The stories been broken: Prince Harry is a lot braver and selfless than the children of American politicians. Whilst Mitt Romney’s five military age sons choose to help America in a time of war by aiding their father’s campaign, and of course, making money, Prince Harry was fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan.
While the President’s daughters live a life of ease-Jenna, who is soon to be married, is taking a month long European honeymoon-yes, month long-Prince Harry chose to risk his life.
I don’t think I can ever make fun of the Royal Family again. If I had all that he has, I wouldn’t have chosen to go. The amazing thing is that apparently, some members of the British media knew this and kept it secret. Not until Drudge broke the news yesterday did the public know about this
Friday, February 29, 2008
Massachusetts: Best Place to go to Jail in the USA
My thanks to Howie Carr for these blood pressure raising stories. I’m all for redemption and rehabilitation of non-violent criminals, but these stories are enraging.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1070906&srvc=home&position=also
If I ever get in trouble with the law, or am thinking about committing a crime, I’m going to Assachusetts. This is a state that is in the process of making it illegal for a parent to spank their child, under any circumstances…yet, there’s no problem with freeing convicted killers, child molesters and rapists on a regular basis.
Can someone explain this to me? Maybe the jack booted thugs at Department of Social Services can tell me. Maybe the judges and politicians who routinely see murderers freed can. Maybe the authorities in Massachusetts just hate families and love criminals. I don’t know.
The latest skewed article is this puff piece, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/02/27/commutation_plea_carries_a_political_risk_for_patrick/?page=1 about poor Arnold King, a decent guy who has spent 36 years behind bars, all for one mistake, one moment in time that happened when he was just 18.
So why shouldn’t he be paroled? He’s been a model prisoner. I don’t dispute that. If released, I doubt he would re-offend. He’s got his master’s while in prison, he’s counseled other inmates. Good guy.
But a killer. He ended the life of 26 year old John Labanara. He shot him in the head during a robbery.
King argues that, “In this society, everybody gets a second chance.”
John Labanara doesn’t.
While John Labanara’s corpse lies gone and forgotten, King is a cause celeb among the politically correct crowd in Massachusetts. The parole board has recommended he be paroled, despite the fact his sentence was life without parole. Academics, liberal local politicians, city councilors, all want him released.
King adds that, “…I want people to understand is there is a possibility for change.”
I agree with him. I believe he’s changed. But I don’t want him released.
If he had only robbed Labanara, without a gun, I would be all for leniency, provided he’s shown change. But he took a human life, an irrevocable act. Labanara had parents, family, friends, a whole life ahead of him that he didn’t get to live. It’s over and Labanara remains 26 forever.
If you’re a parent, picture that being your kid.
I’m the first to say there are too many people in prison in the USA. Fully one in a hundred of us is serving time. The rate among men is higher. The rate among black men is higher still. Still others have been in prison at some point.
What’s more, this is a drain on the rest of us. Felons don’t produce anything, don’t pay taxes, and need to be supported by the rest of us. Something should change.
But, if we lock up too many people, it’s not because we’re unfairly harsh on killers or rapists. It’s because we’re locking up too many non-violent offenders, recreational drug users, etc. Why not release some of them to free up space for the worst of the worst?
I’m afraid releasing King sends the wrong message. I know that, as any prison guard will tell you, you have to give prisoners some incentive to behave, otherwise their job is impossible.
But I don’t want to give hope for a second chance to killers. We can focus on rehabilitation if you want, but prison is not really there to rehabilitate, it’s there to protect the public. It’s also there to deter.
I want people to know that if you kill someone in this country, it’s over for you. There is no getting away with it. There is no parole. I don’t really care that King has been a great prisoner. In fact, I wonder why is given a free education at taxpayers expense, while I can’t afford to take time off and go to night school…I have to work, I have to raise a kid.
Why are politicians writing letters of recommendation to free someone who killed one of their citizens? Do we ever remember victims in this country?
And who do I have to kill go get a letter of recommendation? I guess it has to be some one in Massachusetts. Then I can get my degree at taxpayer expense, stop paying child support, spend all day on line or exercising…heck, maybe Massachusetts will even bring back a Michael Dukakis specialty: weekend furloughs.
Seems reasonable to me.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1070906&srvc=home&position=also
If I ever get in trouble with the law, or am thinking about committing a crime, I’m going to Assachusetts. This is a state that is in the process of making it illegal for a parent to spank their child, under any circumstances…yet, there’s no problem with freeing convicted killers, child molesters and rapists on a regular basis.
Can someone explain this to me? Maybe the jack booted thugs at Department of Social Services can tell me. Maybe the judges and politicians who routinely see murderers freed can. Maybe the authorities in Massachusetts just hate families and love criminals. I don’t know.
The latest skewed article is this puff piece, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/02/27/commutation_plea_carries_a_political_risk_for_patrick/?page=1 about poor Arnold King, a decent guy who has spent 36 years behind bars, all for one mistake, one moment in time that happened when he was just 18.
So why shouldn’t he be paroled? He’s been a model prisoner. I don’t dispute that. If released, I doubt he would re-offend. He’s got his master’s while in prison, he’s counseled other inmates. Good guy.
But a killer. He ended the life of 26 year old John Labanara. He shot him in the head during a robbery.
King argues that, “In this society, everybody gets a second chance.”
John Labanara doesn’t.
While John Labanara’s corpse lies gone and forgotten, King is a cause celeb among the politically correct crowd in Massachusetts. The parole board has recommended he be paroled, despite the fact his sentence was life without parole. Academics, liberal local politicians, city councilors, all want him released.
King adds that, “…I want people to understand is there is a possibility for change.”
I agree with him. I believe he’s changed. But I don’t want him released.
If he had only robbed Labanara, without a gun, I would be all for leniency, provided he’s shown change. But he took a human life, an irrevocable act. Labanara had parents, family, friends, a whole life ahead of him that he didn’t get to live. It’s over and Labanara remains 26 forever.
If you’re a parent, picture that being your kid.
I’m the first to say there are too many people in prison in the USA. Fully one in a hundred of us is serving time. The rate among men is higher. The rate among black men is higher still. Still others have been in prison at some point.
What’s more, this is a drain on the rest of us. Felons don’t produce anything, don’t pay taxes, and need to be supported by the rest of us. Something should change.
But, if we lock up too many people, it’s not because we’re unfairly harsh on killers or rapists. It’s because we’re locking up too many non-violent offenders, recreational drug users, etc. Why not release some of them to free up space for the worst of the worst?
I’m afraid releasing King sends the wrong message. I know that, as any prison guard will tell you, you have to give prisoners some incentive to behave, otherwise their job is impossible.
But I don’t want to give hope for a second chance to killers. We can focus on rehabilitation if you want, but prison is not really there to rehabilitate, it’s there to protect the public. It’s also there to deter.
I want people to know that if you kill someone in this country, it’s over for you. There is no getting away with it. There is no parole. I don’t really care that King has been a great prisoner. In fact, I wonder why is given a free education at taxpayers expense, while I can’t afford to take time off and go to night school…I have to work, I have to raise a kid.
Why are politicians writing letters of recommendation to free someone who killed one of their citizens? Do we ever remember victims in this country?
And who do I have to kill go get a letter of recommendation? I guess it has to be some one in Massachusetts. Then I can get my degree at taxpayer expense, stop paying child support, spend all day on line or exercising…heck, maybe Massachusetts will even bring back a Michael Dukakis specialty: weekend furloughs.
Seems reasonable to me.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hillary’s Whining
About media coverage. Bad idea. There is no question in my mind that Obama is receiving disproportionately favorable coverage from most media outlets. Deal with it, because whining won’t help.
It never helped conservatives, who for years have had to deal with a media bias against them (excluding Fox and talk radio, of course). Remember 1994? The Gingrich who stole Christmas? Just 8 years ago George W Bush overcame terribly negative coverage to become president (though he lost the popular vote).
Point is, media coverage doesn’t determine the outcome of elections. Candidates and voters do. Connect with the voters, win the issues, you should be okay. Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is Hillary Clinton, not Tim Russert, or anyone else.
It never helped conservatives, who for years have had to deal with a media bias against them (excluding Fox and talk radio, of course). Remember 1994? The Gingrich who stole Christmas? Just 8 years ago George W Bush overcame terribly negative coverage to become president (though he lost the popular vote).
Point is, media coverage doesn’t determine the outcome of elections. Candidates and voters do. Connect with the voters, win the issues, you should be okay. Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is Hillary Clinton, not Tim Russert, or anyone else.
Barrack H Obama: What’s In a Name?
Not much. Bill Cunningham and others have been having some fun with the fact that Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That’s fine. They’re counting on the negative connotation that name has. Sadly, they’re right to. Sadly, there will be some people who won’t recognize the fact that it’s just a name, or that it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.
People like Alisyn Camerota, of Fox News. Speaking on the issue, she said there’s no negative connotation. She said, “It’s his parents fault.”
When it was pointed out to her that it was his father’s name first, she said, “Then it’s his grandfather’s fault.”
Fault, indicating it’s a bad name, after all. This is as foolish as Hillary Clinton once claiming in New Zealand, home of Sir Edmund Hillary, that she was named after him.
History lesson for dummies: Hillary Clinton was born in 1947. Sir Edmund Hillary didn’t climb Everest and become famous until 1953. She lied. Nobody in the USA had heard of Hillary in 1947. Her parents gave her the name for a different reason. Maybe they just liked it.
Ditto Obama. He was born in 1961. I don’t know when his father was born, but obviously it was a generation before him. Saddam Hussein didn’t become Iraqi president until 1979. Nobody in the USA had heard of him when Obama was named.
In fact, if one wanted to show a connection with Saddam Hussein, they could show this now famous picture…scroll to the bottom: The Washington Note
McCain is right to choose a different route of attack...though he's full of it when he says he never met Cunningham.
People like Alisyn Camerota, of Fox News. Speaking on the issue, she said there’s no negative connotation. She said, “It’s his parents fault.”
When it was pointed out to her that it was his father’s name first, she said, “Then it’s his grandfather’s fault.”
Fault, indicating it’s a bad name, after all. This is as foolish as Hillary Clinton once claiming in New Zealand, home of Sir Edmund Hillary, that she was named after him.
History lesson for dummies: Hillary Clinton was born in 1947. Sir Edmund Hillary didn’t climb Everest and become famous until 1953. She lied. Nobody in the USA had heard of Hillary in 1947. Her parents gave her the name for a different reason. Maybe they just liked it.
Ditto Obama. He was born in 1961. I don’t know when his father was born, but obviously it was a generation before him. Saddam Hussein didn’t become Iraqi president until 1979. Nobody in the USA had heard of him when Obama was named.
In fact, if one wanted to show a connection with Saddam Hussein, they could show this now famous picture…scroll to the bottom: The Washington Note
McCain is right to choose a different route of attack...though he's full of it when he says he never met Cunningham.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
How to Get Elected in America: 2008
Part I-The Democrats
Depends on which party you’re in and who your constituents are, of course. But we can learn a lot from watching the candidates for president.
If you’ve watched any of the roughly 8,000 Democratic debates, you see the way to win votes is to buy them.
Now you’re saying, this is America, you can’t buy votes.
Of course you can. Just promise everything to everyone. Or, better yet, promise everything to enough people to get you elected. Promise to take everything from those who, in all likelihood won’t vote for you, anyway.
Struggling to make ends meet? We’re going to expand social programs. In trouble with your mortgage? We’re going to punish those evil lenders (and some of them are evil, but we shouldn’t have signed up with them). High medical bills? Free universal health care. Single parent? We’re going to provide free child care and pay you to go back to school.
I suppose there’s nothing wrong with helping people get higher education, as they will ultimately contribute more, but the problem is these things aren’t free.
The bigger problem is that not enough people realize this or care. Every day we’re bombarded with promises of what Senators Clinton and Obama will give us, yet I never hear anyone ask where the money or resources for this stuff will come from.
Class warfare? Yes, but on a grander scale. Now it’s outright socialism, especially on the part of Mrs. Clinton. She recently offered up this terrifying quote to the Boston Globe: “I have a million ideas,” (for government), “the country can’t afford all of them.”
One of those ideas apparently included giving every baby born in the US a $5,000 bond.
You can read more about it: Media Matters - On Glenn Beck , Penn Jillette said recent Clinton statement "sounds like Charlie Manson"
Hey, I’m all for it, so long as we can make it retroactive. I’ll take $5,000 from…whoever will have to pay for it…and my son will, too. God knows we’ll need it to pay the higher tax rates we’ll see.
Seriously, folks, this is Marxism. I know a lot of people will hear this and say, “What’s wrong with giving every baby $5,000, you baby-hater?”
The problem is these people don’t know where money comes from.
“It comes from the government, right?”
Sure, and why pay taxes since the government prints money? http://www.deadbeef.com/jeremy/index.php/why_pay_taxes_since_the_government_print
This is what we’re up against. Money is paper. Nothing more. It’s a representation of the goods and services we produce. Not surprisingly, the value of the dollar has been decreasing for several years. The policies of the Democrats would no doubt accelerate this trend. We’re already experiencing high inflation because of soaring energy costs…and the nations of OPEC don’t want dollars, they want Euros.
If you print more money, or redistribute it, you don’t give more value to those who need it. You give them more money, but you make that money worth less. Eventually it will be worthless. We’re already seeing it devalued.
Government giveaways won’t help, they’ll make it worse. Free everything won’t make you better off in the long run, it’ll only make everyone equally poor.
Don’t believe me? Visit the people’s paradise of Cuba. Tell me if you want to live like they do. Or look at Russia. It’s been nearly a century since the revolution and they’re only just now recovering.
To put it in plain English, you can’t give away what you don’t have. And redistributing wealth from one group to another won’t work, either. It won’t help the poor, it will only create more of them as we punish the wealthy.
If we want to be better off, we need to produce more goods and services. There is no way around this fact. The free market is far from perfect, and the government needs to do some things. We ought to help those who, “help themselves.”
But education and competition are the answers. We need to remember the government is not as efficient as private enterprise.
When you hear Hillary Clinton promise you the moon, be very afraid, and be careful what you wish for. You don’t get something for nothing. Ultimately, these ideas would destroy the economy.
Obama is only slightly better. I understand how easy it is to get caught up in his energy, which is the only way I can describe it. He is like Reagan in his optimism. Optimism is good, and at least he doesn’t propose garnishing the wages of the working poor who refuse to sign up for his health plan, unlike Clinton. But he’s not going to magically save the working poor in this country, either.
Unfortunately, he is going to win. I like him, I like listening to him speak. He’s got that energy that draws you to him. But I’m scared of his policies, too. As you can tell, if forced to choose, I’d pick him over Senator Clinton, but only just.
The reason we’re stuck with these two is that the Republicans don’t understand the anger that is out there. For some it’s the Iraq war. I was opposed to it from the start, which is why I suppose I like Obama better than Clinton.
But, for most, it’s the economy. People, myself included, are struggling. You’ve got skyrocketing energy costs. This is at a time when the President and Vice President are perceived to be too cozy with energy companies, and with the Saudi’s, who contrary to the belief of some, are not our friends.
Worse, our current energy policy is a joke. Our policy seems to be that we’ve run on oil for a hundred years, so why change? We’ve hit peak oil, and it doesn’t seem to bother the administration one bit.
Does anyone think the price of oil is going to go down? It’s a non-renewable resource. It will only go up from here, and it’s already hurting people like me who don’t have a lot of disposable income. At some point, we’re going to have to do something to find another fuel-not necessarily the ones we’ve considered so far-or we’re going to take a massive hit in our standard of living.
And frankly, I don’t want to keep shelling out money to a part of the world that hates our guts and will turn guns on us at any opportunity.
Our dollar is already in the toilet, too.
To wit, things have hit a snag. Is it a big deal or just a blip? We don’t know yet.
Unfortunately, economic hard times are ideal if you’re a socialist/populist running for office. Just prey on people’s financial fears. Tell them they can’t survive without aid, and they’ll be more inclined to believe you.
That’s what happened in Russia in 1917. That’s what happened in 1930s Germany. Hard times and, in the case of Germany, terrifying inflation made it easy to mold people to the will of a tyrant.
I’m not comparing us to 1930s Germany, or Soviet Russia. It’s not that bad, which is what we need to remember.
But, circumstances are different. We’ve been completely spoiled by decades of spectacular success. We’ve been raised to believe we’re always supposed to get everything we want, immediately. We spend more than we earn, and don’t think it’s a problem. We need every new gadget.
By the standards of modern America, I’m working poor. Yet, I own a car, I’m not homeless, I can afford to feed myself and my son. Quite well, in fact. I can take him to amusement parks in the summer. Yet, even I’m stung by a lower standard of living, and worried by rising fuel costs.
In this climate, a mild recession combined with inflation is more than enough to inspire anger.
Anger, and forcibly redistributing wealth won’t help, though. Instead, maybe we should get off our behinds, take responsibility for our lives and work to improve them. We can’t all be rich, but we can better off.
Depends on which party you’re in and who your constituents are, of course. But we can learn a lot from watching the candidates for president.
If you’ve watched any of the roughly 8,000 Democratic debates, you see the way to win votes is to buy them.
Now you’re saying, this is America, you can’t buy votes.
Of course you can. Just promise everything to everyone. Or, better yet, promise everything to enough people to get you elected. Promise to take everything from those who, in all likelihood won’t vote for you, anyway.
Struggling to make ends meet? We’re going to expand social programs. In trouble with your mortgage? We’re going to punish those evil lenders (and some of them are evil, but we shouldn’t have signed up with them). High medical bills? Free universal health care. Single parent? We’re going to provide free child care and pay you to go back to school.
I suppose there’s nothing wrong with helping people get higher education, as they will ultimately contribute more, but the problem is these things aren’t free.
The bigger problem is that not enough people realize this or care. Every day we’re bombarded with promises of what Senators Clinton and Obama will give us, yet I never hear anyone ask where the money or resources for this stuff will come from.
Class warfare? Yes, but on a grander scale. Now it’s outright socialism, especially on the part of Mrs. Clinton. She recently offered up this terrifying quote to the Boston Globe: “I have a million ideas,” (for government), “the country can’t afford all of them.”
One of those ideas apparently included giving every baby born in the US a $5,000 bond.
You can read more about it: Media Matters - On Glenn Beck , Penn Jillette said recent Clinton statement "sounds like Charlie Manson"
Hey, I’m all for it, so long as we can make it retroactive. I’ll take $5,000 from…whoever will have to pay for it…and my son will, too. God knows we’ll need it to pay the higher tax rates we’ll see.
Seriously, folks, this is Marxism. I know a lot of people will hear this and say, “What’s wrong with giving every baby $5,000, you baby-hater?”
The problem is these people don’t know where money comes from.
“It comes from the government, right?”
