Robert Lewis Dear shot twelve people in Colorado last week. Three died, one a police officer. Of the nine who were wounded, five were police officers. But it was at a Planned Parenthood facility so I suppose some will suggest it was justified. S-I-C-K! The Republican candidates for the presidency have mostly decided it needs no comment at this point.
I'm waiting for some sort of response from the NRA. I wonder if they will suggest that this incident wouldn't have taken place if only there were more guns there. Hey folks, ya gotta understand this is a tough spot to put Conservatives in. On the one hand more guns is the bible quote of nearly all Conservatives, but on the other hand there were six policemen who were shot. They all carried guns. But on another hand this was a hated Planned Parenthood center, but on the other hand not everybody that got shot was an employee of the hated center.
I'll bet Trump and Carson and a few others are agonizing over this one. I'm waiting for the decision on strategy from the Republican clan of presidential hopefuls. My bet is on the line that "it's all Planned Parenthood's fault." Yep, if only Planned Parenthood wouldn't offer so much women's medical care with all those tests they do for women. Then we could have closed them up. Then there wouldn't have been this killing spree.
Think I'm kidding? Just wait and see the responses from Democrats and Moms Against Guns and other anti-firearms groups. That's when the NRA will feel forced to speak out about this situation. And I'm sure they'll work something into their narrative about the need for more guns and less Planned Parenthood. That's right folks, the NRA is about to join the Pro Birth People, aka Pro Life.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The Mice That Roar.
GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUIDDLED MASSES, YEARNING TO BEATH FREE, THE WRETCHED REFUSE OF YOUR TEEMING SHORES. SEND THESE, THE HOMELESS, TEMPEST TOST TO ME, I LIFT MY LAMP BESIDE THE GOLDEN DOOR.
This is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty that will need to be scrubbed away and made illegible if many Americans have their way. After all, you can't make such a pledge on the one hand and then steal it away on the other hand. Don't misunderstand me, I worry about the possibility of allowing in terrorists and murderers to come into our land. But then there has long been that possibility.
A lot of folks felt that way about Italians and other ethnic groups in the past. Our lack of courage led us to send Americans of Asian decent to internment camps in WWII in spite of the idea of a free America. Are we Americans so frightful and so unwilling to offer the freedom we enjoy to anyone not like us in every way? Is this, after all, what America is all about?
Do any of you understand just how stringent our refugee program actually is? You can't just decide this morning to hop a flight to America and expect to be accepted under that refugee program this afternoon. It takes up to two years to be vetted. And if you can't be properly vetted, you don't get in. Stop allowing yourself to be frightened by conservative candidates hoping to squeeze your vote out of you. We Americans need to stand tall about some things. This may be one of them.
This is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty that will need to be scrubbed away and made illegible if many Americans have their way. After all, you can't make such a pledge on the one hand and then steal it away on the other hand. Don't misunderstand me, I worry about the possibility of allowing in terrorists and murderers to come into our land. But then there has long been that possibility.
A lot of folks felt that way about Italians and other ethnic groups in the past. Our lack of courage led us to send Americans of Asian decent to internment camps in WWII in spite of the idea of a free America. Are we Americans so frightful and so unwilling to offer the freedom we enjoy to anyone not like us in every way? Is this, after all, what America is all about?
Do any of you understand just how stringent our refugee program actually is? You can't just decide this morning to hop a flight to America and expect to be accepted under that refugee program this afternoon. It takes up to two years to be vetted. And if you can't be properly vetted, you don't get in. Stop allowing yourself to be frightened by conservative candidates hoping to squeeze your vote out of you. We Americans need to stand tall about some things. This may be one of them.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Supreme Court! Stay Out Of My Insurance!
There are times I wish I could say I told you so and there are times when I can say it. This is a time when I can't remember if I told you so, but I definitely thought we were making a mistake. I'm speaking of the affordable Care Act more commonly known as Obamacare. And they truly are the same thing.
The problem comes in since the SCOTUS has once again has agreed to try to figure out how they can defeat this law. That and some unfortunate findings that insurance companies are placing unconscionably high deductibles in the healthcare.gov marketplaces. The premiums are low, but if you get sick, you may find that the deductibles are so high, you may not be able to afford the care.
So, now the "I told you so, or not" part. Not having a single payer option is responsible for such games as are being played by for profit insurance companies. With no law to protect consumers but laws to make it costly not to have insurance, that option is sorely missed. Of course a single payer option wouldn't stop SCOTUS from trying valiantly to kill this national health insurance so we can go back to ???? What? Nothing as far as I can see.
On the other hand, maybe the single payer option would have eliminated the argument over religious entities having to pay for it. But I'm quite sure the partnership between the Republican party and the insurance industry would have found a way to bring it to the Supreme Court.
What's interesting to consider though, is how much health insurance might be costing us without the ACA and how many people would remain without insurance. See, when you hear talk about how bad the ACA is for America, just remember that the old system was the costliest in the industrialized world with the poorest outcomes. Single payer options would have made it just that much better.
