cannedjam

As President Obama gets ready to expand the reach of the government further into the lives of Americans than ever previously imaged, let’s stop and take a moment to reflect on some common sense.

The biggest problem with the debate over Obama’s policies is the duel realities enjoyed by each sparring side. See, without agreeing on the premise, the argument bifurcates into a logic bending maelstrom.

On the issue of health insurance, there are two sides, those who believe every human is entitled to the same health care regardless of means, and those who believe in personal responsibility and the private health insurance model. The two cannot mix.

We cannot simultaneously have “universal heath care” and a health insurance industry. When the administration says we can have it all they are disingenuously trying to appeal to both the “haves” and the “have-nots”, while reinforcing two realities and two premises.

Insurance is not charity, insurance is a closely calculated system of pricing risk while spreading actuarial costs across a voluntary consumer base. Universal Health Care, on the other hand, is charity.

When Obama says he wants to end “pre-screening” read; he wants to eliminate the assessing of risk, the most basic fundamental concept of insurance. Let’s call this what it is, the wholesale dismantling of health insurance as we know it, and the installation of health charity which can only be financed by deficit spending and taxation.

If you believe in Universal Health Charity, then I cannot argue with you. I can disagree, I can tell you no were in the Constitution does it mention a government mandate to provide a doctor for every American. And perhaps you don’t really care what the Constitution says, you see people suffering and believe no cost is too much to end that suffering. That’s fine. Agree to disagree.

If you believe, as Obama is trying to sell, there is a place in a free market for both health insurance and government run health charity, then you lack a basic understanding of market realities.

By eliminating the assessment of risk, the assigning of costs based on that risk, and by preventing insurers from determining pre-existing conditions, you transform insurance into charity. And if you allow one system that does just that, and leave intact another parallel system, you are left with an overall system in which one group of people are paying twice, once for their own health care and once again for everyone else in the other system.

If we projected this logic to the broader insurance industry as a whole, we would wind up with a situation in which you could literally wait for your house to burn down before signing up for the insurance that will pay for it. You could build your house in the fire prone hills of Malibu, or in the shadow of a levee in New Orleans, or up-against the lapping tide of the Atlantic Ocean, and pay the same amount to insure it as someone who has the wherewithal to build in a safe neighborhood. In this scenario the little pig who builds the brick house is a fool; we will need to re-write our fables.

I have done no formal studies, but based on the wide posteriors of those I come across on the street, and the diets of my co-workers, it is safe to say a large overwhelming proportion of health costs are derived from completely preventable sources. Just as I refuse to give a dollar to a junkie on the street, I should not be forced to underwrite the enabling of America.

JAM Politics Health Care, Obama No comments

USA 2 - SPAIN 0!

JAM Off Topic 1 comment

Today the Obama administration backed the Defense of Marriage Act, much to the disappointment of the gay community.

In an article on theAtlantic.com a concerned reader was wondering what obama was thinking.

I’m floored by the Obama Administration’s stance on DOMA. It doesn’t make any legal sense. The only two plausible explanations i can think of:

Obama is taking a hard line on marriage to protect himself from the attack dogs when he ends DADT.

or The language in this brief was written by the previous administration, and inadvertently and/or lazily regurgitated here, with or without his knowledge. I simply cannot fathom Elena Kagan arguing this with a straight face.

The author of the article agrees.

Me neither. My best bet is that it was a decision not to force a federal judicial ruling on DOMA yet, and was written with no real understanding of how it would impact already rattled gay supporters.

If that’s true, there is a clear absence of political coordination on gay issues in the White House. [...] In the absence of any legislative action from Pelosi or Reid and total silence from Obama, the viciously anti-gay rhetoric in this brief can easily be misread, and could do substantive harm to gay couples and our fight for civil equality.

The alternative explanation is that Obama actually wants to kill marriage equality in favor of separate but equal civil unions. But he cannot do that after so many states have already granted marriage equality. And he surely cannot believe that’s what he was elected for.

That last part of his response is quite telling. Speculating almost as an afterthought, he is questioning whether Obama actually wants to kill “marriage equality in favor of separate but equal civil unions.” Umm… am I missing something here, or was that not exactly what Obama’s stance was during the campaign?

