The protests going on today are an insult to our forefathers. The Boston tea party was to protest the tax levied on tea and other goods by a foreign government which did not give the people a say (i.e. not democratic) in the taxes paid, nor did they BENEFIT from the taxes paid to the English government. I understand if you don't like the stimulus plans, but the majority of people in this nation elected a president and congress that is making these stimulus packages. This means you voiced your opinion and it was heard (your vote was counted). Also, the stimulus package is intended to benefit you and everyone else- it's not like it's going into the pockets of some communist leader.
My point is, protest the stimulus package if you feel wronged by it, but don't liken it to the great Boston Tea Party where the people were protesting being taxed by a government they didn't elect, that spent the tax revenue in a market and to people that didn't benefit the taxpayers that paid it. These tea party protests today are an insult to the momentous protest in Boston so many years ago.
Which brings me to those of you protesting the stimulus packages. Let's think about this logically. We are in a downswing of the capitalist system- the free market is like that, it cycles up and down. So all of you free market capitalists out there are saying "let's do nothing, let the market take its course." The people saying this are the same people who's jobs are still intact and have no danger of losing their homes and being able to take care of their families. All the families that find themselves living on the street recently are not the ones saying let the market follow the natural cycle. When you get laid off and default on your mortgage and are living on the street, will you still say let the market be? I think not. Nor will you be happy about the value of your home plummeting because half your neighborhood is vacant. You won't be happy when those vacant house are invaded by squatters- who can't shower because the water is shut off- and start breaking into your house to steal food or goods to sell for food.
Face it- we do not live in a true "free market capitalist" society, and nobody wants to if they take the time to think about it. If it weren't for the "socialist" leanings of our government, our nation would be in much more trouble than it is now. We would be importing all of our milk and paying over $10 a gallon for it because all our dairy farmers would have gone out of business long ago had the government not established price floors on milk. New York City would be a bigger cesspool of homelessness than it is now because nobody would be able to afford to live there had the government not established price caps on rent. Were it not for anti monopoly laws and government regulation, the financial industry would be ruled by companies like AIG and Enron, led by over paid executives with no accountability or incentive to do well, and siphoning millions of dollars off for their own pockets.
Lastly, let's not forget that tax revenue for the government comes from businesses too, unless they set up an offshore account to dump the money in to evade taxes. There are many reports available (i'm too irritated to post links, do your own damn homework) showing how little tax giant corporations pay because of all the loopholes like offshore accounts. You want to have a little tea party and refuse to pay your taxes? Why don't you protest the tax evasion loopholes in current tax law for giant corporations? Not to mention I did my taxes already, and I received a tax cut from the stimulus package- I haven't seen one single tax cut over the past 8 years of republican leadership (other than the one refund check). On top of that, because I'm financially responsible and purchased a house, I had to pay for my and my wife's schooling (with help from my parents)- no Pell grant was available to me after Bush cut Pell grant funding and defined my mortgage payment as an asset (I understand the equity in my house is an asset, but there isn't that much equity. If you bought a $122,000 home like me, and had only a couple thousand in equity, your Pell grant qualification was denied on the basis that you had an $122,000 asset, not $8000 asset and a $116,000 liability.) My point being that not only did the Republican Bush administration never cut my taxes, but they screwed me over and didn't want me to get an education. So what's to complain about with these pathetic "tea parties"?
Quit listening to the Sean Hannity's of the world and do your own research. Try to realize that the Sean Hannity's of the world are more concerneed with their ratings than actually telling the truth, and the whole truth. Their ratings go up by telling partial truths and twisted truths to incite right wing emotions during a left wing presidency. Just to reiterate, do some research before you go out and insult our forefathers.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
more political thoughts
I'm really frustrated over this stimulus bill. I don't agree with everything in it, but I think that, overall, it's a good thing. Is it a lot of money when we already have a huge deficit? Sure, but what is the alternative? The Republicans are basically suggesting we do nothing. They really haven't come forward with a viable alternative. They were all for the last stimulus bill, without oversight. What I get from that is that the first bill was A. ok because it was suggested by a Republican, or B. ok because it was really a good-ol-buddy glad-hand package that payed off campaign contributors. Either way, epic fail. So the Obama administration tried to make changes to the bill to garner bi-partisan support- they axed a bunch of good spending like funding for school construction (apparently better education for our kids is not a good thing, and construction jobs are not really jobs), and what kind of Republican support did it get- none! I would have preferred passing the original bill with full school construction funding, among other things. Not to mention the GOP opposed retrofitting government buildings to be more energy effecient. Come on guys, more effecient buildings means we pay less for energy in those buildings, and it creates jobs to do the work. Maybe the Republicans don't think blue-collar jobs are actuall jobs? Pathetic- what kind of jobs do they think their low-class, gun totin', hillbilly supporters work (sorry that's a mean stereotype, but I'm too frustrated to come up with a better description)? What kind of jobs are being cut the most? Blue-collar jobs!
