About Me

Name: FeargalX
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Bristol Palin v. Ashley Biden

Just how fair is the media?  Bristol Palin continues to be a huge story even though her mother lost the Vice Presidential election.  About 2 days ago, I first heard about Ashley Biden (who works for an agency for children) who has repeatedly been arrested (once for drug possession, once for interfering with law enforcement) -- and who now has been caught on tape snorting cocaine.  She is 27 years old -- not some baby.  Ms. Biden has chosen to work "for children" -- while using drugs -- and while her dad called for the "war on drugs" that we are in (and that we have lost at the price of many basic freedoms). 
Keep in mind, if you want to have a "war on drugs" -- which will claim drugs support terrorism -- what do you think will happen to your 2nd Amendment rights?   Why not make gun manufacturers responsible for gun crime instead of those who PERPETRATE crime?  That is the same thing we do with drugs ("if you use drugs, you support terrorism").  I don't believe that those who drank in the 1920s supported the mob -- nor do I believe that those who use drugs support terrorism.  Government policy is what supports the mob or the "terrrorists."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

how to achieve universal health care coverage

Achieving universal health care coverage is simple.  All Americans should be eligible for medicaid -- not just the poor.  We live in a country where responsible people can be ruined by an unanticipated medical situation (if they are in between coverage), while someone who has been in prison and on welfare receives coverage.  Medicaid is not a glamorous program -- most (not all) private insurance programs are better.  We should not provide a benefit to people who are irresponsible while ignore those who paid taxes and obeyed the law.
 
Secondly, we should open up VA coverage to more people (children of eligible parties, etc).  Those newly eligible people should have to pay some amount (like $100 per month) that is not small, but not out of reach of almost all Americans.  Like medicaid, VA health is not the "greatest" ever -- but it is far better than nothing.
 
The consequences of such a program is that bad insurance companies (who no longer could compete) would go out of business.  Unfortunately, this is precisely why such a program would likely never be passed (both parties get lobbied by these groups).
 
Ironically, the price of healthcare would go down since a private health plan would have to offer something clearly better than medicaid in order to compete.
 
Germany currently has such a system (in a way).  All have access to free care, but most aspire to have a private plan (about half do).  Health care costs per person are about half in Germany of America.
 
Unlike most products, health care is so heavily regulated (I cannot just perform surgery or sell and make medicine) and has forces at play having nothing to do with the market (if I had a broken leg, being in severe pain I would pay every dollar in my savings for treatment even though that might be "overpriced").
 
Those who think this is "socialistic" -- I have this question:  Don't you get that we heavily regulate this industry already -- and provide healthcare in one form or another to more than half of all Americans?  I might like it if we had fewer drug laws and restrictions for medical care -- but "conservatives" are not advocating that position (if anything, they want tougher "drug" laws).  While "conservatives" have pushed tough drug laws, they think it was just fine that Vioxx was given out like candy for pain issues (despite its properties of giving strokes and heart attacks).  On the other hand, somebody who obtained a drug for moderate pain like hydrocodone without proper authorization will generally go to jail (unless you are like Rush Limbaugh who obtained much stronger meds like Oxycodone and Oxycontin).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Audacity and revisionism

 

Obama’s association with bigots made little difference in the election. Because of ignorance of history and blatant bigotry, statements of people like Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama are excused – and are even given the sanction of partial truth.

Slavery and separate but equal were not “good” things – but what do they have to do with “white” people? While those who owned slaves “looked white” and those who were slaves in the U.S. “looked black” slavery really only existed in a pocket of ethic groups. That is, almost all black American slaves came from a Region in Western-Central Africa – and almost all slaveholders were from the British Isles/Spain/France/Portugal. It neither involved most “white” ethnic groups, nor most “black” ethnic groups. To suggest otherwise is to assert cultural ignorance.

The ignorant and bigots, likewise, would observe that someone who “looked” a certain way would have had to attend a separate school, or stayed in separate inferior accommodations and would be denied due process if they could be transported back to America of 50 or 100 years ago – but would forget that the Duke Campus and black on white crime places people who “look white” in a clear position of being subjected to “worse” treatment. Scholarship and employment opportunities are what they are – they mandate different standards for different “looking” people.

Post-slavery, the “victims” and “perpetrators” were largely the same as the parties between 1700 and 1860. Immigration patterns are what they are (Southern/Eastern Europeans primarily went to the North, not the South).

On a stark level, what “history” of bigotry and racism do Estonians have in “oppressing” Sudanese? The answer is a resounding “no such history.”

Whatever America ever did to black Americans, was it really worse than being complicit in the unnecessary destruction of Dresden at the end of WWII? 

The answer from Obama and Wright is that “you” white people did (fill in the black). However, history and facts tell us that Obama’s ancestors were slaveholders in America – you would be hard pressed to find a Sami, Sorb, Estonian or Bulgarian who owned black slaves in the U.S. Moreover, a large number of Obama’s ancestors were English – a ethnicity that dominated Ireland for 800 years – and much of the rest of the world for over 200 years.

Some people do not like “black people” (though some bigots will distinguish “black Americans” from “other” blacks). Some people think all East Asians are good at math – and some think the Japanese are the “natives” of Japan (they are from China, the natives are the Ainu ethnic group). Ignorance, over-generalizations and stupidity is rampant. The worse form of bigotry is violence (hands down). Sticks and stones break bones, no name does that. Yet, political correctness on campus means that certain violence is “acceptable” because of “racism” – but even questioning affirmative action is not permitted.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »