Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Liberals Stupidity on passage of health care.

I've been looking through the comments about the passage of the health care bill, or the death care of America as I see it. What I find unbelievable and stupid are many of the comments by the left about the historical day and the century long struggle has come to an end. How Obama has given the financially downtrodden a much needed boost and how the national deficit is finally going to be cut. HUH? Boy, that free medical marijuana must had been issued really quick because they're smoking some good crap. I'm going to cover the costs aspect.

First of all, this statement of how the downtrodden are getting a boost. I often find contradictory statements by these fools. I've read more than once of how those financially struggling are going to lifted out of their quagmire because they won't have to worry about expensive health care costs or premiums. They make the statements that only those making over $200k are going to pay for it and how it's a good thing they're being forced by the gun to pay for those of us that aren't as "lucky" or how they need to pay their fair share that they took for those that work. They still think economic cost vs. benefits are zero sum games so if they're wealthy, they took from someone that isn't. If that was the case, 3rd world countries would be the richest in the world because their government takes from everyone and produces . . . nothing. Oh wait, that's why they're the poorest. The argument that taking from the rich to give to the poor makes economic prosperity is just absurd. What's worse, it just makes everyone equally poor. If this system is such a Utopian model, then why is congress, their staff, bureaucrats, and unions not obligated to participate?

What's even more stupid is after they make this statement of socialist Utopia that is to come especially for the working class (unless unionized for they're exempt til 2018) and poor is how you still have a choice. If you opt out or you just can't afford to buy insurance, it will only incur a reduction of$695 on your tax refund. Uh wait a second. Didn't they just say that only those that make over $200K are paying for this? I hate to bring it to these dolts, but if you're paying $695 in additional taxes, that's a cost. Seems that the left thinks all the money is the government and any reduction of refund, as most of us seem to get, isn't costs, but a reduction of revenue from the government to the people. This shows how ignorant they are of taxes and how the government system works. Government revenue in the form of taxes isn't the government's money. It's the people's money. It's earned by the people and basically taken by the government to provide for public services. It contributes nothing to the GDP and in fact takes capital out. Some GDP is gained by the spending provided it's goes to some productive enterprise like services for national defense, fire protection, construction of schools and road, etc. These health care taxes are nothing but a transfer of wealth which does nothing for the GDP and if anything will diminish by disincentives. It keeps the private sector (more on that later) from expanding and hiring more workers (including unionized workers). So getting $695 less on our return is a tax and thus, the poor are paying as well.

What's worse, this assume even the poor who's getting free care for their $695 have the money to pay in the first place. You see, those that think refunds are revenue given by a benevolent government don't really understand how the tax system works. Having 13 years of payroll and income tax experiences working for an Enrolled Agent, I had to deal with the IRS and tax issues (don't make me tell stories of the research through the IRS codes I had to do, it gives me horrid nightmares!). Those that get refunds, with exception of tax credits like Worker's Tax Credit, had paid the government more in taxes than what they owe. One of the sneakiest codes put into our tax system was the pay as you go. You see, when income taxes are enacted in our misguided 17th amendment, most people that never paid taxes suddenly had tax liabilities coming due on March 15th, 1919. However, nobody was saving up. What was the government going to do, put 5 million new tax payers in jail? They did the pay as you go where you pay a portion out of your check every time you get paid. That number next to the term FED is the federal income tax. After the year is over, we do our returns and find out what our total liability is. That's the tax that the government, by our IRS codes and laws, is entitled to take from us. If we pay more, as often is the case, we get a refund. If not, well, you know that story. You send a check with your return. So to say that the poor isn't paying into this "free" system is just plain nonsense. It's not a reduction of free money from the government (unless you get tax credits which most of us don't). It's just a plain lie that only those making $200k is paying for it as those that they claim is helping the most is also getting hit with a nice penalty that equates to over $55 a month.

What about those of us without jobs? I've been looking for over 2 years. I'm nearly at the end of my rope and trying not to take the only work that is being offered to me: overseas. What reason would I want to stay now with this additional burden, and I'll tell you right now, I won't be able to pay it. It's taking everything I have just to keep from sinking. So now I'm going to look at a possible jail sentence over this "free" health care? I'm to be imprisoned for being poor and out of work? Uh, does Biden FU mean anything? This pretty much has sealed my fate as I don't want to leave my family or children who live with their mother, but I'm not finding much choice being left here. How does this expand my freedom when I'm being forced to leave, unless a decent job here in the states happen which isn't looking very likely anytime soon as businesses going to be looking to downsize even more to provide the taxes for this "free" care.

