Friday, March 30, 2012

Daily Worldwide News: Keith Olbermann Fired by CurrentTV

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press: Daily Worldwide News: Keith Olbermann Fired by CurrentTV

To be honest you I wasn’t shocked to hear that Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC a year ago. Even though they want to have a progressive prime time lineup. Giving voice to American Progressives and looking at the news from a progressive slant. They want to be for Progressives what FNC is for the right-wing. The rest of the NBC News operation I believe is fairly objective. And their reporting is solid. NBC Nightly News and NBC Meet the Press are excellent examples of this. But MSNBC Talk is clearly slanted towards Progressives. And Keith Olbermann is so far to the left, at least with his political commentary and anti-corporate if not private enterprise and so unafraid of offending anyone. Including the people he works for. CurrentTV owned by Al Gore, that he’ll say whatever he wants as long as he believes in it strong enough.

As much as Current my not want to be part of the corporate media and be part of the private sector version of PBS or something, they are part of corporate media. They are a business and have to turn a profit to be successful. CurrentTV has proven to not be the right format for Keith Olbermann. I’m not sure there is one, other than maybe HBO, Showtime or maybe PBS. Where he could say whatever he wants to, swear as often as he likes. This is a format that’s served Bill Maher very well and if Keith can avoid offending one of these networks, maybe HBO, or Showtime, would be a place for him.

Keith, may fit in well there or going on talk radio. Starting his own website or news organization that reflects the views of Progressives, or Democratic Socialists. Because being the lead anchor on a cable network, which is what Current is and saying things that can offend corporate media, just doesn’t work, it doesn’t fit. Keith Olbermann needs to be on a format where he can be Keith and do his thing. And not have to worry about who he’s offending. Similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, but for Progressives. And there may not be a big enough outlet out there that’s also willing to put up with Keith. That can make that happen for him.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Justices Vote Friday on Health Care Law: What to look for and expect

Based on the arguments and the questioning that came from the Justices on Tuesday and Wednesday. Expect the Individual Mandate to go down and be ruled Unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy didn't sound like a Swing Vote to me any point this week. And actually Chief Roberts sound the most open minded of any of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court this week. But I wouldn't expect him to vote for the Individual Mandate. So assuming the Individual Mandate goes down and I'm not ready to call it dead until its dead. Because I support it and without it, it make cutting our Healthcare Costs very difficult. We would have to start considering things I'm not for, to bring down our Healthcare Costs. Like Single Payer Medicare For All or at least a system. That we all pay into but where we would still be able choose our own Health Insurance. Or a Health Savings Account but without an Individual Mandate, we are going to have to consider things like that. So the question is without the Individual Mandate or the Medicaid Prevision. The Medicaid Prevision, which I don't support, will the rest of the Affordable Care Act stay in place.

Without the Individual Mandate, the rest of the Affordable Care Act doesn't mean much. As far as controlling our Healthcare Costs. Because with the Individual Mandate, we are all forced as a country to cover our own share of our Healthcare Costs. And we can end a lot of Uncompensated Healthcare in America. And end forcing people to cover others Healthcare. Which will bring down the Healthcare Costs of everyone. So the question is with the ACA as it stands now but without the Individual Mandate. Can the rest of the ACA stay in place, is it workable and is it even worth having. And I'm leaning towards no but without the ACA, we go back to square one. With people being denied Health Insurance, just because they actually need it. And we go back to Lifetime Caps and we continue Uncompensated Healthcare in America.

So I'm expecting a Black Friday tomorrow for the Affordable Care Act. I'm leaning towards the whole thing getting thrown out back to square one. Leaving it up to the next Congress to do deal with it, if anything. But of course I hope I'm wrong and we'll wait and see and I expect to be blogging. About whatever the Supreme Court says tomorrow.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Senate Democrats React to Supreme Court Arguments on ACA: The Proponents side of the Individual Mandate

Again the whole argument against the Individual Mandate, is about whether the Federal Government. Has the authority to require people to buy Health Insurance. Force them to buy a product but Government is already forcing its people. To pay for the "Free Healthcare" that people who don't have Health Insurance. And can't afford out of pocket to cover their Healthcare, so there's a precedent for proponents of the Individual Mandate. To go along with what I blogged yesterday and last week. There's already precedent for this, proponents can argue that the Individual Mandate. Is a tax based on what I blogged yesterday and last week, because the penalty acts like a tax. Its just called a penalty, which is one reason why the ACA was badly written. Thats clear, the question is whether its Unconstitutional. Which is a different argument, the Constitutionality of the ACA is different from whether the ACA was well written or not.

