Release Date: September 2nd
American Casino movie trailer from Leslie and Andrew Cockburn on Vimeo.
"Capitalism: A Love Story"
Documentary- Michael Moore
Release Date: October
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Documenting the Economic Crisis
American Casino [documentary]
Release Date: September 2nd
"Capitalism: A Love Story"
Documentary- Michael Moore
Release Date: October
Release Date: September 2nd
"Capitalism: A Love Story"
Documentary- Michael Moore
Release Date: October
Friday, August 14, 2009
Chris Mathews & the "Psycho" Gun-possessor
For the record, I did not find his possession of an UNCONCEALED handgun to be disturbing as it was not 1. Concealed or 2. Illegal [2nd Amendment]. I did, however, find it to be incredibly stupid by virtue of the nature of the crowd: he was surrounded by citizens and protesters who were all within feet and in some cases, mere inches, from his handgun. Any one of them could have easily taken it out of his holster and used it to shoot a person long before he would have had the chance to prevent it from happening.
Now you can say, why of course, and that is also the case with cops, but there's an issue with that. It assumes that the protester could easily pull a police handgun's trigger, which isn't nearly half as easy to do as with a regular handgun, and it also assumes that a police officer would be incapable of preemptively preventing it from happening. I can assure you that I bet the "armed civilian" would be less likely to unarm a man than the nearest police officer.
His action, just like that of any other person possessing a gun in close quarters, placed HIMSELF and those immediately surrounding him in danger and could easily been seen as reckless endangerment had he been in the middle of a more contentious crowd.
Now the fault I have with Chris Mathews is that eh STUPIDLY focused on the PRESIDENT and how this protector seemingly was ENDANGERING the President's life, rather than the more likely and obvious endangerment of the surrounding members of the public at large.
By repeatedly attempting to make the protector seem "UNAMERICAN" and bearing an "ULTERIOR MOTIVE," Chris Mathews missed the point and painted himself as UNDULY protective of the President to the extent that he looked as if he made it into a personal issue.
And it goes without saying, by focusing on "the history of gun possession and the assignations of US Presidents" Chris Mathews implicates the random "gun possessor" as having the intent to do harm to President Obama, which he clearly had no intention of doing. And as Justin pointed out, the President is surrounded by more armed protection that anyone else in that crowd. The odds of him being successful are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY and, again, caused Mathews to loose focus of the real issue, which was the potential endangerment of crowd-members.
Now you can say, why of course, and that is also the case with cops, but there's an issue with that. It assumes that the protester could easily pull a police handgun's trigger, which isn't nearly half as easy to do as with a regular handgun, and it also assumes that a police officer would be incapable of preemptively preventing it from happening. I can assure you that I bet the "armed civilian" would be less likely to unarm a man than the nearest police officer.
His action, just like that of any other person possessing a gun in close quarters, placed HIMSELF and those immediately surrounding him in danger and could easily been seen as reckless endangerment had he been in the middle of a more contentious crowd.
Now the fault I have with Chris Mathews is that eh STUPIDLY focused on the PRESIDENT and how this protector seemingly was ENDANGERING the President's life, rather than the more likely and obvious endangerment of the surrounding members of the public at large.
By repeatedly attempting to make the protector seem "UNAMERICAN" and bearing an "ULTERIOR MOTIVE," Chris Mathews missed the point and painted himself as UNDULY protective of the President to the extent that he looked as if he made it into a personal issue.
And it goes without saying, by focusing on "the history of gun possession and the assignations of US Presidents" Chris Mathews implicates the random "gun possessor" as having the intent to do harm to President Obama, which he clearly had no intention of doing. And as Justin pointed out, the President is surrounded by more armed protection that anyone else in that crowd. The odds of him being successful are EXTREMELY UNLIKELY and, again, caused Mathews to loose focus of the real issue, which was the potential endangerment of crowd-members.
On "Gun Posession" & the Right to Bear Arms
The second amendment is valid and necessary and certainly should by no means be taken away. There certainly is validity in the notion that armed citizenry prevents the state from violating citizens' rights. Without a doubt, this right was granted in large part by the nation's founders to prevent tyranny by the federal government.
To be more specific, the right to bear arms is not about hunting ducks and deer, it's about the right of the citizenry to rebel against their government and prevent the nation's leader's from becoming tyrannical governors. Thomas Jefferson made this position clear when he declared "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Jefferson's statement, more than anything, reminds us that the government, in the words of Lincoln is "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." In the Declaration of Independence, the right to rebel against government is seen as the natural right to "alter or abolish government."
Of course, one also needs to understand that such a right was written in the Declaration of Independence as a means of justifying the colonists' rebellion against the British crown.
Nevertheless, even if this "right" isn't directly endorsed by the federal government, though it is at the very least indirectly granted, there can be no doubt that it is the right and moral obligation of every citizen to do so as John Locke explains in "Two Treatises on Government" as part of the Social Contract theory held between the state and its citizenry. According to that contract, the governed give certain rights away in exchange for order and protection from the federal government. When protection and privileges are withdrawn by the state, the governed have the moral obligation to overthrow that government.
