Bias is Bias even if Logical

I honestly have no statistics that prove or disprove this.  And that is the problem.  I cannot find these stats on any website other than antigun control sites and not one of them offer me a link as to where they came from.  The only argument that I've seen is the well worn one about gun control and Adolf Hitler.  The only problem is that Hitler only controlled the guns of those he conquered and unfortunately he considered the Jews a conquered people.  

There is a logic to it that great dictators often disarm their people to maintain control, but it also ignores that there are plenty of gun controlled nations that haven't had genocides.  England has strict gun laws as does Austrailia, Japan, China and a host of other nations. So the meme ignores the other side of the problem. 

The only other problem is the "if the UN is able to disarm the world as they plan" statement. There is no such document before the UN.  The creator of the meme would be far better off to drop the paranoia about what is generally one of the most ineffectual organizations in the world. Just look what it took get Syria in trouble for using chemical weapons.  The UN doesn't have a standing army to disarm even if they wanted to and the disarmament by dictators who have an army, tend to disarm their own nation.  So what nation would the UN use its awesome power to disarm exactly? 

There is initial logic here, but the argument is weak and  paranoid.

These memes don't serve to solve problems, but divide further. By posting it, noone is offering a solution, just more rhetoric.

Stop the Hate

This is one of two memes like this I've seen which came out during the shutdown.  The other uses such foul language, I wouldn't venerate by posting it.

Where do we begin?  Days before the shutdown, the National Parks Service posted a warning that it would be forced to close. Every congressman knew this.  EVERY ONE had access to this information.  It was very clear. 

The lead to defund Obamacare was Republican Senator Ted Cruz.  You can find a boatload of speeches where he said this and his advocating to use "any means" including the shutdown and the debt ceiling as tools. There are numerous articles about it. 

I repeat, EVERY Congress person had access to this information.  So when the vote came led by House Republicans and Ted Cruz who had numerous, documented "secret" meetings with those house members, the Parks Service closed everything including the WWII Memorial.  Obama had nothing to do with it, it was part of the shutdown.

So who went to the memorial for Photo Ops with the Vets? 

Representative Michelle Bauchmann  (R)

Yep- the very same Republicans who advocated the shutdown and met in secret. 

Sarah Palin, Senator Mike Lee (R), Senator Ted Cruz (R)

Some Republicans, in fact, spent the first couple of days of the shutdown using it for exactly that purpose. One Republican Congressman, Representative Randy Neugebauer actually yelled at a park ranger for doing her job (without pay by the way) and for closing the park that EVERY congress person knew would be closed.

Representative Randy Neugebauer
confronts Park Ranger.

So who is using WWII vets? Who are the cowards here? 

Tell me again how this vile piece of hate is unbiased.

Don't "like" this stuff; don't "share" this stuff.  You are being used by an agenda driven, extreme group. When you see it, never go back to that page.

One voice can soon become a choir.

Stop the Hate.

You Always Love Your First Doctor Who

The other day I was in the checkout line in WalMart and the checker remarked on my tee shirt, saying,  "Wow that really is a classic Doctor Who shirt."  I was wearing my Doctor Who tee that had a picture of Tom Baker, the  actor who played the fourth Doctor, on the front.

"You always love your first Doctor," I replied.

The clerk thought for a moment and said, "I don't remember who my first one was.  I suppose it's the current one, but I still remember watching the old ones on PBS when I was a kid."

As we left the store, I began to think what else is there in the nerd world that folks love because it was their first?  "A lot," came the wise answer from one of my schizophrenic other selves.

"Oh yeah? What?"


There have been about twelve or so Doctors since the show debuted in 1963, not including Doctor Who movies, TV specials, radio shows, spoofs and stage plays.  Heck, even Mr. Bean, Rowan Atkinson, played him one of those spoofs.  So there are a lot of Doctors to be your first character.  And then there is Star Trek."

"Well that's easy classic Trek. They are, after all, the founders of the franchise."

"Well, I, for one, like Next Generation.  They had the longer run and better effects."

"I liked Enterprise," piped in a third
voice, the personality who also loves bad B-Movies.


"Okay, Okay. There is Star Trek  the original series, Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise,  Star  Trek the Animated Series, and those new guys in the two reboot movies."

"I really like those, but a lot of fans didn't. Afterall, you always love your first Star Trek," said a sly fourth voice which had been patiently waiting to turn my words against.  I hate that guy.

