24thState

BlogNetNews Take Me Off Your Feed

If you're reading this on BlogNetNews.com, you're reading stolen content.  Dave Mastio of Blog Net News has scraped this blog, and that of hundreds of other blogs, without express permission.  If you are a Missouri political blogger and don't want someone taking your content without permission, e-mail dave at editor@blognetnews.com and tell him to remove your site.

I'm sending the e-mail to him now - and leaving this post as a the top post until it's removed.   More on why this is wrong, and how other bloggers are fighting back at State of Discontent.

Tax And Medical Records Are Too Much

Barack Obama released his tax records for the last six years.  I know this has become a standard practice - a way for the press corps to pour over a story and find out if someone is a hypocrite, or hiding shady money, but it strikes me as fairly silly.

I feel the same way about medical records.  I think both tax and medical records, the private ones, should be kept private.  If a candidate for office is involved in something illegal - he or she is not going to release their records, and for those who just want to keep some things private, the idea that not releasing your records shows you have something to hide is deeply offensive to privacy advocates.

I want to know how a candidate is going to act in office.  I will judge them on their words and actions, and if they have some spectacular failure aka Elliot Spitzer (a criminal matter), I want to know about it.

But sometimes TMI is TMI.  I don't want to  know if John McCain has prostrate trouble or when the last time Hillary was checked for ovarian cancer.  I don't want to know how much Obama gave to his church, or what Nancy Pelosi pays in private school tuition.

At some point, the American public, and politicians, are going to have to say, enough is enough, and mean it.  All it does is drive competent people out of the public sphere and leave only the truly virtuous (of which there are none), and the ones that are great at lying to run the place.

For all the hype about President Clinton, I think the nation would have been better off if we had never heard about Monica Lewinsky.  If the Clintons hadn't been worried about how it would have appeared, Bill might not have lied on the stand about his relationship or worked to have Vernon Jordan give Lewinsky a job as hush money.

We could blame the press for making this an issue - but they only write about it because it sells papers.  So enough already. 

Do Democrats Pay A Fair Wage?

I don't buy the argument that women are paid less than men.  The information tends to be anecdotal, and when you account for choice, experience and occupation, the idea that women get paid $.75 for each dollar a man earns turns out to be false.

As someone very familiar with salary negotiation, I can tell you that if it were true, all business would be staffed with women, and men would be jobless.  No one in their right mind would pay men more for equal work.

Some people feel women are underpaid, and the topic is regular on Lisa's blog.  It's worth debating, and certainly in corporations where this is true, it should be stopped (usually by the women going to places where they are better paid), but what strikes me as odd is the story from DeeDee Myers about Leon Panetta in her new book, Women Should Rule The World.

In one particularly wince-worthy story, she tells of stomping into chief of staff Leon Panetta's office upon learning that she made even less than a deputy in another office, a man with far less responsibility and lower rank than she. She demanded a $10,000 raise. Panetta flatly refused. His reasons: the guy took a pay cut to leave his previous job as a lawyer. "Plus, he has a family," Panetta said.

These are Democrats.  These are serious Democrats.  These are the household names of Democrats.  If the Democratic Party, champion of women everywhere, can't pay a woman a fair wage - what chance have the rest of us got?

Or maybe...Democrats are so hyped up about protecting women because they are the ones guilty of harming them.  Think about it - Leon Panetta - Bill's right hand man - won't give a woman a raise because she's a woman?  Where was Hillary Clinton in all of this?  Bill was a champion of women's rights - supposedly - how could this happen from one of his top advisors?

Two reasons:

1) Democratic support for women's rights is focused solely on the right to kill an unborn child. That's what women's rights means, and everything else is lip service (which explains the pass given to Clinton and Spitzer).

2) Hillary's pitch to clean up the nation for women - the basis of her campaign, lacks substance, as she couldn't even effect change in her husband's White House. 

Leon Panetta is currently a Hillary supporter.  Will there be a place for him in the Neo-Clinton Administration?

Woman Shot By Burglar While Calling 911

One of the fundamental rights of a free people is the right to self-defense.  When someone threatens to harm you or yours, the ability to respond in kind is hard-wired into cultures that plan to survive.  We've learned throughout history that those who wish to take from you cannot be stopped by words.  They must be met with violence.

