Don't you get tired of those goofball Americans, who are fortunate enough to have health care coverage, complaining about the national effort to provide health care for those who don't have coverage? Wow, I do.
They apparently don't care about fellow Americans. Then they also have fits about any notion of health care coverage for illegal immigrants, though those workers are probably here for the financial advantage of the conservative, capitalist (and likely Republican) corporations and farms that can get away with paying them low wages and not supplying any benefits.
I was thinking that it is too bad a bunch of those "screamers" at the town hall meetings for health care reform aren't invited to a doctor's office where a sick child of either uninsured Americans or illegal immigrant workers could stand before them in need of health and medical care. Then, after they deny care to the child, thereby showing that they favor the rationing of health care, someone could turn to the group and say, "Well, look who's part of the Sarah Palin death panel now."
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Worldwide attitudes...
Interesting numbers from Pew Global Attitudes Survey of July 2009, as noted by the McLaughlin Group tonight:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
According to the survey, U.S. favorability in other countries was the following:
- For the United Kingdom: 53 percent in 2008, 69 percent in 2009.
- For Germany: 33 percent in 2008, 64 percent in 2009.
- For France: 42 percent in 2008, 75 percent in 2009.
Also, according to the poll, here are the popularity percentages for Presidents Bush and Obama in other countries:
- Britain: 16 percent for Bush, 86 percent for Obama.
- France: 15 percent for Bush, 91 percent for Obama.
- Germany: 14 percent for Bush, 93 percent for Obama.
- Turkey: 2 percent for Bush, 33 percent for Obama.
- Russia: 22 percent for Bush, 37 percent for Obama.
- China: 30 percent for Bush, 62 percent for Obama.
- Japan: 25 percent for Bush, 85 percent for Obama.
- Brazil: 17 percent for Bush, 76 percent for Obama.
- Mexico: 16 percent for Bush, 55 percent for Obama.
- Argentina: 7 percent for Bush, 61 percent for Obama.
The only country, mentioned on the program, that gave a sliver of the edge to Bush over Obama was Israel, with 57 percent for Bush and 56 percent for Obama.
Even in the United States, the popularity poll noted 37 percent for Bush and 74 percent for Obama. Obama's popularity has dropped in the latest U.S. polls, but that is probably because he recently annoyed his progressive base on the left with talk of allowing the public option in health care reform to be eliminated. He needs to make sure the public option is part of the health care reform and then the progressives will happily herald an increase in his poll numbers.
Of course, I can completely understand the Pew survey numbers concerning worldwide attitudes about Bush and Obama. George Bush was a disaster in all kinds of ways. As I have said often, I think George W. Bush was the worst president so far in my lifetime and, remember, I was around when the awful administrations of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were leading the country.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Quotable quotes...
Some quotable quotes...
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
"It's just four little words: Tell me a story." -- Don Hewitt, describing the essence of journalism. Hewitt (1922-2009) died today. Hewitt worked with journalist Edward R. Murrow, directed the program for the first TV presidential debate (involving Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon), and created and produced the news program "60 Minutes."
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Congressman Barney Frank at the town hall meeting in answer to a nutty woman who compared Obama's health care reform plan to policies of Hitler and the Nazis.
(Note: I know what planet that woman probably spent her time on...It's the crazy, stupid, ridiculous place called Fox planet.)
"Wisdom will be our hammer. Prudence will be our rail. When men build lives from honest toil, courage never fails." -- A line from the 2006 movie "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale."
From the TV comedy show "Parks and Recreation" starring Amy Poehler:
About an upcoming newspaper interview by a reporter, Poehler's character asked, "What do you think she's going to ask me first?" Another character answered, "How you spell your name."
In another scene from the show, Poehler character said, "The press is weapon and you can use it to kill people or to feed people."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
People at public rallies...
If ever something fit the description of a "pig in a parlor," it would be the people who take guns to public rallies. They should play "Clint Eastwood" somewhere else. (They could volunteer to take the place of a soldier who's been deployed too many times in two wars in the Middle East.)
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
A public forum is for voice, not for the instruments of violence and intimidation. And all the "gunslingers" I have seen on TV segments are guys, of course. Oh, a gun is macho to men who worship them. But I have always thought the more courageous people are often the ones who braved the world without the need for either weapons or violence. That certainly was the case for peaceful protestors at rallies during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War protest days. And for people who had to carry guns, in the course of war, a lot of veterans gladly left their guns behind when they left the wars, relieved that they lived in a society of peace and civility. Even in the Old West, many towns with marshals had laws that prohibited people from bringing guns into the city limits. They didn't want cowboys at the saloon getting rowdy and dangerous with firearms. It really would be a sad day if it were common to see people carrying guns around, like the views we get from some foreign countries.
