. Bush administration. She said the U.S. will have to decide soon between raising revenue to pay for Medicare or reducing benefits.

Many states are having trouble funding Medicaid. President Barack Obama's budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 calls for $25 billion in federal help for covering Medicaid costs.

In Response to mounting health care costs, the Republicans suggested we abandon it all and start over.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

NASA and DEATH

NASA's budget is being cut. Excuse me while I mourn for a while.

"sniff"

Although it makes sense that space exploration is not the highest priority when bailing out big buisness is necessary to preserve the existence of America. And global foriegn relations are deteriorating. And the environment is toast.

It's this last one that is problematic. If America dies, gosh forbid, at least the Chinese and Russians will continue the Human Race (And Mandarin sounds cooler than english too). If the earth Dies, we're kinda screwed.

Not that all hope is lost. Obama is providing $6 billion for commercial space exploration. If we build one within 15 years, we may get to Gilease 581 (a potentially habital planet 20 light years over Australia in sprin (or maybe fall)) by 2300. Wee!

Also, the new NASA will focus more on earth, so we can understand ourselves more.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Another Point of Contention

(Pictures Up tomorrow)

President Obama's old Senate Seat in Illinois, and the GOP plans to place a Conservative rear end in it with Mark Kirk. His democratic rival manifests as Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.

It also should be noted that the recent Tea Party Movement has been pushing Republicans right, away from moderate policies and voters.

Paul Green, director of policy studies at Roosevelt University, said: "Kirk will have plenty of time to modify his positions in the general. He is going to be very tough to beat if the current trends continue. None of the other candidates' résumés match up to his."

Currently Giannoulias is leading the fractured Democratic field with about a third of the vote, but many have posed concerns about his relative inexperience, as well as recent events that may mar his record.

Read About it Here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013002162.html?hpid=topnews

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Journalistic Integrity

(Again, Pictures will be up MONDAY, when I manage to get fast enough internet access at school.)

Recently I hear Journalists are being criticized for being too involved with disaster victims in Haiti. Calls that objective reporters can't get involved have occured in many disaster areas.

Such Critizism is insensitive and nonsensical. If a journalist is a doctor and someone needs help, who is the journalist, the victim, or the viewer to deny such help to preserve 'objectivity'? It's not like CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta stopped in the middle of a live broadcast to save people either. He helped people off-duty. A reporter does not forfeit his humanity when he takes the job too. As CBC News says, "What the journalist is experiencing is unfathomable to most Americans. Hearing the cries of dying Haitians under piles of rubble would drive anyone — journalist or not — to at least try to help them."

Additionally, footage of reporters helping people reinforces the good attempted by rescue operations. TAKE THAT, FRANCE!!!

Friday, January 29, 2010

Obama's Speech

(Note: Pictures for the next three posts will be up on monday at the latest.)

This Wednesday, United States President Obama gave a "little speech or something", as the eloquent people of our honorable school so accurately described it.

The state of the Union is a long-time tradition of American Presidents. It's there chance to tell the nation their plans and ask for the support of the people and their representatives. Read about it.

Aesthetic and superficial things happened. A standing ovation occurred every 2 minutes. Republicans rarely clapped. Joe Biden looked weird. But so what? Who cares?

The biggest thing I liked about it was his exhortation to both parties to "reject the false choice between leading the country and upholding your values" and try to lead the country. That was one of the major topics later in his speech.
Read about them here

Since the time of FDR, A president's first 100 days in office are rated by how much is accomplished. Obama faced a fiercely devided and partisan government and not much was done. Health care is taking 8 months and rising. Some critics even say bi-partisanship was a mistake.

Obama talked a lot on Wednesday. Over an hour even, and we all hold our breath to see if all that talk held promise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904228.html

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Tensions Rise

Republicans today are burdended with the task of trying to appeal to a people that has a bone to pick with big buisness. As you know, Republicans favor big buisness. Obama has elicited such when his proposal to restrict large corporations was met with rancid outrage on the part of the Republicans. Conversly, Republicans said it is possible to be pro-business while favoring the interests of workers and small firms over Wall Street excess. :/

However,The public's frustration is directed more at government than at businesses or banks, said Kevin Madden, who served as an aide to Republican Mitt Romney, the former presidential candidate and Massachusetts governor.

Mr. Obama is taking advantaged of the economic and political situations in attempt to garner support. It's working.

Mr. Obama recently proposed a $9 billion-a-year tax on big banks to help replenish the money taxpayers lost from bailouts. The president also suggested limiting the size of big banks and restricting their involvement in trading. This was met with much outrage on the part of Republicans.

In times of hardship, it's so nice to see people of diverse interests and affiliations band together to help their people, isn't it?