"And then there are fantasy books.  There were Tolkien and Lewis and Brooks and Burroughs and Howard and those Dungeon and Dragon books, and now Martin and guys like Rothfuss and Weeks and Gaiman.  Who do you choose: the master, Tolkien? The ground breaker Brooks? The political world of Martin? The fantastical of Gaiman? Who?"

I pause.  I ponder.  I gather the group of my schizophrenic voices in close.
 "I like them all. I choose them all."

And they nod in agreement.

 "But you still always love your first Doctor Who," I think myself, once they are all out of range.

Silly Meme, False Analogies Are for Kids.

Analogies are a wonderous thing.
So who needs these,

                                                                                 









  if you have these?












And who needs these,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                 
                                                    if you have these?


I get it.  It's silly.  You could, of course, reverse these analogies.

Why would you need these,      
                                                                                                                                                                                                       



















                                                 
                                             since you have these?

Why would you need these,




















                                            since you have these?


You see the problem with a false analogy is taking two items that have one or two ideas in common and drawing an unrelated conclusion. It is also a game anyone can play.  I am not anti-gun, just anti illogical and divisive meme.  Stop the divisive hate.

So your turn - Think about it before you spread it.

Since It Is the Law of the Land

One of the explainers of the Affordable Care Act that I saw said  that the problem of explaining the ACA or Obamacare is because some guy who understands eight percent of the ACA explains to someone who understands five percent of the plan. The plan is huge, but the problem is not that you need to read the law in order to use it any more than you need to read the Medicare law or the Medicaid law or any of the hundreds of laws that are as complex.  What you need to do is go to the websites and look.

The U.S. website is a mess.  Welcome to any government program that is set up by government officials.  I don't care what party your elected official is from, someone who knows someone who helped someone will inevitably get employed because of it.  It has been done that way since governments were invented.  Unfortunately, it is also why some of the programs have dismal disasters.  Under George W. Bush the FEMA director, Michael Brown was hired by his long time friend the then FEMA Director Joe Albaugh who ran Bush's campaign in 2000.  See how it works? Neither man was prepared to handle an emergency like Katrina because neither were trained for disasters.  I also suspect this is true with the roll out for the ACA.

State sites are doing much better with the issues because most hired honest to goodness technical specialists. Yes, even they had glitches but the good news is most of them are up and fixed. The other good news is that the government is not responsible for the insurance, just the enrollment to the insurance.  The bad news is that a number of red states have done, like congressional Republicans, everything they can to keep the ACA from working.  Anyone remember the time that when laws were passed the other party tried to fix it so it worked better rather than destroy it by holding 42 meaningless votes? So in an effort to make sure it doesn't work, many red states have refused to expand Medicaid, which would actually save their states money and opted not to set up state run sites for enrollment forcing people who would get much better coverage if they only had Medicaid to flock to the badly run Federal site.  The irony is that many of these states have the largest number of uninsured of any of the states in the nation. According to a New York Times economic blog "The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, performed a similar, detailed analysis of new costs and cost savings. It ran the numbers for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It estimates that 21 to 45 states would save money by taking the Medicaid expansion." Several states that have embraced the full law are actually saving money and helping to make sure the poor receive coverage too.

What do the uninsured rely on when they get hurt or sick? The most expensive form of medical treatment, emergency care, and since they don't have insurance, guess who gets to cover the cost? That's right, you, and I do. That is why the law carries the individual insurance mandate.  The theory is that by adding the healthy to the insurance pool, we lower cost. Oddly that works. If you choose to risk having everyone else pay for your uninsured emergency procedures, then you will pay a penalty in taxes for not getting coverage. This penalty, the individual mandate, is what helps to fund the law.   So delaying it or making it optional would actually end up costing money in the long run. That's why delaying it as offered in one of the Republican CR's was not really an option.  It was really the same as the defund the ACA offer was just with a slightly different hair style. The other thing that many folks don't realize is that people in low and lower middle income brackets will receive immediately tax credits which will greatly reduce their insurance costs.  Roughly 26 million folks will be eligible for various levels of these credits based on up to something like 400 percent of the Federal Poverty line.  The lower the income the more help one receives.  So the little memes about some poor guy being penalized or the story about the guy fined while signing up for the ACA are not true. Not even remotely.

