![[icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/79406083/8357750) |
Ron's Rumentations
|
| As most of you know, I am, generally speaking, an Obama fan. I voted for him, and I think he's done a lot of good things so far. Having said that, I have to admit that I'm not 100% certain where I stand on the health care overhaul debate. I'm absolutely certain that our system for providing health care needs to be overhauled, but I'm not sure we're going about it in the correct manner.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is the rhetoric that's coming from a lot of the opponents of health care reform. In my eyes, it appears that most of the people screaming against reform are just picking up language they heard from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or some other demagogue and repeating it. That might not be so bad if the language they're using wasn't blatantly wrong and easily logically refutable.
Here's the most common instance of what I've described: I was having a discussion with another Marine the other day, and he stated that having the government involved as a market participant in providing health care (i.e. having a public option) would ultimately drive all other participants out of the market because they wouldn't be able to financially compete. This is stuff I've heard from the mouths of several conservative commentators, and it's not supported by historical evidence. In the majority of the fields in which the U.S. government operates as a market participant, other, private, market participants are able to thrive. The example I used with him was the U.S. Postal Service (actually, I was a bit snide. I said "You're absolutely right! After all, look how hard a time UPS and FedEx have competing against the U.S. Postal Service! They're barely staying afloat!"). However, there are numerous other examples (home mortgages, electric power supply, etc.) In the few fields of legitimate private enterprise where the U.S. government has become the sole market participant, it is usually because the government stepped in and became a market participant when it became clear that the market was folding and, for interests of national security or interstate commerce, could not be allowed to fold. The most obvious example of this is Amtrak. Amtrak is a government-owned corporation that is the sole provider of nationwide rail transportation for people (as opposed to freight) on a large scale. However, Amtrak was only created in 1971 after it became clear that the non-freight rail transportation industry was getting ready to cease existence. In other words, the government's participation in the market did not drive out other market competitors. Those competitors were driven out of the market by lack of profitability prior to government participation.
Another example is the statement (made by certain well-known politicians) that the health care proposals currently in Congress would encourage euthanasia by having mandatory counseling sessions for the elderly in which they would be directed in how to end their lives. If you've read the pertinent parts of the proposals, you know that this was absolute bunk. That's like saying that having a voluntary suicide awareness class at a community center will encourage suicide. The proposals did have VOLUNTARY counseling focused on decisions that might need to be made when the individual was incapacitated (i.e. living wills, etc.). HUGE difference.
So, the point of the rant above is this: If you want to have a civil discussion about health care or convince me of your position, try using logical arguments instead of just blindly repeating assertions that I can easily prove to be ridiculous. If that same Marine had told me that he had a problem with the current health care reform proposals because he just couldn't understand how we were going to be able to fund them over the next 20 years without a marked increase in taxes for everyone, I'd have respected and understood his position. Heck, I have the same concern myself. I just wish people would stop being lemmings.
| comments: 8 comments or Leave a comment   |
| So, I just read a news report that, due a resurgence in requests for information from conservative groups and news organizations, the Hawaii State Department of Health once again issued a statement verifying that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. For those of you who don't know, during the election, and even more so right after the election, several conservative groups, talk-show hosts, and Republican members of Congress began to express the opinion that Obama was not qualified to be President because he was not born in Hawaii, as stated, but rather was born out of the country. The most vocal of the proponents of this theory was, of course, conservative demagogue Rush Limbaugh.
There are a couple of particularly ridiculous things about this situation:
1. Prior to the election, Obama's camp produced his birth certificate and other documents verifying that he was born in Hawaii. These documents were verified as legitimate. There was never any REAL question about whether or not he was a natural. Since that time, the Hawaii State Department of Health has verified, on several occasions that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. Many of the same people who are attempting to undermine an election in this underhanded manner (example Rush Limbaugh) were the most vocal in condemning Al Gore for failing to graciously concede the election to President Bush. Apparently, hypocrisy is alive and well.
So, here's my message to those who continue to push the Obama "non-natural citizen" non-issue:
GET OVER IT! You lost, fair and square. Learn to be adults and move on. You don't like the elected President? Vote for someone else again next time. You lose that time as well? Sucks for you. That's kinda how a Democracy (or Representative Republic) works.
| | comments: 12 comments or Leave a comment |
| She just made me a new LJ layout. Go check it out.
This iz not jkg_vader hijacking Ronz LJ.
I promise.... | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| So, sirgarrett posted a link to a discussion concerning the use of actual current U.S. Military uniform items as costumes. Here's the link:
http://community.livejournal.com/dragoncon/1827007.html
Now, I've got to admit, the reason I don't just go post to that link is that I really just don't feel like getting caught up in an argument with other people on this subject. I feel how I feel, no one is going to change that feeling, and I'd rather just state my feeling and move on. However, I know that if I post to that link and someone answers me in the wrong way, I'm going to allow myself to get embroiled in something for which I don't really have the time or the energy.
Having said that, let me state my opinion on this subject: If you use actual, current US military medals, symbols, rank, or uniforms that you have not actually earned in one of your costumes...you are WRONG.