Sure, and why pay taxes since the government prints money? http://www.deadbeef.com/jeremy/index.php/why_pay_taxes_since_the_government_print
This is what we’re up against. Money is paper. Nothing more. It’s a representation of the goods and services we produce. Not surprisingly, the value of the dollar has been decreasing for several years. The policies of the Democrats would no doubt accelerate this trend. We’re already experiencing high inflation because of soaring energy costs…and the nations of OPEC don’t want dollars, they want Euros.
If you print more money, or redistribute it, you don’t give more value to those who need it. You give them more money, but you make that money worth less. Eventually it will be worthless. We’re already seeing it devalued.
Government giveaways won’t help, they’ll make it worse. Free everything won’t make you better off in the long run, it’ll only make everyone equally poor.
Don’t believe me? Visit the people’s paradise of Cuba. Tell me if you want to live like they do. Or look at Russia. It’s been nearly a century since the revolution and they’re only just now recovering.
To put it in plain English, you can’t give away what you don’t have. And redistributing wealth from one group to another won’t work, either. It won’t help the poor, it will only create more of them as we punish the wealthy.
If we want to be better off, we need to produce more goods and services. There is no way around this fact. The free market is far from perfect, and the government needs to do some things. We ought to help those who, “help themselves.”
But education and competition are the answers. We need to remember the government is not as efficient as private enterprise.
When you hear Hillary Clinton promise you the moon, be very afraid, and be careful what you wish for. You don’t get something for nothing. Ultimately, these ideas would destroy the economy.
Obama is only slightly better. I understand how easy it is to get caught up in his energy, which is the only way I can describe it. He is like Reagan in his optimism. Optimism is good, and at least he doesn’t propose garnishing the wages of the working poor who refuse to sign up for his health plan, unlike Clinton. But he’s not going to magically save the working poor in this country, either.
Unfortunately, he is going to win. I like him, I like listening to him speak. He’s got that energy that draws you to him. But I’m scared of his policies, too. As you can tell, if forced to choose, I’d pick him over Senator Clinton, but only just.
The reason we’re stuck with these two is that the Republicans don’t understand the anger that is out there. For some it’s the Iraq war. I was opposed to it from the start, which is why I suppose I like Obama better than Clinton.
But, for most, it’s the economy. People, myself included, are struggling. You’ve got skyrocketing energy costs. This is at a time when the President and Vice President are perceived to be too cozy with energy companies, and with the Saudi’s, who contrary to the belief of some, are not our friends.
Worse, our current energy policy is a joke. Our policy seems to be that we’ve run on oil for a hundred years, so why change? We’ve hit peak oil, and it doesn’t seem to bother the administration one bit.
Does anyone think the price of oil is going to go down? It’s a non-renewable resource. It will only go up from here, and it’s already hurting people like me who don’t have a lot of disposable income. At some point, we’re going to have to do something to find another fuel-not necessarily the ones we’ve considered so far-or we’re going to take a massive hit in our standard of living.
And frankly, I don’t want to keep shelling out money to a part of the world that hates our guts and will turn guns on us at any opportunity.
Our dollar is already in the toilet, too.
To wit, things have hit a snag. Is it a big deal or just a blip? We don’t know yet.
Unfortunately, economic hard times are ideal if you’re a socialist/populist running for office. Just prey on people’s financial fears. Tell them they can’t survive without aid, and they’ll be more inclined to believe you.
That’s what happened in Russia in 1917. That’s what happened in 1930s Germany. Hard times and, in the case of Germany, terrifying inflation made it easy to mold people to the will of a tyrant.
I’m not comparing us to 1930s Germany, or Soviet Russia. It’s not that bad, which is what we need to remember.
But, circumstances are different. We’ve been completely spoiled by decades of spectacular success. We’ve been raised to believe we’re always supposed to get everything we want, immediately. We spend more than we earn, and don’t think it’s a problem. We need every new gadget.
By the standards of modern America, I’m working poor. Yet, I own a car, I’m not homeless, I can afford to feed myself and my son. Quite well, in fact. I can take him to amusement parks in the summer. Yet, even I’m stung by a lower standard of living, and worried by rising fuel costs.
In this climate, a mild recession combined with inflation is more than enough to inspire anger.
Anger, and forcibly redistributing wealth won’t help, though. Instead, maybe we should get off our behinds, take responsibility for our lives and work to improve them. We can’t all be rich, but we can better off.
Drew Peterson: Modern Day OJ?
You can try people in the court of public opinion. You just can’t impose a sentence. I think it’s become clear to all of us that this guy almost certainly killed two of his wives. Still, he walks free and chats with camera crews like it’s a big joke.
While OJ Simpson used wealth, fame, and racial tension to get away with two murders, it’s clear Peterson used his police connections. OJ relied on the human flaws of some very imperfect jurors. Jurors either lacked mental faculties or were simply angry enough at a perceived imbalance in the justice system to knowingly let a killer free. It was no accident. The jurors were largely picked for one reason or the other by Simpson’s crack legal team. Those with a college degree, those who are color blind, etc, need not apply to this jury. The stated reason: bigotry against a black man. The real reason: a willingness to convict.
Different but equally bad facets of human nature were at work in the Peterson case. When his third wife died, the investigators went there looking for an accident. If you look for an accident, and ignore the signs of a murder, you will find an accident. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if the story hadn’t gained national attention, they would not have exhumed his third wife. Maybe they wouldn’t have even considered him a suspect in his fourth wife’s disappearance.
I wish this would serve as a wake-up call to women. Stacy Peterson should have known better, but didn’t. As details emerge, we’re finding that he threatened his third wife. We’re also learning that Stacy Peterson knew it. According to CNN and FOXNEWS, Stacy knew he’d killed Kathleen. He told her. Read the article: Pastor: Cop told fourth wife he killed third wife - CNN.com
She was involved with him when he was still married to Kathleen. He may have told her he killed Kathleen before he married her. She’d seen how willing the police were to investigate a fellow officer. He was a man thirty years her elder, who’d had three previous marriages. She married him anyway. Is it me or did she sign her own death warrant?
Did she think he would do it to another woman but not to her? Did she think she could change him? This is no different than a woman who stays with a batterer. It may be worse, because he was a cop. At the risk of cop bashing, picture yourself as a woman married to an abusive husband. Now imagine that man is a cop. Try and get him arrested. Try and call his friends and co-workers over to arrest him. Good luck.
If you’re a woman, you’ve got to learn not to ignore these warning signs. Not to be paranoid, because most men would never hurt a woman. But, while Drew Peterson has to be prosecuted and punished, hopefully with the rest of his life, it boggles the mind of a man like me that women are routinely drawn to men like this.
Is there something in our DNA that attracts women to violent men, and men to women who use them? If so, can we do something about this? We have a medication for everything else, why not for our sexual neuroses?
While OJ Simpson used wealth, fame, and racial tension to get away with two murders, it’s clear Peterson used his police connections. OJ relied on the human flaws of some very imperfect jurors. Jurors either lacked mental faculties or were simply angry enough at a perceived imbalance in the justice system to knowingly let a killer free. It was no accident. The jurors were largely picked for one reason or the other by Simpson’s crack legal team. Those with a college degree, those who are color blind, etc, need not apply to this jury. The stated reason: bigotry against a black man. The real reason: a willingness to convict.
Different but equally bad facets of human nature were at work in the Peterson case. When his third wife died, the investigators went there looking for an accident. If you look for an accident, and ignore the signs of a murder, you will find an accident. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if the story hadn’t gained national attention, they would not have exhumed his third wife. Maybe they wouldn’t have even considered him a suspect in his fourth wife’s disappearance.
I wish this would serve as a wake-up call to women. Stacy Peterson should have known better, but didn’t. As details emerge, we’re finding that he threatened his third wife. We’re also learning that Stacy Peterson knew it. According to CNN and FOXNEWS, Stacy knew he’d killed Kathleen. He told her. Read the article: Pastor: Cop told fourth wife he killed third wife - CNN.com
She was involved with him when he was still married to Kathleen. He may have told her he killed Kathleen before he married her. She’d seen how willing the police were to investigate a fellow officer. He was a man thirty years her elder, who’d had three previous marriages. She married him anyway. Is it me or did she sign her own death warrant?
Did she think he would do it to another woman but not to her? Did she think she could change him? This is no different than a woman who stays with a batterer. It may be worse, because he was a cop. At the risk of cop bashing, picture yourself as a woman married to an abusive husband. Now imagine that man is a cop. Try and get him arrested. Try and call his friends and co-workers over to arrest him. Good luck.
If you’re a woman, you’ve got to learn not to ignore these warning signs. Not to be paranoid, because most men would never hurt a woman. But, while Drew Peterson has to be prosecuted and punished, hopefully with the rest of his life, it boggles the mind of a man like me that women are routinely drawn to men like this.
Is there something in our DNA that attracts women to violent men, and men to women who use them? If so, can we do something about this? We have a medication for everything else, why not for our sexual neuroses?
Monday, February 25, 2008
Stealing Kosovo: What Americans Don’t Know Can Hurt Others
Well, here we go again, supporting freedom abroad by recognizing Kosovo’s independence, right? Wrong.
If you listen to the mainstream media, you’d think Kosovo is an oppressed region that was annexed by those big mean Serbians. You’d think it had only been part of Serbia for say, ten minutes. Prior to that, it must have been a separate entity. No doubt they deserve their freedom back.
If you listen to FoxNews, we’re waiving the banner for freedom. O’Reilly says so. Cavuto says so, and when he was rebuked by a US general , he distracted the general and changed the subject.
