Let's start with this link to Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1
From there, let's talk about the real difference between emotional, biased reporting... say the kinds you'll find plenty of examples of on MSNBC, and hate speech, the kind you find examples of on Fox. Or better yet, let's let Krugman sum it up with a few quotes from the article at that link:
Krugman begins by asking this question:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
By way of an answer, Krugman pieces together some crazy shit that Fox and the right will certainly begin to wildly explain away, but a few of the more salient points follow (from Krugman's piece):
As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
... there’s a big difference between bad manners and calls, explicit or implicit, for violence; insults aren’t the same as incitement.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
I know... I know... Krugman, like so many Yale and MIT trained, Harvard Published, and Stanford, Yale, and Princeton-employed economists is clearly one of those liberal wackos who's long since fallen off the left end of the flat earth...nevermind the Nobel Prize, or the John Bates Clark Medal. He's clearly an idiot who knows not what he's talking about! Right.
I don't even know how to respond to the kind of blindness that doesn't allow folks to see exactly where the rhetoric of the right has led us. If you can't or won't see it for yourself, there's likely no changing your mind, but the fact remains that incitements to, and the use of the language of violence, and all out calls for it are found on just one "news" network, and, at least as far as a cultural swing, just one end of the political spectrum... and one end alone.
There may be childish, emotional arguments, name-calling, and jabs coming from the MSNBC end of the spectrum, but folks there don't protest funerals or urge their followers to pick up guns or behead people... they don't Tweet for them to "reload."
In order to avoid having to use the F-word in this post, I'm going to finish with some more from Krugman's piece:
Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
...Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand.
But even if hate is what many want to hear, that doesn’t excuse those who pander to that desire. They should be shunned by all decent people.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
I gotta tell ya, to hear this ivy-leaguer point out many of the same observations I've noticed throughout my years of surveying Fox, CNN, and MSNBC kind of makes me feel a little better about the state U diploma I FINALLY got in the mail this week. I also gotta tell ya these observations are about more than a little disagreement based solely on one's political bias. They represent a decisive difference in one's actual respect for one's fellow man. I suspect this difference may have something to do with some kind of ulterior motive... say, perhaps, a reward in another life...one that justifies all manner of horrible behavior in this life, eh?
Ah, but that's a line Krugman will not cross. Our current paradigm is such that social scientists, no matter how dismal, would rather fail to explain a phenomena than suggest there may be a religious cause to it. And with that, before I either use, or incite use of the F-word...
Luth
Out
Monday, January 10, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional?
Somebody needs to tell the BMV that. I know, I know, health insurance is different than auto insurance. People can just choose not to drive, then they won't need to buy auto insurance. As you might imagine, I don't quite see it like that.
Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.
But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.
No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?
OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?
While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.
Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.
Luth
Out
Let's start with the whole "you don't HAVE to drive" reasoning. This is simply not true for most Americans. Here in Ohio, Gov-elect Kasich is turning down $400 million of federal money to make sure it stays not true. The money was marked for a high speed rail system connecting Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. OK, that may not have been the public transportation silver bullet that made it possible for everyone in Ohio to get rid of their rides, but it was at least a step in the right direction. It might even have created a local job or two. Ohio isn't the only place where most of us don't have access to public transportation. Those of us who don't have access also probably don't have that one big employer right down the street allowing us to walk to work either. Therefore, if we want to work, we HAVE to drive. If we want groceries, prescriptions, food, then we have to drive AND work. These things aren't optional. Humans need them to survive. And for most humans, we have to drive to get them. So most of us do NOT have the option to simply not drive in order to avoid mandatory auto insurance.
But let's just pretend for a minute that driving really is optional... something people do just for recreation, or because they didn't achieve what they thought they should and bought a really expensive, impractical car instead. If that were actually the case, then wouldn't it make even more sense to make auto insurance OPTIONAL but health insurance MANDATORY. If driving were really just for kicks, then it would be LESS important than healthcare, right? So why would we make the important insurance optional, but the recreational insurance mandatory? That just seems kind of backward.
