The innocuous-sounding "Cap and Trade" bill wending its way through congress presents a timely opportunity for a discussion of the larger topic of environmentalism.
Cap and Trade is designed to inflict so much pain on consumers that, according to the liberal theology, they will respond with energy conservation and demand their power companies provide cheaper energy from government-endorsed "clean and renewable" sources.
The party in power, led by the recently crowned President, have declared a global crisis, which was first trumpeted by their former Vice-President and environmental activist Al Gore, as "Global Warming". Due to recent inconvenient climate cooling trends, the crisis has been re-labeled "Global Climate Change".
The message to all of is goes something like this: We Americans are living too high on the hog. We use too much energy, in fact way more than our share. We live in houses that are too big, drive vehicles that guzzle too much petroleum, buy too much unnecessary stuff from industries that spew pollution into the atmosphere. Our spoiled behavior is wrecking the planet, and it's far past time for the government to step in and force us to be good stewards of the environment.
Shrinking polar ice caps will raise the sea level and cause whole coastal states to slip beneath the waves. Catastrophic storms, failed crops, mass extinctions of flora and fauna, and other unspoken consequences will make the planet uninhabitable.
Anyone with the temerity to argue with these self-righteous "greens" is a member of the flat-earth society. They're called "ignorant", "oil company toadies", and "Climate Change Deniers". The science on this subject is "settled", and no competent climate scientist would dare challenge the tenets of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The topic holds some interest for me, so I've tried to learn whatever I can. I'm certainly no climate scientist, and am willing to approach the whole environmental topic with an open mind. I certainly think it's a good idea to do what we can to protect our natural resources, keep our water and air clean, and protect wildlife.
But the more I delve into the "science" behind the whole climate change question, the more I question the true motives of its proponents. Since a main conclusion I've reached is that those pushing hardest on the Cap and Trade bill are doing so based on a fervor that more resembles a cultish religion than science, I will refer to their crusade as part of the Church of Global Climate Change.
The High Priest of this movement is Al Gore, the former liberal Vice-President who has long carried the environmentalist banner, writing a couple of decades ago something about the most evil invention ever created by the human race being the internal combustion engine.
Now Gore has positioned himself to make billions of dollars when congress passes the Cap and Trade bill, which will make him one of the most powerful individuals in the world. Which seems to be his alternative strategy for achieving such power after losing the Presidency to George W Bush in 2000. While he jets around the world on his private plane and lives it up on his country estate, dwarfing the so-called "carbon footprint" created by about 99.9% of the rest of us, I can't help but suspect he may be more of a false prophet than a High Priest of Global Climate Change.
The other way I evaluate this whole topic is by simply listen to its most ardent disciples. They are appalled at American prosperity, believing it's somehow unfair to the rest of the world. They think it's wrong that Americans can live in nice houses with manicured lawns and raise children in suburbia, ferrying them to soccer matches in the family Suburban.
My conclusion is that while many of these folks may indeed be true believers in the Church of Global Climate Change, they have a larger agenda in mind. They think there are too many people crowding the planet, and want to force the rest of us to limit our families to 1 child. It seems to fit nicely with their equally ardent support of abortion, and many (like Hillary, for example) have admitted an admiration for China's government-enforced one child policy.
They think we all should live in small apartments in the city and ride the train and/or ride a bicycle to and from work every day. They think everyone should make about the same salary, except for their leaders, who somehow deserve special perks and priviledges like those enjoyed by their High Priest because they're such awesome protectors of the environment.
They want the government to provide cradle-to-grave matermalistic oversight in every aspect of our lives, from where we live to where we work to what we eat to what we drive (if we must drive) to what medical care we may or may not receive.
I visited the Soviet Union in the 70's, and interestingly the above describes that society pretty accurately. Rather than go into the human misery and hopelessness I witnessed there, I'll summarize the trip in this manner: It made me appreciate my American way of life in a way I'd never considered before making that trip.
So it's becoming obvious to me that Cap and Trade, along with Healthcare Reform, are not working their way through congress to improve the environment or increase access of Americans to medical care. They are about transforming America from the Land of the Free to the Socialist States of America.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
My Most Popular Postings
If you've stumbled across the blog recently, I got the idea to create this post with the most popular articles to date.
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Far and away my most popular post is the progressive income tax metaphor.
Number 2 seems close, but I'll go with my post on Conflict.
