'Politics' Category
“My Land of Birth”
Whenever people discuss different political things, governmental changes, etc. in the U.S., the Founding Fathers are often brought up. "This was/was not the Founding Fathers' intent," is commonly said. The plumb line for said item that is being discussed is whether it lines up with what the Founding Fathers intended.
For example, some feel that the Department of the Interior is "wrong" because it oversteps the role of government according to the Constitution. It's a "waste" of resources, etc, since it's not what the Founding Fathers intended. However, what is it that makes it "wrong?" Is it sinful for a government to have a Department of the Interior? Considering that the Bible doesn't really talk about national parks ;-), I'm going to say no. But why isn't these seen as a preference issue rather than a "right/wrong" issue, since we are talking about a constitution, not the Word of God? AND, since the U.S. Constitution calls for a republic, why is it assumed that the only things allowed EVER in the U.S. are the things specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and anything else is WRONG?
Along similar lines, when discussing other countries and their laws, those law are often compared to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government here, and then those laws are deemed "good" or "bad," depending on how they line up with our Constitution.
What is it that makes us defend our Constution and form of government? For those of us who are born here, is it because we are born here? What about those who are born in Finland? Or Zimbabwe? Or India? Are the people that live in other countries as bent on the "rightness" of their Constitution? Typically people don't get much of a choice as to what country they live in or the government they are under, so do they automatically defend their form of government (note: NOT their government leaders) simply because they have no other choice?
Also, what makes us think that our form of government is better than, say, Canada's? From what I can tell, Canada has a republic as well (Carla, correct me if I'm wrong LOL), but it's also very different from ours, and I have seen the Canadian government criticized by Americans for different policies and laws. (Andrea has corrected me - Canada is a Dominion...see the comments. Thanks, Andrea! But it still applies.
) Yet it's because those laws are against OUR Constitution, NOT Canada's. In fact, if you ask the Canadians, they are pretty pleased with those laws. Isn't that what a republic is all about anyway? Allowing the people to have a say? So why are we complaining about what CANADIANS want to do?This post probably doesn't make much sense...I don't even know if I really have a point. I don't even know how I feel about all of it myself, especially since I've always been pretty conservative when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. These are just some ponderings that I've been having for a while....
What is Mike Huckabee’s REAL record on homeschooling?
I posted about Mike Huckabee and homeschooling a couple days ago. I just found this video. This just solidifies my opinion.
On Huckabee and Homeschooling
I've seen in several places lately that some feel that Mike Huckabee is not homeschool-friendly. I find it interesting that many homeschoolers in Arkansas DO like Huckabee. I was one of them (when I lived there). Recently on a message board I'm on, a current Arkansas homeschooler posted this:
BUT...I do have to say this about the homeschooling legislation referenced. The legislation that Huckabee signed that further regulated homeschoolers in Arkansas was actually legislation *supported* by most Arkansas homeschoolers. It was in response to a full-fledged attack by some very, very influential anti-homeschool people in the state who were trying to pass some very, very dangerous legislation for homeschoolers. They were very close to passing that legislation. What actually passed was a compromise bill that caused homeschoolers to have to jump through a few more hoops, but basically gave the state *no* ability to interfere with us. Our current laws are also still MUCH, MUCH better than the original homeschool laws in Arkansas, enacted in 1985. So...even though it is much touted as the legislation that made Arkansas "the first state to enact more restrictive homeschool laws," it was still seen as a good thing by most Arkansas homeschoolers.
We are still *very* unregulated...the state does not have to approve of or see *anything* we do, other than our Notice of Intent that we file once a year telling them that we are going to homeschool and giving a very basic plan. They have *no* approval or oversight power of what we do, and we don't have to turn in any individual test scores or work to them. We have to test grades 3-9 every year, but that testing is done at state expense, and NO ONE other than the parent ever sees an individual child's scores. The state gets a composite of all the homeschoolers' scores in the state. This is all still *much* better than the original homeschool law in Arkansas, and *much, much* better than what the opposition was very close to passing in 1999.
Just wanted to give another perspective on the homeschool legislation that seems to be causing such a stir.
I got permission from Jen to post this, and she said that she hopes to blog about it sometime soon.
I don't have a whole lot of time to blog or research extensively, so on THIS post I will be turning off comments simply because I'm moving this weekend and won't have time to spend on this. But I just wanted to set the record semi-straight while I have a minute.
Thoughts on health care reform
Honestly I haven't paid a WHOLE lot of attention lately to the ins and outs of who is saying what about health care reform. But I've been in a couple of conversations online about it lately, and as I've thought about it, this realization occurred to me:
Health insurance doesn't need to be tied to a person's job. At all. Car insurance isn't, so why should health insurance? (Life insurance SOMETIMES is, but people still have the freedom to purchase inexpensive policies privately.)
We would be able to shop around. Most of the time, an employer chooses one plan. And all the employees have that plan or none at all. Sometimes you might have an employer that has different plans with the same health insurance company (some employees might elect to use a POS plan versus an HMO plan, for example), but it's still the same company and still a limited choice. If we eliminated the employer's involvement, everyone would be able to purchase a policy from whatever company he/she wanted.
It would put everyone on an even playing field. An employer "feels" a premium less then a self-employed person does, even if the premium is the same. Individuals shopping around for the best deal would result in lower premiums. I wonder how often an employer shops around for the best deal. I'd say that more often than not, they just pick something without trying to get the most coverage for the least amount of money. Therefore, premiums remain high.
