For day three of Conservative Awareness Week, we had the privilege of a visit from John Coleman, a man best known as the American meteorologist who founded the Weather Channel. Students strolled in and took their seats in the small lecture room in Rapson Hall Wednesday night, many also helping themselves to the free Raising Canes at the back of the room. Standing beside his slide show in his black suit and blue striped tie, Coleman introduced the discussion with a picture of the Earth. Apparently it was only 38 years ago, that this first full picture of the Earth was captured, with the sunlight hitting it just right. Young John Coleman was there at the television set, watching the photo gradually load onto the T.V. screen. It was an interesting thought to ponder for those of us in the room, especially since our memories only really ranged about 18-25 years or so. It's easy for us to forget that all that we know about the Earth is actually quite new, which is why he finds it best to retain a degree of cautious skepticism.
His message was clear and delivered with helpful visual and humorous supplementation. As he stood beside his presentation, gesturing at its main points, his career as a weatherman and newscaster were evident in his posture and speaking style. His arguments were informative and well-supported, and his monologue entertaining enough to get a group of college students to willingly spend their evenings listening to what he had to say on global warming. This holds especially true for the U of M Twin Cities campus, which is notorious for its "Green" initiatives. Ironically, no organization on campus appears to waste as much paper blanketing the campus in propaganda, as the environmentalists.
And, despite this reputation, John Coleman braved the possible backlash of questioning the globe-boiling doomsday allegedly lurking in our near future in order to reintroduce scientific facts to the discussion on climate change. He addressed the many myths about climate change, including flora and fauna dying off, ice caps melting away, terrible droughts wreaking havoc, coasts flooding, and all of the other "signs" of global warming that these politicians and leaders bent on finding means of control in order to someday construct their world government have so hollowly claimed.
Coleman, through speech and slide show, worked to shine light on the common misconceptions surrounding what we know about the environment. Cycles of change in flora and fauna are naturally occurring, along with the rise and fall of temperatures. The message we're hearing is that carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas will cause temperatures to skyrocket, ice caps to melt, oceans to flood over shorelines, droughts to sweep the earth, and various other catastrophes. During his speech, Coleman tried to introduce scientific facts and solid evidence, in order to give us another perspective on what is going on.
The first myth he addressed in detail was the alleged north pole and ice cap catastrophe. Ice on the north pole has consistently come and gone, melted and frozen, throughout the past thousands of years as far as we can tell. At one point, remember, we cold even sail ships through the Northwest Passage. Coleman added that, "The first submarine in 1960’s went to the north pole and came up through the ice. It has always been in an ebb and flow. The newspapers and websites and TV channels were full of this news, but today (the ice level) is right back to where we started and back to the norm of the last 40 years."
He addressed the picture of "drowning polar bears," made famous by global warming's poster child Al Gore, which depicted polar bears stranded on a small, floating chunk of ice, soon to tragically drown due to their homes having melted away. The shocking truth behind this photo is that this is such a misrepresentation of what was occurring, that it's actually somewhat laughable. The scientist who took this picture was later shocked to see her stolen shot being used in Gore's exaggerated and scientifically unsound politicized presentation. Really, as she and her team had crossed through there in their boat, the polar bears had swam up to that chunk and climbed on it out of curiosity, trying to get a better view of their peculiar and unfamiliar human visitors. A little while later, they dove back into the water and swam back to their usual icy shore. There was no drowning involved at all. Polar bear deaths were actually due largely to hunting. Local communities had used their fur to keep warm and their meat as food. Since their hunting has been limited, however, the polar bear numbers have apparently risen back up to 29,000 again. Yes, we were killing polar bears through our activities, but directly, not by warping the globe itself. Coleman declared, "The polar bears are thriving."
On the myth of flooding coasts, Coleman, who has himself lived on the coast exclaimed, "Ive lived there 15 and the waters right where it was when I got there. I have friends who have lived there for 40 years and its right where it was when they got there.” Of course, when this argument was brought up to Gore, he so wittingly responded that the ocean rises differently in different places. And, granted, there will be some fluctuations due to varying factors, but these sorts of differences involving a lack of rising altogether? Not likely.
The droughts. He acknowledged that we have had some rather severe ones two years ago (in Texas and California for example), but in the last week, there's been no drought. The El Niño season wiped it out. He explained that he lived through the dust bowl as a kid and that droughts come and go.
"There is no climate crisis," Coleman said. "No climate crisis at all."
So how did Al get it so wrong? According to Coleman, "This whole political frenzy, this whole political hubbub, …this whole thing would not have happened" if it weren't for Al Gore. So where did this man get his idea? After showing us a video he made about Al Gore that I'm sure anyone can find amongst his other videos on his website, Coleman's Corner, John Coleman informed us about Revelle,an oceanographer, and his fellow researchers who started the research with a small report. He involved student Albert Gore in his research later and Gore ended up running with it. The surprising twist here is that, in 1988, Revelle wrote to congressmen and women about his second thoughts. He then wrote a report urging more research before any remedial action. Gore called him senile and characteristically refused to debate on it. Revelle later delivered a speech apologizing for the research he had done which sent us so far astray. And ironically, Al Gore still would go on to receive the Revelle Award for his global warming propaganda. The video provided far more detail, but in summary, explained how Albert Gore, who had gotten a D in Revelle's class, went on to somehow win the Nobel Peace Prize for something based entirely on forged, greatly refuted, and/or later disproved "scientific" evidence. Coleman explained that hearing about these two men winning the Nobel Peace Prize for such a falsity, was what really pushed him over the edge. "I really study my issues carefully and clearly," he explained. "I studied the papers that showed up online...I talked to my colleagues and friends." When he decided to speak out against it, and produce a report on the fallacy here, he explained that he was at the time working in a journalism job in San Diego, and half expected to fired for this come Monday. Instead, he received a ton of support for what he wrote. More than 700 international scientists had then expressed dissent on man-made global warming. Coleman was invited to an international convention on climate change in New York, and he showed us the speech that he made there.
We were told they have 4000 scientists in consensus at UN. First of all, there are only 2900 members of the IPCC, and most are politicians and bureaucrats, not scientists. Only 60 scientists contributed to or reviewed the key chapter 9, and even of those, they weren’t totally convinced it was true.