Worse even still, it will do nothing to grow health care. My wife is studying for the medical licensing exam, but she now has no intentions to practice here in the states. Not only does she not want to have to deal with God knows how many bureaucracies (159 news ones to be added to the hybrid that now exists), but she is completely terrified of the evil and greedy lawyers in this country. There is no tort reform in this law and lawyers will still have free reign over any PERCEIVED wrongs and who's going to back them? You guessed it, the government. Remember Edwards made millions for blaming doctors that later proved they weren't any way shape or form responsible for and Edwards still had no qualms about how he destroyed them. You think it will be any different now that this law has passed. If anything, it will get worse as government will be working against their own interests and create rationing, deny care and say tough luck like monograms for anyone under 50. If you get breast cancer, will it's not the government's fault, but sue the doctor any ways. You know wage controls are coming since theirs no real free market anymore. She wants to practice in Asia somewhere afterwords, and I'm sure I can blame her though I'm trying to convince her New Zealand or Australia.

What gets me is that this system is suppose to be a great Utopia, but the government, bureaucrats, and unions are exempt (union til 2018 anyways, make sense of that) and we have to pay the taxes and incur the penalties for the next 4 years while the health care plan doesn't kick in til then. Why not do it now. The private sector doesn't exists or prosper because of government. That's akin of saying without government there is no private sector. Well, without the protection of life and property, that's correct. But the government can't exist without the private sector for they don't produce anything. All goods and services that contribute to the GDP all generate from the private sector and 1/6 of that GDP has just been, abet slowly, going to be nationalized which means that capital produced into the GDP by the health care industry is going to be gone. Given the recession we're undergoing, this couldn't come at a worse time. With 16% of the economy going to the way of a nonproductive entity, this is going to hammer our economy worse and going to slide us into a deep depression unless something is done to counter it. Frankly, I would rather have a $200K job and pay for this service myself than to be unemployed and have it "free" provided I can come up with the $695 tax payment. Frankly, this isn't what I call the hope I needed or the change the country needs. This is just the financial costs. There are more to costs than financial and that's political and Liberian costs and we're about to find out how high those are going to be. Perhaps those fools that are praising this will learn a harsh lesson of life: there's more to life than just money.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Decision of Life and Death. The tragedy of bio-ethics.

As BO, PeloNAZI, and company get ready to railroad the American people with their horrid bill, there's one issue that isn't get much fare anymore and it gets to the crust of why these lunatics are motivated to impose socialism, if not down right communism on us all the while making the illusionary statement of how they're for the people. When you get to the gist of the essence of what is what it means to "reform health care", it's about being able to choose or have options over our destiny when it comes to our health. This bill is nothing short of a naked attempt to take those choices away, despite the rhetoric and lies by the left, and leave it all up to the state. The crust of the issue that polarized the debate that has so far kept the left in check: death panels.

When Palin came up with her death panel comment, she hit the nail on the head. However, a bigger and more bitter pill was overlooked because these death panels are all for taking the ethos of bio ethics from the individuals. Let's face it, bio ethics is a complicated and ugly affair. When dealing with choices dealing with life, death, quality of life, the scenarios aren't pretty or pleasant. I remember my course in the subject matter when I was a student in what was once our proudest educational system here in the state of California. There were no clear path and the concept of being "fair" to all really complicate matters more. We, as most rational and fair minded individuals, seeks is to search out and form a equitable system so everyone has equal and fair opportunities in life. It's part of our "pursuit of liberty" mentality that we have here in America. However, as with other lawsuits and media hyperbola, we now tend to think equal pursuit means equal results.

My son often cries out that it's not fair that we can have cake, ice cream, yogurt, or many dairy or other products that contains milk, whey, or dairy by products. One particular night I got frustrated over it and told him that it wasn't fair, but that's how it is. We can digest milk, you can't. Deal with it. A harsh lesson to give my 10 year old, but a fact of life for him. His medical condition makes life more inconvenient for him because of his dangerous allergy. I can't be out in the sun without protection because of my pagination problem, those with diabetes can tell you what life is like while having to be more cautious of their sugar intakes. Simply put, as we are all different in some ways, we're not going to have equal results for equal attempts. Some things are going to be different based on our genetics, skills, education, desires, talent, experiences, etc. So we have in the health care industry as well. We're not going to have equal results or equal costs. For some of us, those that have good health, it's not a big issue or financial drain. For others, not so. To have the government to intervene and attempt to force everyone to be equally at a disadvantage, how is that fair? In the end, will we all just be worse off than the worse case scenario?