Proponents can argue that the Individual Mandate is a tax. They can argue that the Federal Government can force its people to purchase products to pay for other peoples Healthcare at hospitals. And of course there's the Commerce Clause argument that they have to go to as well. Having said all of that, based on how the arguments went at the Supreme Court today. The Individual Mandate is clearly in trouble. Based on the fact that the Solicitor General Donald Verelli was on the defensive the whole day. With the four Liberals on the Court, trying to make the case for him. And with four Conservatives on the Court hammering Solicitor General the whole time. And the Solicitor General not being able to make a compelling case today. What Senate Democrats are arguing is that, there's already the precedent in Federal Law. For the Individual Mandate. But they weren't making the case at the Supreme Court.

If Sen. Chuck Schumer Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, and Sen. Pat Leahy Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Two of my favorite Members of Congress and Liberal Democrats. Were making the argument for the Individual Mandate at the Supreme Court today. Then I believe proponents would've had a much better day. Because they were arguing whether people have a Constitutional Right. To pass their Healthcare Costs on to others, even if they can afford to cover their Healthcare. Which is what the Individual Mandate aims to correct. That we all pay for our share of our Healthcare Costs.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Health Care and the Supreme Court: "What will the Decision say about the US Constitution?: The Future of Healthcare Reform in America

As I argued last week in a blog about the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. There are a couple of ways that this law can be ruled Constitutional. Or not be struck down at least until 2015 when the Individual Mandate kicks in. Before the Commerce Clause argument by proponents and opponents of the ACA, make their cases. Is the Individual Mandate a tax, if its ruled that way. Then the Supreme Court could either rule its Constitutional based on that alone. Because clearly the Federal Government has the Constitutional Authority to tax. Or the Supreme Court could decide to punt until 2015, when the Individual Mandate kicks in. And people who decide not to purchase Health Insurance. Will be charged with a penalty or tax depending on your perspective, certainly a liability. For not purchasing Health Insurance and they may decide that we are not ready to rule on the Individual Mandate. Because no one has been charged with this fee yet. And decide to move on to the other Constitutional Issue in the ACA. The Medicaid Prevision.

Whether the Individual Mandate is ruled Constitutional or not, along with the rest of the ACA. This Supreme Court decision will change the future for the Federal Government. And not just in Healthcare Reform but its power in other areas. As far as what it can demand Americans to do, when it comes to purchasing items. And thats the only thing about the ACA that bothers me as far as its Constitutionality. Along with the Medicaid Prevision which I blogged about last week. In the future Big Government politicians in either party could decide. That Americans have to be forced to participate in a Pension Plan or be forced. To purchase healthy foods, be forced to exercise. Be forced to donate to charity or churches, go down the line. And even though I support the Individual Mandate when it comes to Healthcare. And I believe its Constitutional. These other things should be looked at as well.

If the Individual Mandate is ruled Constitutional and of course thats not a safe bet. Probably 50-50 at this point, maybe a little better then that. Then that will give the Federal Government more power over its people. If they choose to do so, as far as what they have to do with their money. And could open the door for a Single Payer Health Insurance System. It would certainly make it more difficult to argue against the Constitutionality of it. Based on the Individual Mandate. And thats another thing that worries me about th Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- HBO's Game Change Preview

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I saw the movie last night about an hour of it actually. I think Ed Harris did a good job of playing Senator John McCain and Woody Harrelson did a good job of playing Steve Schmidt and Sarah Palin was clearly not up to the job of Vice President, or President right now. But we knew that four years ago, so even the facts that were in the movie were not new. We knew that the McCain Campaign didn’t do a very good job of vetting Sarah Palin. Basically a little known Governor of Alaska, who may feel she lives in a foreign nation. Because of how isolated Alaska is with the Continental United States. But I have a hard time believing that Steve Schmidt and company would only spend 72 hours researching someone they barely knew if at all, because these people are way too smart for that. And that Senator McCain wouldn’t know how little research they did on his vice presidential nominee. The most important decision that a Presidential Nominee will make.