If you cannot defend your life, and the life of your family, then you have no rights. Life is the first principle espoused in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, because without life, there is nothing else for you.

This is why those who want to enforce gun control on others are so dangerous.  A gun gives any person the ability to even physical differences.  A gun in the hand of a 90 year old woman is her only defense against a young, physically tough 20 year old who wishes to threaten her.  A gun gives the weak and the frail a means of defense for their life.

When you hear arguments for gun control, they center on three points.

1) it's the job of the police to keep you safe, as they are trained to do so.
2) Having guns increases the supply, making it easy for criminals to get guns
3) Having citizens not trained in gun use is dangerous, either from children getting guns, so-called cowboys shooting people, and having criminals taking guns from you to use on you.

1) Calling 911 won't protect you if the burglar is in your home.  from Cato. 
A woman was asking a 911 dispatcher for help when her pleas were interrupted by gunshots, then silence. She was shot to death.

2) Criminals already have guns. The only way to make this argument is to get rid of all guns, except those carried by police and the military.  Stripping a populace of guns is the type of thing that totalitarian rulers do before they take power.  Is it really a good idea to disarm a population?  Once you've done it, there's no going back.   And what do you do with hunters, sport shooting, and collectors?  For a government that says it can't find and deport illegal aliens, it seems a bit of a stretch to say you're going to disarm over a tens of millions of gun owners.

3) Rights come with responsibilities. If a citizen owns a gun, they have a responsibility to know how to use it.  This includes being able to shoot it, store it safely (away from children), and use it to defend yourself.  Laws preventing criminals, the mentally ill, and those who can't pass basic safety course are fine, but saying that no one can own a gun because some people are irresponsible is like saying no one can drive a car because some people drink.

Gun use and ownership is a hot topic, because many people are terrified of the idea of guns.  They don't need to own them.  But the worst thing we can do, is take away our basic right to defend ourselves because some people are scared.

Next thing you know, we'll be banning food because some people eat too much of it.

Obama's Speech

I get it folks.  Those of you who have sent me notes telling me to read Obama's speech and understand how wonderful he is, are well-intentioned.  And I understand that your soul cries out for someone who is intelligent, caring, decent, and focused on moving the nation forward.

Barack Obama is not that person.   And that's okay - because no presidential candidate will ever be, or should ever be the leader who fixes all of our problems. This is my fundamental problem with the Democratic Party.  They're begging for someone to come along and right the world's ills. 

How naive (or desperate) do you have to be to expect a politician to fix your problems? Politicians don't solve problems - they get elected.  The good ones make you feel like they are really listening to you (anyone remember Bill Clinton?), and then go on to do whatever ensures that they remain popular and get elected next time. 

I don't want a candidate who solves the racial problem in this country.  I want a country that solves their racial problems by themselves, and if a politician gets to take some credit for it, well, we let them have the parade, but we know the truth.

Obama's speeches may by grand, but his solutions are the same told tired statist solutions that don't work.  We will be less safe, less wealthy, and less united if we elect him.

I see Obama speak, and it reminds me of the women who stay with men who cheat on them.  The man may say sweet things - he may tell her he loves her and that other people are just jealous.  But she hopes he will change.  She hopes he will make things better.  She lies to herself, because she wants so badly to have someone tell her it's going to be alright.

Barack is clearly just another politician who tells you what you want to hear.  He's a chameleon, someone who believes what you need him to believe.  If you vote for him, its your choice.  Just don't try to pretend that he is any different than the rest of them.

Would You Elect Jeff Smith As Vice President Of The US?

You like the title?  I have nothing against the Jeff Smith, but if you're going to elect Obama to the Presidency, you might as well elect another state senator to the VP slot (Obama's experience in the U.S. Senate has been 90% running for president)

I know it's blasphemy to say so, especially in conservative circles, but I'd prefer Hillary to Obama in the White House in 2008.  Now, I'd prefer John McCain over both of them, but hey, I wanted Fred, Rudy, and Mitt there ahead of John, so what do I know?