Individuals would be able to choose the plan that is right for them. Not all health plans are created equal, and different ones are better for different situations. A relatively healthy family would do fine on a high-deductible, catastrophe-only plan with super cheap premiums. But a family with chronic health issues would need something different, say, a plan with higher premiums that has a $10 copay for office visits and prescriptions. Neither plan is "better." They are simply different. But they are better for the different families. If an employer chooses one over the other, one of the families will not have its needs met insurance-wise. But if they were able to shop around on an individual basis (like car insurance!), they would have the freedom to choose the plan that is best for them.
They would not be paying for the risk factors of their coworkers. Under the current system, when an employer is purchasing a health insurance policy for its workers, it is quoted a premium based on the age, risk factors, etc. of its employees at the time. If a company has young, healthy employees, its premium for the same plan from the same health insurance provider will be cheaper than the premium quoted a company full of older, sicker employees. And consequently, a young, healthy worker at the company full of old folks will pay more than he would if he worked at the company full of young folks. Removing health insurance as a "job benefit" would enable a person to pay a premium based on HIS/HER risk factors only, not some person he/she works with.
If someone stops working for a particular company, he can keep his insurance. There won't be any more of this 30-day waiting period garbage after a person starts working for a company, which typically means new insurance. No more COBRA, which is a DRAMATIC increase in the price of premiums from the employee's point of view, since now the employer is not contributing anything to the premium.
To quote Paula in one of the conversations I've been having:
Everyone gets that money in their paycheck and then shop for health insurance just like they would car insurance. Buy what meets your need. Shop around - I bet prices would start coming down, hospitals and doctors would need to be competitive - and by that I mean in price and service. Think about it - your employer may be paying $1,500 a month for gold-plated coverage for your family - and if you are like most people, you don't get sick that often. Wouldn't you rather find a plan that costs, say, $700 a month and pocket that other $800 after taxes - every month?
The amount that you did pay in premiums would, of course, be tax-deductible - just like it is for employers.
YES YES YES. No longer would there be this huge discrepancy between what an employee pays for health insurance and what a self-employed person pays for health insurance. They would now be on a level playing field. They would both now be paying for their premiums themselves. Employers, no longer being in the health insurance business, would be able to pay their employees what they were formerly paying the health insurance companies. Self-employed people would no longer be punished for not being employed by someone else.
Do I think this will "cure" the health care crisis in America? Probably not. But I do think it would help a lot, WITHOUT resorting to the federal government getting into the health care business.
It appears that Mike Huckabee has been thinking the same sort of thing.
I knew I liked him. LOL.
Who’s up for a good debate?
Are you as interested as I am in a Lincoln/Douglas-style debate by Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson? Mr. Thompson mentioned that's what he's interested in. Mr. Huckabee would like to take him up on his offer. Do you agree? Go co-sign the letter encouraging Mr. Thompson to schedule the debates with Mr. Huckabee!
Do you ever wonder
Just what is the point?
So many issues that I have opinions on when it comes to the way our country is run, but I figure, why even bother? I know that's not the best attitude to have, but yeah right, come on. Like calling my Respresentative (whom I actually do like) would make a difference. The lobbyists are the ones who really run things. I think that nowadays we are a "representative government" in name only.And I can only imagine how far my opinion would get if I had a representative that disagreed with me. Sure, I could call and write, but that's as far as it would go. He/she would not give a flying flip about me, their constituent, since it's all about agendas. (That's how it is with my Senators right now.)
The whole system is so messed up. What started out so glorious and amazing...well, it ISN'T anymore.
So that brings me back to my whole "why even bother" thoughts. It's frustrating and sad that my voice won't be heard on certain issues, but what is even more frustrating and sad is that it's not heard at all thanks to the way our current government operates.
Election 2008…this says it all
What is this world coming to? subtitled Hysterical news of the day
Al Gore Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Former Vice President Al Gore was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his wide-reaching efforts to draw the world's attention to the dangers of global warming, a Norwegian lawmaker said Thursday.
Is that they best they could do??????????????
I wonder if the people who predicted the coming Ice Age 32 years ago were nominated.
Why I roll my eyes when I hear about global warming
From the March 26, 2006, edition of Time Magazine:
Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast--when the emergency becomes commonplace--something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming.
Scientists have been calling this shot for decades. This is precisely what they have been warning would happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping the heat that flows in from the sun and raising global temperatures.
Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem.
"There will be no polar ice by 2060," says Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
Ocean waters have warmed by a full degree Fahrenheit since 1970,
Compare this with the June 24, 1974, edition of the same magazine:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.
the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
So you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy into "global warming." Considering that just 30 years ago the "experts" were sounding the alarm of a coming ice age, caused by the same things (emissions, etc.), I think I'll just ride it out rather than get into an uproar about it.
Methinks the emperor has no clothes.
FOX News’s poll of the day
Will the Democratic Congress be able to lower gas prices?
Excuse me while I LAUGH MY HEAD OFF.
One of the first things our Democratic governor (well, the lady who actually is claiming to be governor...whether she actually won is still questionable) did was raise our gas taxes, which of course raised our gas prices.
'Nuff said.
Am I the only one?
Am I the only one who does not buy for ONE MINUTE that there were NOT weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I mean, come on. Saddam? NOT having WMDs? Excuse me while I go laugh my hiney off.
(And yes, I know what all the investigations have said. Blah blah blah. Whatever. Not buying it.)
One word