Actually, I don't really care about people wearing the uniforms of the other services as costumes. As a general rule, I feel like they can look out for themselves. Also, my general chauvinism leads me to believe that there's something more substantial to earning a Marine Corps uniform or a medal in the Marine Corps than is the case with other services. The statistical fact is that the Marine Corps hands out less medals per capita than other services and turns away more people as a percentage of its overall force structure than any of the other services. It's just harder to become a Marine and to earn official recognition once you are a Marine. Also, at least in the enlisted ranks, it's harder to gain rank as a Marine than it is in any other service.
Also, I saw comments from people on the thread that wearing a medal like a Purple Heart wasn't that big a deal, because it's basically a "thanks for playing" medal...i.e. you were too stupid not to get injured. While it's true that some people who get Purple Hearts probably got injured because their brains aren't capable of processing "breath" and "duck" at the same time, that is definitely not the case across the board. Marines get injured every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not because they're stupid or inept, it's because they're buried up to their elbows every day in enemies who want to end their lives. To say that the Purple Hearts they earned are insignificant both cheapens their sacrifices and reflects a callous ignorance that is appalling. I would suggest that those who say that the Purple Heart is a meaningless award either (a) have never served their country in a military capacity, or (b) served in a branch or capacity that allowed them to remain blissfully unaware of what was going on on the front line.
So, if I see you wearing Marine Corps digital cammies, or rank insignia, or personal medals, or an EGA (Eagle Globe and Anchor), expect me to question you about it. If you haven't earned it, expect me to have a problem with it. I don't care that there are other members of the military out there that are not bothered by it. Maybe they're better or nicer people than I. Maybe they've never actually served in combat. I don't know. I don' care. When you wear a uniform that is an active military uniform, you cheapen the efforts of those who actually earned it. Heck, I won't even wear rank that I haven't earned on a costume. It's why my Imperial Officer uniform has Captain's rank. I just can't fathom what could possess people to think that it's okay to do otherwise.
Sorry, rant over. For those of you who are new to reading my posts, I promise that I am not normally this aggressive or confrontational in a post. This is just something in which I believe strongly. | | comments: 33 comments or Leave a comment |
| Some of you are going to think this post is political. You should understand going into this that I don't consider this issue a matter of politics, because, to me, it is so important to all of us that it transcends politics.
( Read more... ) | | comments: 29 comments or Leave a comment |
| This post probably isn't going to matter to most of you out there, but it does to me, so I'm going to post it anyway.
As a matter of principle, I have several problems with the United Nations. The most important of them, though, is that it's a Euro-centric organization whose rigidity makes it incapable of adapting to the changing world situation. This is true both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. I'll address each.
The Security Council
The problem manifests itself most apparently in the makeup of the Security Council. No one can make a valid argument that France still rates a spot as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), and the argument for the UK having a spot is weak at best.
For those of you who don't know anything about the UNSC, it's made up of 15 members: 5 permanent member (US, UK, France, Russia, China), and 10 members who rotate out on a 2 year basis. To pass any substantive measures, you need 9 votes...including ALL 5 of the permanent members. This, in effect, gives each of the permanent members a veto over any substantive action.
So, being a permanent member of the UNSC is important. Aside from China, all of the current permanent members have been members in one form or another since the end of WWII (Russia obviously succeeded to the USSR's spot). At that time, the main mission of the UN was focused in Europe. That made sense at the time, since Europe was the center of world power.
Since WWII, however, the center of world power has shifted. It is now in Asia and, in the case of the US, in North America. France is not a world power in any sense: not economically or militarily. France is just another of the mass of countries out there. There is absolutely no support for the proposition that France should still be a permanent member of the UNSC. The UK, on the other hand, is still a financial power, but it is nowhere near the top of the list of world military powers. Heck, India could field a more substantial military force than the UK. And, as far as the financial thing is concerned, if strictly financial power is a justification for position on the UNSC, Japan has a greater claim than the UK. Also, the UK represents a relatively insubstantial portion of the world's population.
If permanent membership on the UNSC had any reasonable basis in the current world situation, the permanent members would be: US, China, Russia, and India. The EU as a whole should probably have a spot, but only "States" can be members, and the EU does not meet the definition of a "State" under International Law.
The problem is that there is no mechanism for rotating States out of UNSC permanent spots based upon obsolesence. There needs to be.
The General Assembly
The problem has manifested itself differently in the General Assembly (UNGA). Originally, the UNGA was made up of mostly European, mostly developed countries. So, a 1 country-1 vote format made sense. However, now that the developing world has joined (and I do see the developing world having a voice as being a good thing), it makes less sense. Because there are literally hundreds of small developing countries out there - countries that, individually represent very small segments of the world population and collectively represent very little of the world's gross domestic product - the one country-one vote format gives the developing world a much larger vote than it should have...that is, as long as the developing world is willing to vote as a block. The thing is that the developing world has shown a disturbing tendency to vote as a block on economic issues. So, a portion of the world that represents the smallest economic input has the largest economic vote in the UNGA.
Example: During the 80s, developing countries tried to push to amend the UN Charter to REQUIRE developed countries to supply developing countries with economic aid. Frighteningly, they almost won.
So, my point, in general, is that the UN is pretty obsolete and becoming more obsolete. It needs to change to have any significance. We need to acknowledge that there is not a single European country that is still on the varsity team as far as world power is concerned. | | comments: 7 comments or Leave a comment |
|
Ron's Rumentations
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
rgusmc1's journal![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/angry.gif){kind=small}
annoyed
![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/smile.gif){kind=small}
amused