Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
That’s probably a good headline to repeat a few times with some roman numerals after it, if ever there was one. After all, the old tried-and-not-quite-true “What the hell is the matter with you people, why do you hate America and manhood so fucking much?” hasn’t yielded much by way of results, nor is it likely to.
Here’s an argument that’s proven quite effective though:
Think back on the behavior of our democrat leaders these last few months, particularly the ones that want to nationalize our health care system. Obviously, they don’t just kinda-sorta want to nationalize our health care system; they want to do this really extra bad. If they could piss rusty nickels and that would get the job done, well, what are we waiting for and hand over that can of rusty nickels.
Now, why do they want to do this? Is it to get health care services and other resources to “the thirty million uninsured”? Or is it 37 million? Forty-to-forty-five million? Well, this is a little bit of a problem, that the number keeps changing, because last I heard they were estimating after all the dust has hit the ground this wonderful health care plan would only cover about half of those who are uncovered right now. So we’d still have tens of millions of “uninsured.” We can’t even nail down how many we have before the bill, so how do we look backward after the bill, and declare the effort a success?
Is it going to be like the Stimulus Bill, in which nobody can really nail down how many jobs were “created or saved”? But when nine pairs of shoes get sold that must represent nine jobs? Creative accounting like that?
But that’s not the point, really.
The point is that this stuff hasn’t been discussed in a very long time. I mean, like since about Labor Day. Yeah, I just got a letter from one of my hippie liberal aged wrinkly female senators, telling me what to think about health care, in response to me telling her how she should vote on health care (which is the way I think it should work). She made some vague, unenthusiastic rhetoric about providing health care to millions who don’t have it…but it was all passionless boilerplate. Probably written a year ago.
I see one of these new-age blowhards on the teevee, I don’t hear a single word about providing coverage to people. Haven’t you noticed this? I’ve mentioned it many times since Thanksgiving. It’s all about winning; beating those “other guys.”
Making sick people well hasn’t had anything to do with anything for a very long time.
And I see this right now. Scott Brown just got elected to the Senate and this scuttles, or at least body-slams, the prospect of passing anything that has been churning around under the capitol dome with regard to health care. So what do we — “we” meaning democrats — do about this?
Well, let’s see. The democrats still have 59 seats in the Senate. Here on Planet Earth, if you want to provide coverage to uninsured people and you think yet one more leviathan of a federal program is the way to get it done, you start over. And your goal will be to produce something appealing to a majority of the House, all of the democrats in the Senate, and maybe one or two Republicans in the upper chamber. Maybe three or four to be extra safe about it.
That is what you’d do if it was about health care and not about grabbing power, making the citizenry of the USA more dependent on the few anointed luminaries who happen to be sitting in elected and appointed seats. If it was really about the first of those rather than the second, that is what you’d do.
That is not what they’re doing.
Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.
The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill – a move that would preserve President Barack Obama’s vision of a sweeping health reform plan.
But the move comes with political risk, because it would open Democrats up to charges that they pressed ahead with roughly the same health care bill that voters appeared to reject in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won on a pledge to try to block Obama-style health reform.
The effort also puts Reid and Pelosi on the side of giving a sweeping reform bill one more try, instead of adopting a course being floated by some Democrats in Congress and at the White House of adopting a scaled-back bill including popular reform provisions.
This is not about getting people the medicine they need, or the services they need, or “providing” any kind of a “public option.” It is about changing the tenor and tone of a country. It is about breaking the spirit of that country, as if it was a horse.
It is about quitting your day job as a representative in a constitutional republic, and taking out a sinister new job as a creepy feudal overlord. Just like an apparatchik of the old Soviet Union, or a thuggish dictator like Hugo Chavez. A master who presumes to tell his “subjects” how to eat, how to walk, when to go to the bathroom, what they like, who they hate, what their favorite color is.
It may not be an effective argument to point out that this country was started precisely to put an end to that kind of slavish dependency.
But it certainly does work, to point out the evidence that clearly indicates: This is not about providing you affordable health care.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.