From here, he moved into what he knows about the Earth:
The interglacial period is nature’s global warming. The other ones couldn’t have been man-made because there weren’t any human beings around. We didn't start building fossil fuels until recently (see picture of the graph he presented). The IPCC printed it out very differently. This became known as the hockey stick chart, produced by Professor Michael Man. We found out that the IPCC manipulated the formula for this chart so much that no matter what you put into it, it would come up as a hockey stick. All the warming there is is actually 6/10 of a degree. That’s it. Nature’s global warming is about one degree every hundred years, so there is nothing unusual about this.
So why is 4.5 billion dollars a year being spent on global warming?
The objective, Coleman explained, was to be able to tax industrialized nations in order to fund a single world government, and to help the U.N. and underdeveloped nations.
He concluded with points on energy sources and fuel. "Is it possible to have a modern, fossil fuel-powered civilization without destroying the climate and our clean air and water? Thanks to real scientists, we could. The technology we have in the 19th century allows us the opportunity to work towards this goal. What are you going to do, though? Wind power? Our wind farms have proved economically unviable because it only works between 17 and 24 mph.
"How about solar? That's beautiful if the sun is out. (He looks out the window) The sun isn’t out right now. Solar wouldn’t have worked tonight or over the winter. Even in San Diego it doesn’t nearly cut it.
"We have learned to use our fossil fuels cleanly thanks to real scientists. We can even power Las Vegas without damaging the environment. We can do it. We have done it. And I am proud of our scientists who have done it.
"I don’t want you to lose any more sleep about your carbon footprint. It is not real."
His last slide was a picture of underwear (included below), which he humorously explained was the only evidence he has seen for global warming.
From here he moved into an interesting question and answer session that I shall detail below, once I have a spare moment between final projects, papers and exams.
For more information, feel free to visit Coleman's Corner, off of the Kusi.com website. There should also be plenty of youtube videos you can access, in order to reach the other side of the story, and to understand not only what the government would like us to think is occurring around us, but what is actually occurring.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Cemetery of Innocents
The Display
Yesterday morning, two of my fellow College Republicans and I joined a handful of dedicated members of the Students for Life of America in setting up their third annual display called the "Cemetery of Innocents."
For anyone who passed by the lawn in front of Coffman and saw rows of black balloons attached to a variety of baby toys, diapers, shampoos, wet wipes, story books, outfits, burp cloths, etc, but did not see the sign in front of it, the 138 black balloons in this display were put out to represent the 138 babies who die every hour in the U.S. alone through abortions.
Members of the group spent the day handing out pamphlets to raise awareness of the issue and to protect the display from pro-choice students, who have tried each year to ruin the display. Actually, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that pro-choice last year students had actually rushed in with scissors to cut the strings off of the balloons. One of the SFLA members joked that it was ironic, since that wasn't very eco-friendly behavior, letting balloons loose like that. Unfortunately, after looking into it, I found out that this has happened quite a bit. This last January, at George Washington University, the College Democrats vandalized a pro-life display that the Young America's Foundation group had erected with crosses in memory of babies killed in abortions. The College Republicans, who shared a joint office with the College Democrats, came in to find that the crosses had been pinned around the office upside down with anti-Christian messages written on them and even condoms pulled over some of them. The crosses had been donated to the group for awareness purposes by a New York-based church, and this vandalism was a blatant act of assault on public property and disrespect against the pro-life students. There have been a list of incidents, ranging from tearing down and destroying or burning displays to slashing the tires of pro-life student group leaders. I was extremely disappointed to hear all of this. It's really unfortunate to see such an affront to free speech, especially on college campuses, which were meant to be forums for students to learn to open their minds to or at least respect the ideas of their peers.
Today was a beautiful day, though. Not too windy and to my knowledge things went smoothly.
The group, Students for Life of America, is a national non-profit organization, originally founded in 1988 as the American Collegians for Life. It has evolved and expanded and is now run by a board of directors, in order to create a more stable representation on campuses in order to raise awareness and promote activism on the issue. The group works with student groups on campuses across 43 states in order to educate the public about abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.
And not to worry. All of the items that were bought for the display were saved (and in some cases protected in Ziploc baggies) so that they could be donated after. The message was concise but powerful, with a shocking stat and an attention-grabbing visual that combined to spread awareness about the sheer numbers of lives lost to abortions every hour in our country.
Abortion
And, in order to do the Conservative Awareness Week's awareness topic of the day justice, I went online to the SFLA website, where they have information and facts about abortions. I know we all know that an abortion is a method used to end a pregnancy, but beyond that, most people don't know too much. According to the SFLA website's fact sheet from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1.31 million abortions occur every year in the United States. The U.S. abortion rate is unfortunately one of the highest among developed countries. In addition, if you go onto the Planned Parenthood website, it reassures readers that, "Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."
So what do abortions actually entail? I won't go into highly descriptive detail here, for those of you who are squeamish, but I am going to be honest, so if this is going to disturb you as much as it disturbs me, you need only know that there are various methods, including curettage, evacuation, extraction, injection, drugs and suction. There's a list of medical complications which come along with abortions. According to the SFLA site, these include heavy bleeding, infection, incomplete abortion, sepsis, anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, damage to internal organs and in severe cases, death. In addition, there are emotional complications such as eating disorders, relationship issues, guilt, depression, flashbacks to the abortion, suicidal thoughts, sexual dysfunction and alcohol or substance abuse. 52% of abortions are performed on women under 25 years old as well, so we are seeing more and more young women making this decision and then suffering the consequences of it.
While I believe strongly that abortions are morally wrong, however, my goal is to spread awareness so that when women make the decision to abort a baby, they realize that they aren't simply clicking the edit-undo keys on their computer. They really are having a baby medically murdered. The baby is extremely young and has not yet seen the world, but it is still a human life. I sincerely wish that women didn't have to pay the heavier price for unprotected or insufficiently protected sex more so than men, because it obviously took two to conceive. And, in the cases of rape and sexual assault, the woman may not have had any choice in conception. This is why I am hesitant to advocate for a law prohibiting all abortions. It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, the government does have the responsibility to enforce the protection of our right to life, and abortion is an obvious attack on that. In addition, in the case of abortions, the victim is hidden from the world, within the one who will be permitting the kill. I do feel that we owe it to these children to speak up for them in at least some way, seeing as they still have life and are still human beings. The fact that they are so heavily dependent and fragile still, and that they require further gestation and nurturing before they can speak for themselves should not provide reasoning against their right to live, but provide us an extra incentive to protect them. This is why I support raising awareness and educating women (and men) about the abortion issue. Perhaps if they realized the true nature of the procedures and the harsh reality of the choice they are making, they would decide not to go through with the abortion.