Well, he can’t interrupt me. In this country we have the dangerous combination of an interventionist foreign policy, and a woeful ignorance of the world outside our borders. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ojcHlLn6UCc
How can we have any kind of an opinion on foreign affairs, when we don’t know anything about the rest of the world?
Contrary to what the snooty Brits who made this video assert, we’re not stupid. We’re ignorant. There’s a difference. We’ve been let down by our public education system for generations. And we, the public have to assume some blame, too, for allowing it too happen. We should care, but don’t. Shame on us.
I am not one of the, “Blame America First,” crowd. We’re not perfect, but neither is anyone else. We do a lot of good in the world.
But when we’re wrong, I’m not going to keep silent, either. I can figure out when I’m being fooled.
Unlike Bill O’Reilly and Neil Cavuto, I know something about Serbia. I work in an industry where we’ve had to (legally) hire many foreigners to fill labor shortages. At times, those employees have been Serbs on work visas.
There’s a reason these people are pissed at us. They stood by while Bill Clinton bombed the region to get Lewinsky off the front pages in the 90s. Still, they liked us and wanted to be like us.
But this is asking too much of any people. Imagine if, during the civil war, Europe recognized and helped the South gain independence. How would anyone in this country then living north of the Mason-Dixon line have felt?
Serbia originated in Kosovo. Kosovo is known as, “Old Serbia.” Kosovo never existed as an independent country. We are intervening in a civil war to create a new Muslim state. I know the fools on MSNBC, CNN and FOXNEWS will never tell us this, but it’s so.
I’m not the only one who knows this. Does Balkanization beckon anew?
What’s more, these people we’re helping to liberate are not poor, oppressed victims, either. They’ve been killing Christians and burning Christian churches in the region for years. These are images you will never see on the mainstream media, and not only because they are extremely graphic.
Be warned before you click on the link, the images are graphic and disturbing.
MichaelSavage.Com - Home of The Savage Nation
This is the country we’re intervening to create. A country that has never existed, filled with Muslims that will likely end up as a breeding ground for Bin Laden-type teachings and terrorism. This move helps neither us nor the Serbs, nor even the Kosovars. Maybe instead of blindly intervening in every region in the world, we should think things through first and see if we’re going to do more harm or good.
If you listen to the mainstream media, you’d think Kosovo is an oppressed region that was annexed by those big mean Serbians. You’d think it had only been part of Serbia for say, ten minutes. Prior to that, it must have been a separate entity. No doubt they deserve their freedom back.
If you listen to FoxNews, we’re waiving the banner for freedom. O’Reilly says so. Cavuto says so, and when he was rebuked by a US general , he distracted the general and changed the subject.
Well, he can’t interrupt me. In this country we have the dangerous combination of an interventionist foreign policy, and a woeful ignorance of the world outside our borders. http://youtube.com/watch?v=ojcHlLn6UCc
How can we have any kind of an opinion on foreign affairs, when we don’t know anything about the rest of the world?
Contrary to what the snooty Brits who made this video assert, we’re not stupid. We’re ignorant. There’s a difference. We’ve been let down by our public education system for generations. And we, the public have to assume some blame, too, for allowing it too happen. We should care, but don’t. Shame on us.
I am not one of the, “Blame America First,” crowd. We’re not perfect, but neither is anyone else. We do a lot of good in the world.
But when we’re wrong, I’m not going to keep silent, either. I can figure out when I’m being fooled.
Unlike Bill O’Reilly and Neil Cavuto, I know something about Serbia. I work in an industry where we’ve had to (legally) hire many foreigners to fill labor shortages. At times, those employees have been Serbs on work visas.
There’s a reason these people are pissed at us. They stood by while Bill Clinton bombed the region to get Lewinsky off the front pages in the 90s. Still, they liked us and wanted to be like us.
But this is asking too much of any people. Imagine if, during the civil war, Europe recognized and helped the South gain independence. How would anyone in this country then living north of the Mason-Dixon line have felt?
Serbia originated in Kosovo. Kosovo is known as, “Old Serbia.” Kosovo never existed as an independent country. We are intervening in a civil war to create a new Muslim state. I know the fools on MSNBC, CNN and FOXNEWS will never tell us this, but it’s so.
I’m not the only one who knows this. Does Balkanization beckon anew?
What’s more, these people we’re helping to liberate are not poor, oppressed victims, either. They’ve been killing Christians and burning Christian churches in the region for years. These are images you will never see on the mainstream media, and not only because they are extremely graphic.
Be warned before you click on the link, the images are graphic and disturbing.
MichaelSavage.Com - Home of The Savage Nation
This is the country we’re intervening to create. A country that has never existed, filled with Muslims that will likely end up as a breeding ground for Bin Laden-type teachings and terrorism. This move helps neither us nor the Serbs, nor even the Kosovars. Maybe instead of blindly intervening in every region in the world, we should think things through first and see if we’re going to do more harm or good.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
My Choice for Mother of the Year-No, Seriously
Okay, maybe Melissa Dean isn’t really mother of the year. But I do feel for her. You can read the story: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/02/21/melissa-dean-went-on-strike/ here or go to Foxnews. Better yet, see the video of her four teenage bastards verbally abusing and threatening reporters: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=540758551BFE8CB989232C34BF499E21?contentId=5837588&version=17&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1
She couldn’t handle her four kids…what’s she going to do, spank them? They’re bigger than she is, the father is nowhere to be found, and she’s called the cops something like a dozen times. She’s sought help and can’t get any.
What can she do? She went on strike and left them alone. She came back at night and checked on them and fed them.
Come to think of it, these kids are teens and there are four of them…they can’t (expletive) figure out to cook a meal for themselves?
Basically, the authorities and the father have failed this woman…so what do they do? They arrest her.
The irony is that if that if she could have and did discipline her kids, the jack booted thugs at Dept of Social Services, most of whom either don’t have kids or make lousy parents themselves, would have likely charged her…but don’t get me started on the anti family agenda of DSS…
This isn’t her fault, folks. Maybe she could have done a better job parenting, maybe not, but I strongly disagree with the blanket statement I heard a woman say on Fox’s “Red Eye” this morning…monsters don’t always raise monsters and vice versa.
Being a single parent is tough enough, but picture yourself as a woman raising four teenage boys, all of whom are probably bigger and stronger than you, with no help from the father…arresting her is a travesty. These kids are old enough to be held for acting like the out of control punks they are, and need to be taught a lesson. If she can’t do it, send ‘em to Juvy. They’ll either get the message or end up in jail.
While we’re at it, how about we release her and arrest this absentee father? Why is he not as responsible as her? They’re his kids, too. He’s more responsible in my book. At least she’s tried. God knows where he is, but boys this age need the discipline of a father. Arrest him.
She couldn’t handle her four kids…what’s she going to do, spank them? They’re bigger than she is, the father is nowhere to be found, and she’s called the cops something like a dozen times. She’s sought help and can’t get any.
What can she do? She went on strike and left them alone. She came back at night and checked on them and fed them.
Come to think of it, these kids are teens and there are four of them…they can’t (expletive) figure out to cook a meal for themselves?
Basically, the authorities and the father have failed this woman…so what do they do? They arrest her.
The irony is that if that if she could have and did discipline her kids, the jack booted thugs at Dept of Social Services, most of whom either don’t have kids or make lousy parents themselves, would have likely charged her…but don’t get me started on the anti family agenda of DSS…
This isn’t her fault, folks. Maybe she could have done a better job parenting, maybe not, but I strongly disagree with the blanket statement I heard a woman say on Fox’s “Red Eye” this morning…monsters don’t always raise monsters and vice versa.
Being a single parent is tough enough, but picture yourself as a woman raising four teenage boys, all of whom are probably bigger and stronger than you, with no help from the father…arresting her is a travesty. These kids are old enough to be held for acting like the out of control punks they are, and need to be taught a lesson. If she can’t do it, send ‘em to Juvy. They’ll either get the message or end up in jail.
While we’re at it, how about we release her and arrest this absentee father? Why is he not as responsible as her? They’re his kids, too. He’s more responsible in my book. At least she’s tried. God knows where he is, but boys this age need the discipline of a father. Arrest him.
Doctors Warn of New Disease Afflicting Elderly Drivers
The unnamed disease, dubbed spastidc foot, causes elderly drivers to lose motor function of their feet. Doctors say it is a neurological disease and have determined it is a leading cause of car accidents involving elderly drivers. Nobody knows why it affects only the elderly, and them only while driving.
Symptoms include really slow driving in the ultra fast lane, or on back roads where nobody can pass, and, more seriously, may cause sufferers to hit the gas instead of the brake. The latter is often fatal for others, but rarely for the driver.
Doctors hope to find a cure, and are coordinating their efforts with the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Actually, it's not funny: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1075116
Symptoms include really slow driving in the ultra fast lane, or on back roads where nobody can pass, and, more seriously, may cause sufferers to hit the gas instead of the brake. The latter is often fatal for others, but rarely for the driver.
Doctors hope to find a cure, and are coordinating their efforts with the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Actually, it's not funny: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1075116
Suddenly Single: No Perfect World
The following is from another MSN article that offers advice on how to cope after divorce. I hope I’m not a misogynist, but I can’t help feeling resentful as I read these articles that really serve as nothing but advice for women while simultaneously spreading what I perceive as hatred of men
Here it is, with link:
Suddenly single? Ask Dr. Gilda - MSN Dating & Personals
On the one hand, I feel empathy for this woman. It’s not easy going through a divorce, let alone raising a kid by yourself. But, it’s obvious to me she’s using these guys to help her with her kid. Why else would you stay with a guy who is trying to control you? And while I don’t know the circumstances, and maybe should withhold judgment, I’m suspicious of a single mother, just as I am of a single father, who gets married to a new partner right after the birth of a child.