Still, the real purpose of this post isn't whether or not people have the right to carry fire arms or overthrow the government. In large part, these rights are not contested, though one would only hope that any rebellion would be of universal interest to the nation's citizens and not merely in the interests of a few men.
In reality, it is about whether or not people carrying guns should be seen as suspicious by the state. Despite the rights and agreement that I have stated above, I do believe, however, that gun possession should always be deemed as a matter of concern.
Without a doubt, however, my belief that gun possession is suspicious in nature does not mean I necessarily do not support the notion that possession should not be legal. On the contrary, I believe it is indeed an unalienable right. However, the very thought that a gun offers it's owner protection is, to a degree, doubtful and not universally true.
At this point, I could easily throw statistics at you proving the fallacy of that argument, but I'm not going to bare that on you as I'm sure that you're already familiar with those statistics and the higher rate of accidental shootings and deaths "caused by gun protection." Now while I won't burden you with those figures, I will remind you that I find those numbers questionable because there is no figure that tells us how many lives have been saved as a result of gun possession, and that number is incalculable [b/c it's hard to prove and the thought of someone having a gun undoubtedly deters plenty of would-be-criminals from committing a crime].
Regardless, there is no doubt that bans on gun purchasing only serves to protect criminals and not the citizens. How many law-abiding citizens would illegally purchase guns when they could just as easily legally purchase a gun elsewhere and legally bring it to their home residence and then legally register it and carry it? No, at the end of the day, only criminals would illegally purchase guns and then use them against citizens, because, or course, they don't want their weapon to be traceable the way a legal gun would be.
Now that that is settled, there is the issue of gun possession laws. According to what the NRA & Co. say, cities that do not allow for legal gun possession and carrying laws tend to have significantly higher rates of homicide, rape, theft, etc. Despite it being the NRA and the most powerful lobby group on K Street, it seems a bit difficult to disprove that notion, after all, how can you argue against those findings?
Well at the moment I can't, but I can certainly point holes in most of what the NRA say. For example, the NRA claims that 49% of American households and 39% of individuals own guns. Now I'm not going to try to disprove the numbers, but I will disprove the significance of those numbers. By far, I can tell you that 100% of gun owners do NOT own hand guns. Furthermore, I can also guarantee you that most guns owned in this country are RIFLES and, the last time I checked, there aren't very many crimes involving RIFLES because, unlike handguns, you can't exactly hide one very well even under a trench coat... [I mean, unless you live on a snow-capped mountain all year long, there's no way you wouldn't look suspicious wearing an overcoat any other time of the year].
Still, I digress again. Back to the point. Since it's now established that MOST people own rifles, not handguns, and that, thanks to NATIONAL and STATE laws, handgun ownership is on the decline, you would expect crime to decrease along with it. Interestingly, crime has decreased, but it still doesn't answer the question largely because it's hard to tell which happened first: a decline in gun-ownership or a decline in crime. In reality, though, it doesn't matter since few registered guns are used in crimes in proportion to the number of unregistered guns.
One fault with the NRA-cited gun possession and ownership figures, however, is that they often include weapons owned by the government put held by government employees. Case and point: 25% of all guns in the US are owned by the military. Add to that another 10% which are held by law enforcement and the total of all weapons owned by citizens who are not agents of the state is actually only 65% of the totals quoted by the NRA. [1]
Still, I should probably mention that MOST guns are owned by Americans in RURAL, not urban areas and that MOST crime happens in URBAN areas. Now the NRA likes to link that trend with the distribution of firearms, however, they conveniently forget that a higher population density ALWAYS leads to a higher crime rate for a whole host of reasons:
1. There are more police per person in the city than in rural America
2. The likelihood of a cop being within walking distance or a minute or less from your house is more likely in an URBAN setting than in a rural one where a LOWER population density consequently means a LOWER density of Law Enforcement protection. This explains why RURAL areas possess more guns that are not used for hunting than URBAN areas because the likelihood of a cop arriving in time to protect them is SIGNIFICANTLY less likely.
3. Crime rates in RURAL areas haven't declined NEARLY as much as URBAN & SUBURBAN areas.
4. The likelihood of a RURAL victim knowing their attacker is 3 TIMES more likely than an URBAN victim. That's 21% to 7%!
5. The intimacy of victim & attacker makes it LESS likely for RURAL victims to report crimes, thereby making URBAN rates seem more significant
THUS, without a doubt, I believe RURAL Americans are in greater need of gun protection than URBAN Americans and that RURAL handgun and rifle possession are more likely to save lives than they would in an URBAN setting. Not only that, but I firmly believe that URBAN crime rate statistics by the NRA FAILS to take into account severe budget cuts and shortages in CITIES which is MORE LIKELY to lead to crime than the decline in handgun ownership. Not only that, but not every city with handgun bans has seen a rise in crime. Washington, DC, by far proves that bans on gun possession actually leads to a decrease in crime.
FURTHERMORE, it goes without saying that a man with a gun is more likely to use it than a man without a gun. Now that is obvious, after all, if you don't own a gun, you clearly can't use one because you don't own one. That, and you probably wouldn't aim very well if you came across one. STILL, if you possess a gun, why would you not use it? What utility would it serve if it was never fired? Surely the "so-called" "protection by mere possession" could be cited and is partially true, but at the end of the day, it would have served no LITERAL utility since it WASN'T used. You can't exactly claim that PSYCHOLOGICAL pre-thoughts qualify when a FAKE gun will yield the same externalities.