Obama has a lot of positive things going for him, but he has no experience.  For those who were paying attention in 1993-1994, having a rookie in the White House with little experience and a silver tongue is a recipe for disaster.  Bill Clinton was an absolute disaster as the president for almost three years.  Do you remember him pleading that he was still relevant?  It wasn't until the OKC bombing that he regained his footing, and after that, the overreaching by the Republican Congress.

People remember Clinton as this great politician, but he was an abject failure for the first three years of his Presidency.  Do Democrats really want to repeat that?  And at least Clinton had real executive experience.  When he moved to the nation's capitol, it proved too much.  His only lasting achievements were vetoing Republican legislation.  For that he is remembered.  Obama won't have that chance.

I don't know how much "experience" Hillary brings to the table, and I haven't forgotten how much the military hates her (and she hates them), but at least she knows how to put people in place who can do their jobs.  My fear with Obama is not his legislation, but the utter fecklessness of the people he puts in power.

If Obama wants to change politics, he would have started in the Senate.  He can spend a term or two in the Senate, making a difference, than return to Illinois and run that state successfully.  At that point, he would have the experience to match his rhetoric.  Until then, we might as well pick a state senator, any state senator, to be Obama's running mate. It would make about as much sense.

Mobile post sent by jdurbin using Utterz.  Replies.  mp3

It's Time To Withdraw

One of my favorite humor blogs, IMAO, has decided that it's time to quit supporting the divisive civil war we created.  It's been a long time coming, but those of use who are true patriots are going to have to admit where we were wrong.  It's time to get the United States out of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is on the verge of civil war. Two charismatic leaders are pulling it apart, setting the factions of black people and elite white women against each other. There will be blood, and I don't see any reason why America should be in the middle of it when it happens. We've interfered enough, trying to prop up one of this leaders we think will be friendlier to us, but there is nothing but disaster on the horizon. We need to cut our losses and abandon the Democratic Party.

I know many of you will be resistant to the idea as we've invested so much time and money in it, but what have we gained? Democrats have always been a stumbling block for our country, and so much of our tax money goes to their aid. Do you ever see that changing, or do you see it getting worse?

It's a crime that Paul Krugman gets paid for his writing, and this stuff is free.  But no timetables - I demand action now!

How Good Should Our Politicians Be?

Governor Spitzer's dalliances with a prostitute aside, what exactly should be the barrier of entry for politics these days?  I'm fairly certain I'll never run for office, but if I did, the last thing I would want is someone going back through my history looking for mistakes when I was in college (I made a lot).

Considering the history of world leaders is ripe with great men with big faults, I wonder if the American public really cares what their leaders are doing in the past versus what they do now.

You've all seen the e-mail that asks if you want a cigar-smoking, alcoholic with a predilection for adultery, or a non-smoking, vegetarian who trains dogs?  The answer is Churchill versus Hitler.

Spitzer of course is not the same thing.  He paid for a prostitute, even when he knows that prostitution has heavy ties to organized crime.  He put himself in a position to be blackmailed, and broke federal money laws for doing so.  His crime wasn't sex, but rather the illegal nature of his actions he took to procure sex.

But if you just look at what he did, what should we as the public do for politicians who are not upstanding moral citizens?  Jack Ryan was forced to drop his Senate bid when his personal laundry was aired.  If he had been a sitting Senator, he wouldn't have been forced to quit his campaign.  Larry Craig and David Vitter had problems while in office, and they are still in (a rarity for Republicans - who tend to resign when caught in a scandal). 

Newt Gingrich was having an affair during the Clinton impeachment, and many conservatives now feel they couldn't vote for him, but what if that came out after he was elected? 

The standard seems to be that if the information comes out prior to election, the candidate is toast.  If it comes out post-election, the candidate is made fun of, but keeps his job.  Is that really the way we want to approach politics?

George Bush admitted drinking a lot early in life, and Barack Obama admitted drug use.  For both candidates, this happened much earlier in their lives, and reportedly had not happened since.  Assuming that there were no DWI's that ended in death for someone, or drug-selling (real drug selling, not buying it for some friends or to impress a girl), their past doesn't affect my feelings on either candidate.