Worse still, sooner or later we're going to have to face one of bio ethics ugly realities: death. I once asked my wife, if there was a medical procedure and it costs a $1 million but it will only buy me a week with tubes and all, would we do it? Frankly, if I'm that gone, spare us the expense, both financially and emotionally, and let nature take it course. We don't want face this reality, but it's there. Now if someone out there wants to pay for that week, that's their business and money. This is where the soul of the health care debate is really about. Do we want to be able to make our own choices based on our health, financial situation (which for many isn't good right now), quality of life or do we want the government to make that for us? Frankly, much of my health issues have been bought about myself, mainly my weight, and I have nobody but myself to blame. As my mother asked me once, if you get hit and the hospital refuses to aid because you have no health insurance or money, what do you want them to do. I said, "let me die." Why? Because those are the choices I made and I don't think anyone one else should, by force, pay for my lack of vision or luck. There's no guarantee in life, and to expect one is fool hardly.

Frankly, given the government's track record, I don't want them making health decisions for anyone. This can backfire on so many levels. What other choices will we lose. What foods we can eat because, as with me, obesity is a drain on the health care system. What about what we can drive, or how we can spend our recreation time? Cap and Trade. EPA control of carbon dioxide as it toxic and poses health risks? Do we want those that gave us the Postal Service and DMV with spending that goes out of control with no accountability to make these life and death decisions like Do Not Resuscitate, is the unborn child too much of a risk to the mother, is taking insulin shots too costly, is Uncle Joe's quality of life too diminished? Frankly, I would rather makes those choices, and if I can't make those choices, then what quality of life do I have left? If I get that far gone, then let me go. That's MY choice. What I, and I think 60% of Americans, don't want is to have the government make that and impose their decision upon us. Given how the Demoncrats in Washington are responding, they don't care for that. Seems they think they know better than us, and that's should scare us more than anything that can go awry in health care. That's would be the biggest tragedy in bio ethics.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The end of public education?

I've just read how the KC school district is going to shut down nearly half (29 of 61) of their schools because of their budget crisis. Oh, I say they've seen nothing yet. As more and more state reek more and more red for their fiscal irresponsibilities as well as their dependence on a corrupt and bancrupt federal government, things are going to get a heck of a lot worse before they get better. Seems much of what I observed during my one year tenure is being verified.

Seems that KC is reeking in red ink so they have taken the what many see as drastic measure to balance the books by shutting 29 of their schools. For those that like percentages, that's 47.5% of their schools. As shocking as that number is, that wasn't the number that got my attention. Massive closures are something I do expect to happen in the years to come as it's inevitable given the corrupt and dysfunctional system we have today. It was the number of lay-offs. 750 people including 285 teachers. Think what that means for a sec. Of the 750 people, 285 are teachers. That's only 38%. That means 62% of the cuts in their labor costs are non-teachers. This comes as no surprise, but how little attention that's given. I've often state that the public education system is too top heavy. I remember all those administrators at Vallejo Unified that had names that sounded made up with 100K plus salary. With about 150 teachers total, that would be $75 a month increase for every one of those useless administrator and remember in the public education there's 112 administrator for every 100 teachers or 52.8% and they make at least $25k more than the highest paid teacher. Private education has 12 administrators for every 100 teachers or 10.7% and don't come close to ripping off the system with exaggerated overpayment. At least KC did one thing right, they're laying off a great deal more of the fat by having 62% of the lay offs administrative with is nearly 10% higher than the national average.

Here in California, the strain is starting to crack the system. What was once a rich suburban school district, the one I graduated from in 1983, is now on the verge of complete financial ruin. When the town incorporated into a city, they imported city problems including disdaining the productive members of society and embracing the non-productive. Now mainly the non-productive live there bringing the crime and blight that comes with it. They got really hammered during the housing bubble burst. Now, to cut on the costs while avoiding closing those new schools they built, most less than 5 year old, they're going to end all athletics. No football, gymnastics, volleyball, basketball, softball, track, baseball, NADA! Never ever has it been heard that a school is shutting down their athletics department and if you're a student athlete trying to get a athletic scholarship. Well, you're SOL so either they're not going to go to that school or forfeit that option. Many schools are going to end their freshmen programs while cutting the arts, club, and music programs. What's an artist (I had one that had lost his interest in school since they didn't have art anymore), musician, and those interests out of the norm of reading, writing, arithmetic, history or science to do now?