The Republican party has two mantras that are, ultimately, failed. The first is that tax-cuts are they best way to solve any economic crisis. I won't complain to a tax-cut, but it just isn't always the answer. Just because you put a little more money back in the hands of the consumer, doesn't mean that they will spend it. Consumers are scared right now, if they get more money in their hands, they are going to save more than they have in the past. You would think that would help open the credit market, but it won't. Consumer savings accounts are in consumer banks and credit unions. Small businesses may see a small increase in credit, but nothing significant. The banks aren't going to be any more willing to lend as they just got burned and are trying to stay alive. Tax-cuts for businesses aren't going to help either- most businesses will use the extra money to shore up their longevity, not to mention that the amount put back into the businesses hands isn't going to be all that significant to a business.
The second failed mantra is that a completely free market is unfaillable. The concept of a totally free market is good on paper, but then again so is communism. The problem with the both is that they are corrupted by human nature- greed. Unless you can elliminate all greed, both communism and free market are doomed to fail. The reason our "free market" is still alive is because it ISN'T totally free. A completetly free market would have immense swings up and down and be totally unreliable (hell, we would have lost most of our farming industry decades ago if it hadn't been for price floors). In fact, this current recession is an example of that. We are in a huge down swing becasue of lack of regulation. A completely free market would be dominated by monopolies and stifle true innovation. One poiniant example of the free market failing is in the financial industry, with their CEO's and thier "golden parachutes". A true free market says that a good business leader prospers financially, and a poor one suffers- like being fired! Most industries oust the CEO if the company is tanking. This creates motive for the CEO to do well. In the financial industry, though, CEO's are not motivated thusly. CEO's sign on with a huge portion of their income in stock options. They are given the option to buy stocks at a later date, at the lower cost of what they were worth when the CEO started. This assumes that the stock price of the company will improve under the leadership of the CEO, creating motive to do well. Unfortunatley, if the stocks drop, the CEO is then given another stock option deal to purchase at the lower value. This effefctively erases the motivation of the stock option. The CEO has very little reason to do well. He/she stands to make money on increased stock value, still, but he/she would make more money by letting the stock plummet first which gambles that they can bring it back up. This is on top of the CEO's getting paid huge salaries and bonuses despite the comapany failing financially. Rather than cutting their own 6 figure income down, they lay people off. If that isn't greed, then what is? If the CEO is making above national average income (which is less than 6 figures), they should be required to cut their own pay down to that level prior to a single lay-off. Look at small business owners- if the company is struggling, their pay decreases. CEO's should be held to the same "free market" standard, but they aren't.
One other thing that pisses me off- Sean Hannity. A few days ago, on his radio show, he said, in response to the President Obama statement that we should lead the way as an example in nuclear disarmament, that we would be making us weak and make us more of a target. Come-on, if we dismantle 200 nuclear warheads as a show of faith, WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH NUCLEAR WAEPONRY TO DESTROY THE WORLD! How exactly doe that weaken us? And how can we be more of a target than we already are? And to Sean Hannity, who will never read this blog, quit whining about President Obama using words of fear when he talks about the recession! Your entire show, right now, is based off using words of fear! In fact your entire career is based of of using emotional (fear) language to incite emotional responses from people- that's why they listen! I only listen to bits and pieces of Sean Hannity's show, I don't listen every day, but I do like to hear differing points of view so that I see things from more sides than my own. It's just so infuriating when he makes such ignorant comments.
The Republican party has two mantras that are, ultimately, failed. The first is that tax-cuts are they best way to solve any economic crisis. I won't complain to a tax-cut, but it just isn't always the answer. Just because you put a little more money back in the hands of the consumer, doesn't mean that they will spend it. Consumers are scared right now, if they get more money in their hands, they are going to save more than they have in the past. You would think that would help open the credit market, but it won't. Consumer savings accounts are in consumer banks and credit unions. Small businesses may see a small increase in credit, but nothing significant. The banks aren't going to be any more willing to lend as they just got burned and are trying to stay alive. Tax-cuts for businesses aren't going to help either- most businesses will use the extra money to shore up their longevity, not to mention that the amount put back into the businesses hands isn't going to be all that significant to a business.