To me it begs the question, as a woman, does she want equality, or does she just want more control over the men she relies on to support her?
What really got me upset off the bat is the second sentence. It upsets me on two counts. Again, I don’t know the circumstances, so I’m making a couple of assumptions, and could wrong because of them.
But…the father has nothing to do with their kid? Is this by choice? If so, what the hell is the matter with him? Yes, he pays his child support, and I’ll get to that in a moment, but so do I, and I have my son four days a week. Time is the most important thing you can give your kids.
There’s an old saying I like: Nobody that I know ever said at the end, “Gee, I spent too much time with my kids when they were growing up.”
How sad for both her kid and for the father. Shame on him for not being involved, but it’s going to be his loss in the end. I’m sure of it.
Second, and maybe I’m a troglodyte here, but she’ll stay with a control freak who dictates who her kid can see, but she’ll also have a kid with a guy who obviously wanted nothing to do with the child? Would this be different if she couldn’t force him to pay for the kid?
Yes, that’s cynical, but I doubt it’s wrong. It seems to me something is amiss here: if I’m involved with a woman, or even sleep with her once, and she gets pregnant, it’s all up to her. If I want the child, but she doesn’t, she can have an abortion. Even if I agree to raise the child myself, pay for all bills during her pregnancy, and then care for and pay for the child, even if I offer to pay her for her pregnancy, I cannot. Okay.
But, if the shoe is on the other foot, as it was here, I cannot forgo the responsibility.
A clear contradiction in standards.
I understand why that is…we already have too many men who refuse to take responsibility for their children in this country. It’s shameful, and these men do need to be held accountable for the children they bring into the world. I also understand I will never have to go through pregnancy or know what it’s like. It’s just the way it is.
But, there’s an essential unfairness to men like me.
I have my son four days a week. I pay child support and his health insurance. I love him more than life, and her biggest criticism of me seems to be that I am too maternal.
There’s more, too. He had cancer. I went too all of his appointments. He needs periodic MRIs to make sure it’s still in remission. I take him to virtually all of them.
Recently she complained about this, and rescheduled the latest one to Friday, one of her days with him. I work third shift sometimes, and am supposed to sleep during the day on Friday. I decided to forego sleep and go to his MRI.
The hospital was running late, however, and against my wishes, she chose to reschedule. I regret not insisting on having it done then, but I’m tired of arguing and I was going on no sleep.
She became agitated when told they were running late. The oncologist even told her, “It’s not always going to be convenient.” Well, it turns out she had an appointment in a town an hour and a half away at a time she couldn’t have made even if things had gone according to schedule.
It further turns out that she’s moving again. She’s moving for the fourth time in under a year, each time living with a man, this time moving back in with her old boyfriend, who doesn’t even know she was living with another man she hardly knew for the past few months.
I fear this move. I like the old boyfriend around my son better than the current one. But, she originally told me she left him because of concerns about his son, who is older, being “rough”, with our son. She also came within a hair’s breadth of moving to South Carolina with him last year.
I think I’m right to have concerns. Constantly moving is not a stable life for our son.
I also think I sacrifice far more when it comes to our son. Despite this, I hesitate to fight for custody. I’m likely to lose, in which case, I risk seeing him less than my current four days a week.
Something is wrong with this picture. If our society really had equality and were really interested in the future of children, I would have custody.
Here it is, with link:
Suddenly single? Ask Dr. Gilda - MSN Dating & Personals
On the one hand, I feel empathy for this woman. It’s not easy going through a divorce, let alone raising a kid by yourself. But, it’s obvious to me she’s using these guys to help her with her kid. Why else would you stay with a guy who is trying to control you? And while I don’t know the circumstances, and maybe should withhold judgment, I’m suspicious of a single mother, just as I am of a single father, who gets married to a new partner right after the birth of a child.
To me it begs the question, as a woman, does she want equality, or does she just want more control over the men she relies on to support her?
What really got me upset off the bat is the second sentence. It upsets me on two counts. Again, I don’t know the circumstances, so I’m making a couple of assumptions, and could wrong because of them.
But…the father has nothing to do with their kid? Is this by choice? If so, what the hell is the matter with him? Yes, he pays his child support, and I’ll get to that in a moment, but so do I, and I have my son four days a week. Time is the most important thing you can give your kids.
There’s an old saying I like: Nobody that I know ever said at the end, “Gee, I spent too much time with my kids when they were growing up.”
How sad for both her kid and for the father. Shame on him for not being involved, but it’s going to be his loss in the end. I’m sure of it.
Second, and maybe I’m a troglodyte here, but she’ll stay with a control freak who dictates who her kid can see, but she’ll also have a kid with a guy who obviously wanted nothing to do with the child? Would this be different if she couldn’t force him to pay for the kid?
Yes, that’s cynical, but I doubt it’s wrong. It seems to me something is amiss here: if I’m involved with a woman, or even sleep with her once, and she gets pregnant, it’s all up to her. If I want the child, but she doesn’t, she can have an abortion. Even if I agree to raise the child myself, pay for all bills during her pregnancy, and then care for and pay for the child, even if I offer to pay her for her pregnancy, I cannot. Okay.
But, if the shoe is on the other foot, as it was here, I cannot forgo the responsibility.
A clear contradiction in standards.
I understand why that is…we already have too many men who refuse to take responsibility for their children in this country. It’s shameful, and these men do need to be held accountable for the children they bring into the world. I also understand I will never have to go through pregnancy or know what it’s like. It’s just the way it is.
But, there’s an essential unfairness to men like me.
I have my son four days a week. I pay child support and his health insurance. I love him more than life, and her biggest criticism of me seems to be that I am too maternal.
There’s more, too. He had cancer. I went too all of his appointments. He needs periodic MRIs to make sure it’s still in remission. I take him to virtually all of them.
Recently she complained about this, and rescheduled the latest one to Friday, one of her days with him. I work third shift sometimes, and am supposed to sleep during the day on Friday. I decided to forego sleep and go to his MRI.
The hospital was running late, however, and against my wishes, she chose to reschedule. I regret not insisting on having it done then, but I’m tired of arguing and I was going on no sleep.
She became agitated when told they were running late. The oncologist even told her, “It’s not always going to be convenient.” Well, it turns out she had an appointment in a town an hour and a half away at a time she couldn’t have made even if things had gone according to schedule.
It further turns out that she’s moving again. She’s moving for the fourth time in under a year, each time living with a man, this time moving back in with her old boyfriend, who doesn’t even know she was living with another man she hardly knew for the past few months.
I fear this move. I like the old boyfriend around my son better than the current one. But, she originally told me she left him because of concerns about his son, who is older, being “rough”, with our son. She also came within a hair’s breadth of moving to South Carolina with him last year.
I think I’m right to have concerns. Constantly moving is not a stable life for our son.
I also think I sacrifice far more when it comes to our son. Despite this, I hesitate to fight for custody. I’m likely to lose, in which case, I risk seeing him less than my current four days a week.
Something is wrong with this picture. If our society really had equality and were really interested in the future of children, I would have custody.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Big Mac Attacked: Gossiping While Rome Burns
The right is howling over the timing of this, but I have a different take. This is such a bad piece of journalism that it can’t be real. You have a unsubstantiated claim by an anonymous source that the senator might have given favors to a young woman he was possibly involved with.
You have a letter where McCain asks the FCC to vote for or against her clients. Not that he encourages them to vote one way or another, just that they make a decision…they’d been waiting two years.
This is a big deal?
My God, right now there's a woman in the hotel lobby where I am, glued to a tv, like this is the defining moment of her life. Who the hell cares? Maybe he did have an affair...they can't prove it, but so f'in what? This is a man who spent over five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and we're going to crucify him for this? Get a grip, people
The New York Times is taking a lesson from congress. Congress has decided the most important issues facing us are steroids and cheating in sports. The Times has decided a liaison that can’t be proven is the biggest issue in this election.
Meanwhile, we’re stealing part of Serbia to create a Muslim nation in the Balkans, there’s war in the middle east, Ahmadinejad is calling Israel a dirty bacteria, Chavez is threatening to cut off oil supplies to the US and energy costs are climbing at a rate of 44% a year…this can’t be serious. This has to be a joke.
Therefore, I have a theory. This is a conspiracy by Republican moderates to unite the party behind McCain…either that, or the Times has to get it’s head out of it’s ass.
You have a letter where McCain asks the FCC to vote for or against her clients. Not that he encourages them to vote one way or another, just that they make a decision…they’d been waiting two years.
This is a big deal?
My God, right now there's a woman in the hotel lobby where I am, glued to a tv, like this is the defining moment of her life. Who the hell cares? Maybe he did have an affair...they can't prove it, but so f'in what? This is a man who spent over five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and we're going to crucify him for this? Get a grip, people
The New York Times is taking a lesson from congress. Congress has decided the most important issues facing us are steroids and cheating in sports. The Times has decided a liaison that can’t be proven is the biggest issue in this election.
Meanwhile, we’re stealing part of Serbia to create a Muslim nation in the Balkans, there’s war in the middle east, Ahmadinejad is calling Israel a dirty bacteria, Chavez is threatening to cut off oil supplies to the US and energy costs are climbing at a rate of 44% a year…this can’t be serious. This has to be a joke.