I just recently found out the school that I speak with such esteem . . . ok contempt, has finally succumb to the rumors and reality. The Vallejo School District finally shut the school down. Frankly, for most of the teachers that worked there I feel their pain as I have been going through it for nearly 2 years now, but as for the administration that allowed the school to become the decadent institution that it was, I have no sympathy and find that in the darkness of this crisis, there is some ream of justice as those administrators did get their pinks as well. Most of the teachers, so far, will most likely find work else where, especially those in the math and sciences, but who will want to hire over priced administrators from a district that let gangs run wild? As well as for how much longer as the school districts go through more and more shrinkage? Not even in Detroit since they shut down 27 schools of their own though with 172 left, they haven't gone to the extreme KC has, but will you want to bring more of what's bringing you down and for how much longer can they avoid their shrinkage? Who knows.

I figured the public education system was in trouble. Nobody with a brain that actually works can deny that. What is surprising me is that despite the economic turmoil, I'm shocked that it's happening so radically so quickly. I guess I overestimated the government ability to keep the illusion any further as well as underestimated the school district's ability to face reality. The biggest question will be what will the governments and citizen will do about it. I find more and more are opting for home schooling. Given how the dangerous and dysfucntional nature of many of the schools are, that's a wise decision. The corrupt teacher's union that does nothing for the students, home schooling is gaining traction. One thing for sure, as budgets get more and more anemic, just crowding more students into fewer classroom isn't going to hold for much longer as it breeds more unsafe and disruptive environments. Given how all the arts, those subjects that gave us the education to have something after the 9 to 5 jobs, are now all but gone and the education system inability to education the few subject matters that they have now, without a major overhaul, this very well could be the beginning of the end of the great public experiment in education.

Monday, March 8, 2010

When you shouldn't bring your child to work.

I've been reading quite a bit about the incident at JFK airport of the child that was given the mic and the order for the planes to take off or go to a radio frequency to controllers for take off. Seems that 2/3rds of the respondent, including some pilots, find in favor of the controller and that no real harm or dangers were presence and that the FAA is overreacting to the whole thing. Frankly, I find such nonchalantness to be not only disgusting, frightening, but down right dangerous. Frankly, I'm often not a fan of government interventions and find we're grossly over regulated, but there are some regulations that are necessary like traffic laws so we don't crash into each other, FCC for transmissions so when we turn our channel on the TV or the dial on the radio, we get the same station every time instead of rivals fighting for it by putting in the largest transmitter. The norm of FAA regulations exists for good reasons. I'm going to tell two true stories and perhaps understand not only do I think the FAA is doing the right thing by suspending this ATC (Air Traffic Controller) which many think is overreaching, but I think he should never work as an ATC ever again nor the pilots that support him.

First has to do with SilkAir, an ATC company for the Swis. In 2002, this company violated regulations and safety protocols when they were allowing some ATC's to take breaks without another to cover their station. Another controller would work both radar screens at the same time. One fateful night, not only was another controller go on a break leaving one controller to work two stations, but maintenance came along and shut down the primary radar. Not a big deal normally, but it will slow down the radar and had another effect that the ATC didn't know about: it shut off the radar immediate collision warning system. Then maintenance shut down the primary phones as well (again, a violation of regulations, you don't do both at the same time as the reason will become apparent) which inadvertly disconnected the backup as well.

While this is going on, a Russian plane heading to Madrid had gone into his range and had been handed off to him. A short time later, a DHL plane, heading to London would appear and was on a collision course at the same altitude. They were several miles apart, and both planes had TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System), so he wasn't worried, but a couple of planes on the other station needed his attention. One need more than he was able to give and he tried to get help, but the phones were out. Once he was done, he noticed the problem which by now the Russian TCAS had detected the DHL plane, but DHL hadn't noticed yet and was given the order to ascend (TCAS give actions to avoid a collision). The ATC gave the command to descent which the Russian's obeyed. By this time another plane needing a lot of attention was radioing on the other station and the ATC attention would be on this plane for the next two minutes. This would end up having tragic results. At this time the DHL TCAS had detected the Russian plane and gave the descent command which they obeyed. Now both planes were descending. The other station was using the radio frequency the plane on the other station and DHL wasn't able to get through to tell him that TCAS has given them a descent. The other plane was also needing too much attention and again the ATC tried to phone for help. Afterwords, the planes were now 60 seconds apart when he noticed the imminent collusion and gave the Russian plane the order to descent, descent immediately. Then a 3rd plane on the other station took his attention away. Thinking he's avoided a collision when actually as DHL still hasn't been able to get through, has sealed their fate as the Russian again obeyed him, not their TCAS which was still telling them to climb. 45 seconds later, both crews saw the unbelievable and horrible truth. The last thing on the cockpit recorders were the Russian caption screaming CLIMB! and the DHL co-pilot screaming DESCENT, DESCENT HARD! But it was too late. The DHL tail sliced into the fuselage of the Russian plane right in front of the wing splitting the Russian plane, with over 40 children on board, in half and tearing off the tail of the DHL and igniting the fuel on the Russian plane. The Russian plane fell right where they were and the DHL plane crashed 4km further. The controller, now his partner has returned, returned to his station only to find the DHL transponder working (the Russian lost theirs when they were sliced in half) and descending out of control. He immediately realized what had happened and fell apart. He left and never worked again (he will be murdered two years later by one of the fathers of the children that died). Because the company ignored some inconvenient regulations, two planes crashed and 67 people died, 40 of them children. Added that there's no guidelines as to what to do if you get conflicting instructions from TCAS, as Western pilots are trained to always obey, and non-western pilots, which it's at their own discretion, this was a disaster waiting to happen.