No, I get this - it was explained to me before. Since driving is optional, it's OK to mandate that those who choose to do it have insurance so if they hit YOU, you don't have to pay for the damage they caused... and if people don't like it, they don't have to drive. If I choose to drive, I shouldn't have to worry about some bonehead without insurance hitting me. In essence, this law keeps the cost of YOUR insurance lower. OK, that makes sense. Hey, wouldn't that work for other types of insurance too?! Like, what if I also want that kind of assurance that my insurance for other things wouldn't get prohibitively expensive due to all the people out there who choose not to buy it, but sill participate in the activity? Don't I deserve the same protection there as I do when I pay for auto insurance?
OK, where was I? Oh yeah, so mandatory insurance keeps the costs down for all of us who choose to partake of that particular system. And ya see, right now, without any kind of law like that regarding health insurance, people who choose not to buy insurance, also choose not to get healthcare. It's kind of like a rationing system we have in place right now. Health care is rationed to people with money. People without have to wait until their health is in an emergency condition, go to an emergency room, and then the rest of us pay for that via increased health insurance premiums. The average cost per visit for the people for whom health care is rationed in this fashion is sky high because they've received very little if any maintenance or preventive care (that's the part that's rationed) and so we all pay too much for the care they get... if it's not too late. Let's sum up: our current system rations care, is paid for socially by those of us who buy insurance, and is costly because of this. If only there were a way to take advantage of the way we made auto insurance cheaper by making it mandatory! Hmmm. How might we do that?
While you ponder that, I'll go on. A third reason why I believe the "unconstitutional" argument is flawed is because just like folks who choose not to drive, folks may also choose not to get healthcare. Seriously. Who ever died because of a missed healthcare appointment? I think it was Mark Twain who said doctors make people sick. There are even plenty of Americans whose religious beliefs prohibit them from going to the doctor. So there are folks out there right now who shoot down the whole "driving is optional, healthcare is not" line of thought. We'd need an opt out for these folks anyway, so what's so unconstitutional about it if we can make exceptions for folks like that? Furthermore, why couldn't folks who want to opt out of the mandatory health insurance just pay cash for their care and be required to maintain a $100,000 bond in the event they require emergency healthcare? Ohio does that for drivers. They can drive AND opt out of the mandatory insurance as long as they have the cash to pay for damage they cause.
Fourth, based on their recent reluctance to shoot down federal law, even THIS Supreme Court isn't very likely to side with the complainants. They've failed to limit federal reach into homegrown medicinal marijuana, so why wouldn't they fail to limit it here too? Yup, I'm afraid this whole lawsuit against the constitutionality of mandatory health insurance is just a political event purely to get attention and steer the ignorant toward some hasty illogical conclusion. I for one, am disappointed with my countrymen.
Luth
Out
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't be a bigot!
Senator McCain is out of excuses. The same ambivalence that cost him a presidential campaign now threatens to destroy what little respect anyone still has for him. He said he'd support the repeal when the generals supported it. Now he's changed his mind. He's one of many who don't seem to have learned from history and can't approach the issue of don't ask, don't tell from any kind of rational perspective.
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
It comes down to this: you're not in the military to pick up a date, so who or how you date shouldn't matter. Any personal issues you have with gays in the military are your issues, not the military's, and since it's an all volunteer force, you have the option of not joining rather than asking the military to discriminate against people you don't like.
It's that simple.
Just as simple is the word for military chaplains (or others) who oppose the repeal of this discriminatory policy: BIGOTS. Citing one's religious beliefs is no excuse. There was a time when the military only enlisted white males. There was a time when units and occupations were segregated. This too was bigoted policy, and this too was supported by the bible's take on slavery. We now admit how wrong that was. We need to do the same with don't ask, don't tell.
Bigots are not good for morale. They detract from the mission far more than anyone else. If our military is going to discriminate against anyone, it should discriminate against bigots.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Secrets Gold Dealers Don't Want YOU To Know!