On that note, I can at the very least draw from familial experience. In the 1960's my grandfather's business was robbed. He lived only about 2 blocks away from the factory and was alerted by our guards that the nearby factory grocery store had just been broken into. Nevertheless, at two in the morning he got out of bed, dressed, walked 2 blocks with his unloaded gun and succeeded in apprehending BOTH armed thieves with another UNARMED guard. Now you can certainly say he risked his life, and he even later use to make jokes about how "aiming at the thieves succeeded in terrifying both him and the thieve," but at the end of the day it shows that an armed gun isn't needed to protect anyone and that an UNLOADED or FAKE gun can yield the same desired effects.
NOW, for all of those people out there that despise the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX of the United States, I would like to remind them of one of their very own arguments. A nation that CONSISTENTLY spends more on its military infrastructure than any other segment of its budget is more likely to use its weapons than a nation which places greater attention on developing infrastructure and education.
I ask you, how is the likelihood of the US using force against an otherwise "innocent" nation any less likely than a GUN POSSESSOR to use his gun?
The answer is that they are both equally likely to use force to justify their acquisition and development of their weapons. After all, why should a person be any different in justifying their accumulation of weapons than a nation that devotes 21% of the federal budget to National Defense?
[1]http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2007/09/13/News/Survey.U.s.Has.Highest.PerCapita.Gun.Ownership.Rate-2966141-page2.shtml
To be more specific, the right to bear arms is not about hunting ducks and deer, it's about the right of the citizenry to rebel against their government and prevent the nation's leader's from becoming tyrannical governors. Thomas Jefferson made this position clear when he declared "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Jefferson's statement, more than anything, reminds us that the government, in the words of Lincoln is "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." In the Declaration of Independence, the right to rebel against government is seen as the natural right to "alter or abolish government."
Of course, one also needs to understand that such a right was written in the Declaration of Independence as a means of justifying the colonists' rebellion against the British crown.
Nevertheless, even if this "right" isn't directly endorsed by the federal government, though it is at the very least indirectly granted, there can be no doubt that it is the right and moral obligation of every citizen to do so as John Locke explains in "Two Treatises on Government" as part of the Social Contract theory held between the state and its citizenry. According to that contract, the governed give certain rights away in exchange for order and protection from the federal government. When protection and privileges are withdrawn by the state, the governed have the moral obligation to overthrow that government.
Still, the real purpose of this post isn't whether or not people have the right to carry fire arms or overthrow the government. In large part, these rights are not contested, though one would only hope that any rebellion would be of universal interest to the nation's citizens and not merely in the interests of a few men.
In reality, it is about whether or not people carrying guns should be seen as suspicious by the state. Despite the rights and agreement that I have stated above, I do believe, however, that gun possession should always be deemed as a matter of concern.
Without a doubt, however, my belief that gun possession is suspicious in nature does not mean I necessarily do not support the notion that possession should not be legal. On the contrary, I believe it is indeed an unalienable right. However, the very thought that a gun offers it's owner protection is, to a degree, doubtful and not universally true.
At this point, I could easily throw statistics at you proving the fallacy of that argument, but I'm not going to bare that on you as I'm sure that you're already familiar with those statistics and the higher rate of accidental shootings and deaths "caused by gun protection." Now while I won't burden you with those figures, I will remind you that I find those numbers questionable because there is no figure that tells us how many lives have been saved as a result of gun possession, and that number is incalculable [b/c it's hard to prove and the thought of someone having a gun undoubtedly deters plenty of would-be-criminals from committing a crime].
Regardless, there is no doubt that bans on gun purchasing only serves to protect criminals and not the citizens. How many law-abiding citizens would illegally purchase guns when they could just as easily legally purchase a gun elsewhere and legally bring it to their home residence and then legally register it and carry it? No, at the end of the day, only criminals would illegally purchase guns and then use them against citizens, because, or course, they don't want their weapon to be traceable the way a legal gun would be.
Now that that is settled, there is the issue of gun possession laws. According to what the NRA & Co. say, cities that do not allow for legal gun possession and carrying laws tend to have significantly higher rates of homicide, rape, theft, etc. Despite it being the NRA and the most powerful lobby group on K Street, it seems a bit difficult to disprove that notion, after all, how can you argue against those findings?
Well at the moment I can't, but I can certainly point holes in most of what the NRA say. For example, the NRA claims that 49% of American households and 39% of individuals own guns. Now I'm not going to try to disprove the numbers, but I will disprove the significance of those numbers. By far, I can tell you that 100% of gun owners do NOT own hand guns. Furthermore, I can also guarantee you that most guns owned in this country are RIFLES and, the last time I checked, there aren't very many crimes involving RIFLES because, unlike handguns, you can't exactly hide one very well even under a trench coat... [I mean, unless you live on a snow-capped mountain all year long, there's no way you wouldn't look suspicious wearing an overcoat any other time of the year].