The problem comes in since the SCOTUS has once again has agreed to try to figure out how they can defeat this law. That and some unfortunate findings that insurance companies are placing unconscionably high deductibles in the healthcare.gov marketplaces. The premiums are low, but if you get sick, you may find that the deductibles are so high, you may not be able to afford the care.
So, now the "I told you so, or not" part. Not having a single payer option is responsible for such games as are being played by for profit insurance companies. With no law to protect consumers but laws to make it costly not to have insurance, that option is sorely missed. Of course a single payer option wouldn't stop SCOTUS from trying valiantly to kill this national health insurance so we can go back to ???? What? Nothing as far as I can see.
On the other hand, maybe the single payer option would have eliminated the argument over religious entities having to pay for it. But I'm quite sure the partnership between the Republican party and the insurance industry would have found a way to bring it to the Supreme Court.
What's interesting to consider though, is how much health insurance might be costing us without the ACA and how many people would remain without insurance. See, when you hear talk about how bad the ACA is for America, just remember that the old system was the costliest in the industrialized world with the poorest outcomes. Single payer options would have made it just that much better.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Let's Not Overspend.
Have you decided who to vote for next November? Do you think we should spend more money on our military? If that's what you think, maybe you should consider the story about a gas station our military built in Afghanistan. It was in a rural province in that country. It was decided that a fuel station was needed. Gasoline wasn't readily available so they decided to use natural gas.
Well, America has always tried to help the populace in the countries in which we fought. Unfortunately this story illustrates that we've not always been as helpful as we could be. The first thing they realized was that there were no cars in the province that could run on natural gas, so they converted 70 cars at a cost of $5000-$6000 each.
There was another problem with this fuel station. The estimated cost to build it had been $300,000 to $500,000. Unfortunately the actual cost came to $43 million. Now I've heard of cost overruns, but this is a bit much. Why it doesn't even have a convenience market in it. $43 million, for a gas station, in the desert of Afghanistan, that can only serve 70 vehicles. This is not the kind of investment most conservative businessmen would consider. In fact no accountant or economist would ever recommend such an investment.
It didn't stop our military. They were able to convert the idea of a half million dollar gas station into a $43 million boondoggle. So now let me ask you: Are these the folks you would want to increase their share of the U.S. budget? Wouldn't it make more sense to put accountants in charge of purchasing and building stuff? And leave the fighting to the folks who don't mind overkill? I think you should vote for sanity.
Well, America has always tried to help the populace in the countries in which we fought. Unfortunately this story illustrates that we've not always been as helpful as we could be. The first thing they realized was that there were no cars in the province that could run on natural gas, so they converted 70 cars at a cost of $5000-$6000 each.
There was another problem with this fuel station. The estimated cost to build it had been $300,000 to $500,000. Unfortunately the actual cost came to $43 million. Now I've heard of cost overruns, but this is a bit much. Why it doesn't even have a convenience market in it. $43 million, for a gas station, in the desert of Afghanistan, that can only serve 70 vehicles. This is not the kind of investment most conservative businessmen would consider. In fact no accountant or economist would ever recommend such an investment.
It didn't stop our military. They were able to convert the idea of a half million dollar gas station into a $43 million boondoggle. So now let me ask you: Are these the folks you would want to increase their share of the U.S. budget? Wouldn't it make more sense to put accountants in charge of purchasing and building stuff? And leave the fighting to the folks who don't mind overkill? I think you should vote for sanity.
Just Like Acid Rain.
Have you ever heard of acid rain? It was back about 25 to 30 years ago when acid rain was destroying forests, lakes and streams in northeastern United States and eastern Canada. It finally took the government to force the coal and oil industries to stop pumping sulfur oxide and carbon monoxide into the air. The oil and coal industries fought the controls, but they worked.
Acid rain is pretty much a thing of the past in America. So why is it that the oil and coal industries have been so successful at fighting the science of climate change and our contributions to it? They've managed to get many conservatives, especially conservative politicians to agree with them. They've got people believing it's a hoax in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the worlds climatologists and scientists of the warming of the planet caused mainly by human activity.
I think the reason is that everybody could see the results of acid rain in the dying forests of the northeast along with the dead lakes and streams. But Global warming isn't so obvious. More storms and unusual weather patterns don't look like global warming. After all, it still gets cold in the winter, right? But not as cold around the world. Just because it isn't hot where you are, doesn't mean the world isn't getting warmer, causing severe weather and oceans warming and species disappearing. You need to wake up while you can still smell roses.
Acid rain is pretty much a thing of the past in America. So why is it that the oil and coal industries have been so successful at fighting the science of climate change and our contributions to it? They've managed to get many conservatives, especially conservative politicians to agree with them. They've got people believing it's a hoax in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the worlds climatologists and scientists of the warming of the planet caused mainly by human activity.
I think the reason is that everybody could see the results of acid rain in the dying forests of the northeast along with the dead lakes and streams. But Global warming isn't so obvious. More storms and unusual weather patterns don't look like global warming. After all, it still gets cold in the winter, right? But not as cold around the world. Just because it isn't hot where you are, doesn't mean the world isn't getting warmer, causing severe weather and oceans warming and species disappearing. You need to wake up while you can still smell roses.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
All Oil Ain't The Same
Well, President Obama's refusal of the Keystone XL pipeline is a good start, but there's more to be done. There is still huge amounts of Tar Sands Oil being shipped into the U.S. by rail. Proponents of the KXL are right about the shipments by rail of the TSO being unsafe. They used the argument to push for the pipeline, but that doesn't change the fact that the numerous accidental spills are a problem.
The thing is, though, the spills are not the only problem with TSO. Tar Sands Oil is perhaps the dirtiest form of energy in existence. By the time it's fully refined to the point of being useful, you've amassed huge amounts of waste in the form of coke. Not the kind you can drink, but the kind that is so noxious that it can't be burned in the U.S. any more.
So with this stuff coming into America and refined here, that means that we're stuck with that coke. We've got to figure out how to get rid of it without it polluting our air and water and earth. Any way you slice it that means millions and probably billions to get rid of it. And maybe never actually be able to get rid of it.
I've suggested, in the past, that we send it back to Canada, but that might be unfair to Canada. Perhaps the best way and the surest way would be to require the refiners pay to have it removed from the U.S. and the storage sites cleaned up. And require that an amount in excess of the actual costs of said cleanups be paid in advance. I'll bet you'd see a quick stop of railcars full of Tar Sands Oil coming into America. That's because the oil companies and refiners know full well the tremendous costs involved with such cleanup, and they wouldn't be interested in such an undertaking. So if they're not, why should we?
The thing is, though, the spills are not the only problem with TSO. Tar Sands Oil is perhaps the dirtiest form of energy in existence. By the time it's fully refined to the point of being useful, you've amassed huge amounts of waste in the form of coke. Not the kind you can drink, but the kind that is so noxious that it can't be burned in the U.S. any more.
So with this stuff coming into America and refined here, that means that we're stuck with that coke. We've got to figure out how to get rid of it without it polluting our air and water and earth. Any way you slice it that means millions and probably billions to get rid of it. And maybe never actually be able to get rid of it.
I've suggested, in the past, that we send it back to Canada, but that might be unfair to Canada. Perhaps the best way and the surest way would be to require the refiners pay to have it removed from the U.S. and the storage sites cleaned up. And require that an amount in excess of the actual costs of said cleanups be paid in advance. I'll bet you'd see a quick stop of railcars full of Tar Sands Oil coming into America. That's because the oil companies and refiners know full well the tremendous costs involved with such cleanup, and they wouldn't be interested in such an undertaking. So if they're not, why should we?
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
We Failed The Test.
There's something I don't quite understand. It just doesn't make sense. If guns make us safer, then how is it that we keep hearing about more and more gun violence? More people are getting killed, more innocent people are getting killed by guns. But of course guns don't kill people, people kill people, so okay, more innocent people are getting killed by people using guns.
The point is, more guns isn't making us safer, more guns are endangering us more and more. So if it was a social experiment, then more guns is a dismal failure. And if more guns has been a failure, then it stands to reason that fewer guns just might be a success. There's a better than even chance that fewer guns well save a lot of people's lives.
Of course the next thing you'll hear is that I want to take all your guns away from you. NOT TRUE! I assure you I don't have room for all your guns. But it wouldn't hurt if fewer guns were so readily available to folks who shouldn't have them. Of course no rule or law will eliminate all danger. It's silly to suggest that's what we're saying. We'd just like to tone things down some. Make it harder for people who want to kill other people to get a gun. That's all we're saying. Then we can see how that does. Given time, I'm convinced it'll help. It surely wouldn't hurt.
Just remember, the constitution won't allow anyone to take all your guns. So quit acting like somebody is trying to sneak into your armory to take all your protection away. If you're a law abiding citizen, keep your guns. Just help us to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them in the first place. That's not unreasonable, is it?
The point is, more guns isn't making us safer, more guns are endangering us more and more. So if it was a social experiment, then more guns is a dismal failure. And if more guns has been a failure, then it stands to reason that fewer guns just might be a success. There's a better than even chance that fewer guns well save a lot of people's lives.
Of course the next thing you'll hear is that I want to take all your guns away from you. NOT TRUE! I assure you I don't have room for all your guns. But it wouldn't hurt if fewer guns were so readily available to folks who shouldn't have them. Of course no rule or law will eliminate all danger. It's silly to suggest that's what we're saying. We'd just like to tone things down some. Make it harder for people who want to kill other people to get a gun. That's all we're saying. Then we can see how that does. Given time, I'm convinced it'll help. It surely wouldn't hurt.
Just remember, the constitution won't allow anyone to take all your guns. So quit acting like somebody is trying to sneak into your armory to take all your protection away. If you're a law abiding citizen, keep your guns. Just help us to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them in the first place. That's not unreasonable, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)