So why was the law delayed for businesses? Well there are several reasons.  First it effects a very small number of people.  Second, it quickly became clear that it would give the businesses a better chance to get their ducks in a row.  The fact is that the requirement for insurance to be offered by a business is only on businesses employing 50 or more people.  Something like 92 percent of all business employs less than that.  The delay was done because a number of businesses who employ over 50 complained that the law was too complicated.  Organizations like the National Retail Federation praised the move.  It was also a wise political move to help shore up support from small businesses for Democrats.  Yes, there was also a purely political move. Duh.

So will the cost of insurance go up for some people. Yes.  Particularly for people who don't have insurance. It will also go down for a number of people.  Will medicine cost go up for some? Yes.  It will also go down with the medicare expansion for many.  The fact is that seniors take far more medications than any other group and those on medicare will reap the best benefits.  If you want to read the actual numbers go here.  This is Fact Check not some Republican site that uses bad figures to pump up the numbers or some Democrat site that use too narrow of numbers. It will affect different folks in different ways.

Here are two pretty good videos that explain the cost of health care. The first is the cost. The next is about the ACA or ObamaCare. If you really want to learn and not be lead around by some right or left winger, take the time to watch the videos. I think you will be amazed.

So here it is. Most know that the ACA let's you keep kids on the insurance until 25.  It covers all people even with pre-existing conditions. There are no lifetime caps on insurance.  Medicare recipients are already enjoying some of the benefits.  A woman's insurance will be the same price as a man's.  It is the law of the land. It may succeed.  It may not. A politician has his own agenda.  A Facebook friend probably knows about as much as you do.  We have never done this before.  What we do know is something must be done and this is something.  Health care in other countries is controlled and far cheaper than our country and often far better, and, as the video shows, we're not just talking a difference of a little but a difference of a lot.  The only way you and I will know what to do is to go on to the sites, state ones if you have one, and see.

It's here and it's time to deal with it.  If there are parts you do not like or think we can improve, contact your Senator and Congressperson and tell them to do what they are suppose to do.  Get on the stick and work to make it better and not take meaningless votes.  The problems need to be fixed and can be fixed just as Medicare was worked on and Social Security was worked on in a time when politicians did what they were suppose to do. Taking votes and closing the government and theatening the national credit is stupid and playing politics.

We can do better than hateful memes or uninformed opinions from agenda driven web sites. Change is always difficult.  It is the law, and it is here.  Time to quit whining and become informed.  That's what I intend to do; how about you?

How Dare They

How dare these lazy government employees, who were furloughed by the Congress which shut down the government, complain?  How dare the government employees worry about their rent or their house payment or their car payment, feeding and clothing their kids because they are sitting at home getting paid and earning a tremendous salary?  How dare they not take responsibility for their part in the shutdown? Just who do they think they are?

Poor, poor, Congress taking the heat for this.  You do remember that poor Congressperson who earns over $170,000 per year.  You know that Congress whose membership is roughly 50% millionaires. You know those poor put upon guys and gals that closed the government over a law they cannot get rid of. How dare we feel empathy for the employees who had nothing to do with it?

The problem is they are not getting paid.  They are not sitting at home by choice, and when they were furloughed. they weren't sure they would get back pay.  Only one group was guaranteed pay.  The Congress that  furloughed these employees. I should also point out that not all of them are at home.  A number of them, like the Capitol Police, are on the job without pay.

The average salary for a government employee as of October according to the job site Indeed.com is $49,000 dollars.  Not a pittance but fairly average for a middle class income which they do not receive during the shutdown.   While Congress has voted to give them back salary, it still does not mean that it will stop bill collectors from coming asking. They are not going to get paid until after the shut down ends.  Back salary only goes for government employees.  Private contractors of the government who have been furloughed and as a result furloughed their employees are not covered by the back pay.

And gosh, imagine seeking job security. Imagine the audacity of wanting a pension.  Who would want that?

You really need to check your facts and then go pick up your heart from where ever it was you left it.

You'd Think They'd Learn

We all know that both political parties have secret strategy meetings on how to get what they want, but the problem is when you have a meeting like the one before the 2012 election to discuss how to destroy the Obama presidency that becomes public or a meeting with donors in which you state 47% of the people don't matter, I would think they would be careful about future meetings when they have one in which they discuss how to create a federal budget crisis. But as the New York Times reported, the Republicans didn't figure that out. They even published the plan on the web.

Their plan to defund the Health Care Law is published on a website, and the letter, signed by a former attorney general and several conservatives actually contains a statement that they will need to use the continuing resolution: "Obamacare’s funding mechanisms are as complicated as the law itself, but they can be stopped through the appropriation process, which includes the upcoming continuing resolution."