ATC regulation exists because air flight is a very dangerous and serious business. If something goes wrong, you just can't pull over the road and fix it or pull into a gas station and ask for directions. If something goes wrong, people die. If you think it's all safe and sound on the ground with something as simple as clearance to take off. Well, the worse aviation disaster ever which over 560 people were killed when a KLH plane took off thinking they had clearance while a Pam Am plane was still on the runway. A rare radio phenomenon caused a miscommunication leading the KLH plane to think they had clearance when they didn't and the two planes crashed on the ground. Only 61 people survive and all on the Pam Am. So having an ATC that so callously disdain the seriousness of his position, and the pilots that thought it was cute, let someone, a child no less, play around as if it's a toy shows a serious lack of judgement. Such a lack of judgement cost the lives of 69 people in 1996.

Aeroflot, the Russian national airlines, in 1996 had a major mystery. One of their planes, just 4 months old, had crashed suddenly in the Siberian mountains. There was no distress call made and the plane went from cruising along to disaster in a matter of a minute. Imagine the shock when they found out how the plane crashed.

In Russia, one of the few feats of respect and prestige was to become an airline pilot. Especially after the fall of the Iron Curtain. One such man was the #2 pilot of Aeroflot. 5 hours into a flight from Moscow to Hong Kong, the Captain took his scheduled break, putting the #2 in the captain seat and #3 in the co-pilot seat. A family friend, with #2's two children, a 15 year old son and 13 year old daughter, on their first international flight, decided to play a visit to their father in the cockpit. This man being proud of the industry's new toy was showing it off when he came up with the fateful idea of letting his children sit in the seat and handle the controls. After all, the autopilot was in control. First his daughter and he manipulated the autopilot to make a small turn giving the illusion she was flying the plane and then back on course. Then the same with the son. When done with the turn, the son was still in the pilot seat while he visited the family friend as with co-pilot. The child still had his hand on the wheel. What the pilots didn't know was that the auto-pilot will disengage certain parts of the controls if the controls are manipulated for 30 seconds. Since the son was turn the wheel to the right, the airions disengaged putting the control of the bank of the plane to him. The plane started to bank to the right and since this was at night, the people inside didn't notice. Once the son realized the artificial horizon was showing a bank, the pilots got confused and though they were having an instrumentation problem. That is til it reach 45 degrees and the truth hit them. Ask a physic student what happens when a plane going 500km/hr is banked at 45 degrees. You get what is known as G forces. The plane at this bank and speed is now undergoing 2G's. Everyone now feels twice their weight. The co-pilot can't reach the controls and the captain can't get to his seat and the child can't get out. They can't get him to correct the bank and when the plane hits 60 degrees, the plane finally stalls and the autopilot completely disengages. The G forces comes to an end, but now the plane is diving straight down to the ground, the co-pilot, who now got his hands on the wheel pulls the plane up, but does it too hard and the plane stalls again and falls. The captain and co-pilot again gradually pull the plane up, but they run out of altitude and crash into the mountains. 67 people are dead because a father thought it would be fun to let his two children think they were flying the plane only to have one really did and lose control. What makes this story more tragic is that the 757 has an anti-stall device. All they had to do was let go of the wheel and the anti-stall device would had automatically pull out of the dive, but the pilots didn't know this.

