Assault Rifles & Presidents Don’t Mix
August 18, 2009 12:30pm
What could be worse for gun advocates than bringing an assault rifle to a presidential speech?
First, consider that gun violence is never going away from the headlines.
Then, consider how the majority of gun violence is the result from a conflict (i.e. Beltway Sniper), sometimes sprinkled with crazy (Virginia Tech massacre).
Finally, connect the dots and realize that an assault rifle brought to a heated conflict – a group of people protesting the President – will induce the most negative images of gun ownership: horrific and senseless violence.
This one man’s actions brings unnecessarily negative attention on the dangers of gun ownership. From Yahoo News:
Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.
“When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”
He said he’s never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. “The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,” he said.
In conclusion, if you don’t want the second amendment further jeopardized then don’t be like this jackass in the news. Instead, show you have respect and common sense by leaving your guns at home.
Health Care Hypocrisy on Facebook
August 17, 2009 10:11pm
The following debate took place on Facebook after I responded to a poll posted by my Facebook friend, Melissa. It quickly becomes humorous as facts are thrown out the window in favor of blind ideology. To this extent, it appears that some prefer to be ideologically hypocritical than informed. Note: some irrelevant comments were removed and poignant statements made bold in this copy to improve readability.
Melissa:
voted “I Oppose” in “The Health Care Poll.” I oppose his wide sweeping, deprivatization, health insurance is a right bill. I am just fine with reform, education, making a healthy life available to everyone. I am not ok with making abortion available to everyone at the tax payers expense.
Me:
Don’t worry, the bill doesn’t reverse the restriction of federal money towards abortions. http://tinyurl.com/r9v85d
Mark:
that’s true. regardless, there is a bill that funnels money to the government for abortions. don’t even need a good reason for abortions. be it kids getting pregnant, rapes, or unfit mothers. in most states, atleast. sometimes, teenagers don’t even need parent permission, sometimes, parents will jump at the chance to have their grandchildren aborted.
Me:
Which bill is that?
Mark:
mannnn, david. i was hopin noone would call me on that. i was tryin to sound like i knew what i was talking about. i have no real good answer other than king barack osama was instrumental in creating a bill that called babies that had not been born yet were not yet people exempting them from abortion laws. [SB 1082, Held in Health and HumanServices, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207] say that since kin osama claims that unborn children are not, legally, citizens, they are not covered by law
Me:
“There is a bill that funnels money to the government for abortions” and you cited the dead SB1082 (a defintion bill) and Law 107-207 which Bush signed into law in 2002. Again, what bill is that?
Melissa:
One of the really scary issues in this new Obamacare bill is the “end of life” counseling. Dr’s will be stronly encouraged and finacially incentivized to provide “end of life” counseling to persons over a certain age every so often – say every 5 yrs. Is that really necessary? Do we have lots of old ppl running around concerned about the end of their life? I mean – if we want to help out hardworking Americans who need healthcare then lets do that and stop rushing our elderly to the grave. I am not adressing this at anyone in particular and I really enjoy these disussions so please take this in the right spirit and add on.
Me:
The counseling is optional. But it’s included to benefit the elderly who can’t afford such consultation. Even the AARP wants the new system to extend Medicare to provide end-of-life counseling services, including hospice care.
http://tinyurl.com/r9v85d
http://tinyurl.com/mz7vjs
http://tinyurl.com/n859cs
Melissa:
The couseling is “optional” and physicians will “not be paid for services” if they do not offer it. The solution to the elderly is helping them decide to shorten their lives by not treating illlnesses, restricting IV fluids during hospice, refusing treatments that could bring them back to good health….
I am so tired of thinking the gov’t owes us. It does suck to incur huge bills w/o insurance. I have several friends who had babies w/o insurance and were still paying for the first kid when the sescond was born. They worked their ass off and paid their own bill.
There is some pretty convoluted wording about whether ppl will be able to keep their own insurance or not.
The gov’t is spending money out of control right now and does not have a good, sound track record running the programs they are in charge of, giving them such a huge chunk of our private lives does not make any sense to me.
Matt:
okay i gotta give my long winded weigh in as well 
….you guys have been warned.lol the “end of life” care is mentioned in one of the bills, but i heard this am that they are talking about taking it out as a measure to eliminate some of the stress it is causing…which i think would be a good thing because that is scary language, whether its intended or not. but think about this, (and this is purely opinion & speculation) but look at how obama voted on sb1082 in the illinois senate, he voted against saving the lives of babies who amazingly survived abortions, it boggles my mind that we have a president who voted AGAINST saving the life of a child who happened to survive an abortion! i mean, its hard to argue that thats not extreme. now judging the way he voted on that, i have a very hard time believing hes going to worry too much about some “unproductive”, “costly”, senior citizen who may have only a few good years left…when that 10 year old “future tax payer” needs the same surgery, which do you think makes more financial sense? it sounds extreme, but so does sb1082…and i have no doubts that even long after obamas gone, healthcare rationing will occur if this thing passes as it is.