Still, I digress again. Back to the point. Since it's now established that MOST people own rifles, not handguns, and that, thanks to NATIONAL and STATE laws, handgun ownership is on the decline, you would expect crime to decrease along with it. Interestingly, crime has decreased, but it still doesn't answer the question largely because it's hard to tell which happened first: a decline in gun-ownership or a decline in crime. In reality, though, it doesn't matter since few registered guns are used in crimes in proportion to the number of unregistered guns.
One fault with the NRA-cited gun possession and ownership figures, however, is that they often include weapons owned by the government put held by government employees. Case and point: 25% of all guns in the US are owned by the military. Add to that another 10% which are held by law enforcement and the total of all weapons owned by citizens who are not agents of the state is actually only 65% of the totals quoted by the NRA. [1]
Still, I should probably mention that MOST guns are owned by Americans in RURAL, not urban areas and that MOST crime happens in URBAN areas. Now the NRA likes to link that trend with the distribution of firearms, however, they conveniently forget that a higher population density ALWAYS leads to a higher crime rate for a whole host of reasons:
1. There are more police per person in the city than in rural America
2. The likelihood of a cop being within walking distance or a minute or less from your house is more likely in an URBAN setting than in a rural one where a LOWER population density consequently means a LOWER density of Law Enforcement protection. This explains why RURAL areas possess more guns that are not used for hunting than URBAN areas because the likelihood of a cop arriving in time to protect them is SIGNIFICANTLY less likely.
3. Crime rates in RURAL areas haven't declined NEARLY as much as URBAN & SUBURBAN areas.
4. The likelihood of a RURAL victim knowing their attacker is 3 TIMES more likely than an URBAN victim. That's 21% to 7%!
5. The intimacy of victim & attacker makes it LESS likely for RURAL victims to report crimes, thereby making URBAN rates seem more significant
THUS, without a doubt, I believe RURAL Americans are in greater need of gun protection than URBAN Americans and that RURAL handgun and rifle possession are more likely to save lives than they would in an URBAN setting. Not only that, but I firmly believe that URBAN crime rate statistics by the NRA FAILS to take into account severe budget cuts and shortages in CITIES which is MORE LIKELY to lead to crime than the decline in handgun ownership. Not only that, but not every city with handgun bans has seen a rise in crime. Washington, DC, by far proves that bans on gun possession actually leads to a decrease in crime.
FURTHERMORE, it goes without saying that a man with a gun is more likely to use it than a man without a gun. Now that is obvious, after all, if you don't own a gun, you clearly can't use one because you don't own one. That, and you probably wouldn't aim very well if you came across one. STILL, if you possess a gun, why would you not use it? What utility would it serve if it was never fired? Surely the "so-called" "protection by mere possession" could be cited and is partially true, but at the end of the day, it would have served no LITERAL utility since it WASN'T used. You can't exactly claim that PSYCHOLOGICAL pre-thoughts qualify when a FAKE gun will yield the same externalities.
On that note, I can at the very least draw from familial experience. In the 1960's my grandfather's business was robbed. He lived only about 2 blocks away from the factory and was alerted by our guards that the nearby factory grocery store had just been broken into. Nevertheless, at two in the morning he got out of bed, dressed, walked 2 blocks with his unloaded gun and succeeded in apprehending BOTH armed thieves with another UNARMED guard. Now you can certainly say he risked his life, and he even later use to make jokes about how "aiming at the thieves succeeded in terrifying both him and the thieve," but at the end of the day it shows that an armed gun isn't needed to protect anyone and that an UNLOADED or FAKE gun can yield the same desired effects.
NOW, for all of those people out there that despise the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX of the United States, I would like to remind them of one of their very own arguments. A nation that CONSISTENTLY spends more on its military infrastructure than any other segment of its budget is more likely to use its weapons than a nation which places greater attention on developing infrastructure and education.
I ask you, how is the likelihood of the US using force against an otherwise "innocent" nation any less likely than a GUN POSSESSOR to use his gun?
The answer is that they are both equally likely to use force to justify their acquisition and development of their weapons. After all, why should a person be any different in justifying their accumulation of weapons than a nation that devotes 21% of the federal budget to National Defense?
[1]http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2007/09/13/News/Survey.U.s.Has.Highest.PerCapita.Gun.Ownership.Rate-2966141-page2.shtml
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Gun Holding Protester vs. Cenk Uygur
I usually enjoy watching and reading what Cenk has to say-he can use common sense when describing a host of issues; however this is not one of those issues.
Cenk ignores common sense for the shallow fact that this man wielded a gun near the President's town hall meeting. I would remind Cenk that guns can be considered a threat to public order, but so can transferring funds to a Muslim charity (a "terrorist" organisation), so can speaking on the phone from a foreign country (may I remind you of wiretaps), and apparently checking out subversive books can be considered a threat to the United States of America. Cenk attacks this man just as Republicans under George Bush II attacked Muslims in the name of safety.
Yet, Cenk, you were right to criticise all these efforts on behalf of Republicans to demean and destroy our liberties, for the very sole purpose that these men had done no crime, and posed no threat to the United States. You should see this episode in the same light.
You say in your article,
"Is anyone stupid or disingenuous enough to believe that [they would allow this under Bush 43]? They would have taken his ass down in a flat second. They would have infiltrated whatever group he belonged to and monitored his ass for the rest of time."