Read about it at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704905604575027531605192798.html

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

According to CNN's Stimulus Tracker, the total stimulous to the US economy totals around 4.7 trillion dollars, including the 787 billion dollar first stimulous package and 3.9 Trillion in 'stealth stimulous', which includes things like credit market support programs, Financial Industry Bail-outs, and housing market initiatives.

And yet, for the vast majority of American people, the economy doesn't look like it's recovering. When President Obama visited Elyria, Ohio friday, he was greeted with statistics showing the state's unemployment jumping from 10.6% to 10.9%, higher than the national average, which is about 10.0 and slowly rising. Nevermind that economists appear on news stations claiming that the economic trend is veering towards recovery, for most people the econmy is still in ruins and our policy makers are gabbling about health care.

Obama acknowledged that communities like Elyria are still not feeling a recovery and renewed his call for Congress to pass a second economic recovery package, which aides say he will push hard for in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance


This week, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled the government may not ban or restrict political spending by corporations in elections, becasue it was a restriction of Free Speech.

The decision — Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission — overturned campaign finance laws classified in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited businesses from financing issue ads from their general treasury funds. It also affects laws in 24 states.

Before the decision, ads could not be aired 30 days before primary elections and 60 days before general elections.

However, corporations and unions still cannot after the decision directly contribute to a candidate’s campaign. The decision does not affect political action committees.

Is it really a good Idea to allow third-parties unrestricted access to public broadcasating? I anticipate the proliferation of attack-ads and wanton displays of substancless commercials. Blech. But I suppose free speech is a right, even if it can be annoying and perpetuates voter ignorance and shallowness of politics. :)



Read about it here. and here.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010


Hilary Rodham Clinton attacked China's Internet policies, specifically the censorship of the Internet. Her speech was the first one by a senior American official that put forward Internet freedom as a plank of American foreign policy. With its cold war undertones — likening the information curtain to the Iron Curtain — it was almost certain to ignite tinder in China and other countries she identified.

Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman,that the criticism leveled by Mrs. Clinton was “harmful to Sino-American relations.”

And President Obama promised last year to start a more conciliatory era in relations with China, pushing human rights issues to the background, but the new criticism of China’s Internet censorship and rising tensions over currency valuation and Taiwan arms sales indicated that ill will could flare in the months ahead.

Google announced that it might shut down its chinese search enginge, Google.cn, after around 30 hacker attacks were traced back to China.

(But seriously, 20% of a given population of internet users has a pasword from a bank of around 5,000 common passwords, with one's like 123456, qwerty, and princess making the top of the list. Your fault.)

So why is Internet Freedom a good thing? Besides the fact that it has the world 'freedom' in it, which makes it American and unaduleratedly good. True, having a block in school on things like 'hate crimes' (for 'hate and discrimination') and 'games' (for 'games') and sites like YouTube and blogs are annoying, and nobody would like to have the same blocks on thier homes, but completely unadulturated Internet Freedom is probably a bad thing, seeing as how much of the internet is used for one thing, and how much of the other stuff is very distracting, I see no reason for complete internet freedom.

It should be noted that China discourages thier people from playing online games known for thier addicting quality (world of warcraft) by halfing the efficiency of characters after three consecutive hours online.

Additionally, Hillary's speech was the first one by a senior American official that put forward Internet freedom as a plank of American foreign policy. With its cold war undertones — likening the information curtain to the Iron Curtain — it was almost certain to ignite tinder in China and other countries she identified.

“The U.S. campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy,” the newspaper said, adding that the “U.S. government’s ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed.”

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Back to Square One


Republican Scott Brown won the senate seat in Democratic stronghold Massachusetts today. He's the first Republican senator in the state since 1972, beating Democratic rival and Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley by 52% to 47%.

Here is the potential problem: Scott Brown claims he won by critisizing Obama's health care and tapping into the general discontent staing:
"We already have 98% of our people insured here already in Massachusetts, so we do not need the plan that's being pushed upon us,". - So really he just used the unique demographics of Massachusetts to land a victory while many other states don't enjoy adequate health care.

But there's still hope: "I never said I was going to do everything I can to stop healthcare," he said, "I believe everybody should have healthcare, it's just a question of how we do it." - I can only hope that's true, Mr. Brown.

But you also pleged to be the vote that kills the current health care bill, bringing us back to square one at worst.

Which means the people will have to wait even longer for universal health care and worse, the last several months the Obama administration has spent vying and working for the current welfare bill will have been WASTED. FOR NOTHING! >:(.

And they can do it to. It takes sixty votes for cloture on an issue, and there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. None of them support

Conservative commentator Reihan Salam, co-author of the book Grand New Party, says there is "a real exhaustion with what many folks see as Obama's big government agenda". - They'll be more exhausted if they found out that Obama post-poned serious commitment to troop-increases overseas, the natoinal economy, many of the prommises he made to get elected - all things that affect at least most people on a daily basis
- FOR NOTHING! >:(

That's what it will come down to if the Republicans keep saying no: NOTHIN >:(. Voters are tired of policy gridlock and voting down health care will just perpetuate the issue. So say yes sombody.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Anniversary!


Obamas entering his second year in office soon. Things he as to look foward to for his second year

- Health Care bill
- HUGE animosty because of the health care bill
- Staggering economy that's still losing jobs
- No end to struggles in Afganistan
- Israel and Packistan are still fighting
- North Korea and Iran are still working on Nukes
- An approval rating that is the second lowest in the last century
- Immigration
- Environment
- Flak for not keeping promises

Several of these things are important. Well, all of them are really. Thus they will be discussed. Soon.

Meanwhile, find out more about it here, or there, or over there

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Haiti















Haiti recently experienced major damage when a 7.0 earthquake hit the country earlier this week.

I found out about this because a webcomic I was reading had a side-entry about it. So:

- 3 million people have been affected
- Of that, tens of thousands are feared dead
- Thousands of buildings including the Presidental Palace, the United Nations office, and hundreds of homes.

So, as good Samaritan neighbors, Barack Obama has stated that the "people of Haiti will have the full support of the United States" and that "every element of our national capacity, our diplomacy, and development assistance, the power of our military and most importantly, the compassion of our country"

Many other countries, such as Britain and France and China, have pledged their support for the island as well.

Mr Obama promised an immediate $100m for Haiti's relief effort and said that investment would grow over the coming year to aid long-term recovery.

The head of Medecins du Monde, Olivier Bernard, told AFP news agency that aid had to arrive by Thursday evening. "To save lives, surgery must be available ideally within the first 48 hours."

So, as Ben Parker once said, "With great power comes great responsibility". As a country with rapid deployment options and stuff we have the power to help Haiti. We'll save lives, gain a little rep (it'd look bad if we didn't Even China's doing something), and feel good inside. 'Cause that's all a rich nation like us is missing right??

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Fail.

President Obama announces the failure of the federal government in stopping the terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from blowing up a plane.

They actually did catch him before he killed anybody, but because a misspelling of his name on the database led security to believe he did not have a valid passport, which he did. If not for this fluke, 290 people on a Detroit plane would have exploded.

Obama states that Abdulmtallab's name was on a data base of suspected terrorists, but the data was scattered over several databases.

A similar thing happens with the FBI. Hundreds of local police stations and the National agency don't communicate with each other, leading to duplication of research and ineffective crime-fighting-ery. An attempt to compile the entire FBI database back in the previous millennium ended in failure and a significantly larger debt.

People hear stories about police agencies that take months to find a dead girl's body in a crazy persons driveway when the neighbors noticed the fresh concrete and the crazy's rantings when the crime happened. Is this related? Probably not. But it makes good filler.



So the Bureaucracy and Decentralization has resulted in an impotent government (slightly). One more argument for centralized states. Click the link if you don't know them. But Obama is the big centralizing thing in the US, right? Every other branch is composed of 535 congressmen, or a heirarchy of judges. Obama is at the top of the executive branch, so its his job to pull stuff together, right?


Read more here
And here

Tuesday, January 5, 2010



Being the President of the United States, Barack Obama is seen on TV, front covers of Newspapers, and appears in everyday conversation.

So it's only natural that, being a celebrity, advirtising companies would use him in an attempt to boost sales.

The above billboard appeared in New York Times Square this morning, featuring Barack Obama in a "Weatherproof" brand jacket on the Great Wall of China.

The White House has asked Weatherproof to remove the billboard, as it misleads consumers into thinking that Weatherproof recieved endorsement by Obama and the White House.

A recent PETA add showed featured four celebrities on the cover, including Oprah Winfrey, Tyra Banks, and Carrie Underwood, all who have said they are PETA Supporters. The forth person is Michelle Obama, who both has not given her permission for PETA to use her picture and is not allowed to endorse private products as the First Lady. But PETA claims she once said she was against fur, so that "justifies" using her picture.

This sort of thing has happened to presidents in the past, but accorind to David Jackson of USAToday, "it appears that Obama -- and wife Michelle -- are considered more glamorous than previous White House occupants, and therefore more appealing to advertisers looking to push a book, a magazine, a cause, or a product."

As one of most powerful and influencial people in the world today, the President of the United States cannot help but recieve great publicity and gratuitous name recognition, and being a public Icon it makes sense that companies would want to use the President to try to boost sales, like some companies put pictures of scantily clad women in thier adds to try to boost sales. At least the latter seek permission.

So as Leo Standforda of the Daily News saids, "President Obama is the leader of the free world, but don't mistake him for "A Leader in Style."