The second failed mantra is that a completely free market is unfaillable. The concept of a totally free market is good on paper, but then again so is communism. The problem with the both is that they are corrupted by human nature- greed. Unless you can elliminate all greed, both communism and free market are doomed to fail. The reason our "free market" is still alive is because it ISN'T totally free. A completetly free market would have immense swings up and down and be totally unreliable (hell, we would have lost most of our farming industry decades ago if it hadn't been for price floors). In fact, this current recession is an example of that. We are in a huge down swing becasue of lack of regulation. A completely free market would be dominated by monopolies and stifle true innovation. One poiniant example of the free market failing is in the financial industry, with their CEO's and thier "golden parachutes". A true free market says that a good business leader prospers financially, and a poor one suffers- like being fired! Most industries oust the CEO if the company is tanking. This creates motive for the CEO to do well. In the financial industry, though, CEO's are not motivated thusly. CEO's sign on with a huge portion of their income in stock options. They are given the option to buy stocks at a later date, at the lower cost of what they were worth when the CEO started. This assumes that the stock price of the company will improve under the leadership of the CEO, creating motive to do well. Unfortunatley, if the stocks drop, the CEO is then given another stock option deal to purchase at the lower value. This effefctively erases the motivation of the stock option. The CEO has very little reason to do well. He/she stands to make money on increased stock value, still, but he/she would make more money by letting the stock plummet first which gambles that they can bring it back up. This is on top of the CEO's getting paid huge salaries and bonuses despite the comapany failing financially. Rather than cutting their own 6 figure income down, they lay people off. If that isn't greed, then what is? If the CEO is making above national average income (which is less than 6 figures), they should be required to cut their own pay down to that level prior to a single lay-off. Look at small business owners- if the company is struggling, their pay decreases. CEO's should be held to the same "free market" standard, but they aren't.
One other thing that pisses me off- Sean Hannity. A few days ago, on his radio show, he said, in response to the President Obama statement that we should lead the way as an example in nuclear disarmament, that we would be making us weak and make us more of a target. Come-on, if we dismantle 200 nuclear warheads as a show of faith, WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH NUCLEAR WAEPONRY TO DESTROY THE WORLD! How exactly doe that weaken us? And how can we be more of a target than we already are? And to Sean Hannity, who will never read this blog, quit whining about President Obama using words of fear when he talks about the recession! Your entire show, right now, is based off using words of fear! In fact your entire career is based of of using emotional (fear) language to incite emotional responses from people- that's why they listen! I only listen to bits and pieces of Sean Hannity's show, I don't listen every day, but I do like to hear differing points of view so that I see things from more sides than my own. It's just so infuriating when he makes such ignorant comments.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Political thoughts
So, I'm excited about having Barack Obama as our next president. I did vote for him, just to be clear. I have been anti-Bush for eight years, voting for Gore and Kerry, and I feel that my distrust of Bush has been completely justified. That, however, is not the political thoughts I wanted to publish. I have been thinking about the "bailout" plans. Both plans, banking and auto industry.
It seems to me that the overall idea is to rescue businesses that have made poor business decisions, particularliy in the auto industry. If a small business owner makes a poor decision and has to go under because of it, he goes under. Nobody "rescues" him/her, despite people losing their jobs because of it. In the banking industry, we have banks making risky loans to home buyers, and the lending banks' bank making risky loans to the banks making the risky loans, right? If I put my money into stock of a company that I think will do well, and the company tanks, I take the fall. So how is this different? Sure it's on a much larger scale, but if they fold, doesn't that mean that newer companies will buy up the debt left for pennies, creating much less risk for the loan holder? What am I missing here, tat seems like the better way... and as a side not, if the government is going to pay for "troubled mortgages" to refinance, why can't my mortgage be troubled?
As for the auto industry, I have a hard time rescuing companies that continuously make bad choices. For example, when the Toyota Prius arrived on the market, it had such high demand that Toyota couldn't make enough. There were waiting lists at dealers. As the hybrid car entered the market, it grew even more popular. Now we have a "green" trend in the USA where many companies are marketing their "greenness", people are growing concerned about the health safety of plastics, and people are moving away from high fructos corn syrup so much that the corn growers association is paying for commercials promoting high fructos corn syrup. Yet despite these glaring trends toward personal and global health, the American auto industry continues to mass produce, and heavily market, gas guzzling trucks and SUV's. Even with the recent spike in oil prices, the auto dealers continued to rely on trucks and SUV's, and when their sales plummetted, they blame it on the economy and ask for money from the government. I say let them fail like any other business.