It is important that we stop letting society see murder as a solution.
Here is the link to the page where these procedures are described, and to where more information can be found:
http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/getthefacts/facts-and-talking-points/
I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the harsh reality of abortion, and to do what you can to help those around you to understand exactly what such a thing means when they are considering getting one. The information is difficult to read and disturbing and painful to imagine, but if we don't become more aware of it, we will continue to death tolls in the millions every year, and it will be those innocent lives paying for society's ignorance.
Yesterday morning, two of my fellow College Republicans and I joined a handful of dedicated members of the Students for Life of America in setting up their third annual display called the "Cemetery of Innocents."
For anyone who passed by the lawn in front of Coffman and saw rows of black balloons attached to a variety of baby toys, diapers, shampoos, wet wipes, story books, outfits, burp cloths, etc, but did not see the sign in front of it, the 138 black balloons in this display were put out to represent the 138 babies who die every hour in the U.S. alone through abortions.
Members of the group spent the day handing out pamphlets to raise awareness of the issue and to protect the display from pro-choice students, who have tried each year to ruin the display. Actually, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that pro-choice last year students had actually rushed in with scissors to cut the strings off of the balloons. One of the SFLA members joked that it was ironic, since that wasn't very eco-friendly behavior, letting balloons loose like that. Unfortunately, after looking into it, I found out that this has happened quite a bit. This last January, at George Washington University, the College Democrats vandalized a pro-life display that the Young America's Foundation group had erected with crosses in memory of babies killed in abortions. The College Republicans, who shared a joint office with the College Democrats, came in to find that the crosses had been pinned around the office upside down with anti-Christian messages written on them and even condoms pulled over some of them. The crosses had been donated to the group for awareness purposes by a New York-based church, and this vandalism was a blatant act of assault on public property and disrespect against the pro-life students. There have been a list of incidents, ranging from tearing down and destroying or burning displays to slashing the tires of pro-life student group leaders. I was extremely disappointed to hear all of this. It's really unfortunate to see such an affront to free speech, especially on college campuses, which were meant to be forums for students to learn to open their minds to or at least respect the ideas of their peers.
Today was a beautiful day, though. Not too windy and to my knowledge things went smoothly.
The group, Students for Life of America, is a national non-profit organization, originally founded in 1988 as the American Collegians for Life. It has evolved and expanded and is now run by a board of directors, in order to create a more stable representation on campuses in order to raise awareness and promote activism on the issue. The group works with student groups on campuses across 43 states in order to educate the public about abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.
And not to worry. All of the items that were bought for the display were saved (and in some cases protected in Ziploc baggies) so that they could be donated after. The message was concise but powerful, with a shocking stat and an attention-grabbing visual that combined to spread awareness about the sheer numbers of lives lost to abortions every hour in our country.
Abortion
And, in order to do the Conservative Awareness Week's awareness topic of the day justice, I went online to the SFLA website, where they have information and facts about abortions. I know we all know that an abortion is a method used to end a pregnancy, but beyond that, most people don't know too much. According to the SFLA website's fact sheet from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1.31 million abortions occur every year in the United States. The U.S. abortion rate is unfortunately one of the highest among developed countries. In addition, if you go onto the Planned Parenthood website, it reassures readers that, "Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old."
So what do abortions actually entail? I won't go into highly descriptive detail here, for those of you who are squeamish, but I am going to be honest, so if this is going to disturb you as much as it disturbs me, you need only know that there are various methods, including curettage, evacuation, extraction, injection, drugs and suction. There's a list of medical complications which come along with abortions. According to the SFLA site, these include heavy bleeding, infection, incomplete abortion, sepsis, anesthesia, damage to the cervix, scarring of the uterine lining, damage to internal organs and in severe cases, death. In addition, there are emotional complications such as eating disorders, relationship issues, guilt, depression, flashbacks to the abortion, suicidal thoughts, sexual dysfunction and alcohol or substance abuse. 52% of abortions are performed on women under 25 years old as well, so we are seeing more and more young women making this decision and then suffering the consequences of it.
While I believe strongly that abortions are morally wrong, however, my goal is to spread awareness so that when women make the decision to abort a baby, they realize that they aren't simply clicking the edit-undo keys on their computer. They really are having a baby medically murdered. The baby is extremely young and has not yet seen the world, but it is still a human life. I sincerely wish that women didn't have to pay the heavier price for unprotected or insufficiently protected sex more so than men, because it obviously took two to conceive. And, in the cases of rape and sexual assault, the woman may not have had any choice in conception. This is why I am hesitant to advocate for a law prohibiting all abortions. It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, the government does have the responsibility to enforce the protection of our right to life, and abortion is an obvious attack on that. In addition, in the case of abortions, the victim is hidden from the world, within the one who will be permitting the kill. I do feel that we owe it to these children to speak up for them in at least some way, seeing as they still have life and are still human beings. The fact that they are so heavily dependent and fragile still, and that they require further gestation and nurturing before they can speak for themselves should not provide reasoning against their right to live, but provide us an extra incentive to protect them. This is why I support raising awareness and educating women (and men) about the abortion issue. Perhaps if they realized the true nature of the procedures and the harsh reality of the choice they are making, they would decide not to go through with the abortion.
It is important that we stop letting society see murder as a solution.