The gist is that regulations, in aviation anyways, are in place for a very good reason. About 80% are written in blood because it took disasters like these for us to realize the potential dangers. When they're ignored, too often tragedy strikes and since 70% of disasters are caused by human error, disregarding them and claiming there's no danger and then criticizing the regulatory agency for reacting isn't just rebellious, it's stupid. Just ask those on Value jet 582 about regulation violations that aren't of any real dangers. That is til a fire that wasn't suppose to be possible burned down the plane. Midland 5412 when 7 steps of a rudder control cable wasn't followed and that misalignment cause the plane to stall and crash into a hanger (as well as faulty assumptions about average weight). Alaska Airlines failing to following maintenance regulations that caused the failure of the horizontal stabilizer which cause the plane to crash into the pacific ocean. When one disregards regulations in this industry, they're placing people in unnecessary risk and to have people criticize those that take those risk seriously and claim they're too harsh on those that don't just shows not only a great deal of ignorance, but are a danger to the traveling public. Anyone one with such contempt or ignorance of those risk in my personal opinion, isn't suited to work in the industry. So not only do I think the suspension is right, I think the controller shouldn't ever work again. As for those pilots that support him. I hope they lose their wings. After all, if it's ok for the child to be in the ATC tower, why shouldn't I believe they think it's ok for them to be in the cockpit and I know where that can lead to.

Friday, March 5, 2010

The nuking of our constitution: The Nuclear Option.

As Obama and the democrats (or as I like to call most of them, demoncrats) are willing to do whatever it takes to advance their socialist agenda, they're now threatening to use the "nuclear option" of making it part of the budgetary process of reconciliation and have it pass in the senate by a 50% plus one (which in a tie of 50/50 is the vote of the Vice President). It seem that calling such a tactic the "nuclear option" is by far the most accurate and honest statement that I've heard since Obama got elected. For using such a tactic to get a horrid bill pass over the will and desire of the electorate is not only totalitarian in nature, but is an out and out assault on our constitution. As I stated earlier on how the "birther" issue is a constitutional valid as many thought it to be outdated and unnecessary, is now going to get another far more serious lesson on constitutionalism and how we're letting our constitutional republic die right from under out noses.

The big issue is that the democrats, with 59 votes (provided that Brown or Snowe doesn't vote with the democrats) don't have enough votes to stop a GOP filibuster. It's been traditional, as well as the founders intent, to have a super majority to bust debate in the senate, unlike in the house which just goes to up or down votes with 50% plus one need to move on. More on that later. Though the senate responsibilities have several differences than the house, say confirmations, when it came to law making, the super majority requirement was to be its staple.

When things were being ironed out during that "illegal" constitutional convention, much of the heat was over how the legislative branch was to be designed. The Judicial and Executive were easy enough (other than how justices would be enough), the congressional weren't. Should it be determined by the states and state rights or should it be based on population and the whims of the majority. The founding fathers wanted the government to be responsive to the electorate, but didn't want it to fall to the tyranny of the majority. After all, they knew a majority was asking 4 wolves and 3 sheeps what's going to be for dinner. In the house, the bill to make the sheeps the dinner would pass. In the senate where, originally, 67%, or two out of three must agree to move on to vote on the bill, the three sheeps can say wait a sec, we need to debate this some more. The senate was to be where the great deal of empathizes was to be placed on the debate of the validity of bills and laws. This was the keystone difference that was compromised by the founding fathers to have the government be responsive to the population (by the house of representatives) and have a check against the passion and tyranny of the majority against minority rights or by the states (after all, Rode Island's interests can be overwhelmed by New York's if only based on population).

A few changes, for the worse it seemed, had been made since the ratification of our constitution. First, the misguided 17th amendment that has the senators elected by the populace instead of the state legislatures as it was originally intended. The intent of the 2 chamber congress was to have populace, then state rights interests behind the passage of our bills. When the 17th amendment came along, that changed. If anyone is willing to take a look at history, state rights started to decline when this amendment was passed. State interests were superseded by the populace because now our senators are elected the same way as our representatives and thus tend to convey the interest of the day of the populace instead of the interests of the states they were "selected" to represent. If those of a state didn't care for how the senators were representing them, they would change their state government. Now, the state government doesn't even factor in, eliminating the purpose the senate was created for in the first place.