1. Buy low, sell high (duh)
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
2. Gold is HIGHER right now than it's been in my lifetime
3. So do NOT buy gold right now
Which, of course, means Glenn Beck truly is full of shit! But how many people are going out and actually BUYING gold right now? I know... I know... I might as well ask how many people are idiots. Anyhoo, an ad in the back of the VFW magazine caught my eye with a title similar to the one of this post and I just had to get this off my chest. You'd think an organization like VFW would be a little more careful about taking money from advertisers trying to swindle money from their clientele. But WTF do I know? I'm foolish enough to believe people will actually apply logic to things like this.
Luth
Out
Monday, October 25, 2010
but still... ya gotta vote!
Lest the subtitle of this 'blog fool you into thinking otherwise, you HAVE to vote. It is not just a right of citizenship, it is your duty.
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Ya wanna know reason numero uno why politicians don't respond to their constituents these days? Cuz they don't have to! Only 40% of us bother voting for them, so what do they have to lose?
Next Tuesday, get off your asses and vote. I don't care if you vote like I do or not, just do it. Until we consistently show up in FAR greater numbers than we have in my lifetime, we'll never have any control over what these bastards are up to. Until we give them reason to fear us, they'll just continue with their own agendas.
And if you don't vote, don't bitch - just shut the hell up and deal with the results, cuz what we have these days is because of lazy hypocrites just like you! I'll actually be out of town next Tuesday, so Mrs. HorsePoup and I got up early on a Saturday and drove all the way to the board of elections in our county to make our voices heard. There were no lines. There was no waiting. Grandma HorsePoup got a ballot mailed to her and voted in the comfort of her home, where she had plenty of time, and a newspaper to consult if she wanted.
We can't make it any easier and there are no excuses. Even if you believe Obama should've been able to reverse two terms of horribly reckless fiscal policy in his first two years, even if you believe the party of NO hasn't blocked progress enough already, even if you're dumb enough to believe Gov. Strickland caused, rather than inherited a tanked economy and the highest unemployment since the Reagan era, I still want you to vote.
As Americans, we've been voting uninformed for years. That doesn't frighten at all compared to how scary our unaccountable politicians might become if our voter turn out drops even lower. Think they don't listen now? Then go ahead and surf the couch next Tuesday instead of stopping by the polls after "job hunting." If our turn out gets any lower, the current class will likely vote themselves 100% raises and extend their terms indefinitely cuz they know only 25% of us even give a shit.
I know it's only a mid-term election... no president to vote for or anything exciting like that, but next Tuesday is the day. Get off your butt and vote.
Luth
Out
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Money Equals Speech...
...but not for "games of skill" prizes in Ohio. So, my lawyer friends, explain this to me. When it comes to campaign contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court says money does in fact equal speech, and as such can't be limited without violating the constitution. However, the Ohio Supreme Court says when it comes to prizes awarded for a single "game of skill," this particular form of speech must be limited to $10.
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Far be it from me to argue in favor of anything that might make gambling more enticing, but what's the difference? Why can't the owners of these increasingly ubiquitous storefront gambling operations exercise their "speech" the same way anonymous corporate donors get to exercise theirs during campaign time? I read somewhere that anonymous donors from all over the world are spending record amounts to influence Ohio's elections. (Repubs outspending Dems 7-1, for whatever that's worth) So why can't Ohio business owners spend more than $10 on a prize? Wouldn't this prize be a form of congratulations i.e. speech? And where are all the free-market, smaller-government, pro-business supporters to support these businessmen/women? What's wrong, exactly, with offering a bigger prize... especially if that prize (cash) has already been defined as speech by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Speaking of pro-business people and questions I'm having trouble answering as the elections approach, what is it Jim Renacci wants to provide for my congressional district? I mean, I've seen all the campaign talk - a flyer promising he'll protect my gun rights, commercials promising he'll support Ohio businesses, but what is it he's actually going to do. We all know that outside the context of a campaign, campaign speeches, commericals, flyers don't really mean much. If we go by past behavior, all I can figure is that when he says he supports businesses, what he really means is he ignores his constituents. The two things that stand out in my mind are two heated eminent domain decisions made in Wadsworth during, or shortly after his term as mayor there, and a vote by the city's electric linemen to unionize during his term.
