With all the BS here, I hardly know where to start shoveling. Palin is, for the moment, a private citizen, and as such, should be held to no higher standard of civility for her public comments than, let's say, an Air America radio host.
While I can agree that her description of the "LIVES" concept and geriatric counseling may be a tad colorful, it doesn't even come close to the over-the-top churlish hate and slander spewed almost daily by sitting Democrat members of Congress for the last eight friggin' years.
Did you somehow miss the last eight years?
Am I to believe the videos I watched almost every night on the news were faked when the Dems were telling seniors that Bush would eliminate THEIR Social Security when he attempted to adjust the benefits and structure for FUTURE generations to fix a broken system that was designed by Dems?
Did I never hear sitting Dem Congress members spout all sorts of hate about the war, sometimes even going so far as slandering the brave members of the military?
Yeah, sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but trying to make an equivalency argument comparing simple ridicule to vile hate is too much of a stretch for any rational mind.
As to the actual topic of end of life counseling, my opinions are formed by hands on exposure, not by copying talking points from some blog in the leftosphere.
I've been to the emergency room without coverage, I've started and switched plans with a pre-existing condition, I've dealt with setting up my parents' living wills and medical directives before losing one of them to debilitating illness, and setting up my own living will and medical directives before age 50, I currently have a brother-in-law in the hospice-care stage of dying without the benefit of having a living will or medical directives.
So unlike a lot of the regurgitation of pre-written talking points currently going on at all levels, I'm not talking out my butt to score political points.
If you haven't already figured it out, I'm a strong proponent of end-of-life planning, but the federal government has no effin' place being in any way involved with it, and end-of-life is not the time to be doing it.
I don't want someone dependent on government reimbursement to be forcibly marketing the latest medical or political fad to me or my family when we are least able to deal with it. These decisions should be made and made known in the cold light of good physical and mental health. If the feds absolutely insist on being creepy enough to butt in, make the discussion a requirement for highschool graduation, not a requirement for starting the medicare coverage that workers have already paid for throughout their lives.
Personally, I don't want to be kept alive by artificial means. I've made it clear to my doctor, lawyer and family, that if they don't ensure my wishes are fulfilled, I will come back and haunt every last one of them when I finally do die. But that's my decision, made without any outside interference. Others may wish to cling on to every last second they can get. More power to 'em.
As for all the denials claiming that there is nothing but unicorns and rainbows throughout a 1,000-page bill, BS. No one person has a definitive clue of what absolutely is or isn't in that bill. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have publicly admitted this.
Multiple members of this current administration have written at length about eugenics, they are repeatedly on the record advocating single payer, many are still openly admitting that this is a short path to single payer.
Yet somehow reasonable citizens are expected to believe that the very people who created and are pushing this plan made a 180 degree ideological shift in the last three months? Others may be ignorant enough to believe that, I'm not.
As for those who speak of "government-paid-for-health-care" and "getting less of something for free," government-run healthcare is paid for with taxes taken from the productive members of society.
The government as an entity has no money of it's own, the money it uses exists by virtue of the taxpaying citizens who created goods and services, and by the amount of currency we allow it to create on our behalf. The money the government uses belongs to us, not the government, and not to those looking for a free ride.
Nothing any government delivers to its citizens is "free" in any sense of the word.
Anybody who can type statements like "government-paid-for-health-care" and "getting less of something for free," needs to go check out how that works in the Soviet Union.
Oh, wait, the Soviet Union failed in less than 50 years, I guess it didn't work.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 8.08.2009 @ 20:41
McCain was the wrong candidate, chosen solely by the media, and his handlers ran the wrong campaign. If not for Palin, the GOP would have lost by 20 points or more.
This is not to say that Palin was a perfect candidate, but in the sorry state of affairs that is the GOP, she was the best candidate the party could muster. In a perfect world, Palin should have been a future star on the second or third string.
The GOP has been leaderless since Reagan, and rudderless since Gingrich. And now the circular firing squad begins.
I can't fathom voting Dem, the GOP is within months of conceding to BHO's 2012 re-election, and most wannabe Libertarians won't put down the joint long enough to go vote.
What is a sane person to do? Emigrate to France?Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 1.07.2009 @ 12:09
Short of one of the thugs ratting out the others with taped evidence, it will be impossible to ever conclusively prove or disprove that some of the closings were politically motivated. Even without a media cover-up, reasonable minds will suspect foul play, especially given the track record of this administration.
This does, however, provide a textbook example of why the government has no place interfering in business decisions, whether there is loan/bailout involved or not.
The mere appearance or possibility of favoritism brings the integrity of the office into question.
When government interference destroyed the credit markets the auto industry relied upon, there became an obligation for the government to make the requested loans as an arms length transaction.