Yet as Bush 43 tortured, started an illegal war, attacked civil liberties, and passed signing statements, doesn't mean we can or should do the same thing now.
Cenk, this man should not be disarmed because the specific gun he had, the way in which he carried it, and the place where he stood, made this man legally allowed to do these things. The laws of New Hampshire, and the inalienable rights of its citizens, should not be undermined because the President is in the vicinity of the protesters. Such logic could justify preemptive detention of any citizen who the President deems a danger to his public safety.
May I remind Cenk that this man was outside the town hall, may I remind him that he was legally allowed to be there, that for the President's protection the government employs special bodyguards, that police monitor protests, and that this man had no intention to harm, and did not harm anyone?
In a free society, its citizens must live in insecurity. It is the nature of a free society. Yet we each cannot infringe on the rights of others- to do that is illegal. We must behave in a manner that protects our liberty, and that is the why guns are used only in self-defense, that is why even if 20 or 30 protesters carried guns to a protest, no violence should ensue. If it does, it would be only in response to others taking away freedom of the individuals involved. If violence occurs and takes the liberty of another, it is illegal. If this violence is planned, it is premeditated and the police should take appropriate action to prevent it.
The truth remains that this man did not threaten the life and freedom of the President, and most surely did not threaten the life and freedom of others in the public.
Otherwise Cenk, all threats to the public safety, or perceived threats, should be dealt with on the paranoia of another, be it the police, the President, or the military corps. Threats should be eliminated whatever form they take, be it Muslims gathering for prayer, phone calls from relatives in Pakistan, or gun toting protesters. In such a world if the media report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, President Obama should be obliged to insure its censorship, as that would foment terrorist acts against America. The release of photos that could harm Americans abroad should be prevented at all costs. Why have a second amendment, since surely the public peace should come first?
Such a model for society would ensure complete safety, and no liberty.
Do not travel down this road well traveled by authoritarians, Royalists, and Republicans Cenk-come back to the narrow path of liberty.
Cenk ignores common sense for the shallow fact that this man wielded a gun near the President's town hall meeting. I would remind Cenk that guns can be considered a threat to public order, but so can transferring funds to a Muslim charity (a "terrorist" organisation), so can speaking on the phone from a foreign country (may I remind you of wiretaps), and apparently checking out subversive books can be considered a threat to the United States of America. Cenk attacks this man just as Republicans under George Bush II attacked Muslims in the name of safety.
Yet, Cenk, you were right to criticise all these efforts on behalf of Republicans to demean and destroy our liberties, for the very sole purpose that these men had done no crime, and posed no threat to the United States. You should see this episode in the same light.
You say in your article,
"Is anyone stupid or disingenuous enough to believe that [they would allow this under Bush 43]? They would have taken his ass down in a flat second. They would have infiltrated whatever group he belonged to and monitored his ass for the rest of time."
Yet as Bush 43 tortured, started an illegal war, attacked civil liberties, and passed signing statements, doesn't mean we can or should do the same thing now.
Cenk, this man should not be disarmed because the specific gun he had, the way in which he carried it, and the place where he stood, made this man legally allowed to do these things. The laws of New Hampshire, and the inalienable rights of its citizens, should not be undermined because the President is in the vicinity of the protesters. Such logic could justify preemptive detention of any citizen who the President deems a danger to his public safety.
May I remind Cenk that this man was outside the town hall, may I remind him that he was legally allowed to be there, that for the President's protection the government employs special bodyguards, that police monitor protests, and that this man had no intention to harm, and did not harm anyone?
In a free society, its citizens must live in insecurity. It is the nature of a free society. Yet we each cannot infringe on the rights of others- to do that is illegal. We must behave in a manner that protects our liberty, and that is the why guns are used only in self-defense, that is why even if 20 or 30 protesters carried guns to a protest, no violence should ensue. If it does, it would be only in response to others taking away freedom of the individuals involved. If violence occurs and takes the liberty of another, it is illegal. If this violence is planned, it is premeditated and the police should take appropriate action to prevent it.
The truth remains that this man did not threaten the life and freedom of the President, and most surely did not threaten the life and freedom of others in the public.
Otherwise Cenk, all threats to the public safety, or perceived threats, should be dealt with on the paranoia of another, be it the police, the President, or the military corps. Threats should be eliminated whatever form they take, be it Muslims gathering for prayer, phone calls from relatives in Pakistan, or gun toting protesters. In such a world if the media report on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, President Obama should be obliged to insure its censorship, as that would foment terrorist acts against America. The release of photos that could harm Americans abroad should be prevented at all costs. Why have a second amendment, since surely the public peace should come first?
Such a model for society would ensure complete safety, and no liberty.
Do not travel down this road well traveled by authoritarians, Royalists, and Republicans Cenk-come back to the narrow path of liberty.
Stewart on Healthcare...
Despite the comedy, Jon Stewart hits the nail on the head as usual
and if you were wondering, here's that "psycho" on Hardball.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| PR | ||||
| ||||
and if you were wondering, here's that "psycho" on Hardball.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Summary & Analysis of H.R.3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
What I have thus far... a work in progress...