When I lived in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a small town of less than 1,000 people, for more than a decade, there were periods of time when the town didn't have any law enforcement officers. One time for nearly half a year or more. Let me tell you, that can be a bit disconcerting for a newspaper editor who, on occasion, reports stories or writes commentaries that make some people mad as hornets. I remember one day that a group of us were talking about the fact of living 55 miles away from any police protection, and someone wondered about acquiring guns, for security reasons. A friend, with a wife and three young children, was quite definite. "No way," he answered, saying he would never ever have a gun in his house and mainly because he had children. You might think that, in having a family, his paternal instincts would rear a fearful notion. But he said statistically it was more likely that guns in homes would fall into the hands of children, with the result of tragic accidents, than be needed for the threat of an intruder.
That's true of statistics to this day. With 30,000 gun deaths and 400,000 gun assaults in America becoming the yearly totals, it is also correct that if you have a gun in your home, it is 22 percent more likely that it will kill a family member than an intruding stranger.
But it isn't much better when the show-offs with guns take them out of their homes to public rallies. They think they are sending some strange message about Second Amendment rights. There's no need to send that message, as the Second Amendment is alive and well, despite fools who try to shoot down its reach through reckless acts.
Public rallies are about the First Amendment rights to free speech and to assemble "peaceably," as the First Amendment qualifies. Who wants to go to a rally where some malcontented extremist is bringing a gun? And yes, I think you are an extremist if you are wearing a gun in public and you're not in law enforcement. It's a pig in a parlor.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Health care needs and policies...
President Obama was in Montana and Colorado this weekend, answering questions about health care reform. Here are some of my comments pertaining to questions and answers...
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
To the question about private insurance companies competing with the public option, which means a governmental program:
1). There are 46 million Americans who don't currently have health care insurance, many who can't afford it, so they are not adding to the revenues of the insurance companies anyway. If they are allowed into a public program, then they will finally get coverage. About 14,000 people lose their health care insurance each day. I suspect much of that is because of job loss. So, the insurance companies are already losing customers. Are they losing profits? I don't hear of insurance companies going broke because of the loss or absence of customers.
2). The insurance companies don't just cover health care. They cover the insurance for car ownership, floods, and other areas including life insurance. My state forces me to find and pay for car insurance, though my driving record has been excellent for decades. I pay into the insurance pool for all those reckless teenagers and accident-prone jerks using cell phones while they drive. Talk about a "socialist" system. Why am I forced to get insurance for my car when I don't abuse its use or endanger others? Do any of those Republicans who are against the public option in health care complain about mandatory car insurance? And do you think there's a rat's whisker of difference in coverage costs within the so-called marketplace of insurance companies? If there is, I haven't discovered it. The insurance companies should have never been part of the health care system in the first place.
Why should Obama and Democrats like Senator McCaskill support a public option and make sure it's in the final plan?
Here's the deal. I voted for Obama and McCaskill in 2008. Obama's race wasn't close, but he certainly benefited by having a large amount of support from progressives (that means liberals). McCaskill's race went into the early hours of the next morning. That's how close it was. A nearly 50/50 race. I would prefer a single-payer system, like other great industrial democracies. At the very least, I expect a public option to be available in the health care plan. See the relationship. I voted for Obama; I want a public option. On the other hand, there are Republicans generally who don't want a public option and, for the most part, they didn't vote for Obama. So, who should Obama and McCaskill listen to? If Obama and the Democrats satisfy the conservatives, by caving on the public option, I hope they have calculated how many of those people who never voted for them before are suddenly going to vote for them in 2012 to replace the absent votes from progressives who are disgusted.
I voted for a Democratic president and Democratic senators and representatives. And they all won. I had to put up with Republican policies for the last eight years. Republicans got their two wars, their water-boarding, and their tax cuts for the rich. I sure as heck am not going to put up with more Republican policies from a Democratic-controlled government. There is a Democratic majority in Congress. So, I expect to see Democratic policies, not Republican or watered-down bipartisan policies. If they can't deliver, having the current Democratic majorities, then they probably will never deliver. They need to deliver it and, in so doing, make good on the promises for those of us who voted for them. We expect them to deliver Democratic policies. It shouldn't be all that difficult, as they would be keeping their voting constituency happy.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Palin provided the low point so far...
Without a doubt, the most irresponsible moment in the national health care reform debate so far was when former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin prominently inserted the term "death panel."
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
That moment was selfishly political, absolutely misinformational, and completely laughable if it weren't so callous in terms of failing to add one degree of intellectual quality toward the much needed solution to a sobering national health problem.
It tells me, though I knew it before, that Palin is no serious thinker. She doesn't have the intellect to heighten the discussion, but she had the reckless nerve to distort and lie. She's a demagogue for the simple-minded.
In the meantime, thousands of people attended a free medical and dental makeshift clinic in the Los Angeles area this week, hoping to get help when otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I want an electric car one day...
The information from GM about the Chevy Volt electric car was certainly interesting. The company says the car will have a gasoline-gallon equivalent of going 230 miles per gallon. The car also has zero emissions for the environment. I hope my next car is an electric car. If GM, Ford, and other car companies can get the cost down to an affordable price for middle-class Americans, then the whole picture of the U.S. automobile and fuel will change dramatically. And Americans can wave good-bye to the Saudis and other oil cartels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