This was soon followed by the Tea Party favorite and new faux Speaker of the House, Senator Ted Cruz, meeting shortly before the August recess about setting up the defunding and shutting down the government according to Rolling Stone. So there really was a plan to use the CR by the Right Wing of the Republican Party. One that they were assured by Cruz would be ultimately supported by the American public. The problem is that it wasn't true. This lays the current shut down and possible default of the U.S. squarely at the feet of the party, particularly their far right.

Still a number of folks are wondering why isn't Obama's refusal to negotiate any different than the Republican's refusal? The answer is that there is more here than just negotiating, and it dates back to the fiscal cliff and the negotiation of the debt ceiling in 2011, the passage of the CR from the Senate, and how the Debt Ceiling has been used in the past. Obama has stated a number of times that if the House will pass a clear Continuing Resolution and Debt Ceiling, he will negotiate with Republicans, but he will not do so while they are "holding the country hostage." This is not a refusal to negotiate, but a setting of terms to start the process.

First was the attempt to use the Affordable Care Act as a reason to shut down the government. The clean CR from the senate was already a compromise, actually more of surrender. The CR sent by the senate was well below both Obama's budget request and the even lower Democrat controlled Senate's request. It was close to the original Paul Ryan budget complete with sequester level cuts. Even more interesting is the CR, which is a result of no budget, is that since March the House was asked 18 to 20 times to conference on the budget and refused to send a group to do so. Who is refusing to sit down at the table?

Next was the passage of the CR by the House to defund the Affordable Care Act despite the fact they were told the Senate would not pass any CR that had any effect on the law. The law is three years old, was passed by both houses, approved as constitutional by a conservative Supreme Court and held in referendum in the 2012 presidential election. In other words, it went through exactly what majority rule means in the Constitution. Those opposed lost. Next it is the signature legislation of a President who does not have to run for re-election. The House had already run 42 votes to defund the act. Forty-two votes they knew would go no further than House. Does anyone there remember the definition of insanity?

So here is what the Republicans called compromise in the CR vote: Defund the ACA or we shut down the government; Strip the ACA of the individual mandate and the give employers the right to determine what part of coverage of women they will pay for or we shut down the government; delay the Individual Mandate for a year and lift the medical equipment tax or we shut down the government. You also need to realize the individual mandate and the tax on medical equipment are also ways of funding the ACA without tapping into the Federal budget. In other words, the law is already funded.

Look at what was being offered this way: "Give me your house or I will burn it down - No? Okay Give me your house or I will burn down your garage - No? Give me the house or I will break all the windows? No? You’re not negotiating." Do you now see how a small group of the house Republicans are holding the government as hostage? They were not offering anything that could be compromised on or anything that should be compromised on and all because of an extreme Right plan.

The other issue is the debt ceiling. Speaker Boehner has pointed out that 27 times the Debt Ceiling has been used for major program change. That is not true. Twenty-seven times the Debt Ceiling has been included into major budget bills which did bring change rather than having a separate vote on an unnecessary evil that has become a part of congressional governing. I say unnecessary because the US is perhaps the only country on the planet that requires a vote to approve the paying of bills that have already been approved.

The debt ceiling has been regularly raised since its inception in 1917. It has been raised at least 78 times since 1960 and only twice has any group threatened not to raise it in its history: 2011 and 2013. The Democrats made a mistake on negotiating over it in 2011 and the fiscal cliff in 2012, and you now know why they are refusing in 2013. If it happens, one small group of one half of one branch of the government will essentially dictate the terms of how the government functions. It doesn't matter which party, it will become the norm if it is allowed to continue. It will fundamentally change the balance of power that we all learned about in school. It has to be stopped now before that occurs.  

The list of items being demanded by the Tea Party Republicans of the House is expansive, but they have not offered anything they will compromise on. Nothing. Go ahead search for it. I'll wait...

Now you see what the issue is. The refusal to negotiate is not holding the government hostage but protecting the balance of the constitution. It is a truly scary standoff and all because one man will not bring a clean CR to the House floor because he could lose his Speakership. All because what were once called moderate Republicans fear more of being primaried by the Tea Party rather than facing a general election. Welcome to what happens when gerrymandering goes on. Extreme members of a group are secure in that they can get away with almost anything and not lose an election.