I see this as a prime example of Obama delusion syndrome, despite the fact that he ran as an anti-gay marriage candidate, some (perhaps many) in the gay community feel let down that he has followed through with an anti-gay marriage act. Either they were not paying attention to him during the campaign, felt he was just being disingenuous to get votes, or that he had somehow changed his mind about the issue.

I am just baffled how any gay American could vote for a man with an anti-gay marriage stance, then feel let down or confused by him when he does not back gay marriage. That’s like me voting for Obama then feeling let down when he started spreading the wealth instead of cutting taxes.

JAM Politics Gay Marriage, Obama No comments

A funny thing happened last night. I was accused of being a Liberal troll sowing the seeds of discord on a conservative blog I occasionally comment on, ha imagine that.

The topic of discussion was David Letterman’s hideous joke about A-Rod statutorily raping Sarah Palin’s 14 year old daughter (google it if you want, I am too tired to provide a link). After reading through the long and passionate thread, I decided to comment on a a group of people who were facetiously (but at length) “plotting” a shoe throwing attack on Letterman by infiltrating his audience and capturing the event on a cell phone video. My suggestion was that this kind of talk only brings them down to the level of the liberal fringe whose tactics they would be emulating. 

This comment of mine touched off a string of accusations about how I was a liberal in sheep’s clothing or a “Kum baya” singer trolling the thread as some secret tree hugger. I guess the point was lost on some that I was only suggesting that “fighting fire with fire” as they called for, is not always appropriate, especially when it brings you down to a lower level. 

Just as every Obama apologist’s first rebuttal is “George Bush did this…”,  that kind of logic only perpetuates bad behavior. If people continue to justify stupidity by pointing out the stupidity of others, the only thing we are left with is, well, stupidity.

Besides the amusement of being called a liberal (for the first time in my life by the way), I found it ironic and perhaps illuminating how a group of smart people can succumb to the pitfalls of thinking while outraged. This is the trap that we all are best to avoid, no matter how audacious and vicious someone attacks you (David Letterman, really have you no shame?), do not be tempted to stoop to their level as the only means of an “effective” response. And I say this not as someone who refuses to get dirty, but as someone who refuses to perpetuate the hypocrisy of “he did it first”.

JAM Off Topic, Personal, Politics David Letterman No comments

Sorry for the hiatus, I know how literally tens of you enjoy reading my unique daily content. 

Since my last update the President of The United States has nominated a candidate for Supreme Court Justice, and as you may have guessed I have an opinion on the matter.

Sonia Sotomayor, a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge has caught the eye of Obama. And as expected he picked a woman, and as expected he picked a young candidate, and as expected he picked a Hispanic, and as expected he picked a federal judge, and as expected he picked a liberal. With this criteria in hand, President Obama set forth in his exhaustive search weeding through all the viable candidates and undoubtably picked the most qualified high level young liberal female Hispanic federal court judge out there. 

Wait a minute, by my count there are only 15 Hispanic female federal court judges in existence, that’s out of 1,200 federal judges in total. That means only about 1% of the entire population of federal judges could meet Obama’s criteria, and 99% of the federal judge population was immediately eliminated from consideration solely based on their ethnicity or gender. 

And if consistency was any factor in his decision, every current Supreme Court Justice has served as a federal appellate court judge, so that whittles the list down to just 3 female Hispanic candidates. 

I guess we are to believe that out of the hundreds of realistic choices, the best candidate in all of America just happened to fit the ethnic and gender criteria assumed at the beginning of the search that matches just 3 candidates. I bet the other 200 appellate court judges are just a bunch of slouches. 

The most alarming aspect of this whole process is just who Sotomayor is and how she thinks. The judge considers herself, as a Latina, better equipped to make a “wise decision” based on her life experiences than a “white man”. Is this the kind of thinking we want on our highest court? Diversity is a noble pursuit, and perhaps we can afford to assign it a higher priority in assembling the federal court system. However, while assembling the final authority, the highest court in the land, the only criteria considered should be qualification, and the qualification of a Supreme Court Justice should be the displayed ability to interpret the Constitution with logical consistency and articulation. 

It is also alarming that out of the 5 majority opinions she has written that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court, 3 have been overturned, including one that received a unanimous 8-0 reversal. That means, somehow she was able to come to a conclusion in the capacity of an appellate court judge that the entire Supreme Court disagreed with in their capacity as appellate court judges. I don’t know about you, but I can’t really see how someone can come to a legal conclusion on a non controversial subject such as the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, that the entire Supreme Court disagrees with, and can be considered the best possible candidate to join them.