I can see how the eminent domain decisions allowing Wal-Mart and CVS to evict property owners could be viewed as pro-business, or at last pro Wal-Mart and pro CVS, but what of the thousands of residents who voiced clear and strong opinions that the property owners evicted were more important to Wadsworth than a new Wal-Mart or a newly relocated CVS? If Renacci believes government should leave business alone, then why was he, as mayor, so involved in these businesses getting their way in Wadsworth?
As for the unionized electric linemen, they'd voted against unionizing for years until the mayor's business-ization of the city left them with no say in their operation - they who climb poles in storms to restore half-price power to city residents in less time than it takes for an Ohio Edison customer to even report an outage-drove them to finally give in to their union's bargaining power. I believe they're the first department in the city's history to unionize, and it wasn't a decision they came to easily.
Then there's that empty stretch of road that used to be Wadsworth's own little "auto mile," and which once included Renacci-Doraty Chevrolet - the dealership he bought from convicted money-launderer, Mickey Miller. Renacci claims he put up the good fight with GM to keep it open, and then he blamed Obama for closing it. I'm going out on a limb here to guess that the employees of that dealership lost a lot more in that deal than Renacci did.
Based on what I'm able to put together from all of this, what I guess Renacci means when he says he supports business is he supports that which makes him richer. And that's cool. We're capitalists after all, but I know plenty of pro-business people who have managed to survive these tough economic times without padding their own pockets at the expense of or with absolutely no regard for their employees. Renacci says he wants to bring jobs back to Ohio, but from what I can see, his only interest in creating jobs is creating wealth for himself...with absolutely no regard for, and quite possibly at the expense of, those who actually do the work of those jobs. Seems to be a theme.
The bigger theme that he and his ilk are foisting on us during this campaign is this myth that government would be better run like a business... by businessmen. I'm all for more responsible fiscal policy - seriously, it's the one area where I might even lean a little to the right, but there's simply no truth to the notion that government, which is clearly different than business- should be run more like a business. If Ohio's history doesn't demonstrate that, then perhaps our nation's pro-business handling of the banking industry should. (One might also compare Wadsworth's Electric and Communications services and prices to Ohio Edison and Time Warner's for another example.) Government has regulatory responsibility. Businesses don't. Ohio's government has responsibility for funding education, Ohio businesses don't. The so-called businessmen who ran Ohio for the past 30 years mismanaged education funds (and the general fund too for that matter) even while everyone else got rich. And the first governor to pay any more than lip service to righting three decades of wrongs came into office during the worst economy (note - "came into office during," NOT "created") since the Great Depression. We owe it to him to see past the "get rid of all the incumbents" BS and see what he can pull off as we continue to climb out of the economy our current leaders inherited from their "pro-business" predecessors.
Speaking of education funding. If there's one area where we can tackle jobs, the economy, and slipping test scores all in one swoop, it's getting behind our public schools. No business yet has come up with a solution to educate every Ohio student the way Ohio's public schools have. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of private or religious schools whose roles are filled with the top students prove only that good students beget good schools. Public schools don't have the luxury of kicking out less than profitable students, low performers, or kids whose parents aren't even remotely involved. Ohio's schools, like all schools have some issues, but there's simply no better alternative for most Ohio students. A for-profit education system will never be able to serve the range and number of students like our public system has. It needs help and Gov. Strickland is the first governor in over thirty years who has focused on it outside of a campaign speech. Hmm, sounds like another example of how government's responsibilities are different from, and thus require different leadership, than business.
One look at Ohio communities whose public systems are sound (and look quickly cuz even they won't last the way things are looking) tells you that jobs and good schools go together. Pick a place you'd want to live and it'll have a good school system. Parents choose to move there. Employers locate there knowing they'll have a solid workforce and a supportive, involved community - people who can afford to buy shit. The way our past "education governors" have rewarded this effort is by siphoning state education funds into the general fund to balance their budgets leaving the burden on those communities to support their school system. This violates Ohio's constitution and leaves those successful communities indirectly subsidizing communities who've given up on their school system. Talk about socialism! That's exactly what Ohio's past governors have chosen as their preferred method for school funding. It's not what our founders had in mind. It's also what critics of Strickland have accused HIM of doing... but he's the first guy who's tried to UNdo it!!