Next, at #3 would be a series of posts about the saga of Barry Huckeby and his brief but interesting stint at Columbus North High School. The series includes the following:
Mystery
The Story Unfolds
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
The Story Gets Stranger
The Controversy Continues
Some Interesting Information on Huckeby
The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close
Number 4 is a post about Fighting Cynicism in today's crazy world.
Number 5 is a football post entitled Friday Night Lights - even though it's rather old, it still gets visited.
The best of the rest go something like this:
Musings on Fiddler on the Roof
A post on our proud and growing group of narcissists who exhibit their narcissism in a quasi-religious fervor.
My own little account of what happened to the characters after the events portrayed in the musical/movie Grease.
Finally, a recent post about the supreme court decision on the Connecticut firefighters and reverse discrimination.
Take a browse through these favorites, or at least any that catch your interest.
Thanks for reading!
Prisms
The story of the Massachusetts cop who arrested the black professor gave us an interesting example of the different prisms people use to look out on the world. What should have been a routine check on a homeowner to make sure his home had not been burglarized became an ugly incident because of the distortion of a predisposed racial prism.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
For the professor, who is perhaps an extreme example of the racial agitator, the incident was all about "racial profiling". For President Obama, who admitted knowing little of the facts of the incident, a knee-jerk reaction caused him to assume the officer acted inappropriately and "stuplidly".
What I gleaned from the underlying facts reported of the event was simply this: The white officer had the misfortune of responding to a suspected burglary call in the wrong residence. A racial activist who harbors an intense hatred for a society and law enforcement community he believes is racist jumped to the conclusion that the officer arrived at his home for no reason other than to harass him because he's black.
Without the racist prism distorting the professor's interpretation of the police officer's motives, he would have simply provided identification, thanked the officer for his concern, and there would have been no incident. Instead, he became enraged and abusive, refusing to provide any identification to the officer and accusing him, loudly and profanely, of racial profiling in assuming he was a burgler in his own home.
The hypersensitivity exhibited in this case by both Professor Gates and President Obama is an unfortunate illustration of what I think may be the biggest problem remaining in race relations. I've observed similar hypersensitivity firsthand, with black folks who immediately assume race is behind any conflict or negative experience when in fact, race played absolutely no role.
I remember years ago some black folks in Washington DC sued Denny's restaurant. Their charge was that Denny's refused to serve them because they were black. When I read about the circumstances surrounding the event, I had to laugh. Because they experienced something I've experienced at least one out of every three times I've ever gone to a Denny's restaurant: bad service. I wasn't laughing at anything related to racism; I was laughing because they simply experienced the same bad service we all get to experience from time to time at Denny's.
Now it may be that Denny's has cleaned up their act and now have consistently great service. I don't know. But back at the time of that incident, it hadn't been a month since I had visited a Denny's, got seated at a table, placed my order with the waitress, and never saw her again. Which is pretty much what those folks used as grounds for suing the restaurant chain.
What will it take to get to a point where we all deal with each other as individuals? Things that happen to us don't necessarily happen because of our outward appearance. I wish everyone could stop using such things as a crutch or an excuse; "I didn't get the job because of age/race/weight/smoking/religious/gender discimination!".
Hate to break it to you, but most of the time you didn't get the job because they hired somebody more qualified. OK, or maybe they hired the boss' nephew. But your age/race/weight/smoking habit/religion/gender had nothing to do with it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Core Values and Healthcare
So the big fuss is about the push led by Obama and his minions to impose a massive government bureaucracy on us all in the name of providing everyone with healthcare.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
If you listen closely and know how to translate the populist rhetoric into real-world objectives, what I've gleaned from the current proposals is discouraging. The Big 3 of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have a government healthcare plan that:
Will cost a trillion dollars minimum.
Has the goal of covering everybody for everything. That includes things some of us don't want our taxes paying for, like illegal alien care, gender reassignment surgeries, abortions, perhaps even those sexual performance enhancer drugs.
Purposely sets up a government program run by Washington bureaucrats that will "compete" with private health insurers. That would seem to mean the program is designed to put private insurers out of business.
Will raise taxes on businesses and the "wealthy" to cover part of the cost.
Won't do anything to reform the system. Real healthcare cost problems like Tort Reform with its related Defensive Medicine practices, inefficient and slow claims processing, even unhealthy behaviors linked to medical problems have no solution in this program.
