Terrorism

When it was released that the shooter in Norway was a Christian fundamentalist, Fox news responded by playing the martyr. Poor Christians being attacked by the "liberal" media, this should sicken you like it sickens me. The fact is, he was a Christian fundamentalist. Bill O'Reillly says that you can only be a Christian if somebody else says you are. He claims that declaring yourself a Christian does not count. I would like to remind him that Evangelicals, most of whom make up his audience, become "saved' by declaring that Christ is their savior and died for their sins. Most of the time in Christianity a personal declaration is not only all that is required, it is necessary to prove that you have indeed been "saved". Fox news can't' spend ten years spreading Islamaphobia by linking the actions of radical Muslims to the religion of Islam, and then get mad when someone says that the Norway terror attacks were linked to a radical Christian. The media are not in any way trying to link this guy with all Christians, they are simply reporting his motives. His motives which were set down in his own manifesto.

the other reason this bothers me is this. The Tea Party represent themselves as Christians, yet at a rally held Wednesday, I saw a sign that read "By ballot or by bullet". Hmm, Bill O'Reillly said that true Christians don't promote violence. So either these Tea Party members are not Christian or Christians do sometimes go to far.

Republican candidates

Ron Paul

1 says that he would do away with the ADA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid,

2 believes that a business owner can choose to discriminate against any kind of person he does not like.

3 believes that public schools should be closed. School is a privilege not a right.

Newt Gingrich

Same as above with a few exceptions

1 if you hold public office, having an affair is "Patriotic"

2 As far as I can gather he believes in public schools.

Mitt Romney

1. Passed health care reform that is exactly the same as the affordable care act. He says that it was a good idea for his state, but the rest of the country doesn't need insurance. Did not mention his reform when he rolled out his new website.

2. Believes that giving money to small businesses is the same as socialism.

3. After saying that the auto bailout worked, he said that Obama was "the worst president".

Tim Pawlenty

1.Wants to eliminate ethanol subsidies while keeping them for big oil.

2. Wants Medicare doctors to be paid not just by volume but based on patient outcome. I like this idea actually. Those of us who have Medicare, or Medicaid know that quality of care is sometimes non existent. This idea at least tries to tackle the problem of fraud in the system.

Michelle Bachman

1. Repeal the affordable care act.

2. Amend the constitution so that it defines marriage as one man one woman.

3. Create jobs. (I guess)

4. De fund planned parenthood

Herman Cain

1. End all social programs, so that churches can take care of the poor.

2. Repeal the affordable care act.

3. End regulation of businesses, they will make the air and working conditions safer on their own.

Rick Santorum

1. End all regulation.

2. Repeal the affordable care act.

So there you have it. God help die hard Republicans if they don't field a better set of candidates than this.

All of these candidates are Tea Party suck ups. Where is the real Republican.

Reaction to GOP budget

First of all, as the economist I quoted previously has said, Ryan's idea is not new. It is called privatizing Medicare, and has been tried before. My first problem with this idea of changing Medicare is this. People who now benefit will still get "old' Medicare, meaning those my mothers age and older would still receive medical treatment. For everyone else Medicare would change from a provider of health care to nothing more than a rebate program. People would have to find their own insurance carrier when they retire, and the federal government would give them a rebate on care the individual finds and pays for. Now keep in mind that the GOP want a full repeal of the new health care law which does away with pre existing conditions. So this private insurance that you have to find at retirement, if the GOP has their way, could reject you based on your health. Since that hasn't happened yet lets ignore that for now. Okay so you are ready to retire and you have to find a provider for yourself. That provider could deny any care that you might need because they are a private insurance company. The next problem is finding a doctor. See Medicare is excepted everywhere, this would not be the case with a private insurance. So it puts a lot more stress on the individual to find insurance that they can afford, and that will be excepted by their doctor. Ryan says that this will save money. Well of course it will, not paying for things saves money. This is not a fix to a broken program, this is breaking a program that has a few flaws. With the new health care law costs to individuals and states decreases over time. The problem with Ryan is that he is short sighted. If I can refer to an analogy I made before, if you don't pay your rent you save money. The problem is you end up homeless. By not supporting Medicare more people will end up without insurance. Ryan is not a genius, he's a shortsighted entitled child.

Now on to giving states block grants for Medicaid. This sounds like a reasonable idea right. Why not let states customize Medicaid, they know what their people need right? Well yes and no. States have already cut essential health care to disabled and low income adults. The only thing that keeps them from doing the same to children is Federal mandate. By giving Medicaid as a block grant that Federal mandate would be void. So states could, and no doubt would, cut services to children. Why would they do such an awful thing you ask. Because many people in Republican led states are under the impression that nearly all Medicaid dollars go to illegal immigrants. So to satisfy their voters Republicans will cut dollars to "criminals". I could go on, but perhaps this post is long enough.