Therefore, I have a theory. This is a conspiracy by Republican moderates to unite the party behind McCain…either that, or the Times has to get it’s head out of it’s ass.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Shootings-Part II
Shootings-Part II
(Off Topic)
Talking about the scourge of mass shootings in our country, God came up. I was told there’s everything happens for a reason, that there is a bigger picture.
I hate it when people explain away tragedies with clichés. We’ve all heard them. “There’s a greater good,” or, “a bigger picture.” Or, best of all, “Everything happens for a reason.”
Bullshit.
“It’s part of God’s lesson.”
Bullshit.
Don’t insult God by saying he needs to kill children to prove a point. And if he does, shame on him. There’s no greater good that involves sacrificing babies and little kids. To say so, you have to place a low value on their lives. I wonder how can anyone with kids feel that way?
And don’t tell me we’ve learned a lesson.
Did you know the murderer at Virginia Tech last year and the murderer at NIU last week both bought guns from the same online dealer? Lesson? This guy can still sell guns, too. What’s wrong with this picture?
From the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust in Europe, to Stalin’s extermination of millions of Russians, to Pol Pot, to Idi Amin, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and what’s going on in the middle east today, to our rash of pointless shootings in the USA, and on and on infinitely, human beings have shown we’re remarkably good at learning nothing.
We still divide each other every way we can at every opportunity. Black vs. white, American vs. whatever, Muslim vs. Christian, gay vs. straight, man vs. woman, etc.
We’re still too stupid too see we’re all human and all fighting for the same resources. And we’ve been around for more than 100,000 years. I suppose people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible or the Quran will argue that, too.
My point is, sometimes awful things happen for no reason. Sometimes there is no good. Sometimes there is no lesson, or at least people don’t learn it. If we did, and we’re as intelligent as we claim, wouldn’t we have learned by now?
I once had a professor ask of our class, “Imagine if I told you I could get rid of all evil in the world simply by killing one person.”
He pointed to a young man in class.
Everybody, including, I believe the young man said, yes, that would be great.
Everybody, that is, except me.
Then he asked, “What if I had to kill two people?” Then the question became three. Then a hundred. Then a thousand. Slowly, more people began to hesitate.
Then the question became six million, and his point was made, but, sadly, a lot of people still hadn’t caught on. Not until he said, “Sixty years ago, someone said if he could just get rid of six million bad people, the world would be a perfect utopia.”
Too often people think they have the answers, often without investigating.
Was it right to nail Jesus to a cross? Was it right to kill people suspected of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts?
The people in charge at those times and places thought so.
If you really think things happen for a reason, then please, tell me the reason for the Holocaust. We say six million Jews were killed, but that’s just a number until you watch Schindler’s list and see trucks full of children being carted off to be murdered. Until you picture your own children. You realize how many supposedly good people had to be silent to allow it.
If that’s really part of God’s plan, or if there’s a bigger picture I’m not seeing, please somebody, tell me what that is.
I’m not saying this to bash God. Maybe God isn’t the only force in the universe. You can’t have good without evil. But there’s no good in murder. Maybe I just have a hard time accepting these things because I have a beautiful three year old boy. When I see someone decide he’s going to end his life and others with him, all I can picture is my son someday being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What kind of pain are the parents of the victims going through now? Or even the parents of the shooter? What did they do wrong? Please don’t tell me there’s a greater good.
(Off Topic)
Talking about the scourge of mass shootings in our country, God came up. I was told there’s everything happens for a reason, that there is a bigger picture.
I hate it when people explain away tragedies with clichés. We’ve all heard them. “There’s a greater good,” or, “a bigger picture.” Or, best of all, “Everything happens for a reason.”
Bullshit.
“It’s part of God’s lesson.”
Bullshit.
Don’t insult God by saying he needs to kill children to prove a point. And if he does, shame on him. There’s no greater good that involves sacrificing babies and little kids. To say so, you have to place a low value on their lives. I wonder how can anyone with kids feel that way?
And don’t tell me we’ve learned a lesson.
Did you know the murderer at Virginia Tech last year and the murderer at NIU last week both bought guns from the same online dealer? Lesson? This guy can still sell guns, too. What’s wrong with this picture?
From the Spanish Inquisition to the Holocaust in Europe, to Stalin’s extermination of millions of Russians, to Pol Pot, to Idi Amin, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and what’s going on in the middle east today, to our rash of pointless shootings in the USA, and on and on infinitely, human beings have shown we’re remarkably good at learning nothing.
We still divide each other every way we can at every opportunity. Black vs. white, American vs. whatever, Muslim vs. Christian, gay vs. straight, man vs. woman, etc.
We’re still too stupid too see we’re all human and all fighting for the same resources. And we’ve been around for more than 100,000 years. I suppose people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible or the Quran will argue that, too.
My point is, sometimes awful things happen for no reason. Sometimes there is no good. Sometimes there is no lesson, or at least people don’t learn it. If we did, and we’re as intelligent as we claim, wouldn’t we have learned by now?
I once had a professor ask of our class, “Imagine if I told you I could get rid of all evil in the world simply by killing one person.”
He pointed to a young man in class.
Everybody, including, I believe the young man said, yes, that would be great.
Everybody, that is, except me.
Then he asked, “What if I had to kill two people?” Then the question became three. Then a hundred. Then a thousand. Slowly, more people began to hesitate.
Then the question became six million, and his point was made, but, sadly, a lot of people still hadn’t caught on. Not until he said, “Sixty years ago, someone said if he could just get rid of six million bad people, the world would be a perfect utopia.”
Too often people think they have the answers, often without investigating.
Was it right to nail Jesus to a cross? Was it right to kill people suspected of witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts?
The people in charge at those times and places thought so.
If you really think things happen for a reason, then please, tell me the reason for the Holocaust. We say six million Jews were killed, but that’s just a number until you watch Schindler’s list and see trucks full of children being carted off to be murdered. Until you picture your own children. You realize how many supposedly good people had to be silent to allow it.
If that’s really part of God’s plan, or if there’s a bigger picture I’m not seeing, please somebody, tell me what that is.
I’m not saying this to bash God. Maybe God isn’t the only force in the universe. You can’t have good without evil. But there’s no good in murder. Maybe I just have a hard time accepting these things because I have a beautiful three year old boy. When I see someone decide he’s going to end his life and others with him, all I can picture is my son someday being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What kind of pain are the parents of the victims going through now? Or even the parents of the shooter? What did they do wrong? Please don’t tell me there’s a greater good.
Shootings
Every week it seems there’s another random shooting where some troubled man, usually white, but not always, kills several or more innocent strangers.
And every week, we go on, and become a little more desensitized to it. We can’t pretend it’s not an epidemic. It’s become in vogue among troubled, childless young men.
If you’re reading this and you think there’s some romantic idea in going out in a blaze of glory, I have a message for you.
I have some authority to speak here. I’ve suffered depression on and off for 15 years. I know there is no cure for most mental disorders. I’ve become convinced that unlike doctors who treat heart disease, most (but not all) mental health professionals haven’t a clue how to help us. I’m sure the best they can do in many cases is treat and stabilize us, like a diabetic. Sometimes they misdiagnose us. In my case, I believe I was given an anti depressant which caused a manic episode.
I’ve felt hopeless at times. Sometimes my son is the only thing that keeps me going.
I’m 30 years old. A couple of years ago I had good credit, a wife, a newborn son, and I was in night school. I had a lot to look forward to, and I was still only in my mid 20s. I thought by now I’d have an accounting degree and be on my way to a CPA.
Now: I live with my mother. I have no wife, no girlfriend. I work third shift, and make just enough money to survive. I can’t go back to school, not now. I have no time and no money. I can’t get a loan because I just went through bankruptcy. Even after chapter 7, I still owe my mother $2,000, and I have no idea where it will come from. I owe $7,000 on student loans for schooling I didn’t finish.
I tried to get a part time job, but I have my son almost all the time I’m not working or (supposed to be) sleeping. Life’s rough. On top of that, I have seasonal depression and my on/off third shift schedule has left me more sleep deprived than Tyler Durden.
Why has this happened to me? Partly because, as I said, I was given the wrong medication and it led to a manic episode which went unchecked, but mostly because I made every wrong decision imaginable. I couldn’t help it, it seemed.
But there’s one thing I didn’t do, and that’s shoot people. I had access to guns, mind you. They’re as easy to get as a drivers license in my state. Easier, maybe. Why do some depressed men become murderers while others suffer in silence, or, better yet, as I have done, try repeatedly to get help, even when it seems the help is mediocre?
Family relationships? Children? Different hardwiring in the brain?
I know all of that’s probably true, but some of it has to do with the value we place on human life.
If you’re thinking about violence, stop. Wait. Think. You can always act later. You can’t take it back. That’s someone’s kid you’re going to kill. It might be mine. That’s someone’s parent. And you’re someone’s kid.
There are times when I felt no one cared about me, or needed me, but it’s not literally true. Every life is valuable, and yours is, too. You may feel life is hopeless, but that feeling comes and goes. There is something you can contribute. Write about it. Talk about it.
A mass shooting and suicide won’t get you fame. It won’t get you help. It’ll get you dead, and if there’s an afterlife, you’ll be justly punished. If you have depression, you have my empathy. It’s an illness and people who suffer with it deserve empathy; and help. But you lose that empathy and any sympathy the minute you hurt others. There’s no good in murder, no lesson to be learned, no greater good, no big picture. It’s just evil and the most worthless thing you can do.