1. Insurer can't vary the premium with/in a risk group
[Title 1, Sub A, Section 102.a.3]
--> and that means..?
2. Terms & Conditions cannot change
-This only applies to the transition period
[Title 1, Sub A, section 102.a.2]
3. Pre-exisiting medical condition exclusions are prohibited
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 111]
4. Insured plans are guaranteed renewal
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 112]
5. Insurance Rate Rules
Rates may vary by age [2x lowest], by area, and family composition
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 113.a.1-3]
6. Nondiscrimination
In all bemefits. Mental Health & Substance abuse shall be offered to all based on marketplace rules.
This means that coverage must be equal to that of their competitor's.
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 114.a&b]
7. Choice of Coverage:
Non-Exchange-Participating Health Benefits Plans
Exchange-Participating Health Benefits Plans
Continuation of Offering of Seperate Excepted Benefits Coverage
[Tital 1, Sub C, Section 121.b.1-3]
8. Essential Benefits Package Defined
-Provides payment for medical items
-Limits cost-sharing for items
-Does impose annual/lifetime limited coverage
-Is equivalent to average employer-sponsored coverage
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 122.a.1-5]
9. Minimum Services
-Hospitalization
-Outpatient Hospital Clinical Services
-Medical professionals coverage
-Necessary services, equipment, & supplies
-Prescription drugs
-Rehabilitation
-Preventitve Services (vaccines) recommended w/ Grade A or B
-Maternity care
-Baby & childcare, vision, hearing, & related items
[Title, Sub C, Section 122.b.1-10]
10. Cost-sharing & Minimum Actuarial Value
-No Cost-sharing for preventive services
-Annual Limitation
---$5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for a family
(to be raised according to the CPI to the nearest $100)
---Copayments for all plan levels are preferable to coinsurance
-Minimum Actuarial Value
---Insurance to cover apporximately 70% of the full actuarial value of provided benefits
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 122.2c-3b]
11. Health Benefits Advisory Committee
-To recommend covered benefits & essential, enhanced premium plans
-Chair shall be the Surgeon General
-Membership:
- 9 members who are not Federal Employees nor appointed by POTUS
- 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General in a process similiar to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
- As many members, not to exceed 8, who are Federal employees as POTUS appoints
-Terms:
- 3-year, staggard terms
-Participation:
- Membership reflects providers, consumers, employers, labor, insurers, exports in finance, counter-discrimination experts, disability reps, relevant gov't agencies, @ < 1 practicing physician or health expert/child health issues
-Duties:
-Recomendations on Benefits, etc
-Begin offering recomendations 1 year after passage, or earlier
-Public input= Advisory Committee to allow input
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 123.a1-5 through b4]
12. Levels of Cost-sharing:
-Enhanced Plan: 85% of value
-Premium Plan: 95% of value
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 123.b5.a-b]
13.
1. Insurer can't vary the premium with/in a risk group
[Title 1, Sub A, Section 102.a.3]
--> and that means..?
2. Terms & Conditions cannot change
-This only applies to the transition period
[Title 1, Sub A, section 102.a.2]
3. Pre-exisiting medical condition exclusions are prohibited
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 111]
4. Insured plans are guaranteed renewal
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 112]
5. Insurance Rate Rules
Rates may vary by age [2x lowest], by area, and family composition
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 113.a.1-3]
6. Nondiscrimination
In all bemefits. Mental Health & Substance abuse shall be offered to all based on marketplace rules.
This means that coverage must be equal to that of their competitor's.
[Title 1, Sub B, Section 114.a&b]
7. Choice of Coverage:
Non-Exchange-Participating Health Benefits Plans
Exchange-Participating Health Benefits Plans
Continuation of Offering of Seperate Excepted Benefits Coverage
[Tital 1, Sub C, Section 121.b.1-3]
8. Essential Benefits Package Defined
-Provides payment for medical items
-Limits cost-sharing for items
-Does impose annual/lifetime limited coverage
-Is equivalent to average employer-sponsored coverage
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 122.a.1-5]
9. Minimum Services
-Hospitalization
-Outpatient Hospital Clinical Services
-Medical professionals coverage
-Necessary services, equipment, & supplies
-Prescription drugs
-Rehabilitation
-Preventitve Services (vaccines) recommended w/ Grade A or B
-Maternity care
-Baby & childcare, vision, hearing, & related items
[Title, Sub C, Section 122.b.1-10]
10. Cost-sharing & Minimum Actuarial Value
-No Cost-sharing for preventive services
-Annual Limitation
---$5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for a family
(to be raised according to the CPI to the nearest $100)
---Copayments for all plan levels are preferable to coinsurance
-Minimum Actuarial Value
---Insurance to cover apporximately 70% of the full actuarial value of provided benefits
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 122.2c-3b]
11. Health Benefits Advisory Committee
-To recommend covered benefits & essential, enhanced premium plans
-Chair shall be the Surgeon General
-Membership:
- 9 members who are not Federal Employees nor appointed by POTUS
- 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General in a process similiar to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
- As many members, not to exceed 8, who are Federal employees as POTUS appoints
-Terms:
- 3-year, staggard terms
-Participation:
- Membership reflects providers, consumers, employers, labor, insurers, exports in finance, counter-discrimination experts, disability reps, relevant gov't agencies, @ < 1 practicing physician or health expert/child health issues
-Duties:
-Recomendations on Benefits, etc
-Begin offering recomendations 1 year after passage, or earlier
-Public input= Advisory Committee to allow input
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 123.a1-5 through b4]
12. Levels of Cost-sharing:
-Enhanced Plan: 85% of value
-Premium Plan: 95% of value
[Title 1, Sub C, Section 123.b5.a-b]
13.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sadism in our Courtrooms, A Microcosm for All Authority
(The following link contains a disturbing video)
If you thought you were safe around police officers, think again. It seems the inverse is true. The more police officers that are around you, the more likely harm is to come to you and those around you.