My response to the state of the union address

First of all the overall tone of the speech was good, I felt that the mixed seating gave it a good bi-partisan feel.
There was a lot that I liked, I thought it was important to bring up education and to talk about alternative energy.
I have to say though that Obama in my view made a big mistake by not coming out with a more detailed description of the spending freeze and how much it would reduce the deficit by. A lot of people wanted to hear it and by not putting it out there he has just encouraged a new herd of Tea Party "patriots" to run for office. That is not good for anyone.
I thought it was ill timed to ask for more spending, first of all it's not going to happen, and secondly it puts the new health care reforms in jeopardy. The way he asked for money for infrastructure and then effectively threw Medicaid under the bus was uncalled for. You cant tell me that a 5% spending freeze is only a cut to Medicaid. If Obama thinks that by leaving the under-insured high and dry is going to help reign in these Tea Parties he is mistaken. The Tea Party rallies will continue because they only want two things, for him to fail and to keep health care in the hands of the privileged.
As for the Republican response. What can I say Paul Ryan is a douche box. This guy spent the whole rebuttal talking about repealing health care reform and comparing us to Greece. Someone should explain to him that Greece has twice the social program spending as we do and a retirement age that is lower than ours. He said that the private sector has historically done more for the poor than government. I don't think even he could believe this bull shit. I would ask him to look at Ireland, who adopted the U.S. free trade system when the ecconomy went south the poor there had nothing. Maybe I shouldn't have been so hard on the president, after all the only thing these Republicans want to hear is a repeal of health care.
The Tea Party response was weird and of course made reference to WWII but it was to the point and short.

Tea Party bash

Well here they are the new Tea Party Conservatives. They came to Washington to stop "out of control" spending, but wait, they needed to have a party first. A private concert with Leanne Rhymes the seating was $50,000 per 8 people So by cutting spending they did not mean for themselves. When asked about this Louis XVI behavior they responded that it was fine no big deal and a great way to raise money. Someone should tell them that the election is over, its time to stop throwing "fund raisers" and do some work. Or better yet, keep throwing lavish parties and leave the politics to those who know something about it.

County wide library system

Last night the results came in about whether we should have a county wide library system. The majority of voters said no. I was surprised at this because this is a largely Mormon county and things like education and taking care of our communities are supposed to be important here.
What shocked me to the core was the venom that came out against the idea. People didn't just disagree, they were cruel to those who thought it was a good idea. It just brings to mind an idea that I have had for a long time now, that is that the legacy of this Tea Party movement will be the break down of civil dialogue between citizens.
The county wide library system would raise property taxes by $85 a year, that is a hefty sum no question. The thing is, that just a few years ago the cost would have been the debated issue, not so now. Now the Tea Party are calling people who use libraries, Marxist, lazy, entitled, and worse. One man wrote to the "Utah statesmen" and said that we as citizens should wait for a wealthy family to "gift" us a library, he also said that we (those who don't own a library) should be deported to another country. Now clearly he was alluding here to the fact that he believed the library was to be built(or expanded) because of "illegal" immigrants.
My point is not that you should agree about the library, it is expensive, my point is what the hell happened to civil, logical discourse in America.
It breaks my heart knowing that this idea was rejected, not because of the cost, but because people have decided to label all forms of government as "bad".
But WTF do I know, after all I am just a Communist Marxist Socialist, who likes to read?

So much for the constitution

A growing group of Republican senators, some with Tea Party ties, are abandoning their unflappable devotion to the founding fathers. See, the Tea party and some right wing Republicans talk a good game about getting back to the constitution. As if we have left it! Now however they are proposing to get rid of the 14Th amendment. For those who may not remember that's the one that grants citizenship to children born in the U,S.
These senators believe that doing this will stem the "tide" of illegal immigrants.
Okay, so the thinking is that the founding fathers were infallible, except for this one time. They talk a great game about venerating the founding fathers, to the point of deification at times. Yet they don't see any conflict in their belief system when talking about tearing out parts of the constitution when it doesn't suit their re-election campaign.
Now for the problem that repealing the 14TH amendment would cause. If a couple come legally to America and are working on getting citizenship and while waiting they have a child, what would become of that child? Would they have to file all the paperwork for that child to gain legal status?
One thing that I have learned about any public policy, it is that there are always financial costs. For example would that child no longer qualify for their parents insurance? This would cause huge expenses to be incurred by the states.
There are also unintended social affects. If we make it even more expensive to come here legally, what would be the incentive for doing so?
Without this amendment in place, every person who is here with a work or student visa would have to pay extra for their children s citizenship
Besides being morally offensive and lacking in the very concept of this country; this idea is fiscally and socially irresponsible. An amendment of this type would cost this country billions of dollars to try for. If it actually succeed it would cost us more money in the implementation. It would require a new government body that would have to deal with these children. This would mean more regulation and bigger government. That is something that Republicans and the Tea Party claim they are against.
I know immigration is a hot topic right now, but you as citizens need to think about the consequences of rash reactionary action.
Our country has a history of rash action, and it has never ended well. Remember the internment camps for the Japanese? Or the red scare culminating in the McCarthy hearings? Politics, and policy when done right is a deliberate proses, not a rash one.