To take this movie at face value, you have to assume that the McCain Campaign was throwing a Hail Mary. Expecting to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama and that they needed someone who the Republican base would like personally, someone who could match Barack Obama when it comes to personality. Someone that would be seen as a political celebrity. If that’s what their goal, then they’ve more than succeeded. Because Sarah Palin is a political celebrity today, thanks to Senator John McCain. She has 100% name ID and is probably the most liked Republican in the party personally.

But McCain and company paid a heavy price for it politically. With Governor Palin not being able to answer questions that a high school or college student could answer. Like what is the Federal Reserve and making statements that a high school or college student know aren’t true. Like the Vice President being the Leader of the Senate. Julianne Moore is a fine actress, but way too upscale to not sound like an elitist. Not intentionally to play Sarah Palin. They would’ve been better off using Julia Dryfuss or even Tina Fey to play Palin. Not a very good movie and definitely a movie not a documentary. And probably light on facts as well.
The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- HBO's Game Change Preview

Friday, March 23, 2012

"40 Years of Ignorance: Conclusion": The War on Drugs, 40 Years of Failure

If you look at what Big Government is or what that term means. And you listen to a lot of so called "Conservative Republicans". When they are talking about Big Government and you don't listen to other people. You would probably think Big Government is about high Tax Rates and Economic Regulations. And Big Government budgets, spending a lot of Tax Payers money to take care of them. You would think Big Government looks like Scandinavia or something. But thats only half of it, Big Government is actually about control. Big Government is about power and control, using Big Government to take care and protect people even from themselves. Because they don't trust the people to live their own lives and make their own decisions. And that they would make bad decisions with their own lives, that would be bad for the country. There are Big Government Democrats and Republicans. And they both have their own versions of Big Government and using Big Government to take care of the people. The War on Drugs is exactly what Big Government looks like, because it tries to protect people from themselves.

You get Big Government supporters and politics out of the debate about marijuana. And the broader War on Drugs created by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Marijuana would've been legalized a long time ago, because people would've seen the Cost Benefit Analysis. Similar to alcohol and perhaps tobacco, tobacco might be the worst of the three actually. But because politicians are worried about looking soft on crime. And losing big Campaign Contributions from Alcohol and Tobacco. And Alcohol and Tobacco have fought so hard to keep marijuana illegal. We still have Marijuana Prohibition, just like we use to have Alcohol Prohibition. But America is waking up about marijuana, as they learn more about it. Talk to friends who have used it or used marijuana themselves.

Something like 50% of the country now supports Marijuana Legalization, if you look at the polls. Its no longer a Fringe Issue just supported by potheads, sober people are waking up about it as well. And we could be headed for Marijuana Legalization in Colorado, Washington State and Connecticut. In 2012, which would be a great sign of things to come in the failed War on Drugs in the future.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

US Supreme Court Hears Health Care Challenge: The Fate of the Affordable Care Act

As this Legal Analyst from Brokkings said, the two main provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Are the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid Prevision. The expansion of Medicaid, the Medicaid Prevision is just bad law and badly written. And needs to be fixed, Medicaid is already hard enough to finance. Whether its Constitutional or not, its just bad law, which I'll get to later. On a Personal Note, this is my third straight blog this week about Healthcare Reform. A big week for the ACA and a bigger one next week. Last week I wrote three blogs about Freedom of Choice alone. So maybe there's a pattern developing but what this Legal Analyst said. Should give supporters of the ACA and I'm one of them. Confidence next week, because if the Individual Mandate is a tax. If thats how its ruled and I'm not a lawyer obviously. But that tells me that it will be ruled as Constitutional, just based on that alone. Because the Federal Government clearly has the authority to tax its people and organizations. If its not ruled a tax, then opponents of the ACA still have to show that the Feds don't have the authority to require its people to purchase goods and services. So that gives me hope for the ACA next week.