Me:
Mel – “The solution to the elderly is helping them decide to shorten their lives by not treating illlnesses, restricting IV fluids during hospice, refusing treatments that could bring them back to good health”These are not end of life services. (see the links I provided above for reference).
Matt – “healthcare rationing will occur if this thing passes as it is.”
That is what the bill intends to fix. It is not uncommon for insurance providers to deny payment for treatment that is costly or pre-existing (http://tinyurl.com/l45q29), leaving patients to die.
Mel/Matt – Are you opposed to the insurance overhaul because of something factual, or because you are ideologically opposed to Obama?
Are you willing to tell family, friends, and neighbors in your community that you don’t think they should have affordable access to health care because you don’t like Obama? Does your ideology seek to protect only the life of the unborn, or are you willing to extend your love of life to those who are living without proper medical care?
Matt:
david, i would say yes i am opposed because i am ideologically opposed to obama as well as it cannot be paid for, especially in this economic time that president obama, “inherited” i will however, voice my support for this bill, IF and only IF our politicians forgo their gold plated policies and are mandated by law to accept the same public option…only when the senators and members of congress are willing to put their own rear ends on the line, will we have something worthy for the American people.
in a perfect world socialized medicine would work and we wouldnt have things like cost to worry about….but i have NO FAITH whatsoever that the government can run healthcare efficiently.
oh,,,and for the record, i am for healthcare reform. status quo is killing us too.
Me:
“i will however, voice my support for this bill, IF and only IF our politicians forgo their gold plated policies and are mandated by law to accept the same public option”The FEHB plans for politicians is similar to most other insurance plans and premiums (http://tinyurl.com/qc7boj). Their out of pocket expense mirrors my own.
In addition, politicians can accept the same public option under the proposed bill since they are US citizens. They may choose to do so if one is cheaper than the plan they receive from the FEHB.
Regardless, your point now says that your friends, family, and neighbors shouldn’t have affordable insurance because you don’t like the insurance policies offered to politicians. Again, does ideology cast a cloud on rationality?
Melissa:
What Matt said…
I was actually reading parts of this bill yesterday, our exec director has been poring over it. I oppose this bill bc I oppose socialized medicine, I oppose the cost, I oppose the abortion and assisted suicide aspect, I do not believe the gov’t can or should be running our healthcare. I also have no confidence whatsoever that we will be able to keep our insurance plan that we currently have if this bill goes through. From what I can see Obamacare would have all of us, even those who are happy with their insurance, switch to his plan or pay.
Me:
So even though the facts show that this bill gives everyone greater choice and depth in health care for less (including keeping your own insurance), and despite the fact the bill has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or assisted suicide (http://tinyurl.com/kkprna), you still don’t want your friends, family, and neighbors to have good health care.I must admit that further debate is moot when facts are not only ignored, but are instead replaced with outrageous falsehoods.
Glenn Beck’s Operation
August 15, 2009 11:09amThe Return of the Viral Email
August 14, 2009 9:21pmHow Effective is American Healthcare?
August 13, 2009 8:37pmHarvardBusiness.org
via How Effective is American Healthcare?.
The United States gets the smallest bang for the buck in terms of life itself amongst developed countries: it realizes the lowest level of “life returns.”
The Oz Principle
August 12, 2009 9:06pm
The latest addition to my non-required leadership library is The Oz Principle. While other books I have read largely focused on trust, vision, and service (among other things), The Oz Principle is almost exclusively accountability. It’s actually a decently entertaining and quick read too, complete with comparisons to The Wizard of Oz. The idea is that everyone should be able to see it, own it, solve it, and do it. If employees, front-line leaders, or CEOs blame the economy, point fingers at abusive customers, or hope problems go away then the organization is destined for failure. This may seem like very basic, elementary rules of thumb, but the several case examples of everyday failures to accept responsibility prove two things: everyone does it, and any organization that fails to learn from it will fail. Period.
To solve it, the Oz Principle puts forth steps for employees from every echelon to assume greater accountability. Again, several of the case studies seem common sense at first. But when you realize how much integrity is required to confront oncoming disasters it becomes clear how rare accountability truly is.