Here is the link to the page where these procedures are described, and to where more information can be found:
http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/getthefacts/facts-and-talking-points/
I encourage everyone to familiarize themselves as much as possible with the harsh reality of abortion, and to do what you can to help those around you to understand exactly what such a thing means when they are considering getting one. The information is difficult to read and disturbing and painful to imagine, but if we don't become more aware of it, we will continue to death tolls in the millions every year, and it will be those innocent lives paying for society's ignorance.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age
Last night, in order to kick off our Conservative Awareness Week, the College Republicans group at the U of M held a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age," a documentary by the Heritage Foundation exposing the very real threats posed to us by nations like Iran and North Korea, and rogue terrorist and political groups for which this dangerous weapons technology is becoming more attainable. The documentary was an interesting introduction to the issue, posing many questions and urging its audience to really consider the gravity of the issue of ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction that our public all too often chooses to ignore, as if the issue could simply solve itself. Or maybe it's just that we have too much faith in our government's ability and will to do so.
The Documentary
Beginning with an array of clips depicting incidents throughout history involving our relations with nations such as Iran, Libya, North Korea and the Soviet Union, before addressing the issue of missile defense. It's outlined in the first paragraph of the Constitution that a government must provide for the common defense, in order to ensure the safety and stability of its people and national interests. The documentary, in true Conservative fashion also quoted Jefferson, who declared eternal vigilance to be the price of freedom. Now that we are in a "new missile age," where ballistic missiles can reach across the globe and life as we know it could end in just 33 minutes, that governmental responsibility is more crucial than ever.
President Ronald Reagan warned us not to fall to the temptation of ignoring the effects, urging us to instead create a missile interception system, and to build up our defenses. Ballistic missiles in the hands of our enemies could be used as a deterrent or threat, preventing us from going to the aid of our allies, amongst many other negative consequences.
But let's freeze for a moment. What exactly is a ballistic missile? The key to this type of weapon lies in trajectory. It is propelled into space, using the Earth's gravity in order to gain speed as it orbits the globe. It has large rockets and guidance controls, so it can either continue to orbit, or dive down for the attack.
And, while the physical damage of a near-ground detonation would obviously already be a catastrophe, having one detonate in the atmosphere above the U.S. could inflict even longer lasting damage. Such a detonation would let off an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), incapacitating every electrical system in the United States. Such a pulse would lead to voltage shortages, causing the complete shut down of electrical systems across the nation. Medical services, cell phones, transportation and traffic lights, electronic funds and media would all come to a sudden halt, putting us back to the 1800's.
And, aside from the threats of ballistic missiles, there are also biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to be thinking about. The documentary differentiated these as follows: nuclear attacks are destructive, wiping everything out physically in that area, biological warfare could bring on epidemics and plagues, and chemical warfare would be immediate, with the potential for tens of thousands of possible casualties.
The Reagan-era defense strategy, in exact opposition of the strategic theory preceding it, called for the use of increased defenses in order to discourage a missile attack from either side. This involved five blocks of capability: first, protection from North Korea, second, regional protection, third, protection from Iran, fourth, protection of our friends and allies, and fifth, the ability to defend multiple regions at once. But how did we plan to be able to stop an incoming missile? Fire control systems would be able to compute the trajectory and launch and intercepting missile ("kill vehicle") to intercept it in the air. Upon impact with the warhead, 50 percent would be vaporized, and only ten percent in the end would actually make it to the ground as debris, eliminating the majority of the threat. And by February 2008, the U.S. was able not only to hit another warhead, but to be able to hit a satellite in space, an even harder target. Technology appears to have finally caught up with Reagan's vision.
Unfortunately, we lack the capability to have this SDI system. In order to avoid the severe consequences of discontinuing our progress and deployment of missile defense, we must be willing to invest in its costs. Just look at the costs of the damage from 9/11. And that wasn't even a nuclear weapon, which would cost more like trillions. We have a 13 trillion dollar economy, and the estimates have it that it would cost us most if not all of that if we ever underwent such an attack. So really, the hundred billion dollars we'd spend on a defense system would be a necessary and logical security investment. And, having such a defense system that the President could activate could help stabilize our situation with North Korea and its missile supplies and testing, as well as to generate doubt in the minds of our enemies in general. Such a defense system could be shared with our friends and allies as well, as a means of devaluing such weapons and thereby making nuclear war obsolete.
Overall, the video was quite informative and did a good job of reintroducing a critical issue, especially now, as our President has moved on to his next big plan, with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge party, minority and voter criticisms. I didn't, however, agree with the statement that this was America's responsibility because we alone have the capacity to create these defense systems. Our allies as well are perfectly capable and advanced nations, so I do not feel that this is solely a U.S. responsibility, but a global responsibility in order to protect the world's people from nuclear war and the devastation of the use of weapons of mass destruction. In general, though, the documentary introduced the issue in an interesting and visually energetic way, and I felt it was overall well done.
More information on these threats and solutions can be found at http://33-minutes.com/, along with updates on Obama's concerning nuclear policies and the status of current attempts at negotiations.
The Documentary
Beginning with an array of clips depicting incidents throughout history involving our relations with nations such as Iran, Libya, North Korea and the Soviet Union, before addressing the issue of missile defense. It's outlined in the first paragraph of the Constitution that a government must provide for the common defense, in order to ensure the safety and stability of its people and national interests. The documentary, in true Conservative fashion also quoted Jefferson, who declared eternal vigilance to be the price of freedom. Now that we are in a "new missile age," where ballistic missiles can reach across the globe and life as we know it could end in just 33 minutes, that governmental responsibility is more crucial than ever.
President Ronald Reagan warned us not to fall to the temptation of ignoring the effects, urging us to instead create a missile interception system, and to build up our defenses. Ballistic missiles in the hands of our enemies could be used as a deterrent or threat, preventing us from going to the aid of our allies, amongst many other negative consequences.
But let's freeze for a moment. What exactly is a ballistic missile? The key to this type of weapon lies in trajectory. It is propelled into space, using the Earth's gravity in order to gain speed as it orbits the globe. It has large rockets and guidance controls, so it can either continue to orbit, or dive down for the attack.
And, while the physical damage of a near-ground detonation would obviously already be a catastrophe, having one detonate in the atmosphere above the U.S. could inflict even longer lasting damage. Such a detonation would let off an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), incapacitating every electrical system in the United States. Such a pulse would lead to voltage shortages, causing the complete shut down of electrical systems across the nation. Medical services, cell phones, transportation and traffic lights, electronic funds and media would all come to a sudden halt, putting us back to the 1800's.
