Archive for November, 2008

Health Care: What a Bother

I saw a report this morning about health care. A doctor who was interviewed said that he was skeptical about President-elect Obama’s plan to bring health care to all Americans. His objection to the plan: there are so many people who are uninsured and who don’t go to the doctor NOW that if we give them all access to health care, there won’t be enough doctors to go around!

Am I to supposed to, then, believe that having 40 million uninsured Americans is a good thing? This doctor seemed to be saying so. Maybe if we triple the cost of health insurance instead of making it available to everyone, this doctor could spend less time in the office and more time on the golf course but still make the same amount of money. It certainly would be less work for him.

Is this really a good reason to purposely put health care out of the financial reach of so many of us— because doctors will have too much work? My own doctor works 4 days per week for 7 hours per day and 1 day per week for 3 hours. My guess is that there are many other doctors who work these types of hours. Perhaps, then, they could join the rest of us who work 40 or 45 hours per week—-which is considered to be a normal work week—–and travel less, recreate less, and run their errands in the evenings like the rest of us. Maybe more people will be encouraged to go to medical school. Maybe by having more access to health care, people will be able to take better care of themselves and thus actually go to the doctor less instead of waiting until there’s a major health problem that requires a great deal of time and energy. Maybe having access to health care will give all of us more peace of mind, thus creating less stress, which is the cause of so many diseases. Maybe there are doctors who would like to help more people but can’t because of the financial burden. Maybe……..

But to not be supportive of a plan to help more people because perhaps he doesn’t want to rock his own boat is reprehensible. It’s especially irritating to hear something like this from a DOCTOR——-someone who has taken the Hippocratic Oath, someone who, we all assume, wants to help as many people as possible. Most of us, I believe, think of doctors (and nurses) as people who have a “calling” to help others. Quite frankly, doctors such as the one I heard today seem to be in it more for the money. Not only that, but I don’t remember hearing him offer a better plan than Obama’s. We should all remember that health is not a commodity to be bought and sold——-although many of us obviously appear to see it that way.

Advertisements

Georgia Congressman Compares Obama to Hitler

Is this still going on? Somebody had better retrieve this gentleman from his bomb shelter to tell him that a) the election is over, b) no one is going to take his precious guns and ammo away from him, and c) he should really stop engaging in what psychotherapists call “projection.”

Congressman Paul Broun told the AP that he’s afraid of Obama forming a citizen army that answers directly to him and using it to establish a Marxist dictatorship. No, I am NOT making this up. Here’s a quote: “It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

Did he say that it may sound A BIT crazy? I don’t know if IT sounds a bit crazy, but Broun sounds absolutely wracked with insanity.

The unhinged members (I think it’s just a small group; the vast majority of them are normal like the rest of us) of the republican party tried this tactic in the hope that it would cause Obama to lose the election, but most people didn’t believe the lie—-I think it was mostly people who were looking for a way to veil their racism, but there were also those non-racists who just weren’t paying attention to what was really going on.

No one is trying to set up a dictatorship (although I have to admit that my own mind has wandered in that direction from time to time over the past 4 or 5 years whenever I heard that George Bush was illegally spying on our e-mails and phone calls, sending citizens to secret prisons–and not-so-secret prisons—where they were tortured and not allowed to have their cases tried, said that the executive branch of the government should have more concentrated power, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest).

Obama was talking about our military being stretched too thin. Here’s another quote: ”

“The Obama transition team declined to comment on Broun’s remarks. But spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.” Bush administration? Bush is a Socialist/Marxist?
Here, read the article for yourselves.
 

 

 

Bush and the Environment

Since the presidential election, George Bush has been gracious and humble and supportive………in public. In private, however, he hasn’t changed. While the media has been tripping all over itself lauding Bush’s speeches on Senator Obama’s election victory and giving us the details of Bush’s graciousness in inviting the Obamas to the White House, No. 43 has been planning more raping and plundering of our precious United States. For anyone who still thinks that George Bush is a religious man who believes in a caring dominion over all kinds of life, let there no longer be any doubt about who he REALLY is.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that behind the conciliation and smiles, behind the congratulations and Godspeed, George Bush is doing business as usual. He’s working to quickly get environmental standards lowered before he leaves office so that more large corporations can continue to make a profit at the expense of the air we breathe and the water we drink. If President Bush gets his way, I hope that President Obama gets his universal health care bill passed very quickly—–because we’ll all need it.

Read the story here.

Why John McCain Lost

There is one reason for John McCain having lost the 2008 presidential election—John McCain. It’s not more complicated than that. I could end the post here, but since so many people seem to fail to grasp that basic logic, I will explain.

John McCain did not lose because he ran too many negative ads, nor did he lose because he spread too many (or too few) lies about Barack Obama. John McCain did not lose because he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. He did not lose because of a media bias in favor of Barack Obama. He did not lose because of George Bush. He did not lose the election because he leaned too far to the right or because he drifted too far to the center. He didn’t lose because he was too angry.

All of those were merely distractions intended to hide the fact that John McCain did not support policies that Americans wanted. Americans are not interested in eight more years of needless wars, failed economic philosophies, violation of American rights, and so on.

John McCain lost because of John McCain.

Does Anyone Really Care About the Chief of Staff?

For those of you who are Republican, some of your political brethran are making themselves look bitter, ridiculous, and horribly partisan. They’re already trying to undermine and criticize President-elect Obama, thus trying to give the conservative mainstream media political machine an early start to their lies and spin.

Rahm Emanuel is said to have been chosen as Obama’s chief of staff, so John Boehner is already calling foul on Obama’s statement that he’d change the way things are done in Washington. Are you kidding me? Emanuel is known for getting things done. These republicans say that he’s partisan. Oh, really? Here’s a little bit of information: Obama is a DEMOCRAT, and he’s going to choose a lot of DEMOCRATS for his staff and cabinet. He will also choose Republicans, but it sounds as if these Republicans are trying to convince us that Obama is already lying to us because he’s not choosing all right wingers. (I wonder if they’d feel the same way about a John McCain staff choice.) I guess there are some Republicans who don’t like someone who is a straight shooter and can’t be intimidated; it makes it a lot more difficult for the conservatives to lie and spin.

What’s funny about it is that most of us don’t even KNOW what the chief of staff does, and we don’t know the name of Bush’s chief of staff, and, frankly, we don’t care.

If the situation were reversed, the media wouldn’t even be reporting on this piece of insanity. They know that no one cares; they’re just going to dissect every move Obama makes in order to try to turn the public against him. Good luck with that.

Sarah Palin: Fiscal Conservative?

While John Edwards was happily attacked in the mainstream conservative media for getting a 400-dollar haircut when he was running for President, Sarah Palin’s 150,000-dollar shopping spree while on the campaign trail was brushed over by the same media.

It was, indeed, reported that Palin spent tens of thousands of dollars on a make-up artist, a hairstylist, and clothing while campaigning with John McCain, but from what I saw, there was never the “you ought to be ashamed for spending such a gluttonous amount of money on yourself while you PRETEND to care about people who can’t even afford a flobee and a pair of shoes from Goodwill” scolding that was mockingly heaped on Edwards. Now, Newsweek reports that Palin’s shopping spree was even worse than originally leaked. She had other members of the campaign put some of her purchases on their credit cards. Do you think that perhaps she was trying to hide some of the expenses so that she wouldn’t be found out for what she really is? Just asking. Here’s the story in the Alaska Dispatch, which has a link to the full story in Newsweek.

I guess Palin is one of the growing members of the fiscal conservatives who are conservative with how they spend only their OWN money, not anyone else’s. I wonder if this 150,000-plus-dollar spending spree says as much as Palin and who she really is as Edward’s 400-dollar haircut said about him. Hmmmmm.

What Winning At All Cost Says About You

Do you remember when you were a child and your mother or father or other parental figure said, “It’s not whether you win or lose; it’s how you play the game”? I started thinking about that saying within the context of a presidential election, and it made me wonder whether there really was more to winning than just winning.

There was a time when thelogicalreport might have supported John McCain, but that was a very long time ago. Sadly, it’s not just us; there have been many others who have made the disappointing contrast between the John McCain of years past and the John McCain of the 2008 election. For me, the problem with Senator McCain winning the presidency isn’t so much his being the president, for he isn’t a malicious, evil individual. The problem with McCain winning the presidency is the way in which he might win it: through constant, unmitigated, purposeful lies. What’s just as disturbing is that most of the mainstream conservative media have gone happily along with the lies. Here are just a few.

Lie #1: Barack Obama associates with terrorists (and it’s even been intimated that because he associates with them, he is one of them).

Barack Obama does not “associate” with terrorists. If I sit in the cubicle next to someone who committed a crime 40 years ago, and I have lunch with him every day, and I didn’t know that he’d committed a crime 40 years ago, I have news for you: that doesn’t make me a criminal. Even if I did know that he committed a crime 40 years ago, it still doesn’t make me a criminal, and it doesn’t mean that I take my societal cues from criminals. Senator Obama’s actions of service, kindness, and compassion in working for those who are impoverished in the country speak for themselves.

Lie #2: Barack Obama is a Socialist/Marxist. The McCain campaign has been only too happy to take something that is more honorable and honest than anything that George W. Bush has said or done in his entire 8 years and turn it into the number one single on Joe McCarthy’s hit parade. I’m still trying to figure out why so many people are willing to illogically believe that “spreading the wealth around” means Marxism just because an opposing campaign and it’s panicking supporting players in the conservative media say so. It’s a wonderful example of taking something out of context and assigning a false meaning to it. I think that most Americans want the wealth to be spread around and are tired of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of tax-dodging corporations who take advantage of the rest of us daily. Spreading the wealth around, as Obama explains it, means closing corporate tax loopholes and restoring the progressive tax system that was so successful before W lowered the tax rate for the richest among us. That’s it. If that’s Marxism, then those of you who believe it are Fascists.

Lie #3: Barack Obama is a Muslim. I don’t pretend to know who started this one, but I did hear MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough encourage the lie by not correcting it. And I’m happy to say that I did hear John McCain FINALLY correct the lie—-once, after which time he seemed to have abandoned that particular lie.

Barack Obama is a Christian; we all know it. Obama has said so, and even McCain has said so. He goes to a Christian church–not that it should matter. Why are so many people willing to believe that Muslim means terrorist? Again, is it just because the conservative media says so?

Lie #4: Obama is going to raise your taxes.

McCain says that people earning over $42,000 will have their taxes raised. It’s a lie. Obama has said time and time and time and time again that if you earn under $200,000, you’ll get a tax DECREASE. If you earn over $250,000, your taxes will go back to what they were under Bill Clinton, when we were building up a surplus, that is, he’ll let the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest among us expire. If you earn between those two amounts, things will stay the same. Tax cuts for 95% of us, and higher taxes for the richest among us? Oh no, he’s a tax and spend liberal!

So, is this how John McCain wants to win the White House? McCain has taken every opportunity to try to win the election by attacking Obama’s character, saying that we can’t trust him, and who IS Barack Obama, and he’s secretive, and he won’t reveal specifics on his policies. But if you lie about someone else’s character, not to mention his policies, in order to win, doesn’t that say everything we need to know about YOUR character? And shouldn’t it send up a red flag to warn us that YOUR policies are not in our best interest?

Is this how John McCain wants to win the presidency? Is he that desperate? Apparently, he knows that his policies favor, once again, the wealthiest among us and so has to deflect attention to lies about Obama’s character.

Attack Senator Obama’s policies; that’s fair game. But don’t lie about his policies and then attack his character for them. Senator McCain, doing so only tells us more about you than we want to know——-especially if you’re elected tomorrow.