I know what you are thinking- "What about all the jobs that will be lost?". Well, again, we have to rely on the free market here. Let the other auto makers surge and pick up those employees. Despite being Japanese, Toyota and Honda have factories in the US, and with the fall of their competitiors, they will see a surge in sales. This in turn helps them grow and have new jobs available. Why wouldn't they hire the people that already know how to build cars? Very little training costs involved. If the government wants to help, they can support those people during the transition of losing their jobs at American auto makers, and being hired by the foriegn companies. The only real downfall is the loss of truly American auto makers, which seems to me is a perfect opportunity for a new auto maker in the US to grow as the economy comes back.
My other problem in this subject is the CEO's. Let's look at this from a small business owner perspective. Let's say I own a small business, and as the economy is strong and I continue to make the right decisions, I begin making a lot of money. As the owner, I decide to pay myself more for my efforts, and soon I am making $100,000 /yr, while the company continues to grow strong. Then the economy takes a downturn and my sales drop. I begin to make sacrifices and cut costs to stay alive. If I beg for money from ANYONE, I'm told to suck it up, most businesses fail, that's the risk I took. So getting a "bailout" is not an option. What's my next move? Cut my own damn pay, that's what. Take my $100,000 down to $60,000 because if I can just survive the economic slow down, I'll be able to take it back up eventually. Shouldn't CEO's be held to the same standard? Why are these businesses failing, but the CEO's are still making MILLIONS! Why aren't they made to cut their own pay- it's the risk of business! So they have to sell their mansions, big freakin' deal! If millions of people, including thier employees, can live on $60,000/yr and less, they can too.
I guess my point is, if we are going to bail out these companies, the people that let them get to this point, should be ousted. If the automaker can't get a sense of the market turning "green", then dump those that missed it. If a company makes risky loans that go bad, toss the people that allowed those loans to be made, then rescue the company. As it stands, we're poised to rescue these companies, and leave the same people in charge that got them there to begin with.
It seems to me that the overall idea is to rescue businesses that have made poor business decisions, particularliy in the auto industry. If a small business owner makes a poor decision and has to go under because of it, he goes under. Nobody "rescues" him/her, despite people losing their jobs because of it. In the banking industry, we have banks making risky loans to home buyers, and the lending banks' bank making risky loans to the banks making the risky loans, right? If I put my money into stock of a company that I think will do well, and the company tanks, I take the fall. So how is this different? Sure it's on a much larger scale, but if they fold, doesn't that mean that newer companies will buy up the debt left for pennies, creating much less risk for the loan holder? What am I missing here, tat seems like the better way... and as a side not, if the government is going to pay for "troubled mortgages" to refinance, why can't my mortgage be troubled?
As for the auto industry, I have a hard time rescuing companies that continuously make bad choices. For example, when the Toyota Prius arrived on the market, it had such high demand that Toyota couldn't make enough. There were waiting lists at dealers. As the hybrid car entered the market, it grew even more popular. Now we have a "green" trend in the USA where many companies are marketing their "greenness", people are growing concerned about the health safety of plastics, and people are moving away from high fructos corn syrup so much that the corn growers association is paying for commercials promoting high fructos corn syrup. Yet despite these glaring trends toward personal and global health, the American auto industry continues to mass produce, and heavily market, gas guzzling trucks and SUV's. Even with the recent spike in oil prices, the auto dealers continued to rely on trucks and SUV's, and when their sales plummetted, they blame it on the economy and ask for money from the government. I say let them fail like any other business.
I know what you are thinking- "What about all the jobs that will be lost?". Well, again, we have to rely on the free market here. Let the other auto makers surge and pick up those employees. Despite being Japanese, Toyota and Honda have factories in the US, and with the fall of their competitiors, they will see a surge in sales. This in turn helps them grow and have new jobs available. Why wouldn't they hire the people that already know how to build cars? Very little training costs involved. If the government wants to help, they can support those people during the transition of losing their jobs at American auto makers, and being hired by the foriegn companies. The only real downfall is the loss of truly American auto makers, which seems to me is a perfect opportunity for a new auto maker in the US to grow as the economy comes back.