Let me remind you officers are the domestic version of what the military is abroad (and for you very authoritarian countries, at home as well). They are Goons who restore order at the edge of a sword, the tip of a bayonet, or with the bullet of a gun. Give them power, and they use it as sadistically as possible.
Men become animals in the name of order, country, leader, democracy, and punish those without power. As Blackwater and contractors kill and detain without oversight in Iraq, as the CIA tortures in Guantanamo or Bagram on a daily basis, as the military firebombs the village in order to save it, and as police officers restore order to the unorderly in our very own country,you can rest assured that these men and women do so in the name of democracy, of order, of country; they kill your family, bomb your village, tase your neighbour, all for your safety. So be thankful as they gently place the boot on your face for the good of society. Don't comply, don't prostrate yourselves before them, look them in the eye in the wrong way, and they will take pleasure in forcing that boot on your head. Obey!
As a rule of thumb you don't use good iron to make nails, and you never use good men to make soldiers, or police officers, or CIA agents.
These men take pride in making others cower before them in the name of legal authority. Knowing they are immune from the same legal procedures as us ordinary and powerless sheep, they gladly make us comply with whatever method necessary-and afterwards invent the legal justification for criminal behaviour. Whether it's "excited delirium", "enhanced interrogation techniques", or "collateral damage", the invention of euphemistic terms never ceases to immune the beasts among us.
I always wondered (for I have been unfortunate in my short life span) to never have been confronted by a police officer-or should I be more euphamistically correct-state parasites. I imagine my naiveté will land me in jail or with a taser lodged into my arm or my leg or with a broken jaw. I imagine what I could do to stop that inevitable conclusion... and then I remember- shooting an officer, even in self-defense, never pays off.
Yet if a citizenry cannot fight, either legally or practically, against the systemic brutality of sadists, either in its own CIA, its own military, or its own police force, where is their recourse? Where is one to go if abused by organisations that claim to protect your freedom and safety, if these same organisations harass and threaten you needlessly? What actions, short of abolishment of these organisations, can one do to ensure these abuses of power will never occur? Is it inherent in the State itself, or in our own human nature? Do we need to have a military, a police force, and a CIA to ensure our safety, our flag, our social contract?
At what point does increasing safety mean having less of these authorities around to insure it? At what point, at what brutality, at what sadistic euphemism will we cringe these demons away? Whose death, whose tortured corpse, whose mangled body, disfigured in the name of safety, will it take to forcibly claim our freedom from these monsters, before we ourselves succumb to the clawed boot of this faceless beast?
~Justin Schoville
If you thought you were safe around police officers, think again. It seems the inverse is true. The more police officers that are around you, the more likely harm is to come to you and those around you.
Let me remind you officers are the domestic version of what the military is abroad (and for you very authoritarian countries, at home as well). They are Goons who restore order at the edge of a sword, the tip of a bayonet, or with the bullet of a gun. Give them power, and they use it as sadistically as possible.
Men become animals in the name of order, country, leader, democracy, and punish those without power. As Blackwater and contractors kill and detain without oversight in Iraq, as the CIA tortures in Guantanamo or Bagram on a daily basis, as the military firebombs the village in order to save it, and as police officers restore order to the unorderly in our very own country,you can rest assured that these men and women do so in the name of democracy, of order, of country; they kill your family, bomb your village, tase your neighbour, all for your safety. So be thankful as they gently place the boot on your face for the good of society. Don't comply, don't prostrate yourselves before them, look them in the eye in the wrong way, and they will take pleasure in forcing that boot on your head. Obey!
As a rule of thumb you don't use good iron to make nails, and you never use good men to make soldiers, or police officers, or CIA agents.
These men take pride in making others cower before them in the name of legal authority. Knowing they are immune from the same legal procedures as us ordinary and powerless sheep, they gladly make us comply with whatever method necessary-and afterwards invent the legal justification for criminal behaviour. Whether it's "excited delirium", "enhanced interrogation techniques", or "collateral damage", the invention of euphemistic terms never ceases to immune the beasts among us.
I always wondered (for I have been unfortunate in my short life span) to never have been confronted by a police officer-or should I be more euphamistically correct-state parasites. I imagine my naiveté will land me in jail or with a taser lodged into my arm or my leg or with a broken jaw. I imagine what I could do to stop that inevitable conclusion... and then I remember- shooting an officer, even in self-defense, never pays off.