The other change was when the senate rules were changed to allow for 60 votes instead of 67 that was originally intended. The senate was were the real debate of the merits of a bill was to be made. After all, it was the intent that the senate be the "wiser" of the chambers. That's why they get 6 year terms because they can weather out the current fade or administration's agenda should it proved to be counter to the interests of the states. Thus a super majority was required to provide debate and scrutiny of a bill and said passage is based on "wisdom" over "passion". Now, its watering down has set a precedence that the scrutiny of our bill doesn't need to have as much of the wisdom as in the past (not to say some bill didn't have their share of foolishness). It set up the means of one party to gain a power grab should it find the restrictiveness of the rule to be a hindrance of passing any radical agenda of either party. That what, and I can't believe I'm quoting the man but this one time he was right, Joe Biden was referring to when the Republicans were threatening the same thing over Clinton's judicial nominee's when the Republicans threaten the nuclear option to force a nay vote on his appointees. Biden called it a power grab by the Republicans. Now that it's his party in power, it's suddenly ok.

The gist is this, if we allow this nuclear option through, we're just allowed the nuclear annihilation of the constitution. The two chambers will really become one because with the 50% plus one in the senate, how is it really any different than the house (with a few exception like confirmations)? To whom interests are they really serving, the state's they're now elected to represent, or the passions of the day of the populace that designed to be represented in the house. Without the means to debate and scrutinize bills like this horrid health care bill that nobody has bother to read, much less understand, to pass based on the whim we need to do something, then what's next? Take away our guns (2nd amendment be damned and figure to be outdated anyways!), forced to care for illegals, anyone with opposing views of the "one" be guilty of hate speech or even thoughts. How does this differ from the old Soviet Union when one party was in control of the lawmaking (as it will become with this option?).

I remember when Obama was elected of a editorial cartoon that showed him taping together the constitution. It was in reference how he's going to restore constitutional government over the perceived violations that George Bush enacted. I thought how ironic since he's the most anti-constitutionalists candidate ever to become elected. He may not even had been born here (he's still hasn't produce proper proof and spent over a million dollars to deny that proof) which would mean his very election has set the foundation of the destruction because the passion of the day was that the natural born citizen provision of the constitution was outdated anyways. If anything, if he was born here, it shows the comtempt he has for the constitution by denying his records to be seen. Now he's set with his party to annihilate another provision. How many more of our constitutional protections are we willing to tolerate? Or we just going to become like the "One" and believe the constitution has too many "negative liberties". Only to find out in a couple of years that we voted and became complacent to losing our freedoms. As I watch what's unfolding, I've come to an Epiphany about what Obama really meant when he said he rather have one good term than two bad ones. He rather see the Democrats and him get crucified by the voters, if he leaves as a legend as the man that turned our constitutional republic into a so called democratic socialist state. Well, the nuclear option will pave the way.

Monday, March 1, 2010

What it means to be a conservatives.

Zo on the Zonation has a good clip about what it means to be a conservative. One of the question my children and my wife ask me is, "what's the difference between a liberal and a conservative?". I often found easy to define liberals, basically, having freedoms without responsibility. They all for freedom without suffering any consequences for said freedom, so they have money without work, be unproductive and have the government use by the force of the gun take money from the productive so as to be "fair", have sexual relations and abort any consequences, have gay sex and claim AIDS is a bigoted disease caused by a lack of caring and government intervention against homophobic bigots, give health care for those that don't contribute. When it comes to what makes a conservative, that question has proven to be a bit more difficult to define because, unlike liberals, they have certain moral standards and traditions that define what makes a conservative, even by liberals, but since every one have different morals standards (thanks liberal education system), determining these rules and standards can be challenge. This is why liberals think they're so morally superior. Since they have no morals, they can't be called hypocrites and with the most corrupt congress in history can honestly make the claim they're running the most ethical congress in history. Since they have no ethics, a lack thereof makes them ethical (don't use their logic, you'll just go crazy. They go by the "because I said so" mentality).

Basically, politically, what makes a conservative is those that want to conserve the original meaning that is defined in the Declaration of Independence, that the government only exist by the consent of the government, that we all have inalienable rights endowed by our creator to per sue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Basically freedom with responsibility. If one takes a look at what those that the media, education system, and the political arena define as a conservative person, the person is viewed as holding long held tradition view of the above principals and liberals sees such traditional views as ancient, outdated, and archaic. A prime example was a man that joked about a petition to end Freedom of Speech and how many signed with the agreement that it's an outdated concept that has no need in the modern world.

Conservatives belief in the scanty of life. That's what the founding fathers meant when they said that we have the inalienable right to life. We have a right to live and that government don't have the right to take the life of innocent. If anyone understand history and law that murder is viewed as a violation of a person right to life. Murders forfeit their right to life when they violate that right of other individuals. This is how it's been historically as well as in the Bible. However, we life in a time where right to life is defined by how it's valued by the government and each individuals relative morals. One of the fundamental foundations of conservatives is the right to life and that right can't be inpuned. Those that infringe on that right forfeit of their right. Liberals believe in the opposite. That's why they believe in abortion used as birth control, defending the lives or killers and terrorists. Heck, it's the real reason why they want to take over health care: the power of life and death. Conservatives believe that if one doesn't take a life, the life of innocents are to be protected. This is why the abortion debate won't go away, why they oppose government control health care, why they support gun rights to protect our right to life, and actually, the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendment was designed to protect the right to life among the next principal.

The next, the right to liberty. Liberty is a loaded word because if you ask 1000 people on the street what does liberty means, you'll get 1000 different answers. I'm going with the founding father's main believe and this is the one that conservatives hold true, freedom from government intervention when it comes to mandates other than the protection of life and property. The main property to be protected is our right to our hard earned cash, money, mucho dinero. One of the most violent acts a person can do to another is take their money from them. If one wants to find the most fundamental flaws of socialism is that it's based on the concept that the government has a right and obligation to take one man's money and give it to another. Now some taxes are necessary because the government can't protect life and property without funding. When the government tax, it does so with the force of the gun. It was suppose to be by willing participant who pay so as to live in a civilized society, but lets face it, nobody is going to agree all the time what should be tax and how should it be spent. However, taxes for protection of the right to life and property is needed and necessary. It's when people are forced to give up their money for programs other than said protection. When a productive man is forced to give up their money so a non-productive, the lazy, the criminal, are to get a "fair share". How is that different than the said persons just get a gun and forced the productive to give it up because they simply want money? Conservatives are for limited government and low taxes because their fundamental value is that people should be free to spend their money on what they see fit. You want to see a prime example how people become poor, desuetude, and slaves to the powers to be, just go to a socialist or totalitarian society. They often have high and oppressive tax bases and not to build roads or schools, or to protect their life and property, but to fill the powers to be pockets. Life and liberty and their protection can often be seen on the size of the government and their tax base. This is why conservatives believe in low taxes and limited government.

As for the pursuit of happiness, there's often a misconception that that pursuit should find what it is a person seek. This is the freedom with responsibility comes in. One is entitle to the PURSUIT. Today, though, that pursuit is no longer the right, but the consequences. We believe, fallaciously, that every pursuit should have equal results, finding happiness. This is why modern politics try to make everything "fair". They mandate equal results and if the results isn't equal it's because someone took it from them. Often is different people have different desire, talents, skills, intelligence, traits, etc. What makes one person happy may make another miserable. The limited government is the cornerstone to the this right. However, what we have is that if everything doesn't turn out as we wish, we ask the government to intervene. If one wants a prime example, just look at the lawsuit crisis we have here. People get sued over the dumbest things and now is making so much of economic activity so expensive, that people are now having a harder time pursuing their happiness. Playgrounds are disappearing for example, because if a child gets hurt, they sue and get money. I remember when I first learn to ride a bike or skate and I got hurt at first, but now I can enjoy (my pursuit of happiness) to ride or skate. Now with our desire to have a perfect utopia we outlaw many items at play ground because of lawsuit issues. A doctor take too many test and we're in danger of the industry because costly and scarce because nobody wants to go into the profession because they're target of greedy and frivolous lawsuits. The one that makes me shake my head was a woman that sued her insurance company because after paying 10 times for an IVF procedure and failing and it was determined she's a poor candidate for a successful IVF, the company tired of paying for it (at $100,000 a pop), found it no longer productive to go through with it. The woman statement shows how far from the original meaning we've distanced ourselves from. She stated that she's entitled to a baby and the insurance company is denying her that baby. We're entitled to pursuit of happiness, we're not guarantee to find it. When we have a government that's mandate such equity and utopia, that's when we get into trouble. Conservatives believe a person has the right to pursuit happiness, but not the government to guarantee or mandate it.

Now do conservatives agree on how to achieve these goals? No. There's a story of two brothers in the Bible that didn't agree how to spread the word of Christ. Now did that mean they weren't a part of God's organization? No, just different how to do so. However, when one based one goals and objective on the principal of Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, they tend to be conservative. When on base it on everything should be equal all the time and every individual is entitled to their own moral compass with an entitlement of no consequences for their actions, then they tend to side as liberal. Or to put it beast as I can. The conservative believe that an individual is entitled to be free as long as they're responsible and held accountable for the consequences as we don't live in a perfect world. Liberals believe in utopia if everyone is forced to have equal consequences for unequal input, productivity, and moral foundations (which is no morals, no violations). Or as I see it, conservatives believe in individualism, while liberals in totalitarianism.