My other problem in this subject is the CEO's. Let's look at this from a small business owner perspective. Let's say I own a small business, and as the economy is strong and I continue to make the right decisions, I begin making a lot of money. As the owner, I decide to pay myself more for my efforts, and soon I am making $100,000 /yr, while the company continues to grow strong. Then the economy takes a downturn and my sales drop. I begin to make sacrifices and cut costs to stay alive. If I beg for money from ANYONE, I'm told to suck it up, most businesses fail, that's the risk I took. So getting a "bailout" is not an option. What's my next move? Cut my own damn pay, that's what. Take my $100,000 down to $60,000 because if I can just survive the economic slow down, I'll be able to take it back up eventually. Shouldn't CEO's be held to the same standard? Why are these businesses failing, but the CEO's are still making MILLIONS! Why aren't they made to cut their own pay- it's the risk of business! So they have to sell their mansions, big freakin' deal! If millions of people, including thier employees, can live on $60,000/yr and less, they can too.
I guess my point is, if we are going to bail out these companies, the people that let them get to this point, should be ousted. If the automaker can't get a sense of the market turning "green", then dump those that missed it. If a company makes risky loans that go bad, toss the people that allowed those loans to be made, then rescue the company. As it stands, we're poised to rescue these companies, and leave the same people in charge that got them there to begin with.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
new job
Well, I got a new job. I am now the IT Manager for Fishbowl Inventory. We make an inventory managements software that can interface with Quickbooks. Check us out at www.fishbowlinventory.com (shameless plug you bet!!!!) They have been without an IT Manager for a couple months, so I have an enormous list of things to do, and some of them are major projects. We are moving our customer management database from ACT to SugarCRM. That should be entertaining :P I was going to build the Sugar machine on an Ubuntu LAMP server but I couldn't get all of the LAMP components to work together so I think I'll build it with the SugarCRM iso that configures everything on Red Hat. I hate Red Hat though...
I also got to install a BES server (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) onto our exchange. What a pain, but pretty useful now that it's up. :)
I do hope to start posting useful how-to's from the IT world, but we'll see how well I stick to it :)
I did find out from bleepingcomputer.com that the reason my new work laptop wouldn't display websites correctly was that the "Use High contrast" setting was set in accessibility options. I unchecked it an voila, I could see sites correctly :)
I also got to install a BES server (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) onto our exchange. What a pain, but pretty useful now that it's up. :)
I do hope to start posting useful how-to's from the IT world, but we'll see how well I stick to it :)
I did find out from bleepingcomputer.com that the reason my new work laptop wouldn't display websites correctly was that the "Use High contrast" setting was set in accessibility options. I unchecked it an voila, I could see sites correctly :)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
me
I think I should tell the world about myself (briefly). Without giving away any personal information :) I am the Security Administrator for an ISP in Utah. I have a bachelor's degree in Information Systems Security from ITT-Technical Institute, and an Associates degree in Business from Salt Lake City Community College (I'm reel learnt). I hold the Associate of (ISC)² certification (same test as CISSP, just lacking work experience), which I hope to upgrade to full CISSP in 2008. I juggle and ride a 6-foot tall unicycle for fun, and play World of Warcraft in my ever-diminishing free time (I can't help it, I love computer games- sad, I know). I am also teaching adjunct at ITT-Technical Institute now, which is a very interesting experience that I will elaborate more on in a later post.
I am happily married, and my first kid (son) was born October 3rd, 2007. I also have 2 cats (fat and lazy- not their names but should be)
Anyway, that's me in a dried-out-insect-exoskeleton. ;)
I hope that lends some credibility to my random comments (yeah right).
I am happily married, and my first kid (son) was born October 3rd, 2007. I also have 2 cats (fat and lazy- not their names but should be)
Anyway, that's me in a dried-out-insect-exoskeleton. ;)
I hope that lends some credibility to my random comments (yeah right).
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
politics
As we draw nearer to the 2008 presidential election, I find myself pondering politics. In, Utah, or example, I am surprised that there isn't a huge Mitt Romney base, blindly following him because he's Mormon. Traditionally, Mormons are Republicans. I know this is a bit of a stereo type, but Utah hasn't been won by a Democratic candidate in a long time. Here's an interesting link for the electoral college. I tried to find out when the last time Utah was won by a non-republican party, but my attention waned. Anyway, in the last 2 presidential elections, Utah has been won by the Republicans by a large number of votes. My point I was trying to get to is that most Utahns that I have spoken to about their political affiliation, have been blindly Republican, not able to make clear reasons for being Republican. Also, mormons love to tell you the famous people that are also mormon, which led me to think, combined with the former statement, they would blindly follow a mormon republican candidate anywhere. Perhaps they are holding out to see if he wins the republican nomination.