JAM Politics Obama, Sotomayor, Supreme Court No comments

Well, President Obama is at it again, yesterday he gave yet another superfluous speech on the “torture issue” steeped in contradictions and false conclusions. Who knew Obama took the Constitution so seriously? If you have been keeping score thus far in this young president’s tenure, the blaring fact that he has completely thrown out the rule of law, the Constitution, and years of legal precedent while dealing with the economic crisis, may leave you with the conclusion that he is a giant hypocrite for evoking (falsely I might add) these same principles as the justification for ramping down our intelligence apparatus. Unfortunately, consistency of thought is lost on Obama and his supporters.

His address yesterday was complete nonsense (as a speech on “torture”), yet not all was lost; in the spirit of Joe Biden, I took large portions of his text, slightly retooled it and was able to assemble a fine speech for our next president to give as a rebuke of Obama’s own reckless unilateral and illegal economic policies. The bold text are my additions, surprisingly not much editing was required.

(While reading keep in mind Obama’s recent policies of violating private citizens’ property rights in the restructuring of Chrysler by seizing secured collateral and giving it away to the UAW (5th Amendment, ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation), his subversion of the legal process, his hastily voted on economic recovery package, and all the political rhetoric, fear mongering, and dishonesty to justify his unilateral seizure of the American economy. Enjoy) 

[...] I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this economy strong unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

[...] I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

[...] Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

[...] It is the reason why we’ve been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

[...] Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain economic threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

[...] There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our economic interests won’t permit it. Our courts won’t allow it. And neither should our conscience.

[...] And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country.

We are launching a review of current economic policies by all of those agencies responsible [...] to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers[...]

[...] There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions [...], we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that ensures economic prosperity.

[...] Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people [...] don’t elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our economic security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our economic security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

[...] The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn’t always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s economic success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today [...] And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we need to hold fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

JAM Economics, Politics Economy, Obama, Torture 1 comment

Adam Lambert lost because he sounds like a bag of cats getting hit with a broom. It is refreshing to see that America has regained the ability to vote for someone who the media is not completely in the bag for. Gives me a little hope for the future. Now you guys can get back to reading all the stories about how Adam only lost because he is gay (and not because he sings like a wild banshee getting electrocuted).  

First and last time I will talk about American Idol.

JAM Off Topic Adam Lambert, American Idol, Kris Allen 1 comment

I was watching a show on TLC the other night about a teenager who weighed 800 lbs. At 18 he was so heavy that he could not get out of his chair and literally started to grow into the furniture. His life consisted of eating, sleeping, and watching TV. The one thing morbidly obese people have in common is an enabler, and the results of good intentions gone bad. It is impossible to become that heavy on your own. Once you reach the pathetic state of immobility the natural course of things dictate that you will either die of thirst or lose enough weight to allow yourself to once again get up and eat. The cycle will continue indefinitely, indulgence and attrition, however, with an enabler the bounds of excess are limitless. 

Enablers are driven by the selfish satisfaction of fulfilling someone else’s desires. They like to provide regardless of need, and fail to see the consequences of their own excess. In the case of the insanely heavy teen, his mother doted on him hand and foot, delivering him over 5,000 calories a day. She brought him movies and video games, and in an effort to make him comfortable and to provide for him, inadvertently became his jailer. He became completely dependent on her. She was both keeping him alive and killing him. 

When we are entrusted with providing there is a line where providing turns to enabling, and enabling turns to killing. It is hard to watch someone suffer, but sometimes the alternative is worse.

JAM Off Topic 1 comment

JAM Politics CIA, Obama, Torture 4 comments

Looks like being president has caused Obama to grow up a bit. In his first significant move that shows some small glimmer of hope that he may not be 100% in the bag for the far left, President Obama went back on his word (from when he was certainly 100% in the bag for the far left) and has now decided the photos of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be released. I think this is clearly the best move during an ongoing war on two fronts. At some later date, when combat missions are through, that may be a good time to review these photos, however, the way Obama contradicted himself and basically painted himself in a corner was less than graceful and perhaps reveals that he is pretty much just flying by the seat of his pants. In the end he made the right decision, but in doing so continued his string of contradictions.

JAM Politics Obama 2 comments