I said I don’t believe there’s a cure for most mental illnesses, but there are treatments, and they help. They may not make your life everything you want it to be, but whose is? They can make it worth living, and life is worth living. You’re not going to get another one, either, and neither are any people whose lives you take.
You have a responsibility to reach out for help. It won’t be easy, but it can happen.
And to politicians, it’s time to stop ignoring this problem. For a generation, we’ve shut down mental health hospitals and resources, and basically replaced them with jails. This is where we prefer to house troubled males. Apparently, we’d rather wait for them to get so ill they hurt people, then imprison them, rather than treating them.
I know getting people help is expensive, but how expensive is removing potentially productive working people from society? Would you rather admit there’s a problem with emasculated males as we move (rightly so) from a patriarchal society to a more even one, or continue to ignore the problem and say occasional murder is the price we pay for a free society?
To those of you who know someone who fits this profile, you have a responsibility, too. We all do. Contrary to popular belief, nobody just snaps. There are always warning signs. If you see them, tell someone.
As I said above, guns are easily and legally obtained where I live. I’ve been pro second amendment my whole life, and believe strongly that eliminating guns won’t eliminate crime or murder. I believe I have the right to defend myself and my son, too. But it’s time to stop pretending the ease with which the mentally ill obtain firearms isn’t a problem, either. To hell with medical privacy. We all can do something to stop this scourge. How many more people have to die?
And every week, we go on, and become a little more desensitized to it. We can’t pretend it’s not an epidemic. It’s become in vogue among troubled, childless young men.
If you’re reading this and you think there’s some romantic idea in going out in a blaze of glory, I have a message for you.
I have some authority to speak here. I’ve suffered depression on and off for 15 years. I know there is no cure for most mental disorders. I’ve become convinced that unlike doctors who treat heart disease, most (but not all) mental health professionals haven’t a clue how to help us. I’m sure the best they can do in many cases is treat and stabilize us, like a diabetic. Sometimes they misdiagnose us. In my case, I believe I was given an anti depressant which caused a manic episode.
I’ve felt hopeless at times. Sometimes my son is the only thing that keeps me going.
I’m 30 years old. A couple of years ago I had good credit, a wife, a newborn son, and I was in night school. I had a lot to look forward to, and I was still only in my mid 20s. I thought by now I’d have an accounting degree and be on my way to a CPA.
Now: I live with my mother. I have no wife, no girlfriend. I work third shift, and make just enough money to survive. I can’t go back to school, not now. I have no time and no money. I can’t get a loan because I just went through bankruptcy. Even after chapter 7, I still owe my mother $2,000, and I have no idea where it will come from. I owe $7,000 on student loans for schooling I didn’t finish.
I tried to get a part time job, but I have my son almost all the time I’m not working or (supposed to be) sleeping. Life’s rough. On top of that, I have seasonal depression and my on/off third shift schedule has left me more sleep deprived than Tyler Durden.
Why has this happened to me? Partly because, as I said, I was given the wrong medication and it led to a manic episode which went unchecked, but mostly because I made every wrong decision imaginable. I couldn’t help it, it seemed.
But there’s one thing I didn’t do, and that’s shoot people. I had access to guns, mind you. They’re as easy to get as a drivers license in my state. Easier, maybe. Why do some depressed men become murderers while others suffer in silence, or, better yet, as I have done, try repeatedly to get help, even when it seems the help is mediocre?
Family relationships? Children? Different hardwiring in the brain?
I know all of that’s probably true, but some of it has to do with the value we place on human life.
If you’re thinking about violence, stop. Wait. Think. You can always act later. You can’t take it back. That’s someone’s kid you’re going to kill. It might be mine. That’s someone’s parent. And you’re someone’s kid.
There are times when I felt no one cared about me, or needed me, but it’s not literally true. Every life is valuable, and yours is, too. You may feel life is hopeless, but that feeling comes and goes. There is something you can contribute. Write about it. Talk about it.
A mass shooting and suicide won’t get you fame. It won’t get you help. It’ll get you dead, and if there’s an afterlife, you’ll be justly punished. If you have depression, you have my empathy. It’s an illness and people who suffer with it deserve empathy; and help. But you lose that empathy and any sympathy the minute you hurt others. There’s no good in murder, no lesson to be learned, no greater good, no big picture. It’s just evil and the most worthless thing you can do.
I said I don’t believe there’s a cure for most mental illnesses, but there are treatments, and they help. They may not make your life everything you want it to be, but whose is? They can make it worth living, and life is worth living. You’re not going to get another one, either, and neither are any people whose lives you take.
You have a responsibility to reach out for help. It won’t be easy, but it can happen.
And to politicians, it’s time to stop ignoring this problem. For a generation, we’ve shut down mental health hospitals and resources, and basically replaced them with jails. This is where we prefer to house troubled males. Apparently, we’d rather wait for them to get so ill they hurt people, then imprison them, rather than treating them.
I know getting people help is expensive, but how expensive is removing potentially productive working people from society? Would you rather admit there’s a problem with emasculated males as we move (rightly so) from a patriarchal society to a more even one, or continue to ignore the problem and say occasional murder is the price we pay for a free society?
To those of you who know someone who fits this profile, you have a responsibility, too. We all do. Contrary to popular belief, nobody just snaps. There are always warning signs. If you see them, tell someone.
As I said above, guns are easily and legally obtained where I live. I’ve been pro second amendment my whole life, and believe strongly that eliminating guns won’t eliminate crime or murder. I believe I have the right to defend myself and my son, too. But it’s time to stop pretending the ease with which the mentally ill obtain firearms isn’t a problem, either. To hell with medical privacy. We all can do something to stop this scourge. How many more people have to die?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Congressional Hearings: Probing the Important Issues of the Day
Congressional Hearings: Probing the Important Issues of Today…Not
While you and I scurry about our pointless, dull lives, congress is hard at work fighting for us. You know, you and me, the little guys. Congress is looking out for us. Don’t you feel great knowing that?
Are they talking about the Russian bomber that flew within 2,000 feet of the USS Nimitz, recently? No, don’t be silly.
Maybe they’re looking into ongoing Chinese theft of our space program secrets (not to mention nuclear secrets). Well, no, they’re not doing that, either.
Perhaps they’re doing something to help the uninsured, the working poor? Or are they brainstorming a solution to our looming energy crisis? Might be important now that gas is likely to cost say, six trillion dollars an ounce by the time our kids are in college.
Maybe they should be concerned that Chavez has threatened to stop oil exports to the US. But no, these concerns all pale in comparison to steroid use in baseball. And of course, spygate in football.
Just ask Dan Burton, the man who led the fight to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a bj and lying about it in the 90’s. He spent his allotted time alternately kissing Roger Clemens’ substantial behind, and berating Brian McNamee. Thanks, Dan. I couldn’t live without knowing you’ve personally interrogated Brian McNamee, who I for one think is a much bigger threat to our safety, security and way of life than Russia, China or Iran could ever be.
Or ask Henry Waxman (he of the huge nostrils). As Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he called for the hearings. Guess there’s nothing more important to oversee or reform. At least we can take comfort knowing that they’re not meddling with anything important, thereby insuring they’re not screwing up anything important.
Next we get to look forward to Arlen Specter deposing Belichick and Roger Goodell. Great, that should be productive.
Senator Specter: “Mr. Belichick, we have evidence you taped other games before the 2007-08 season. As an Eagles fan, I have to wonder if you may have cheated to win Super Bowl XXXIX?”
Coach Belichick: “Uh, that’s in the past, Senator, we’re really just moving on and looking forward to the 2008 season.”
I can’t wait. Can you?
While you and I scurry about our pointless, dull lives, congress is hard at work fighting for us. You know, you and me, the little guys. Congress is looking out for us. Don’t you feel great knowing that?
Are they talking about the Russian bomber that flew within 2,000 feet of the USS Nimitz, recently? No, don’t be silly.
Maybe they’re looking into ongoing Chinese theft of our space program secrets (not to mention nuclear secrets). Well, no, they’re not doing that, either.
Perhaps they’re doing something to help the uninsured, the working poor? Or are they brainstorming a solution to our looming energy crisis? Might be important now that gas is likely to cost say, six trillion dollars an ounce by the time our kids are in college.
Maybe they should be concerned that Chavez has threatened to stop oil exports to the US. But no, these concerns all pale in comparison to steroid use in baseball. And of course, spygate in football.
Just ask Dan Burton, the man who led the fight to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a bj and lying about it in the 90’s. He spent his allotted time alternately kissing Roger Clemens’ substantial behind, and berating Brian McNamee. Thanks, Dan. I couldn’t live without knowing you’ve personally interrogated Brian McNamee, who I for one think is a much bigger threat to our safety, security and way of life than Russia, China or Iran could ever be.
Or ask Henry Waxman (he of the huge nostrils). As Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he called for the hearings. Guess there’s nothing more important to oversee or reform. At least we can take comfort knowing that they’re not meddling with anything important, thereby insuring they’re not screwing up anything important.
Next we get to look forward to Arlen Specter deposing Belichick and Roger Goodell. Great, that should be productive.
Senator Specter: “Mr. Belichick, we have evidence you taped other games before the 2007-08 season. As an Eagles fan, I have to wonder if you may have cheated to win Super Bowl XXXIX?”
Coach Belichick: “Uh, that’s in the past, Senator, we’re really just moving on and looking forward to the 2008 season.”