What I have seen in Utah, that I expected, is a general hatred of Hillary Clinton. I have heard many things like, "If Hillary wins, I'll have to move out of the country". I believe this stems from the LDS religion's tendency not to trust women in positions of power. Couple that with Hillary Clinton being a Democrat, and to many Utah Mormons, she's the devil. If you ask these people why they won't vote for Hillary, they will generally tell you one of three things: She's a socialist, she's a liar, or she contradicts herself. To this, I say: To a Republican, the Democratic platforms are on the socialist side- the Democratic party has always been more for the laborer than the business owner, and their belief that good health care is a basic human right, flies against good Republican, billionaire, pharmaceutical and health care campaign contributers, so of course you think she's a socialist. Also, of course she lies, she's a politician. Contradict herself? Again, she's a politician. Anyone that thinks that any presidential candidate doesn't lie or contradict themselves, is an idiot. I, obviously, am democratic-leaning, but I will freely admit that all the democratic candidates lie and contradict themselves, because every candidate, regardless of party, does. If you don't believe me, spend a week listening to Sean Hannity and John Stewart. Hannity will point out the lies and contradictions of the democrats, and Stewart will point out the lies and contradictions of the Republicans
So what does that mean for the election? Am I going to vote for Hillary? I won't decide that until I see who the democratic nominee is. I'm not totally opposed to the idea anyway.
Just a quick note about health care. I was listening to Sean Hannity the other day, and I heard him say that the American Health care system is the best in the world. That's why people leave the country to get their health care. That's why Americans buy their prescriptions in Canada and smuggle them back. That's why elderly re-hab patients are sent home before they are able to take are of themselves, many dieing or needing to be rushed to the ER because they tried to get to the bathroom and fell. That's why millions of Americans can't afford to go to the doctor, or have to choose between seeing the doctor themselves, or having their children see the doctor. That's why millions of Americans can't afford life-saving medications and procedures. And that's why Republican politicians get free rides/trips on HMO and pharmaceutical private jets. Give me a break Hannity.
Forrestmage
What I have seen in Utah, that I expected, is a general hatred of Hillary Clinton. I have heard many things like, "If Hillary wins, I'll have to move out of the country". I believe this stems from the LDS religion's tendency not to trust women in positions of power. Couple that with Hillary Clinton being a Democrat, and to many Utah Mormons, she's the devil. If you ask these people why they won't vote for Hillary, they will generally tell you one of three things: She's a socialist, she's a liar, or she contradicts herself. To this, I say: To a Republican, the Democratic platforms are on the socialist side- the Democratic party has always been more for the laborer than the business owner, and their belief that good health care is a basic human right, flies against good Republican, billionaire, pharmaceutical and health care campaign contributers, so of course you think she's a socialist. Also, of course she lies, she's a politician. Contradict herself? Again, she's a politician. Anyone that thinks that any presidential candidate doesn't lie or contradict themselves, is an idiot. I, obviously, am democratic-leaning, but I will freely admit that all the democratic candidates lie and contradict themselves, because every candidate, regardless of party, does. If you don't believe me, spend a week listening to Sean Hannity and John Stewart. Hannity will point out the lies and contradictions of the democrats, and Stewart will point out the lies and contradictions of the Republicans
So what does that mean for the election? Am I going to vote for Hillary? I won't decide that until I see who the democratic nominee is. I'm not totally opposed to the idea anyway.
Just a quick note about health care. I was listening to Sean Hannity the other day, and I heard him say that the American Health care system is the best in the world. That's why people leave the country to get their health care. That's why Americans buy their prescriptions in Canada and smuggle them back. That's why elderly re-hab patients are sent home before they are able to take are of themselves, many dieing or needing to be rushed to the ER because they tried to get to the bathroom and fell. That's why millions of Americans can't afford to go to the doctor, or have to choose between seeing the doctor themselves, or having their children see the doctor. That's why millions of Americans can't afford life-saving medications and procedures. And that's why Republican politicians get free rides/trips on HMO and pharmaceutical private jets. Give me a break Hannity.
Forrestmage
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
First day of blog
So I've been meaning to start a blog for... well.. years. I just never did it. I do have one on my myspace page, but ...meh.... nobody sees it. At any rate, we'll see how often i manage to post to it as my attention span is .... I like bunnies, they're cute..... and I want a butterfinger..... anyway, here's to my future in blogging! Forrestmage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)