From my perspective, all this really does is replace private healthcare with a government system. The government taxes us to pay for a new layer of bureucracy that adds to the cost rather than reduces it, transfers all the private profits in the system into the pockets of the political and bureaucrat class, and rations care.
Obama himself suggested that if you're old and sick, rather than saving you with the needed treatment or surgery, his new heathcare czar will issue you some pain medicine and a pat on the head.
May I offer some simple fundamental principles that should drive any so-called "healthcare reform"?
1. I am responsible for my and my family's medical care.
2. To protect myself from financial ruin from a possible major illness or injury, I should be able to buy into a risk pool of my choosing that would cover costs should such a major problem occur for me or my family.
3. I should pay for routine doctor visits, prescriptions, etc., out of my pocket.
4. The government should have no right to even ask whether I have health insurance. If I choose not to carry insurance, the financial risk of that decision is mine alone. Even so, should such a disaster happen to someone in my family, bankruptcy would be the last resort - I would first try everything I can to pay the bills for such care.
5. Non-citizens may pay for their own medical care while in the United States. Not a penny of tax money should be used to care for those who cross the border illegally. Not that they should not receive critical care when needed; but they should be fully liable for the cost. Not me. Not any other citizen of this country.
6. Healthcare providers first and foremost are in the business of treating sick and injured people. It's an individual moral responsibility for every provider to treat such people at reasonable rates.
7. Tort lawyers are responsible for obtaining justice for patients who were victims of real malpractice. The surgeon was drunk, the hospital failed to keep the facility sanitary and caused a massive patient infection, the nurse decided to kill a patient with a lethal dose of some drug. Those are incidents of malpractice that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Not every time a common complication happens with a surgery, or someone was misdiagnosed by an otherwise competent doctor.
When did it become OK for people to demand others take care of them? I seem to remember there was a time in this country when taking charity or welfare was a cause for shame and embarrassment; now it's expected - no, demanded!
These days values are sneered at. Politicians risk their position if they speak the truth.
There is no solution to the healthcare "crisis" as long as nobody cares to take responsibility. We're about to see the "crisis" turn into a meltdown, simply because our narcissistic generation led by our narcissistic President don't even know what the word "values" means.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Questioning Motives
I just saw this article about Jimmy Carter, who has left his Southern Baptist church. For me, it just adds fuel to my increasing speculation about the motives of the broader group of Leftist America in which he values his membership over that of the Baptists.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Sure, the article praises him from the liberal feminist perspective. Without any knowledge of the underlying theology in question, I suppose any ignorant reader would presume that Southern Baptists hold the belief that women must be enslaved, subservient to men, and certainly treated as second-class citizens. The article goes so far as to equate the Baptists with Iran, suggesting they're no better than those Muslims who justify all manner of abuse of the fairer sex as a tenet of their religion.
So Jimmy finds this appalling, thus has used it to justify his departure from the denomination. I notice the article fails to mention whether Jimmy is moving to another congregation more in tune with his liberal sensibilities. Does that suggest he's left the faith altogether?
It would seem so. If he's so profoundly ignorant about the truth of Christian theology, which I can reasonably assume has been adopted by the Southern Baptists because of their tradition on Biblical teaching, then I'm guessing he hasn't been in the pew for a very long time.
The larger question for me parallels nicely with today's healthcare debate. Are these people really so naieve and ignorant that they're willing to destroy the country with a government takeover of the entire healthcare industry? Or do they know exactly what they're doing, and the objective is complete and total domination over all American lives?
The characterizations of the fast-track healthcare overhaul made by the President are so far removed from the obvious ramifications of the actual bill that the same question must be posed even more simply: Is Obama really that naieve about what Congress is trying to foist on all of us, or is he simply an unabashed liar?
It has to be one or the other. If the first, then he's far from qualified to hold such an important office. If the second, then he cannot be trusted with any office.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Simple Solutions
The proposition: Nearly every major issue in America would be solved if only a plurality of the population found a basic moral code.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Healthcare could be solved if
Providers were focused on treating people above getting rich
Insurers were focused on covering everyone for major medical needs rather than the healthy who have no medical needs.
People saw their healthcare as a personal responsibility rather than some sort of government-bestowed "right".
Lawyers focused on justice for patients who were actually harmed by incompetent or irresponsible providers, rather than using the courts to extort massive fees for themselves.