And, aside from the threats of ballistic missiles, there are also biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to be thinking about. The documentary differentiated these as follows: nuclear attacks are destructive, wiping everything out physically in that area, biological warfare could bring on epidemics and plagues, and chemical warfare would be immediate, with the potential for tens of thousands of possible casualties.
The Reagan-era defense strategy, in exact opposition of the strategic theory preceding it, called for the use of increased defenses in order to discourage a missile attack from either side. This involved five blocks of capability: first, protection from North Korea, second, regional protection, third, protection from Iran, fourth, protection of our friends and allies, and fifth, the ability to defend multiple regions at once. But how did we plan to be able to stop an incoming missile? Fire control systems would be able to compute the trajectory and launch and intercepting missile ("kill vehicle") to intercept it in the air. Upon impact with the warhead, 50 percent would be vaporized, and only ten percent in the end would actually make it to the ground as debris, eliminating the majority of the threat. And by February 2008, the U.S. was able not only to hit another warhead, but to be able to hit a satellite in space, an even harder target. Technology appears to have finally caught up with Reagan's vision.
Unfortunately, we lack the capability to have this SDI system. In order to avoid the severe consequences of discontinuing our progress and deployment of missile defense, we must be willing to invest in its costs. Just look at the costs of the damage from 9/11. And that wasn't even a nuclear weapon, which would cost more like trillions. We have a 13 trillion dollar economy, and the estimates have it that it would cost us most if not all of that if we ever underwent such an attack. So really, the hundred billion dollars we'd spend on a defense system would be a necessary and logical security investment. And, having such a defense system that the President could activate could help stabilize our situation with North Korea and its missile supplies and testing, as well as to generate doubt in the minds of our enemies in general. Such a defense system could be shared with our friends and allies as well, as a means of devaluing such weapons and thereby making nuclear war obsolete.
Overall, the video was quite informative and did a good job of reintroducing a critical issue, especially now, as our President has moved on to his next big plan, with a stubborn refusal to acknowledge party, minority and voter criticisms. I didn't, however, agree with the statement that this was America's responsibility because we alone have the capacity to create these defense systems. Our allies as well are perfectly capable and advanced nations, so I do not feel that this is solely a U.S. responsibility, but a global responsibility in order to protect the world's people from nuclear war and the devastation of the use of weapons of mass destruction. In general, though, the documentary introduced the issue in an interesting and visually energetic way, and I felt it was overall well done.
More information on these threats and solutions can be found at http://33-minutes.com/, along with updates on Obama's concerning nuclear policies and the status of current attempts at negotiations.
Starting Conservative Awareness Week
Hello again! I'm sorry I was MIA for a little bit there. I still am a college student after all, so midterms had to take priority for a week or two.
But now that Conservative Awareness Week is starting, I had to jump back in.
Awareness Week will kick off tonight at 7 pm in Coffman, where there will be a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age." Tomorrow morning, I'll be waking up far earlier than my strategically organized class schedule has ever required in order to help set up another one of the week's events, the Cemetary of Innocents. This is put on by Students for Human Life in order to raise awareness about the many lives lost to abortions. For anyone who will find time to pass by the U of M's Coffman plaza between 9 am and 3 pm, I highly encourage a visit. On Wednesday, John Coleman, best known as one of the co-founders of The Weather Channel, will be speaking out about the fallacies of global warming propaganda, a political exaggeration of some of the effects humans have had on the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. This will be at 7:30 in Rapson Hall, room 43, and there should be free food as well. Thursday the 22nd will be both the Support the Troops Rally, which we purposely put on during the same day that anti-war protesters call "zero recruitment day" as well as a visit from Karl Rove. Rumor has it that "zero recruitment day" as a peace protest has ironically had a habit of turning violent, with protesters breaking windows and flooding into recruitment offices. That is why conservative, libertarian and other Republican groups rally to literally support their troops on that day. I will most definitely be blogging more on the details of that later in the week. Karl Rove former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush will also be speaking in Smith 100 at noon! Finally, on Friday we'll be closing up with a mixer!
On another note, I wanted to post a link to something I was happy to see in the editorials of the Daily. The article discusses how disagreeing with the current administration so often leads to unjustified accusations of racism, and how, if that is how discourse is to be viewed, perhaps we really weren't ready for a black president. Written by fellow undergrad, John Eloranta, it's a concise and worthy read. Below is the link to the MN Daily's website where you can see for yourselves!
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/04/13/perhaps-america-was-not-ready-black-president
But now that Conservative Awareness Week is starting, I had to jump back in.
Awareness Week will kick off tonight at 7 pm in Coffman, where there will be a screening of "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age." Tomorrow morning, I'll be waking up far earlier than my strategically organized class schedule has ever required in order to help set up another one of the week's events, the Cemetary of Innocents. This is put on by Students for Human Life in order to raise awareness about the many lives lost to abortions. For anyone who will find time to pass by the U of M's Coffman plaza between 9 am and 3 pm, I highly encourage a visit. On Wednesday, John Coleman, best known as one of the co-founders of The Weather Channel, will be speaking out about the fallacies of global warming propaganda, a political exaggeration of some of the effects humans have had on the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. This will be at 7:30 in Rapson Hall, room 43, and there should be free food as well. Thursday the 22nd will be both the Support the Troops Rally, which we purposely put on during the same day that anti-war protesters call "zero recruitment day" as well as a visit from Karl Rove. Rumor has it that "zero recruitment day" as a peace protest has ironically had a habit of turning violent, with protesters breaking windows and flooding into recruitment offices. That is why conservative, libertarian and other Republican groups rally to literally support their troops on that day. I will most definitely be blogging more on the details of that later in the week. Karl Rove former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to President George W. Bush will also be speaking in Smith 100 at noon! Finally, on Friday we'll be closing up with a mixer!
On another note, I wanted to post a link to something I was happy to see in the editorials of the Daily. The article discusses how disagreeing with the current administration so often leads to unjustified accusations of racism, and how, if that is how discourse is to be viewed, perhaps we really weren't ready for a black president. Written by fellow undergrad, John Eloranta, it's a concise and worthy read. Below is the link to the MN Daily's website where you can see for yourselves!