I can’t wait. Can you?
How Expensive is Free Health Care?
I don’t support universal health care, a fact which boggles the mind of my more liberal co-workers. I think government control will do nothing but create another permanent bureaucracy, which will help those it employs more than those it serves. Studies consistently show that people contradict themselves, too. Ask someone, “Do you want more government,” and most say No. Ask them if they want free health care and they say yes.
That’s the problem. There is no such thing as free health care. It comes with a price. For those of you who think the price can’t possibly be higher than it is now, go to Canada, break a leg and visit an ER. Good luck.
Government wastes more than it spends, or so I say. She replied that we could save by cutting some of the waste we already have. For instance, did you know that according to Pubmed.gov, last year of life expenses account for 22% of all medical bills in the USA? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12546289?dopt=Abstract She also brought up the obscene amount of prescription drugs the elderly use-and I agree there.
This got me thinking. Do seniors have a duty to die on time? We have an aging society, where people are both living longer and having fewer children. There’s an ever smaller percentage of us working, and an increasing number of elderly or disabled people we’re supporting.
Social security was never intended to work this way. It was supposed to be an ancillary. Looking at government statistics (yes, they’re boring, but they’re important) reveals some sobering facts. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10055-supplement.html Did you know only 69% of recipients are retirees? Did you know that in 1960 there were 5.1 people paying in for every person collecting? In 2006, that number was 3.3.
Why is that bad? For starters, the government lied to us. They were supposed to take the money collected from workers and put it in a lock box, or, better yet, invest it. They didn’t. It’s the government. They spent it. They didn’t tell us, and in typical fashion, people didn’t pay attention or demand accountability. It’s too late to do anything about it. We have to tax current workers to pay current retirees. People under 40 should really think about that, too. You’re supporting your elders. You better have more kids if you want the next generation to support you.
In 1960, this system worked, of course, because if you were a worker, you weren’t supporting a retiree by your lonesome. There were 4.1 other taxpayers sharing the burden with you. Now there are only 2.3, and you’re supporting not only retirees, but the disabled and the widows of deceased retirees sometimes. Worse, in 2032, at the current pace, there will only be 2.1 people paying in for every person collecting. You’ll have one person helping you.
Why bother working? In order to support a vast non-working population, the few who are working will have to be very productive, and earn a lot, because taxes will be enormous. Anybody that says otherwise is either wrong and/or likely pushing retirement age themselves. You can’t go from having 83% of the population working to only 67% and not have a decreased standard of living.
I said all of this just to get to my point: Seniors have a duty to die on time, and young and middle age people should seriously consider having more children as well. Between the need for us young whipper-snappers to support them generally, and the fact they their decrepit bodies incur massive medical bills just to survive, it’s too much burden to bear. Time to get tough on grandma and grandpa.
You’re 75 and have prostate cancer? Sorry, but new laws dictate that we longer treat serious illnesses like cancer and heart disease among the retired. Think about what a double whammy that would be for productivity. Not only would we stop wasting money on those who are only going to live a few more years anyway, but we’d create a whole new group of productive taxpayers when we stop rewarding these lazy loungers for retiring.
Seniors never used to live this long, either. They’re killing those of us that are supposed to be in the prime of our lives. We can start with my grandfather. He’s 93, hasn’t worked in two decades and is a walking medical bill. He’s got pills for everything. Sorry, grandpa, your time limit is up. We’re not going to pay for you anymore.
We don’t have to stop there, either. The sick, the weak, the unproductive, the disabled, all can be done away with to save on expenses and preserve precious resources for those of us in our productive years.
It’s all for the greater good. Unless, of course, you still have human feelings. Unless you think that there’s something more to being a human being, in which case we should stop your bleeding heart from beating first, before even grandma and grandpa.
As you may have guessed, I’m being sarcastic about euthanizing people or not helping those in need. I am not being sarcastic about health care. I don’t claim to have an easy solution, but there’s the problem, isn’t it?
I cringe when I hear Hillary Clinton talking about solutions. I’m wary of anyone who wants to use government as a solution to societal ills. She’s no Hitler, of course, but the most famous solution proposed by any government I can think of was Hitler’s, “Final Solution.”
Truth is, there are no easy solutions, certainly not by government. We’re all looking for the easy way, when there is no easy way. The answer is hard work, good decision making and taking better care of ourselves. Yes, that’s right, you, the health care consumer have a responsibility to take care of yourself. I am not joking when I say that we should stop helping people who destroy themselves. If you’re diabetic and eat chocolate cake every night, there’s no point helping you. And in general, people of every age are too reliant on doctors and doctors are too reliant on pills (follow the money).
I don’t argue that there is a huge problem with our health care bureaucracy. But please don’t be fooled by those who promise easy solutions. When Hillary Clinton says Obama promises hope, while she promises solutions, I say be wary. Be very wary and be careful what you wish for. Sometimes you get it, and it isn’t what you thought. I know what it won’t be, and that’s free. In fact, I could think of nothing more expensive than free health care.
That’s the problem. There is no such thing as free health care. It comes with a price. For those of you who think the price can’t possibly be higher than it is now, go to Canada, break a leg and visit an ER. Good luck.
Government wastes more than it spends, or so I say. She replied that we could save by cutting some of the waste we already have. For instance, did you know that according to Pubmed.gov, last year of life expenses account for 22% of all medical bills in the USA? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12546289?dopt=Abstract She also brought up the obscene amount of prescription drugs the elderly use-and I agree there.
This got me thinking. Do seniors have a duty to die on time? We have an aging society, where people are both living longer and having fewer children. There’s an ever smaller percentage of us working, and an increasing number of elderly or disabled people we’re supporting.
Social security was never intended to work this way. It was supposed to be an ancillary. Looking at government statistics (yes, they’re boring, but they’re important) reveals some sobering facts. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10055-supplement.html Did you know only 69% of recipients are retirees? Did you know that in 1960 there were 5.1 people paying in for every person collecting? In 2006, that number was 3.3.
Why is that bad? For starters, the government lied to us. They were supposed to take the money collected from workers and put it in a lock box, or, better yet, invest it. They didn’t. It’s the government. They spent it. They didn’t tell us, and in typical fashion, people didn’t pay attention or demand accountability. It’s too late to do anything about it. We have to tax current workers to pay current retirees. People under 40 should really think about that, too. You’re supporting your elders. You better have more kids if you want the next generation to support you.
In 1960, this system worked, of course, because if you were a worker, you weren’t supporting a retiree by your lonesome. There were 4.1 other taxpayers sharing the burden with you. Now there are only 2.3, and you’re supporting not only retirees, but the disabled and the widows of deceased retirees sometimes. Worse, in 2032, at the current pace, there will only be 2.1 people paying in for every person collecting. You’ll have one person helping you.
Why bother working? In order to support a vast non-working population, the few who are working will have to be very productive, and earn a lot, because taxes will be enormous. Anybody that says otherwise is either wrong and/or likely pushing retirement age themselves. You can’t go from having 83% of the population working to only 67% and not have a decreased standard of living.
I said all of this just to get to my point: Seniors have a duty to die on time, and young and middle age people should seriously consider having more children as well. Between the need for us young whipper-snappers to support them generally, and the fact they their decrepit bodies incur massive medical bills just to survive, it’s too much burden to bear. Time to get tough on grandma and grandpa.
You’re 75 and have prostate cancer? Sorry, but new laws dictate that we longer treat serious illnesses like cancer and heart disease among the retired. Think about what a double whammy that would be for productivity. Not only would we stop wasting money on those who are only going to live a few more years anyway, but we’d create a whole new group of productive taxpayers when we stop rewarding these lazy loungers for retiring.
Seniors never used to live this long, either. They’re killing those of us that are supposed to be in the prime of our lives. We can start with my grandfather. He’s 93, hasn’t worked in two decades and is a walking medical bill. He’s got pills for everything. Sorry, grandpa, your time limit is up. We’re not going to pay for you anymore.
We don’t have to stop there, either. The sick, the weak, the unproductive, the disabled, all can be done away with to save on expenses and preserve precious resources for those of us in our productive years.
It’s all for the greater good. Unless, of course, you still have human feelings. Unless you think that there’s something more to being a human being, in which case we should stop your bleeding heart from beating first, before even grandma and grandpa.
As you may have guessed, I’m being sarcastic about euthanizing people or not helping those in need. I am not being sarcastic about health care. I don’t claim to have an easy solution, but there’s the problem, isn’t it?
I cringe when I hear Hillary Clinton talking about solutions. I’m wary of anyone who wants to use government as a solution to societal ills. She’s no Hitler, of course, but the most famous solution proposed by any government I can think of was Hitler’s, “Final Solution.”
Truth is, there are no easy solutions, certainly not by government. We’re all looking for the easy way, when there is no easy way. The answer is hard work, good decision making and taking better care of ourselves. Yes, that’s right, you, the health care consumer have a responsibility to take care of yourself. I am not joking when I say that we should stop helping people who destroy themselves. If you’re diabetic and eat chocolate cake every night, there’s no point helping you. And in general, people of every age are too reliant on doctors and doctors are too reliant on pills (follow the money).
I don’t argue that there is a huge problem with our health care bureaucracy. But please don’t be fooled by those who promise easy solutions. When Hillary Clinton says Obama promises hope, while she promises solutions, I say be wary. Be very wary and be careful what you wish for. Sometimes you get it, and it isn’t what you thought. I know what it won’t be, and that’s free. In fact, I could think of nothing more expensive than free health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