So it's time to look a little closer at the whole business argument. I'm all for good businessmen (and women) running Ohio's government, but good businessmen have integrity after the campaign ends. They consider more than just what they can take from the backs of their employees. I'm reminded of an old saying, "those who can run a business run a business, and those who can't run for office." How about we leave business to businessmen, and leave public office for those who actually want to serve the public, which, when you think about it, should include the public involved in business as well. Anyone who feels the need to separate those two, and especially those who stake their claim solely on such a separation, don't seem to have much to offer the general public.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Think twice - it might make it even funnier!
By now most of you have seen this brilliant letter in response to a much less recent and less famous alleged Dr. Laura rant:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do
it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you
can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My former boss sent it to me 'cuz she knew I'd think it was funny even if neither of us cared about its authenticity and didn't plan to pass it on to anyone else. She was right. I got a good laugh out of it and didn't even consider checking it out further.
A lot of times, when I get something like this emailed to me, it's not funny, and it's been forwarded by about a zillion people. I usually run it through Snopes.com before I make anything more out of it, but in this case, since the citation info is right there for the picking, I just fed Dr. Kauffman's info into the old Google machine and out came the following link:
http://drlauraletter.com/
...and what's there is WAY more entertaining than the original letter. Ok, maybe it's not a lot funnier, but it's far more extensive and thus entertaining over a longer period of bathroom visits, sleepless nights, or long flights. it is at least way more interesting that the typical Snopes entry (although I give the Snopesters their due deference!)
I've noticed a trend when it comes to this kind of stuff: the more official the attribution looks, the less likely it is to be legit. (Hey, don't take that the wrong way - I'm certainly not questioning the infallible word of the Lord here, just the attribution of the rest of the letter) Similarly, when you get an email that says "this is real, I checked it out on snopes," it is almost guaranteed to be NOT real, and really busted on Snopes. (apparently the boneheads who believe and pass on some of this unfunny crap and claim to have verified it don't know how to read a Snopes entry)
I don't know about you, but that tickles the living shit out of me! Even when these ridiculous things clog our boxes and include a challenge to "check it out for yourself" AND even when they provide a place to check it out, people still don't bother to apply any thought or effort of their own and pass them along as though they believe and/or agree with them.
To be clear, this particular letter is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm passing it along here because it's funny even if we never learn who originally created it, and even if Dr. Laura never actually said the homophobic garbage it was in response to. And I think I've made it clear that I'm NOT passing it along to lend it legitimacy or in the hope of spreading some important message. And to be extra super duper clear, I'm (again) not questioning the quotes attributed to God...(don't need to in this case!) I only question the authenticity of the letter's author and some of the stuff Dr. Laura allegedly said to cause it. My rant had more to do with other, far more unbelievable but presumably serious emails that get passed around like an STD in a freshman dorm.
What will it ever take for us to think for ourselves?
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.
Luth
Out
PS Can you tell I have a paper due?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would
be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do
it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees'
of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear
gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you
can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My former boss sent it to me 'cuz she knew I'd think it was funny even if neither of us cared about its authenticity and didn't plan to pass it on to anyone else. She was right. I got a good laugh out of it and didn't even consider checking it out further.
A lot of times, when I get something like this emailed to me, it's not funny, and it's been forwarded by about a zillion people. I usually run it through Snopes.com before I make anything more out of it, but in this case, since the citation info is right there for the picking, I just fed Dr. Kauffman's info into the old Google machine and out came the following link:
http://drlauraletter.com/
...and what's there is WAY more entertaining than the original letter. Ok, maybe it's not a lot funnier, but it's far more extensive and thus entertaining over a longer period of bathroom visits, sleepless nights, or long flights. it is at least way more interesting that the typical Snopes entry (although I give the Snopesters their due deference!)