Instead, the "never let a crisis go to waste" crowd of egomaniacs made a mad grab for power to pay back their political supporters.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 28.05.2009 @ 18:19
Would it be paranoid of me to assume that the bulk of that $100 million will just coincidentally come from programs that were put in place between 1/20/01 and 1/19/09?Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 20.04.2009 @ 13:58
A few thoughts:
Apart from the potential for a few arcane issues that will be used by discrimination hustling lawyers, I've no interest in getting worked up over the semantics involved, marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, heck, call it scrambled eggs if you want.
Government interference, pro or con, in people's relationships will always create unintended consequences.
When the tax code sought to resolve inequity between (truly) single filers and married DINK couples with regard to the exemption/standard deduction structure, they created what some erroneously refer to as the marriage penalty, but is more accurately defined as the unmarried cohabitant's loophole (in short - basic living costs for 2 are less than 2x the costs for 1, cohabs get the 2x exemption/deduction). So there's no surprise that the tax-advantaged cohabitation is popular. Granted, when you actually run the numbers both ways, the penalty/loophole isn't nearly as onerous/generous as most imagine, but the actual numbers rarely enter into the consideration.
Of course there are those who argue that the tax code gives undue preference to a married couple with children compared to a gay unmarried couple with children, but here again, the actual bottom-line difference doesn't support all of the indignation. Last I checked, married vs. unmarried, median household income, 1 child, difference in tax owed was less than $50.
However, leaving the tax frivolity aside, the real issue where government has a place in relationships, for better or worse, is in the area of partner rights.
In many areas, the government has extended "special" rights to a (straight) married couple. Rather than seeking equal rights for all, gay activists want these special rights extended to themselves as well. Two wrongs won't make a right. Limiting partner rights solely to those who share a bed is just as discriminatory as limiting those rights solely to straight married couples.
Think for a moment about the single offspring who devotes 20 years of their life to caring for a widowed/widower parent. Is this person somehow less deserving of survivor benefits from social security than a spouse?
Think about a similar situation where no familial connection exists. In addition to the issue of SSI survivor benefits, now there are many legal issues added to the mix.
Given enough time, hundreds of real everyday scenarios could be shown to illustrate the need for equal partnership rights for all, instead of just extending special rights to another preferenced group.
If the religious community wants to keep the term "marriage" to itself, and thereby control the definition, fine, it's just a word. But if "marriage" is under their sole jurisdiction, then the federal government, including the tax code, social security, etc, cannot recognize or grant preference to it. Married couples would also need to file the same civil partnership documents as a gay couple, or non-couple partners would need to file to gain partner rights and benefits.
If the gay activist community wants any credibility on the equal rights front, then they need to advocate equal partner rights for all, not just special rights for themselves.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 18.04.2009 @ 11:51
"Did the Left write up articles of impeachment because they didn’t like Bush?"
Not for lack of effort or desire. Seems impeachment was high on the discussion list for most lefty politicians, and was the topic of the day for the last 8 years in virtually every big-city daily newspaper, TV newscast and daytime or late-night talk-show.
Clinton broke the law, Bush hasn't, get over it already!Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 13.10.2008 @ 17:49
For a preview of how an Obama presidency would play out, just look at the 2006 Congresscritter elections.
Grand promises of hope/change/ethics by those on the take from Fannie-Freddie. Record to date: gas prices up $2, head in the sand on subprime till it imploded, a potentially flawed "rescue," and a bunch of post offices named. In short, much promised, little done.
To be certain, there were many close races in 2006 and shenanigans by ACORN, but did the Right go unhinged and sue for recounts, did the Right question the legitimacy of the current Congress (maybe the efficacy, but not the legitimacy), did the prominent members of the Right threaten to move to Canada, did the Right produce "true story" movies about the prostitution ring run out of Barney Frank's residence, . . . ?
No on all counts. Mainly because most on the Right are productive members of the economy and the realities entailed therewith force us to just do our best to work around the impediments created by the Left, making the best of a bad situation.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 13.10.2008 @ 11:47
"I guess we should simply forget their previous stupidity and call them geniuses now?"
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.Comment Posted By Junk Science skeptic On 20.07.2008 @ 12:49
I have no doubt in my mind that even the most dovish bleeding heart on the planet would, if the lives of their loved ones were specifically at stake, resort to prisoner interrogation means and methods that would make Eichmann blush, if they had even the slightest inkling it would protect said loved ones.
Discussing theory is a fine academic exercise, but lets be thankful that there are those out there willing to do our dirty interrogation work, protecting our loved ones, without fully descending to the level of our enemies.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 2.04.2008 @ 16:42
"Greedy lenders gave a lot of money to risky borrowers evidently believing that housing prices would continue to go up 7% a year forever."
It's more accurate to say that "Stupid lenders gave a lot of money to greedy/rookie speculators, evidently believing that housing prices would continue to go up 20-30% a year forever."
A gain of 6-7% per year is realistic. The fools who wrote loans with valuations based on bubble pricing deserve to be stuck with paper that's only worth 20 cents on the dollar.Comment Posted By Junk Science Skeptic On 17.03.2008 @ 17:43
Pages (2) :  2