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/04/13/perhaps-america-was-not-ready-black-president
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Surprise Legislation Added in on Majority Whim
Power-thirsty President Obama taunted the minority party after the passage of his bill, telling them to "Go for it," in response to the Republican calls for repeal. He then made 15 senior appointments without any Senate consent, which included a union lawyer whose nomination has previously been blocked by a filibuster. Ignoring Republican objections, he also neutralized the party's filibuster threat with one of his many parliamentary maneuvers, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, in order to pass his legislation on education along with the bill.
Once again, we have just undergone a drastic and impulsive "change" without any actual opinion from the public, with little or no media coverage, and through the ever-growing tyranny in Congress.
So what has Mr. Obama forced upon us this time?
The Wall Street Journal reported that, "Democrats attached to the bill a major overhaul of student-lending laws, which eliminated a federal subsidy for private tuition lenders, federalized most student loans and plowed the savings into expanded federal higher education aid. Republicans say the bill will destroy the private student-lending market."
Essentially, the President attached to the health care bill yet another piece, fitting the Democrat's platform, but having nothing to do with the original topic of health care that was actually voted on in the Senate. But in ObamaPolitics, little things like Constitutionality, legality, citizens rights, the free market, or representation have never actually mattered, so I suppose none of this should surprise us. The only real connection this new legislation appears to have is that it too is a government takeover within the private sector that will give them further control over ideological state apparatuses and the lives of the American people. Our current President's systematic takeover has now extended into the lives, health care, income, and even modes of education of the American public, gradually eliminating every channel that can be used for resistance in this country, and arming the federal government with the means of the total control and domination of the American people. What is left for them to take over? The current President has certainly done his homework. For anyone who has been assigned reading on Marx or socialism in school, or is perhaps familiar with Althusser's discussion on Ideology and the State, it is clear that this president will not stop in his quest to "change" America into a socialized nation in every way but the label.
And the worst part? By the time people realize what the labels "ObamaCare," "Change," and "Progressive" are actually entailing, it will be too late.
So yes, fellow students, celebrate what the media is claiming to be "more affordable education." Never mind that part of the reason tuition is so high in the first place is due to the fact that Universities knew that they could charge all that they wanted and the government would be footing most of the bill. Never mind that the government is being granted the power to determine who goes to school and who doesn't, with finance as its tool and the destruction of the private student lending market as its insurance.
As reported by the Washington Post, Steve Wymer, spokesman for the Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee explained, "We want students to have as many lending options as possible. To make the federal government, the Department of Education, a monopoly bank is not the best thing for students."
And he's right. Once again, Mr. Obama and his workers in Congress have forced through yet another change, without a single vote of support from the other party. Once again, we are seeing the way the Democrats will quickly form a plan and, without any consideration for the consent of the governed or for the long-term consequences beyond what their partisan politics can predict with their complete lack of experience in the private sector, we now have another drastic change. To get a student loan, we will now wait for a response from the government and hope that we get the answer we're looking for. And if we don't, then I suppose we're screwed, because the government is now also the monopoly is student lending, leaving us no option once again but to succumb to its ever-growing power.
Once again, we have just undergone a drastic and impulsive "change" without any actual opinion from the public, with little or no media coverage, and through the ever-growing tyranny in Congress.
So what has Mr. Obama forced upon us this time?
The Wall Street Journal reported that, "Democrats attached to the bill a major overhaul of student-lending laws, which eliminated a federal subsidy for private tuition lenders, federalized most student loans and plowed the savings into expanded federal higher education aid. Republicans say the bill will destroy the private student-lending market."
Essentially, the President attached to the health care bill yet another piece, fitting the Democrat's platform, but having nothing to do with the original topic of health care that was actually voted on in the Senate. But in ObamaPolitics, little things like Constitutionality, legality, citizens rights, the free market, or representation have never actually mattered, so I suppose none of this should surprise us. The only real connection this new legislation appears to have is that it too is a government takeover within the private sector that will give them further control over ideological state apparatuses and the lives of the American people. Our current President's systematic takeover has now extended into the lives, health care, income, and even modes of education of the American public, gradually eliminating every channel that can be used for resistance in this country, and arming the federal government with the means of the total control and domination of the American people. What is left for them to take over? The current President has certainly done his homework. For anyone who has been assigned reading on Marx or socialism in school, or is perhaps familiar with Althusser's discussion on Ideology and the State, it is clear that this president will not stop in his quest to "change" America into a socialized nation in every way but the label.
And the worst part? By the time people realize what the labels "ObamaCare," "Change," and "Progressive" are actually entailing, it will be too late.
So yes, fellow students, celebrate what the media is claiming to be "more affordable education." Never mind that part of the reason tuition is so high in the first place is due to the fact that Universities knew that they could charge all that they wanted and the government would be footing most of the bill. Never mind that the government is being granted the power to determine who goes to school and who doesn't, with finance as its tool and the destruction of the private student lending market as its insurance.
As reported by the Washington Post, Steve Wymer, spokesman for the Republicans on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee explained, "We want students to have as many lending options as possible. To make the federal government, the Department of Education, a monopoly bank is not the best thing for students."
And he's right. Once again, Mr. Obama and his workers in Congress have forced through yet another change, without a single vote of support from the other party. Once again, we are seeing the way the Democrats will quickly form a plan and, without any consideration for the consent of the governed or for the long-term consequences beyond what their partisan politics can predict with their complete lack of experience in the private sector, we now have another drastic change. To get a student loan, we will now wait for a response from the government and hope that we get the answer we're looking for. And if we don't, then I suppose we're screwed, because the government is now also the monopoly is student lending, leaving us no option once again but to succumb to its ever-growing power.
I Support Sanu!
Americans across the nation have had it. We are tired of the dirty politics, the unresponsiveness, the backroom deals and the lack of transparency. We are tired of trying again and again to find officials who will actually live up to their title of “representative” and carry out our will-the will of the people- rather than simply pushing their own partisan agendas. The blatant tyranny we have seen from leaders in Congress has shown us that we must be far more careful when it comes to choosing citizens to serve their fellow voters through representation. This time we must bring about positive and responsible change that will uphold our values and that will hopefully be able to stop the damage that is still being done, attempt to undo it, and to then actually improve upon the issues that we wanted to fix during the last wave of elections. The country is sinking, so now more than ever, we need to vote responsibly, because our candidates need not only to bring about the improvements we’ve been asking for all along, but to fight the steady regress that Congress has been subjecting us too. But where can we find candidates that we can actually trust to bring about this change and live up to these standards?
