I have heard all too often recently that “we have a moral responsibility” to enact health care reform this year.
This thought bounced around in my head for some time. How could it be that a secular government would find anything to be a “moral imperative” or an action “moral”. Is this right?
I went to my (online) dictionary, and found that the definition of “moral” (#3) is: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral]
Then I pondered: How ironic that liberals who have spent my lifetime taking moral standards, moral norms, and moral judgements out of play using legalities, enactments and by contravening customs, is now claiming that something THEY want to foster on us all, has a moral obligation attached to its attainment.
How can those who have battled so long and hard against moral stands and moral customs now claim any legitimacy with morality? How can they make this argument with a straight face?
And why do we let them get away with it?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Feel Good Policy
The new left asserts the noble claim that healthcare is a right. A right by definition requires nothing of anyone else except that they do nothing to infringe upon that right. To claim healthcare as a right requires more than that others step out of the way; it requires that others provide it.
Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com
Shared via AddThis
Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
AS HIPPIES PARTIED
By RICHARD K. KOLB
August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm
NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."
The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."
Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.
The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."
Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.
So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.
They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.
Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.
Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.
Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.
So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
By RICHARD K. KOLB
August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm
NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."
The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."
Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.
The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."
Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.
So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.
They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.
Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.
Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.
Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.
So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
Friday, September 4, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Hubris...
As quoted on CNN, our President said:
My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.
Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.
Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.
This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.
Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. "Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo," he said. "These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear."
My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.
Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.
Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.
This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.
A Few Quick Thoughts...
... on the ongoing debate about the Health Care proposals by President Obama.
1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.
President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".
2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.
3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?
4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.
I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.
1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.
President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".
2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.
3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?
4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.
I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