Yet if a citizenry cannot fight, either legally or practically, against the systemic brutality of sadists, either in its own CIA, its own military, or its own police force, where is their recourse? Where is one to go if abused by organisations that claim to protect your freedom and safety, if these same organisations harass and threaten you needlessly? What actions, short of abolishment of these organisations, can one do to ensure these abuses of power will never occur? Is it inherent in the State itself, or in our own human nature? Do we need to have a military, a police force, and a CIA to ensure our safety, our flag, our social contract?
At what point does increasing safety mean having less of these authorities around to insure it? At what point, at what brutality, at what sadistic euphemism will we cringe these demons away? Whose death, whose tortured corpse, whose mangled body, disfigured in the name of safety, will it take to forcibly claim our freedom from these monsters, before we ourselves succumb to the clawed boot of this faceless beast?
~Justin Schoville
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Can you really trust them, even after 14 years of Ineptitude? And the last 8....?
Now, would you actually put money before people's civil liberties? Would you want to have continued torture? I think there's a heck of a lot more that Republicans have to straighten up before anyone with half a brain can begin to endorse them.
It's not just about money. In fact, taxpayer savings have a lot less to do with the current problems that the Republican party faces. Largely, it's about democracy, civil liberties, political rights, the standing of minorities, marriage, abortion, the separation of church and state, international affairs, failed economic policies [& possible limits/implications of Keynesians], illegal immigration, and on and on.
Would you really ever want to support the Republicans... even if they changed? Just look at the mess they've made the last 8 years. Any party that will stand by a failed presidency that long and enable it is not really a party that I feel anyone should be comfortable supporting. It will be hard to forget that. I would hope people who despise the Democrats would sooner vote for a third party than for a Republican... surely they realize it wasn't the Democrats spending policy that put us in the mess to begin with, nor was it lack of Democratic oversight...
Largely, it appears as though today's Republicans are really just against Democrats and not entirely for Republicans. The issue is that these people need to choose what they value more... the so-called "economic freedoms" of the Republicans, or the more literal social freedoms of the Democrats. Sadly, in a consumerist society like ours, Republicans tend to win those supporters- who prefer the potential financial benefits to increased civil liberties [need I mention the Patriot Act??].
Either way, the ideological "drift-shift" further emphasizes the need for a REAL third party that would be capable of keeping both sides from going into the ideological "deep end..." for the sake of establishing "distinguishable differences" just to win future elections.
It's not just about money. In fact, taxpayer savings have a lot less to do with the current problems that the Republican party faces. Largely, it's about democracy, civil liberties, political rights, the standing of minorities, marriage, abortion, the separation of church and state, international affairs, failed economic policies [& possible limits/implications of Keynesians], illegal immigration, and on and on.
Would you really ever want to support the Republicans... even if they changed? Just look at the mess they've made the last 8 years. Any party that will stand by a failed presidency that long and enable it is not really a party that I feel anyone should be comfortable supporting. It will be hard to forget that. I would hope people who despise the Democrats would sooner vote for a third party than for a Republican... surely they realize it wasn't the Democrats spending policy that put us in the mess to begin with, nor was it lack of Democratic oversight...
Largely, it appears as though today's Republicans are really just against Democrats and not entirely for Republicans. The issue is that these people need to choose what they value more... the so-called "economic freedoms" of the Republicans, or the more literal social freedoms of the Democrats. Sadly, in a consumerist society like ours, Republicans tend to win those supporters- who prefer the potential financial benefits to increased civil liberties [need I mention the Patriot Act??].
Either way, the ideological "drift-shift" further emphasizes the need for a REAL third party that would be capable of keeping both sides from going into the ideological "deep end..." for the sake of establishing "distinguishable differences" just to win future elections.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Defense Authorisation Act of Fiscal Year 2010
SEC. 421. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year 2010 a total of $135,723,781,000. The authorization in the preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for fiscal year 2010.
Talk about wasteful spending. So how much are we worried about the healthcare costs and earmarks- the "wasteful" spending highlighted by republicans? It seems absolutely minuscule when compared to the "bloated" military industrial complex. But to republicans NONE of that money is wasteful.
It seems Republicans are hypocrites of "fiscal" conservatism. As long as they can get one more dollar to go to the brass parasites in uniform, they'll give it.
Now as soon as Republicans actually become standards of fiscal responsibility, then maybe I could rally beside them in eliminating government regulations, bureaucracy, and departments in order to save more money for the taxpayer. But until then I hope they enjoy being out of power.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year 2010 a total of $135,723,781,000. The authorization in the preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for fiscal year 2010.
Talk about wasteful spending. So how much are we worried about the healthcare costs and earmarks- the "wasteful" spending highlighted by republicans? It seems absolutely minuscule when compared to the "bloated" military industrial complex. But to republicans NONE of that money is wasteful.
It seems Republicans are hypocrites of "fiscal" conservatism. As long as they can get one more dollar to go to the brass parasites in uniform, they'll give it.
Now as soon as Republicans actually become standards of fiscal responsibility, then maybe I could rally beside them in eliminating government regulations, bureaucracy, and departments in order to save more money for the taxpayer. But until then I hope they enjoy being out of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