I didn’t have to search far before finding an ideal candidate, a woman who exemplifies exactly what our electoral revolution is calling for through both her platform and the way that she lives her life according to those same ideals. Sanu, an immigrant who moved here after having grown up in India and Nepal, started out at McDonalds and paid her way through college. She earned her MBA from Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota and has now gained 17 years of experience in the business world. Now living happily in Bloomington with her husband Fred, the support of a close family, and a job at Best Buy that she loves, Sanu proved that the American dream is still very much alive, and attainable for anyone willing to work for it.
I do not live in her district, so I can’t vote for her, but voting is only one of the many ways that we can support these candidates. Because we are fighting this revolution to win back our representation in every district, it is important that we unite to support these candidates as a whole. We will need to win every district that we can if we want a chance to bring the power in government back to the hands of the people as it was meant to be. Because I can only support her through writing and volunteering, I am going to do all that I can to let people know about Sanu Patel-Zellinger from District 40B in Bloomington. She stands for the same principles and believes in the same changes that our revolution would like to see. I will not only be supporting her in my free time and volunteering over the summer when I don’t have classes, but I will be following her campaign, so hopefully you will all see plenty of updates here. I have known Sanu all my life and was absolutely thrilled to hear that she is running for State Representative. For what she stands for, how she views serving her Bloomington neighbors, and what she will do when she is elected, I support Sanu Patel-Zellinger for State Representative.
I didn’t have to search far before finding an ideal candidate, a woman who exemplifies exactly what our electoral revolution is calling for through both her platform and the way that she lives her life according to those same ideals. Sanu, an immigrant who moved here after having grown up in India and Nepal, started out at McDonalds and paid her way through college. She earned her MBA from Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota and has now gained 17 years of experience in the business world. Now living happily in Bloomington with her husband Fred, the support of a close family, and a job at Best Buy that she loves, Sanu proved that the American dream is still very much alive, and attainable for anyone willing to work for it.
I do not live in her district, so I can’t vote for her, but voting is only one of the many ways that we can support these candidates. Because we are fighting this revolution to win back our representation in every district, it is important that we unite to support these candidates as a whole. We will need to win every district that we can if we want a chance to bring the power in government back to the hands of the people as it was meant to be. Because I can only support her through writing and volunteering, I am going to do all that I can to let people know about Sanu Patel-Zellinger from District 40B in Bloomington. She stands for the same principles and believes in the same changes that our revolution would like to see. I will not only be supporting her in my free time and volunteering over the summer when I don’t have classes, but I will be following her campaign, so hopefully you will all see plenty of updates here. I have known Sanu all my life and was absolutely thrilled to hear that she is running for State Representative. For what she stands for, how she views serving her Bloomington neighbors, and what she will do when she is elected, I support Sanu Patel-Zellinger for State Representative.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Health Care Update
Despite the loud public disapproval of the notoriously bulky and controversial health care bill, the Senate voted 219 to 212 in favor of passing a bill that we are told will cost $848 billion over the next ten years, but will actually cost about $2.5 trillion over ten years without the legislative gimmicks (tax hikes, spending cuts, and most new spending beginning in 2014) that are implemented by top Democrats to hide actual costs from the public. I shall elaborate more fully later. And, thankfully, not one Republican voted for the partisan bill, and quite a few Democrats didn't as well, despite the extreme and threatening pressure exerted on them by leaders of their party. It's nice to know that at least some of the members of Congress are bearing in mind their Constitutional job descriptions when they choose to vote.
Then, on Tuesday, Obama signed the trillion-dollar health care overhaul into law, in his usual style, which included a ceremony and positive, professional images to be posted across his media. Pelosi leans over anxiously, watching happily as the President of the United States proudly signed a document opposed by the majority of the people, but fitting his personal ideologies, and those of his closest members. Grouped in this picture, we can see the happy smiles of the tiny group of people controlling this nation. And the textbook pages in civics classes are being flipped right now, as kids try to understand how the man praised by their teachers as an official sworn in to protect our Constitutional rights, can ignore our voices and make decisions for the entire country based on what he and a few other radicals feel is "right." Those poor kids, sitting at their desks and scratching their heads as they compare what we are seeing with the definition of our form of government and wondering if there has been some kind of typing error, have no idea just what this generation has gotten them into.
The major provisions of this bill will not take effect until January 1, 2014, due to the fact that we will need to raise 10 years worth of revenue in order to pay for the first 6 years of "ObamaCare." Provisions, such as increased funding to high risk pools, however, will take effect immediately.
So what can we expect from this health care bill? Why is the American public so upset? Well, despite the idealistic naivety of loyal liberals who truly do believe that this bill is going to "help poor people," a packet of paper this long, expensive and politicized cannot be summed up so simply. The intention of this bill is stated to be to "expand access to health insurance, reform the health insurance market to provide additional consumer protections, and improve the health care delivery system to reduce costs and produce better outcomes," according to the Senate's Legislative Notice Summary. What this translates to in the real world and economy is this: To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill is going to increase our taxes by $493.6 billion dollars, reduce Medicare spending by $464.6 billion, cut $134.9 billion from our hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices according to that same summary. The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee also noted that, "Among more prominent taxes, the bill includes a new 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, raising $149.1 billion over 10 years..." It explained that there will also be a new Medicare payroll tax collecting $53.8 billion from Americans working to earn a higher income, a $60.4 billion tax on health insurers, $22.2 billion tax on drug manufacturers, and a $19.3 billion tax on Medical device manufacturers.
