In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's extending of gun rights across the nation has shown that it will never seek a middle ground. Some of the Justices could care little about fairness or public safety. They are puppets of the National Rifle Association and lock-step proponents of a Constitutional amendment written before there were urban areas, before there were police departments, long before there were automatic weapons and at a time when the British enemy lived among us.
Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.
Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I suggest we take a different approach.
I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.
One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.
Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.
I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Obama Report Card
Am I happy with President Obama's Health Care reform stand? I give him a C+.
Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.
Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.
Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.
What seems to be the problem?
Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.
Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.
In case you haven't read, some of the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?
If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.
Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.
Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.
Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.
What seems to be the problem?
Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.
Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.
In case you haven't read, some of the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?
If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The trouble with polls
If you watch talk shows or listen to talk radio you hear some strange and confusing things.
The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?
Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.
Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.
They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.
They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.
Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.
You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.
If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.
The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.
No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.
That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.
The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?
Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.
Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.
They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.
They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.
Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.
You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.
If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.
The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.
No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.
That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Hypocrisy and the Hippocratic Oath
One last try to change at least one person's opinion an abortion and health care.
Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.
Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.
Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.
Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.
And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.
Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.
Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.
Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.
Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.
And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Two mad dogs are loose
Dick Cheney should be the last one to criticize anyone on how to handle terrorists.
The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.
When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.
But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.
I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.
The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.
When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.
But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.
I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Afghanistan
Unfortunately those who want to continue the war in Afghanistan and those who want immediate withdrawal have no crystal ball and do not know how either approach will turn out.
We are there because our previous president thought wrongly that we should be there. The hawks who got us there are still hawking about how it is necessary to be there. I would like to get out of there as quickly as possible but the president has made his decision and he thinks it is the right one.
Unlike our previous administration I do not believe he minimizes the horror of the war or the expense or war's burden on the American people. I am confident he would like to get this mess over with as quickly as possible.
The one phrase I was looking for was a challenge to the Afghani people: "Get your government to take over the fight against your enemies and our enemies and those who believe terrorizing the rest of the world is the answer. When you can prove you are capable of protecting yourselves and other countries from terrorists we will withdraw."
We are there because our previous president thought wrongly that we should be there. The hawks who got us there are still hawking about how it is necessary to be there. I would like to get out of there as quickly as possible but the president has made his decision and he thinks it is the right one.
Unlike our previous administration I do not believe he minimizes the horror of the war or the expense or war's burden on the American people. I am confident he would like to get this mess over with as quickly as possible.
The one phrase I was looking for was a challenge to the Afghani people: "Get your government to take over the fight against your enemies and our enemies and those who believe terrorizing the rest of the world is the answer. When you can prove you are capable of protecting yourselves and other countries from terrorists we will withdraw."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
If I were President Obama I would say. . .
Fellow Americans;
When I ran for the presidency I promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, regulate Wall Street and banking, clean up the real estate industry, the credit card companies and the Insurance companies. I also promised health care reform and fair Immigration policies. Those were my priorities.
The framers of the Constitution, in order to protect our citizens, divided the powers into Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. They envisioned all these groups working together. They did not foresee the enormous power that big business would attain, and the money its lobbyists would spread around to buy your representatives votes.
There are representatives who keep blocking our road of success because they would like to see me fail. There are representatives who pledge their allegiance to the campaign contributions of big business. There are others who vote for their constituency to the detriment of the country. They refuse to realize we are one nation and as president I am sworn to serve you all.
Fortunately, in our democracy you can make the changes I am fighting for happen. If you believe in these changes you have the final vote. You can tell your representatives to support the policies you elected me to enact or you can vote them out of office.
Thank you.
(I am sure he would say it better - if he took off the kid gloves and spoke up for himself.)
When I ran for the presidency I promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, regulate Wall Street and banking, clean up the real estate industry, the credit card companies and the Insurance companies. I also promised health care reform and fair Immigration policies. Those were my priorities.
The framers of the Constitution, in order to protect our citizens, divided the powers into Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. They envisioned all these groups working together. They did not foresee the enormous power that big business would attain, and the money its lobbyists would spread around to buy your representatives votes.
There are representatives who keep blocking our road of success because they would like to see me fail. There are representatives who pledge their allegiance to the campaign contributions of big business. There are others who vote for their constituency to the detriment of the country. They refuse to realize we are one nation and as president I am sworn to serve you all.
Fortunately, in our democracy you can make the changes I am fighting for happen. If you believe in these changes you have the final vote. You can tell your representatives to support the policies you elected me to enact or you can vote them out of office.
Thank you.
(I am sure he would say it better - if he took off the kid gloves and spoke up for himself.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