If either Bush or Obama had current problems, that would be a big difference.  I don't want someone unstable in office, and if you're out drinking heavily, taking drugs, paying for prostitutes, gambling, hitting on young boys (or girls), or even engaged in adultery (it tends to encourage lying, use of state resources to cover up,,,) when you should be tending to your office, my view is you should have the courage to resign, and if you don't have that courage, you should be booted out by your peers.

It's a pipe dream, I know.  Politicians protect their own, so that they can protect their own problems, but I'd be much more comfortable if we judged our politicians on what they are currently doing, not on what we can find out about their past prior to the election. 

but I'm damn sure I'll never testify in front of Congress or accept an appointment that requires Congressional oversight.  The idea of having to sit in front of a bunch of puffed up peacocks giving 15 minutes speeches that end with a nonsensical question would have me squirming in my seat and rolling my eyes. 

National Health Care Isn't Universal Insurance

Words mean things.  The words we use are supposed to be descriptive of the ideas we discuss, but in politics, words are weapons we use to hide the truth.

Thus, we get the Happy Children Everywhere Campaign Finance Reform Bill, or Do It For The Children Telecom Company Rebates.

Okay those aren't real bills, but SCHIP and No Child Left Behind and a whole host of other bills do have ridiculous language that don't really mean what they sound like.

Take Health Insurance.  We're in a fierce debate in this country about health care.  Many people think we have a right to health care, but they talk about it in terms of health insurance.  Based on some quirks in how insurance was first provided, we now conflate the issues.

Healthcare is a term describing the actual maintenance of our health.  Doctors, nurses, our families, and individuals practice forms of healthcare.  We eat right, we put bandaids on cuts - we take drugs.  Health - Care.

Health Insurance is a system where people bet on the possibilities of getting sick or ill in some way.  The idea, like in most insurance, is that most people remain healthy, and those who do get sick can thus have their problems paid for.  Insurance is a risk, and we pay just in case we get sick.  Health -  Insurance.

Somehow, we've managed to mix these two different words into one idea.  You get health insurance, even when you're already sick (that's what pre-existing conditions are). You get health insurance, so that when you think you're sick, you can go to the doctor and get well.  But there's a problem with that.  It's not insurance.  In today's system, the healthy pay for the sick.  As the old tend to be more sick and need more care than the young, the young pay for the old.

Which means, that rather than paying for risk management, healthcare in the US is a generational payment from the young to the old.  That's not insurance - that's just wealth transfer.  And since the older generation tend to have more money than the younger generation, it's a regressive tax on the earning of the young.

Here’s where things start to get tricky, though. Some people — young people just out of school for example — aren’t making a lot of money, but then don’t really want to spend a lot of money on insurance. Normally, they wouldn’t have to: other than accidents and very rare diseases, a 25-year-old shouldn’t normally need anything more than minor maintenance and occasional hangover cures. The idea of the mandate, though, is that if you include these low-risk people in the whole insurance pool, the premiums they pay can be added back to the pot for older people and people with serious illnesses, which makes the insurance more “affordable” — for them.

It’s exactly the same situation as if we charge a 25-year-old the same amount for a year’s term life insurance as we charge his 75-year-old grandfather: it may make the insurance more affordable for Granddad, but it does so by overcharging young Elmo. Add in the “mandate,” so Elmo can’t opt out, and we have a universal care plan that forces Elmo to pay for services he doesn’t get so that Granddad can pay less for the services he gets. But it’s “voluntary” — you get to pick your insurance plan to some extent — and it’s not “tax-supported” because you are just paying the insurance company directly.

You're taxing the poor to pay the rich, knowing that you are old and rich, you'll be able to save money when you tax the young and poor.  What would healthcare cost if you only had to pay for yourself and your family.  How much less would you pay if you had major medical that covered the big diseases, but paid cash for the little ones.

Do you know what makes this really wrong?  In addition to paying more for health "insurance," we're also required to pay Medicare taxes.  Medicare and Medicard take the elderly out of the pool at 65, which means that the high prices you're paying don't even take into account the very old and the very poor.  If you're under 35, you're paying for the healthcare of rich white Boomers who haven't retired. 

That seems fair. I'd like to see Barack or Hillary or John defend that system, instead of mouthing off about Universal Health Care.