Now, I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that you cannot force companies to produce more and to pay higher taxes for doing so, and to then lower their prices and somehow stay above the water. Anyone with the most basic sense of economics can see that what this plan is calling for simply cannot work beyond the sheet of paper it is written on. But apparently, the handful of men and women with power in this country, are somehow missing this. No wonder the teleprompter only gives us vague descriptions of the goals of the bill. If it told us what the bill actually includes, even more Americans would be upset. I mean, a majority already is of course, but can you imagine what would happen when the rulers' remaining followers realize that the benefits they were promised are short term and only being received by a small group at the expense of everyone else? The only way to allow for such an explosive growth in government, would be to mask it as something else. No one in their right mind, if aware of the actual consequences (which harm everyone, including "the poor"), would support nearly half a trillion dollars more in taxes ($494 billion), another half a trillion in Medicare cuts ($465 billion), premiums that are on average higher than what we already have in the private sector, 24 million still uninsured, along cutting the money we spend on doctors and hospitals.
Aside from the fact that this document is unconstitutional (and not just in that it tries to remove judiciary checks on the Congress so that they can have the authority to do this), arguably illegal and so witlessly slopped together that it will succeed only in further harming all that it claims to assist.
Luckily, my fellow unrepresented citizens, we will have a chance to undo this grave mistake so that we can implement a more rational, intelligent, economically sound plan for reform. Our health care system needs fiscally responsible reform, because if we create a big Change that then drowns key elements of the medical system (i.e. insurance companies, hospitals, medical professionals), then we will only be paying ourselves and the following generations further into debt in order to complete the destruction of a fundamental societal institution. I for one am extremely annoyed that some group of politicians has just ruled that they can take the money of my parents' generation, my generation, and of my children and my grandchildren, in order to destroy our medical system through the type of pure and utter failure that it appears only large and inefficient governments have the power to so extensively commit.
I will include more updates, including updates from various news sources, but for now, I have to get to class.
Feel free to check out the Budget Committee's fact sheet on the Democrats' Change, as it was planned in Congress here, if you're curious:
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2009-11-19HealthCareFactSheet.pdf
The Senate summaries can also be found online and I encourage everyone to read (or at least skim) as much as your mind can handle so that the public can be more aware of what we are up against. Thanks for reading!
Then, on Tuesday, Obama signed the trillion-dollar health care overhaul into law, in his usual style, which included a ceremony and positive, professional images to be posted across his media. Pelosi leans over anxiously, watching happily as the President of the United States proudly signed a document opposed by the majority of the people, but fitting his personal ideologies, and those of his closest members. Grouped in this picture, we can see the happy smiles of the tiny group of people controlling this nation. And the textbook pages in civics classes are being flipped right now, as kids try to understand how the man praised by their teachers as an official sworn in to protect our Constitutional rights, can ignore our voices and make decisions for the entire country based on what he and a few other radicals feel is "right." Those poor kids, sitting at their desks and scratching their heads as they compare what we are seeing with the definition of our form of government and wondering if there has been some kind of typing error, have no idea just what this generation has gotten them into.
The major provisions of this bill will not take effect until January 1, 2014, due to the fact that we will need to raise 10 years worth of revenue in order to pay for the first 6 years of "ObamaCare." Provisions, such as increased funding to high risk pools, however, will take effect immediately.
So what can we expect from this health care bill? Why is the American public so upset? Well, despite the idealistic naivety of loyal liberals who truly do believe that this bill is going to "help poor people," a packet of paper this long, expensive and politicized cannot be summed up so simply. The intention of this bill is stated to be to "expand access to health insurance, reform the health insurance market to provide additional consumer protections, and improve the health care delivery system to reduce costs and produce better outcomes," according to the Senate's Legislative Notice Summary. What this translates to in the real world and economy is this: To pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, the bill is going to increase our taxes by $493.6 billion dollars, reduce Medicare spending by $464.6 billion, cut $134.9 billion from our hospitals, $120 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA), $14.6 billion from nursing homes, $42.1 billion from home health agencies, and $7.7 billion from hospices according to that same summary. The U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee also noted that, "Among more prominent taxes, the bill includes a new 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, raising $149.1 billion over 10 years..." It explained that there will also be a new Medicare payroll tax collecting $53.8 billion from Americans working to earn a higher income, a $60.4 billion tax on health insurers, $22.2 billion tax on drug manufacturers, and a $19.3 billion tax on Medical device manufacturers.
Now, I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that you cannot force companies to produce more and to pay higher taxes for doing so, and to then lower their prices and somehow stay above the water. Anyone with the most basic sense of economics can see that what this plan is calling for simply cannot work beyond the sheet of paper it is written on. But apparently, the handful of men and women with power in this country, are somehow missing this. No wonder the teleprompter only gives us vague descriptions of the goals of the bill. If it told us what the bill actually includes, even more Americans would be upset. I mean, a majority already is of course, but can you imagine what would happen when the rulers' remaining followers realize that the benefits they were promised are short term and only being received by a small group at the expense of everyone else? The only way to allow for such an explosive growth in government, would be to mask it as something else. No one in their right mind, if aware of the actual consequences (which harm everyone, including "the poor"), would support nearly half a trillion dollars more in taxes ($494 billion), another half a trillion in Medicare cuts ($465 billion), premiums that are on average higher than what we already have in the private sector, 24 million still uninsured, along cutting the money we spend on doctors and hospitals.
Aside from the fact that this document is unconstitutional (and not just in that it tries to remove judiciary checks on the Congress so that they can have the authority to do this), arguably illegal and so witlessly slopped together that it will succeed only in further harming all that it claims to assist.
Luckily, my fellow unrepresented citizens, we will have a chance to undo this grave mistake so that we can implement a more rational, intelligent, economically sound plan for reform. Our health care system needs fiscally responsible reform, because if we create a big Change that then drowns key elements of the medical system (i.e. insurance companies, hospitals, medical professionals), then we will only be paying ourselves and the following generations further into debt in order to complete the destruction of a fundamental societal institution. I for one am extremely annoyed that some group of politicians has just ruled that they can take the money of my parents' generation, my generation, and of my children and my grandchildren, in order to destroy our medical system through the type of pure and utter failure that it appears only large and inefficient governments have the power to so extensively commit.
I will include more updates, including updates from various news sources, but for now, I have to get to class.
Feel free to check out the Budget Committee's fact sheet on the Democrats' Change, as it was planned in Congress here, if you're curious:
http://budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2009-11-19HealthCareFactSheet.pdf
The Senate summaries can also be found online and I encourage everyone to read (or at least skim) as much as your mind can handle so that the public can be more aware of what we are up against. Thanks for reading!
Posts