Whether the Medicaid Prevision is Constitutional or not, its bad law. Medicaid is already an Unfunded Mandate and this Prevision. Adds to that by requiring States to expand their Medicaid Rolls or lose funding for their current Medicaid Coverage. The Federal Government hasn't lived up to their current obligations of funding Medicaid. In their own law that wrote in 1965 but they require States to pay for their share of the Medicaid Costs. As well as getting stuck to make up the difference from the funds that the Feds don't cover. So the Feds require States to do something, without giving them the funds to pay for it. So its already an Unfunded Mandate and the Medicaid Prevision of the ACA. Just makes that problem worst, because it requires States to cover even more people. Without giving them the funds to pay for the original Medicaid Law or the new Prevision. So the Medicaid Prevision of the ACA, whether its Constitutional or not. Needs to be fixed because its bad law.

What they should've done with Medicaid from the beginning, is to turn it over to the States. And let them set up their own Health Insurance program for the poor. And give them the funds to pay for it and require these programs just to meet basic Federal Standards. Where people on Medicaid would pay for their share of the costs. And their employers would match the other costs. And give these workers a Tax Credit, an addition to the Earned Income Tax Credit. And then Medicaid wouldn't be such a large hole to try to fill. That it is today, turn it into a program that just covers the basics when it comes to Healthcare. Healthcare that people need to survive and be healthy. And they would've saved a lot of money and could serve as a model for Health Insurance in the future.

Next week a huge week for the ACA, I'm somewhat optimistic about the ACA. Because there's a shot that the Supreme Court will punt for now. Because they may rule the Healthcare Mandate as a tax. And that they aren't ready to rule on it. Thats Plan B for supporters, Plan A is that its ruled a tax and that they are ready to rule on the Constitutionality of it. And then supporters just have to argue about the Federal Government's authority to tax.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Milton Friedman: Health Care in a "Free Market": Giving people the Freedom of Choice to decide their own Healthcare and Health Insurance

The term Free Market gets thrown out a lot but the fact is its a bogus term. There's no such thing as a "Free Market", the Private Sector has always been regulated. In every Free Enterprise economy in the World. As well as there's always been a role for the Public Sector, to no only regulate the economy but be active in the economy as well. Amtrak and the US Postal Service are perfect examples of this. When people talk about a "Free Market", unless they believe government has no role in the economy at all. A position that Libertarians tend to take, they are actually talking about the Private Market. The Private Sector, individuals and organizations acting on their own to produce goods and services in the economy.

Healthcare and Health Insurance in a Private Market, would be to allow individuals to decide for themselves. How they pay for their Healthcare, being able to choose their own Health Insurance. Instead of the Public or Private Sector making those decisions for them. And from my perspective requiring everyone that receives Healthcare in America. To pay for their share of their Healthcare, whether its either through Health Insurance, a Health Savings Account or out of pocket. As long as they cover their costs, which is why I don't support Medicare For All. Where the Federal Government would run the Health Insurance System in America. Or why I don't support what Britain has, which is basically Socialized Medicine. Where the UK Government has the responsibility to provide most of the Healthcare and Health Insurance in Britain. Or why I don't support turning our entire Healthcare System over to the Private Sector.

This is why I support a Private/Public Healthcare System in America that would provide our Healthcare. And how we pay for it, if there's a market for Private Health Insurance or Public Health Insurance. Just as long as they are regulated properly and the people who choose this Healthcare and Health Insurance. Don't pass their costs on to others, then they should have the Freedom of Choice. To make those decisions for themselves, thats what we get in a Liberal Democracy. Allowing individuals to make their own decisions and then holding them accountable for their own decisions.

Monday, March 19, 2012

T.R. Reid. Talks about Healthcare in the rest of the World: What works and doesn't work in America

What works in the American Healthcare System, is the quality of our Healthcare. Our doctors, our hospitals and our Medical Schools and colleges. We do a good job of providing Healthcare in America but we do a lousy job of paying for our Healthcare. Twice the size of the next Industrialized Nation. So what we need to do with our Healthcare System, is to build off of what we do well. But improve what doesn't work, which is how we pay for it. The 2010 Affordable Care Act, is a down payment on that. By getting more people into the Healthcare System as far as being covered for their Healthcare. Which is important so our Health Insurance just doesn't cover sick people, the most expensive people to cover. More people having Health Insurance or a Health Savings Account, especially more people with means and healthy people. And then helping people who can't afford to pay for their Healthcare, into the Healthcare System as well. Which will also help being down our Healthcare Costs, because less "Free Healthcare". Because more people would be paying for their Healthcare instead. Thats what we get because of the AFA.