I've noticed a trend when it comes to this kind of stuff: the more official the attribution looks, the less likely it is to be legit. (Hey, don't take that the wrong way - I'm certainly not questioning the infallible word of the Lord here, just the attribution of the rest of the letter) Similarly, when you get an email that says "this is real, I checked it out on snopes," it is almost guaranteed to be NOT real, and really busted on Snopes. (apparently the boneheads who believe and pass on some of this unfunny crap and claim to have verified it don't know how to read a Snopes entry)
I don't know about you, but that tickles the living shit out of me! Even when these ridiculous things clog our boxes and include a challenge to "check it out for yourself" AND even when they provide a place to check it out, people still don't bother to apply any thought or effort of their own and pass them along as though they believe and/or agree with them.
To be clear, this particular letter is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm passing it along here because it's funny even if we never learn who originally created it, and even if Dr. Laura never actually said the homophobic garbage it was in response to. And I think I've made it clear that I'm NOT passing it along to lend it legitimacy or in the hope of spreading some important message. And to be extra super duper clear, I'm (again) not questioning the quotes attributed to God...(don't need to in this case!) I only question the authenticity of the letter's author and some of the stuff Dr. Laura allegedly said to cause it. My rant had more to do with other, far more unbelievable but presumably serious emails that get passed around like an STD in a freshman dorm.
What will it ever take for us to think for ourselves?
Anyhoo, just thought I'd share.
Luth
Out
PS Can you tell I have a paper due?
Friday, August 20, 2010
'splain this to me, Lucy
OK, so the right end of the spectrum is made up (mostly) of people who claim to be:
-more patriotic
-more religious
-more likely to want less government
...and yet these are the folks who now want the government to stop the building of a church at ground zero. WTF?!
That's the problem with religion - everyone's an atheist when it comes to every religion but theirs.
It's also the problem of our dangerously short memories. These same folks, who somehow associate an entire religion with the 15 lunatics who flew planes into those towers, tend to forget that people in this century, calling themselves good Christians, claiming to act for God, killed a lot of people too. Even the Crusades lasted in some fashion into this century on this and neighboring continents. On other continents, dictators regularly try to cleanse their nations of God's "mistakes" or "impurities." It ain't just Muslims.
By this logic, we should ban the building of ALL churches in family neighborhoods... maybe restrict them to areas where strip clubs are located so everyone knows exactly what dangers they face when they venture into that neighborhood.
And speaking of stupid shit, what's with opinion polls on matters that aren't subject to opinion like whether or not Lebron will stay in Cleveland, or whether or not the president is a Muslim. These things aren't matters of opinion and it doesn't matter what uninformed (or even informed) opinions people have. 99.9% of people polled can say I'm a dumbass but it has no effect whatsoever on the fact that I'm a friggin genius!
I guess there's some entertainment value in it... so, how many of you out there believe Glen Beck is a Christian and his show is God's work?
Luth
Out
-more patriotic
-more religious
-more likely to want less government
...and yet these are the folks who now want the government to stop the building of a church at ground zero. WTF?!
That's the problem with religion - everyone's an atheist when it comes to every religion but theirs.
It's also the problem of our dangerously short memories. These same folks, who somehow associate an entire religion with the 15 lunatics who flew planes into those towers, tend to forget that people in this century, calling themselves good Christians, claiming to act for God, killed a lot of people too. Even the Crusades lasted in some fashion into this century on this and neighboring continents. On other continents, dictators regularly try to cleanse their nations of God's "mistakes" or "impurities." It ain't just Muslims.
By this logic, we should ban the building of ALL churches in family neighborhoods... maybe restrict them to areas where strip clubs are located so everyone knows exactly what dangers they face when they venture into that neighborhood.
And speaking of stupid shit, what's with opinion polls on matters that aren't subject to opinion like whether or not Lebron will stay in Cleveland, or whether or not the president is a Muslim. These things aren't matters of opinion and it doesn't matter what uninformed (or even informed) opinions people have. 99.9% of people polled can say I'm a dumbass but it has no effect whatsoever on the fact that I'm a friggin genius!
I guess there's some entertainment value in it... so, how many of you out there believe Glen Beck is a Christian and his show is God's work?
Luth
Out
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)