The economy wouldn't be in a shambles if
People learned to live within their means and didn't routinely buy more than they can afford.
Merchants and Dealers focused on selling their products to those who truly need them.
The government learned to live within their means and stopped trying to buy power with taxpayer handouts.
Irresponsible players in both the public and private sectors stopped creating schemes like those that led to the current meltdown.
Crime and Child Abuse wouldn't be such big problems if
People learned to take responsibility for themselves and their families.
Government focused social programs on helping people get on their feet instead of incenting them permanent dependents.
People adopted simple monogamy and respected the institution of marriage and the nuclear family.
Employers provided reasonable living wages and family-friendly work environments.
Employers stopped importing foreign workers for the sole purpose of driving down payroll expenses.
Government stopped taxing middle-class families into poverty.
The pattern emergine here is simple and obvious. A moral society is the simplest solution to all of today's problems.
But we're no longer a moral society. Obviously, nearly everyone with power and wealth are focused on maintaining such regardless of how that focus impacts the lives of others.
So these problems will not be solved by the Left's strategy, which is to accumulate power into their hands through a huge, expensive, and oppressive government.
Nor will they be solved by the Right's purported strategy, which is to globalize and consolidate mega-corporate industry for maximization of profit for the captains of industry.
What I understand is this: fixing the excesses of the big-business Right by massive government takeovers merely shifts the same unhealthy power into different hands. Giving big business unfettered license to consolidate their megalopolies destroys competition and living standards for the working class.
The only model that works is a free market with moral players. Government can't enforce morality, but they can enforce antitrust and immigration laws. Small businesses that value employees and focus on providing products and services that benefit people I strongly believe are truly the most successful.
Unfortunately, the unmeasured morality factor is the most important of all the economic indicators. And that measure, by all appearances, may be reaching an all-time low for this great country that has forgotten its founding principles.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
How to Solve the Gay Marriage Problem
This is my brilliant plan for solving the Gay Marriage problem in a way that may not please anybody, but at the same should stop the public argument about the subject.
It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.
The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.
Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.
You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship. Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).
You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.
If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.
If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.
So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.
I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.
It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.
It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.
Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.
It's simply this: Take the institution of Marriage away from the government.
The idea is to eliminate all the government benefits extended to married couples, thus putting the whole institution back where it belongs; as a sacramental commitment.
Suppose you could file a joint tax return with any other adult, where there's no reference to "Married filing jointly", just merely "Filing jointly". You could file jointly with a parent, sibling, spouse, or roommate - the government doesn't care.
You buy your insurance for yourself only or yourself plus one other adult. The other adult could be anybody, as long as he or she lives in your household. Even more importantly, whether or not you and the other adult are having sex is irrelevant to the relationship. Employers would provide health insurance options for Employee Only, Employee Plus One Adult, or Employee Plus Family (including one adult).
You can name anybody you want in your will, partner with anybody you want for all financial transactions, even name anybody you want as a surviving beneficiary for your Social Security death benefits.
If you have children, you will always be financially responsible for them. Whether you are married to the other parent or not. That goes for adopted as well as natural children.
If you live with someone under a spousal-type arrangement, a civil contract must be in place that defines what happens if the two of you split up. Then instead of divorce court, the only legal activity would be suits brought by one party or the other to enforce the civil contract - whatever it says.
So churches remain free to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex "marriages". Everyone else is free to decide for themselves whether to enter into the civil and sacramental marriage contract.
I do think adoption agencies should be free to decide their own screening process for adoptive parents. If an agency discriminates against single adoptive parents or same-sex partners or wierd people, that's their right.
It won't make the gay activists happy, because for some of them the agenda is less about an actual "marriage right" and more about getting government to force those who think it's aberrant to shut up and give them preferencial treatment.
It may not make religious conservatives happy, who believe traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the foundation of a moral and harmonious society. But they can't argue that this plan forces them to support gay marriage in any specific way.
Wouldn't this make for an interesting debate? I know, dream on.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Irrational Hatred
I had an interesting conversation with someone this week about the divisiveness and hatred apparent in the political system. We agreed that each side of the political divide strive to paint their opponents as evil personified.
Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.
The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?
Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.
Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?
Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?
From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.
Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.