If you've read my blog about Healthcare Reform before, you know I don't support Single Payer Medicare for All. Where Medicare owned by the Federal Government, would be left to decide how this entire country of 310M people. Would pay for their Healthcare, leaving Americans with no choice in how they pay for their Healthcare. I don't support the Canadian Model and if you read by blogs about Healthcare Reform before. You know I don't support the British Model when it comes to Healthcare as well. Which is almost exactly what "Socialized Medicine" looks like. The UK actually does have some Private Hospitals and Health Insurers. But most of the country gets their Healthcare through the NHS. Which runs most of the hospitals in Britain and provides most of the Health Insurance. Just because Canada and Britain's Healthcare System cost half of what our does or less. Doesn't exactly means that would work in a country thats ten and five times larger.

What would work in America and what President Obama was trying to accomplish in 2009-10. Before he and Congressional Democrats settled on the Affordable Care Act. Would be expanding our Private/Public Healthcare System. Not eliminating Private Health Insurers or Hospitals but regulating them with what's known as a Patients Bill of Rights. Helping people who aren't eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, pay for their Health Insurance. As well as employers with a Tax Credit and then creating a Public Option for Health Insurance. Allowing non Senior Citizens to pay into Medicare, as well as their employers. Giving Americans the option, to either keep their current Health Insurance. Or choose Medicare but pay into Medicare with their employers or pay the cost themselves. This is essentially what France has a Private/Public Healthcare System. Letting the French decide for themselves and their Healthcare Costs are actually lower the France and Britain.

But this is just about how we get more people into the Health Insurance System paying for their Healthcare. Which would be a big step in bringing down our Healthcare Costs but we actually have to go much further then that. And get past Sick Care, which is what we have now and move to Healthcare. Where we can bring down our Healthcare Costs long term, just by doing a better job of taking care of ourselves. Encouraging good behavior and charging for bad behavior. So we can avoid having to have certain Healthcare in the future. Which is called Preventive Care, which would make us healthier as a country in the future. And bring down our Healthcare Costs.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

New Hampshire Moves Towards Decriminalization of Marijuana: The give me Liberty or give Death State Living up to that

You know if it wasn't for the figid winters in New Hampshire, where they get like 5-6 months of winter every year. Its been about 80 degrees in the Nations Capital the last two days and gorgeous . In March, I would at least consider living in New Hampshire, because it is a beautiful State. With great people, reasonable driving distance from a big city, Boston. And politically they fit in real well with my Liberal Politics. I mean they are called the "Give me Liberty or give me Death State. It doesn't get much better then that, I'm from Maryland still live there. And we have beautiful weather and beautiful people but with a lot of Elitist Snobs. Who look down at people who aren't from, a big Northeastern city or California. But politically we are called the Free State, just like this blog. And politically I fit in well here as well, the reason why I mentioned this, not to put you asleep. Because this week I've been blogging a lot about what I call Freedom of Choice Issues. And thats what marijuana is to me, regulate not prohibit.

New Hampshire took another step today in living up to its State Motto. With its House passing a bill to Decriminalize Marijuana. Hopefully realizing that it doesn't make sense to arrest Free Adults and put them in jail or prison. For possessing or smoking marijuana, arresting them for doing something that doesn't affect anyone else. Arresting someone for possessing marijuana, is like arresting someone for possessing a beer or a bottle of wine. Arresting someone for smoking a joint, is like arresting someone for drinking a beer or a glass of scotch. The dangers and risks of one, are about equal to the other. Comparing marijuana with alcohol and you get a hell of a lot more benefit from it being legal then illegal. With taxes and keeping people out of jail and prison and saving those resources for real criminals.

