Other stuff

People keep asking if this blog is going to be about anything other than politics. I keep saying yes, but there has been a lot going on that is too interesting not to comment on. However, in the spirit of talking about other stuff, I wanted to comment on a brief moment on a perfect Sunday in Manhattan. I was headed toward the Lincoln Tunnel trying to make a right turn onto 29th street, when a cabbie yielded and let me change lanes and make the turn. Anyone who knows me knows I have a distaste, yea, even disdain, for NYC cab drivers. While I like taking the occasional cab, and know that driving a cab is a good way to make money, the bulk of the cab drivers take the honesty out of it. There is the aggressive, often illegal driving. The combative attitude, the refusal of service, and the ever popular, taking you 5 blocks out of the way with the oh, I-thought-you-said-Lexington) excuse. While most rides go off without a hitch, being someone who drives in NYC, it gets infuriating being honked at for no reason, being constantly cut off, and being pushed off the road and cursed at as they drive past. It is a true test of one's religion to share the road with a group of people who have no respect for the law and treat every dollar as a matter of life and death.

So for a brief moment yesterday I had to let go of my perpetual indignation a cabbies. I'm not sure what it is about being behind the wheel of a car in this town that brings out the worst in people, including myself. More than once my wife has looked at me like"who are you" when try to maneuver the car to make sure a cab doesn't get in front of me, or start yelling at the guy who cuts across three lanes of traffic and stops dead in my lane to pick up a fare. I mean, pulling alongside, rolling down the window and spewing all manner of derision on his parentage and conditions of birth. I'm convinced that a lot of tests of faith, character, and integrity occur in small ways. Most of us will never face execution or martyrdom for our beliefs. Not that I know the future of anything, but at the moment we live in a wealthy, safe, and free society. But everyday we are faced with small decisions on how we are going to treat and react to people. I guess my cross to bear is to yield to people in traffic and not call 311 to file a complaint every time a cabbie breaks the law. After living in New York for a while, I've discovered that most people will go to the nth degree to keep from getting taken advantage of, no matter how small the perceived harm is. I think this is where the reputation of New York being a rude place stems from. You learn very quickly that there are a lot of people in this town who will do anything to make a buck, including lie and take advantage of people's faith and good nature, so there is a constant tension between those trying to get over and those trying not to get taken. I'm not sure what the solution to this is, or even if there is one. I do know for myself that part of being in a position of receiving grace is the ability to extend it to people who you don't think deserve it. Of course, if a person deserves it, it isn't really grace. I guess the best thing to do is drive defensively and yield to people who cut the line at the tunnel toll booth.

Responsibility

There has been a lot going on today. Speeches at the U.N., Mel Zelaya hanging out in the Brazilian embassy in Honduras, and Mizzzz Pelosi tinkering with the health care bill again. What I wanted to talk about is responsibility. It is word the president has thrown around a lot in his speeches as of late. Merriam-Webster, which our Commander-in -Chief apparently doesn't put much stock in, (see his interview with George Stephanopoulos) defines responsibility as

1: the quality or state of being responsible,

2:moral, legal, or mental accountibility.

To take it a step further, M-W defines responsible as

1: liable to be called on to answer, liable to be called on to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent.

2; able to answer for one's conduct and obligations; able to choose for ones self between right and wrong.

I bring this up because Obama and the democrats seem to think it is their place to dictate to the country what everyone's responsibility should be. This is precisely what our Constitution tried to guard against by limiting the power of the government. Whether it is health care reform or the cap and trade legislation, this administration is hell bent on redefining personal and social responsibility. For starters, making everyone carry health insurance. Before that, provisions in the cap and trade bill requiring people selling their houses to have it inspected and forcing them to make green "upgrades".

As a Christian, I have a book that outlines in pretty clear detail what my personal and social responsibilities are. Even if I did not have that, simple cause and effect generally teaches most people how to behave in a semi-responsible manner, for instance, if I drink too much, I'm probably going to make an ass out of myself, get sick, waste a day recovering, and potentially hurt myself or someone else, so I am careful about how I drink, who I drink with and plan ahead if I know there is a good chance I'm going to go three sheets to the wind. Just an example I pulled out of the air...

When the government starts talking like a parent, we are in serious trouble. It means a couple of things. First, the government is overstepping it's bounds. Second, there are obviously enough people in society who think that it is okay for the government to do this, and also there may be a growing segment who are fine with relinquishing personal responsibility in exchange for government care. I use the term "care" loosely. More on this later.

One more thing I want to say. It is to our president's and his State Department's shame that they have not supported the Honduran government in it's ouster of Mel Zelaya. The Supreme court and congress of that nation acted when Mel Zel tried to circumvent the country's constitution. Obama is making a big mistake by entertaining every two-bit dictator. But what do you expect from a two-bit charlatan.

Racism?

Webster defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinent of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce inherent superiority of a particular race"/ also, racial prejudice and discrimination.

In the protests in Washington this past weekend, we have been subjected to Jimmy Carter and a slew of commentators claiming that people are opposed to the presidents health care plan because he is black. Having apparently run out of arguments or ways to convince Americans to spend more money than they have on a plan they don't want, Democrats have resorted to the political equivalent of yelling, "your mamma!" Despite having no evidence to support the claim of racism by any definition, Democrats would have you believe the klan is marching down ninth avenue and crosses have been burning on the White House lawn. The phrase"grasping at straws" comes to mind. The argument as of late seems to have been going something like this:

Obama Health Care Opponent: I have serious doubts this plan will do what its says and about the government's ability to carry this out effectively and control costs.

Democrat: You're a racist.

To be fair, posters with Obama wearing the Che beret or sporting the Hitler 'stash are inflammatory, but not racist. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, but the constant claim that the opposition stems from prejudice are not only unfounded, it detracts from legitimate issues involving race. In doing this, supporters of the Presidents plan are trying to place themselves on a moral high ground that they don't occupy. The problem Democrat leadership is running into is they are proposing a sweeping overhaul and aren't even considering the things that could be done that wouldn't cost the tax payers anything. (Tort reform, allowing portability across state line). Other than Jimmy Carter, the person who needs to keep her mouth shut is Nancy Pelosi. She tells people they need to calm down their rhetoric because she fears there will be violence. She chokes up and everything. Pelosi was the one who got the ball rolling by calling people at the town halls Nazis and saying it was an astroturf movement. Being the best argument for bringing back tar and feathering, Pelosi would be concerned about violence. Of course, she would get the San Francisco treatment which would basically entail an angry mob chasing her down the national Mall with bottles of maple syrup and goose-down pillows. The only violence that has occurred so far was at the hands of the SEIU. And if any violence does break out, you can bet it will be on the liberal side, taking it to the "racists" because attacking "racists" is okay. This whole thing has turned into a liberal's greatest hits compilation. To argue for this, they have sited people who have died because insurance companies wouldn't cover them, so you have the parade of victims. You have false claims about the ability of the government's ability to fix this, blame Bush, then promise that taxes won't be raised on the middle class, You have the emotional appeal to pass this for Ted Kennedy, blame Bush again, and when none of that works, accuse the opposition of being ignorant, hateful, racists.

This debate of the direction of health care and insurance in this country is vitally important, and there are multitudes of opinions on how this should be done. The majority of the country would like the same goal achieved, more accessibility and lower costs. Making accusations as such and predicting violence as a means of quieting opposition not only exacerbates the situation, it takes away from honest debate that could actually lead to a positive change. To his credit, Obama's White House has rejected the claim that opposition is based on the color of his skin. But Obama supporters and the bulk of the media who spent the last eight years dishing out criticism in spades, need to learn how to take it.

The Inaugural Post

My wife and my friend Kimberly are making me start this blog. Well, maybe there wasn't much coercion is involved. Just some garden variety nagging. My wife would like me to stop pissing off bosses and potential employers (hers, not mine) by talking politics at cocktail parties, so she figured this would be a good outlet. Kimberly seems to think I should be writing for a living. That would be nice, but I think I'm a long way from that at the moment. As for myself, I have been reluctant to start writing again due to a fear that it won't be quite perfect. Something you would think I would be over after about 9 years of ballet. Also, despite the fact the impetus for this was politics, I realized I had a lot of gratuitous opinions about a variety things. Religion, football, food. Basically all the things people seem to like to kill each other over, so I wasn't exactly sure how to start.

Since I have been in the middle of various posts on facebook to various people about the health care legislation, I figure that would be a good place to start. I've been kind of immersed in this for a couple months now and have even attempted to read parts of H.R.3200. I'd like to get through the whole thing, but since it isn't going to be the final product and Pelosi may not let anyone see the finished product before it is voted on(We'll just have to take their word), I'm not sure how productive that would be. I've watched a few of the town hall meetings( Ben Cardin, Hometown boy Steny Hoyer, Arlen Specter) only to find there was a lot less drama than reported and a lot of fairly clueless democrats. Although I have to say, Steny, number 2 in the house, and representing my place of birth, Lexington Park, MD is pretty freakin' slick. I couldn't help liking the guy. I would never vote for him, but would certainly crack crabs and have beers if I ever got the chance. I also watched Obama's speech and was screaming"liar!" at the TV long before Joe Wilson decided to weigh in.

I have to admit, the idea of not having to pay for health care seems pretty attractive. I went through all of my twenties and half my thirties without insurance. Now I pay out of pocket every month for a policy that covers the bare minimum. While a seemingly convenient solution, I have little faith in our government, actually, no faith in our government to produce the result they are promising in an efficient and cost effective manner. To jump to the center of Obama's speech, he claimed we would be able to partially pay for his "plan" by reducing waste and fraud in the medicaid and medicare system. (The same medicaid which illegal aliens seem to have no problem accessing). Of all the czars Obama has appointed that are completely superfluous, why not appoint someone to ferret out corruption and fraud in the bureaucracy as it stands. We could start with, I don't know, ACORN. If they can't clean up the system now, what makes this administration think they can clean it up after they make it bigger and includes more people who could potentially commit fraud?

One of the main problems I have with Obama is that he has been completely disingenuous and dishonest about trying for and wanting bipartisan support. It wasn't the Republicans who stopped 3200 from being voted on before the August recess, it was the conservative(ish) people in his own party. The Republicans can't stop this. They don't have the votes. Not only that, they submitted H.R.3400 which contained things like tort reform, portability across state lines, and establishing health savings accounts. Supposedly, the senate committee is trying to frame a bill that contains some of these ideas, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Pelosi saw fit to bury 3400 as long as she thought 3200 might get through relatively close to its original form. Or at least until they can come up with a public option trojan horse that will keep democrats in their seats come 2010 and have a few Republicans on board to blame when the whole thing blows up. So when Obama says he will listen to ideas, but, according to him, his opponents don't have any, he is lying. Then again, Obama has always had a bit of an aversion to the democratic process. He won his first senate seat in Illinois by getting all of his opponents disqualified. (I want to make another crack about ACORN right here, but it just isn't flowing. Darn.) He also had to get a hand from the super delegates in the Democrat primary. For all the change he wants to affect, he certainly doesn't seem to want to own it. He couldn't help himself from throwing in a jab at the "previous administration" in his speech or blaming other people for lying about his plan.

After all the accusations about disinformation, Obama hasn't really addressed the primary flaws in the plan, namely, what is the exact purpose of requiring everyone to purchase health insurance,(Or, if I decide not to carry health insurance and pay for my expenses out of pocket, why do I have to pay a penalty? Penalize people who walk on their bills) how much is it really going to cost, how is it going to be paid for, and how do you foster true healthy competition by introducing a scheme that doesn't have to make money and can take it from whoever they please, and if it still isn't enough, can arbitrarily print more despite not having anything to back the paper? It is foolishness to give the government this much control. The main enforcer of this law will be the I.R.S and someone referred to as "the Secratary". This is ten times more intrusive than the Patriot Act ever was, and less beneficial. We need reform, but not like this.

Finally, a word on compassion. A lot of my liberal friends and most democrats site compassion as the motivation for passing sweeping social reform, especially like this. After all, it can't be wrong to provide health care for people who can't afford it (which the government already does). What was the post? No one should die because the can't get treatment and no one should go broke because they get sick? While no one would disagree with that, when Democrats start talking about "fairness" and "compassion", hide your money and load your gun. The plan to pay for health care reform is simple. Tax the rich. The problem with that is taking from one man what he has earned and giving it to someone who hasn't, no matter what the reason, isn't compassion. Its stealing. Compassion is one human being, motivated by something in their soul, be it God, or ethics, or pathos, or empathy, to help someone else, whether they can afford to or not. The same people who don't want morality legislated have no problem legislating their idea of compassion.

The hour is late. I want to talk more about the role of organized religion in health care, but it may need to wait for a later post. I believe the Church should be playing an active role in the act of compassion and care that is defined by helping people heal. And in a lot of places it is. But I think more could still be done.