Naturally, the first case in point was President Bush, who was demonized by the Left even when he did things they would otherwise support. Also noted is the hypocrisy, as we recalled, the Left was apoplectic with the terrorist surveillance program, which they were absolutely certain was designed to listen in on their Bush-hating telephone rants with like-minded irrationals. But now that their messianic president has Homeland Security openly surveilling "potential terrorists" like pro-lifers, NRA members, and, well, conservatives, they agree wholeheartedly.
The latest example is Sarah Palin. We agreed that leftist hatred for her and its accompanying meanness is baffling. What is it about the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska that sends left-wingers and especially radical feminists off the cliff?
Interestingly, when she abruptly announced her resignation from the governorship of Alaska, the usual kooky lefts in the blogs and MSNBC automatically dreamed up all sorts of nasty fantasies in explanation. Which of course are all patently false, but when has that ever stopped folks like the straightjacket-needing Olberman.
Even David Letterman famously got in the act, trashing Palin at every turn with unfunny "jokes" and crossing the line with a particularly crude one about her daughter. What exactly is it about Sarah that drives even Dave running down the road to the funny farm?
Does the hatred come from her looks? That she's demonstrated solid pro-life values? That she's attractive? Could it be it's just because she's conservative?
From Katie Couric to Dave Letterman to the entire lineup on MSNBC to even some Republican pundits, the mere mention of Sarah makes veins pop out on their foreheads and vile words pour out of their mouths.
Maybe it's a female thing we men (at least conservative or moderate men) will never understand. I sure don't.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Hill Responds
So I got an answer from congressman Hill on my letter pleading with him to vote against the Cap & Trade bill. If anybody happens to read this and got the same letter, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment and let me know. I really want to know whether this was a response to my letter or a form letter he sent to everybody.
Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?
Dear Mr. S******,
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.
It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.
I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.
Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.
Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.
I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.
Draw your own conclusions on the main question; is he a "true believer", had his head turned by The Great and Powerful OB, been threatened by Boss Pelosi, or all of the above?
Dear Mr. S******,
Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important matter.
We cannot continue to push the issue of addressing climate change onto future generations. It would be a complete shirking of my responsibilities as your Member of Congress to do that. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is currently moving forward to regulate green house gases as a pollutant, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA.
It is important that Congress set up a reasonable system to regulate emissions from all sectors of our economy, and ensure that targets and timetables included are feasible. Yes, this is a complex issue, and with something of this magnitude the details are absolutely critical. In fact, the original proposal was simply not achievable for Indiana. But, I worked with the Committee to significantly change the bill into a more realistic plan, and that process will continue as the bill moves through Congress. I believe that, although it is not currently a perfect product, the issue is too important to stop the legislative process.
I believe we made several important improvements to the draft. First, in order to cushion our transition to a clean energy economy, the majority of allowances were given to affected industries. These allowances, given to regulated entities, will ensure that prices do not spike and that companies do not receive windfall profits. Second, manufacturing industries will be compensated for their cost of compliance, and countries that do not adopt green house gas standards will face trade consequences from the United States to ensure the continued competitiveness of American manufacturing. Third, the original renewable energy standard was not practicable for Indiana, but it was moderated to a level at which Indiana can achieve results.
Regarding the details, I have worked diligently to safeguard the taxpayers' of Southern Indiana from being unfairly penalized by the bill. For example, I secured language in the legislation that will allow waste-to-energy to count as a source of renewable energy, thus making the overall Renewable Electricity Standard more attainable for Indiana. In addition, I was able to get a provision in the bill that develops a rebate program to make the purchase of energy-efficient manufactured homes more affordable and accessible.
Southern Indiana possesses the tools to play a key role in this process, and I believe our manufacturing base will attract clean energy jobs. Technological advances in clean energy, such as carbon capture and storage technology, can and will be exported all over the world. Our agriculture community will play a vital role in offsetting green house gases, and will also play a crucial role in cost containment. Finally, our universities, such as Indiana University, are well poised to be at the leading edge of our technological future.
I have been in touch with stakeholders in Southern Indiana, working to ensure that our goals and aspirations in this bill are both well intentioned and achievable. I am happy to report that a major power supplier in Indiana is supportive of the bill continuing to make its way through the legislative process. Again, this bill is at the start of a long process. I look forward to making additional improvements to this bill that will strengthen protections for Hoosier families, our agriculture community and local industries.
Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please feel free to call me at 202.225.5315 if you have any further questions or comments. If you would like to receive periodic email updates on my Congressional activities, please visit http://baronhill.house.gov.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)