Legalizing Marijuana is the same as Legalizing Alcohol and the arguments for not, is the same for one as the other. It would lead to Legalization of other Drugs, how many other Narcotics. Have we Legalized since Alcohol, exactly, I believe we are about to Legalize another. But the jury is still out on that and Marijuana would be the first one in at least eighty years. Punishing Free Adults for what they do to themselves, simply doesn't work. The activity still goes on, as we have eighty years of experience that shows this.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on Infrastructure Investments: Maryland Infrastructure and Economic Investment

I like the idea of Governor Martin O'Malley talking about proposing new Infrastructure Investment in Maryland. A State that needs it being as congested as we are. A State of 6M people, thats about 180 miles long and wide. A lot of people in a small space, plus with both Washington and Baltimore, two big cities within forty miles of each other. We have a lot of people all living in the same space. Having to share the same roads, anyone familiar with Washington Traffic and Rush Hour, knows what this is like. Because the Washington Area is one of the wealthiest or wealthiest areas in the country. Maryland also being one of the wealthiest if not wealthiest States in the Union. We haven't gotten hurt as bad by the "Great Recession", as lets say Michigan, Ohio or even California. So we do need better roads, more roads, more bridges, expansion of our roads. More Train Service and all of these things would produce new jobs. Because it would create more work.

I just don't like how Governor O'Malley's proposal to pay for the new Infrastructure Investment. And neither does the Democratic controlled State Assembly. The House and Senate aren't thrilled about being asked to raise taxes to pay for it. Income Taxes to pay for the Infrastructure Investment, in an Economic Recovery. Thats still fairly fragile, where we still have high unemployment and a State Deficit of 20B$. If your going to raise taxes to pay for new spending, you do it in a way. That doesn't hurt the economy, especially most of the people in the economy. You raise taxes on things where there's a large market for them. But where people don't actually need those products. To survive, you tax Luxury Items.

The way to pay for the new Infrastructure Investment in Maryland. Assuming there isn't enough revenue in the Trust Fund to pay for it. Through Gas Taxes, would be to raise taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco, Sporting Events and other entertainment. Maryland now has legalized gambling and we have casinos. Donate some of that revenue to pay for the new Infrastructure Investment. Not raise Income Taxes on Middle Class workers.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

2nd Woman in NYC Madam Case Pleads Not Guilty: Doesn't NYPD have better things to do then Break Up Prostitution Rings

With all the issues that New York City has to deal with, like with their Public Education System. You would think they would have better things to do then to arrest people who get paid. For sex or who run Prostitution Rings and of course they have to enforce their current laws. For Rule of Law to mean anything but going forward they should look at ending prohibition on these activities. Because we know prostitution is the oldest profession in the World. Even though its illegal in a lot of countries. Especially the United States, yet it still goes on because of course like marijuana, there's a large market for it. So knowing this and of course the Freedom of Choice factor. Which is something as a Liberal concerns me, what authority does government have to control what Free Adults. Can do with their own bodies and keeping Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Then NYC and a lot of other places need to look at legalizing these activities and regulating them instead.

What we should do with prostitution instead is do what we do with other Adult Entertainments. You regulate it and when it comes to prostitution, you regulate it even farther. To prevent as best as we can Sexually Transmitted Diseases from happening. Making sure pimps or if this were legal, because they would get different Job Titles. But make these people get licensed to run a Prostitution Business so to speak. That they register, follow basic regulations, pay taxes like any other Legal Business. And that prostitutes get licensed to operate, tested for disease, pass a physical, 21 or over and of course paying taxes. Like any other worker in a Legal Business.

Whether prostitution is ever legal in New York or the broader country as a whole. It will always be in America, because we'll always have a market for it. Knowing this, what we should be doing instead is legalizing it and then regulating it. To makes prostitution as safe as possible in the United States as possible. And save our precious jail and prison space for real criminals that represent a threat to society.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. "Abortion Laws: Pro and Con": When does the Right to Life start and who should decide

I made up my mind about abortion when I was 16, no lie I was a Junior in High School. I was just starting to get into Politics and Current Affairs. This was October, 1992 when I was watching the Gore-Quayle Vice Presidential Debate. And both Sen. Al Gore and Vice President Dan Quayle were asked about their positions on abortion. Sen. Al Gore and then Governor Bill Clinton are both Pro Choice on abortion. Meaning women have the right to make that decision for themselves. Both then President George HW Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle are Pro Life on abortion. Meaning that life starts at conception and an abortion is the taking of innocent life. And they were both laying out their positions and Sen. Gore got me. By basically saying that you may or may not like abortion. But what right does government have to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. That they and their doctors know what's best for their own bodies. And that they don't need or want Uncle Sam making these decisions for them.

If you believe life starts at conception, then you can't be Pro Choice on abortion. Unless you believe women have the right to take innocent life that they are pregnant with. I personally don't like abortion and would never advise a women to get one. Unless she needed it to save her life or health but at the same time its not up to me. Or government to make that decision for her but at the same time just because I believe she has that right. And according to Roe V Wade she does, I don't believe I should be forced to subsidize that choice she may or may not make. Meaning that she needs to come up with the funds on her own. Or have it covered by her Health Insurance but I don't believe in Tax Payer funding for abortions. Meaning I support the Hyde Amendment from 1975 or 76. US Rep. Henry Hyde from Republican from Illinois. Again I'm Pro Choice but that Tax Payers shouldn't be forced to pay for that Choice.

Whether your Pro Choice or Pro Life on abortion, it really comes down to when you believe life starts. And what role if any you believe government has in controlling what people do with their own bodies. And also do you believe that Tax Payers should be forced to subsidize the choices of others. Especially if they disagree with the choices that they are making.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Economy Adds 227K Jobs, Rate Unchanged at 8.3%: US Adding Jobs and more people staying in the Workforce

Another solid Jobs Report for the American Economy in February. To follow January and December and another indicator that the United States is making real progress. And moving past the "Great Recession" and getting back to normal as far as our economy is moving. Still a long way to go, in a workforce of 150M or so workers, we have 12.8M workers who are unemployed. But with the Unemployment Rate staying at 8.3%, which it was at the end of February. In a sense thats good news, because it means more Unemployed Workers are staying in the hunt. Continuing to look for work and these are the people we need to target. And put them back to work, get them in Job Training, Community College. Help some of our struggling industries, the House passed a Bi Partisan Jobs bill. Yesterday focusing on Small Business, yes you read right. The House passed a Bi Partisan Jobs bill yesterday, perhaps the first Bi Partisan legislation they passed since TARP. Small Business is still our number one employer at least in the Private Sector. So this is good news and it will help but we need to go even farther then that.

We still need something like what President Obama proposed back in September. The American Jobs Act or something like that. If we want to see solid Economic and Job Growth, that progressively brings down our Unemployment Rate. Where it comes down because Unemployed Workers are going back to work. Not because they give up looking for work. Where we invest 200B$ or more a year thats paid for into Infrastructure Investment. With something like a National Infrastructure Bank. The Senate next week will pass a Highway bill that will have a lot of real Infrastructure Projects. Not pork, even though I'm sure there will be some pork in it. This is the Senate after all and it will be Bi Partisan. This bill will be a good first step and we need to go farther then that as well.

The Republican House has been trying to pass Energy and Infrastructure Legislation. That yes will include Oil Drilling, the President would be smart to work with House Republicans. On this and get some more Infrastructure Investment in return. As well as Clean Energy Investment as well and we could create a lot more jobs. With legislation like this.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Film Archives: John Kerry- ‘How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake’

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Naval Lieutenant John F. Kerry, testifying in front of Congress in 1971, about the Vietnam War.

“John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician who is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. More on this topic.

He served as a United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013, and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 Presidential Election but lost to incumbent George W. Bush.

The son of an Army Air Corps veteran, Kerry was born in Aurora, Colorado. He attended boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and went on to graduate from Yale University class of 1966, where he majored in political science and became a member of the influential Skull and Bones secret society. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1966, and during 1968–1969 served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty in South Vietnam as officer-in-charge (OIC) of a Swift Boat. For that service, he was awarded combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Securing an early return to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in which he served as a nationally recognized spokesman and as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. He appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs where he deemed United States war policy in Vietnam to be the cause of “war crimes.”

It’s been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, then presidents without that previous experience, because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make.

I’ll give you a perfect example of that: when Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission: get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience, other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President: Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later.

We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation, who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you hear Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy