So that time I said I would make this post entertaining... I lied. Thats due to some mix of laziness, other homework, an unwarranted preoccupation with football, and that my life might depend on listening to B5 and Omarion right now. Whatever the case, this post will be more lame than I want it to be.
On Sunday night the Republicans had a debate in Florida that turned out to be one of the more exciting debates for that party this year. It all started when former Senator Fred Thompson decided to blast his presidential rival but party-mate Rudolph W. Giuliani for stances on abortion and “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants. He declared that Rudy Giuliani supports gun control, supported a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate, and is too similar in his personal views to Hillary Clinton. Giuliani decided to not just stand pat and take it, but rather he shot right back at Fred Thompson with some fire of his own. He immediately returned by asking why he sided with trial lawyers instead of GOP senators, and attacked his voting record on things that Giuliani said would “make our legal system fairer.” Giuliani also attacked Thompson’s lack of executive experience, while simultaneously defending the aforementioned sanctuary cities. But it wasn’t just among these two. Senator McCain got into it with Mitt Romney over his previous statements. And again, it became very clear that nobody really had the support of the religious right in the election.
I personally think it is sad the state that the Iraq war has left the Republican Party in. What was supposed to be a debate really just turned into 90% of the candidates bashing each other and pointing out their flaws. At this rate they will never win the election, no matter who wins the nomination. The only thing they ever really agreed on was that they needed to bash Hillary Clinton all the time. And that probably won't win any of them the election.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Clinton's health plan only for citizens
Yeah so a variety of other homework for tomorrow means that this will be another not funny post, but I'll try and get something good in next week. So for this week my topic is Hillary Clinton's proposed healthcare plan. She recently revealed that it would not cover immigrants and would be solely for American citizens, which I personally did not even know was an issue, I just assumed this would be the case. Assuming that her fundraising techniques provide enough money to support this plan, I would honestly like to hear people come up with reasons for why Clinton's healthcare plan would not be good for America. Since we all sort of get the idea of what a healthcare plan would do, I'll spend the rest of this post answering a couple of the most common negative responses to national coverage.
I'll start off this part by saying that I think we can all agree that having some sort of coverage is better than having no coverage at all, right? Like even if you had to wait two months for a checkup, this would be better than never going to get a checkup at all? I'll go ahead and assume that we are all cool on that issue. So that sort of answers the common complaint that "I know so-and-so person who lives in European Country X who offers healthcare, and they had to wait 4 months to check out her rash and then they found out it was really bad and needed some sort of surgery (why would a rash ever need surgery? I don't know. But it must have been a pretty freaking intense rash. Like the kind I told Ferris that Greg had last year on the first day of school) which then took another 3 months to schedule and blah blah blah. OK, yeah, it sucks that this person had to wait so long to get the gross rash checked out, but its better than never having it checked out at all, right? And its not like this person is being forced to wait if they have the personal wealth to have their own private insurance, because Clinton's plan allows you to keep your personal provider. Another big issue in the past has been people talking about how those who don't even contribute to the system will be getting all the benefits, so they were obviously talking about immigrants. Well, Hillary cleared that one up pretty clear didn't she? I'm sorta getting lazy here in thinking of other arguments against it, but if you bring one up I'll promise to address it in the comments.
Also the South Florida Bulls make me cry. Oh well, back to the old plan. UCLA for Pac-10 Champs!
Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=ArjNwb3lTZWw_.TBTwUcaRlI2ocA
I'll start off this part by saying that I think we can all agree that having some sort of coverage is better than having no coverage at all, right? Like even if you had to wait two months for a checkup, this would be better than never going to get a checkup at all? I'll go ahead and assume that we are all cool on that issue. So that sort of answers the common complaint that "I know so-and-so person who lives in European Country X who offers healthcare, and they had to wait 4 months to check out her rash and then they found out it was really bad and needed some sort of surgery (why would a rash ever need surgery? I don't know. But it must have been a pretty freaking intense rash. Like the kind I told Ferris that Greg had last year on the first day of school) which then took another 3 months to schedule and blah blah blah. OK, yeah, it sucks that this person had to wait so long to get the gross rash checked out, but its better than never having it checked out at all, right? And its not like this person is being forced to wait if they have the personal wealth to have their own private insurance, because Clinton's plan allows you to keep your personal provider. Another big issue in the past has been people talking about how those who don't even contribute to the system will be getting all the benefits, so they were obviously talking about immigrants. Well, Hillary cleared that one up pretty clear didn't she? I'm sorta getting lazy here in thinking of other arguments against it, but if you bring one up I'll promise to address it in the comments.
Also the South Florida Bulls make me cry. Oh well, back to the old plan. UCLA for Pac-10 Champs!
Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care;_ylt=ArjNwb3lTZWw_.TBTwUcaRlI2ocA
Thursday, October 11, 2007
LaRouche attacks the most sacred American artifact: Halo 3
So this isn't exactly the most recent news (maybe 2 weeks old?) but I found it to be so disturbing that I had to blog about it. Lyndon LaRouche, who I'm sure everybody here has heard of because he's run for the presidency eight times since 1976 according to trusty old Wiki (I don't even know if that math works out right), has condemned Halo 3 as a corrupter of American youth. Good sir, if I may say so: HOW DARE YOU?!?!? While I certainly respect his opinion, I mean who wouldn't listen to a man who was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, I must disagree. Halo represents all that is good in American culture. There is absolutely nothing more American than Halo. I once read that Halo jumped into raging rapids to save a basket of puppies. No joke. Sure, maybe Mr. LaRouche can draw some credence from the fact that over five reputable sources have declared him to be an anti-Semite. Oh wait no, I forgot that we aren't Nazis. My bad. Fact of the matter is, Lyndon LaRouche is an absolute political radical (read what he said from the link I'll post at the end, it's almost scary), convicted criminal, and apparently just all around intolerant man. For these reasons, I have absolutely no reason to respect his opinions. For some reason, I highly doubt that, as Mr. LaRouche claims, the Virginia Tech incident was caused by video games. Plus, his middle name is Hermyle. And I just can't bring myself to trust any man with the middle name of Hermyle.
On a somewhat more serious note, politicians seriously need to get off the whole attacking video games thing. Do they honestly make people that much more violent than violent movies, TV, or news? More importantly, do these other violent things provide any benefits. I recently was bored and started thinking about, in my lifetime, how many hours I've spent playing video games. After it got into the thousands I just kinda got sad and stopped trying to count. Yes, in case you hadn't figured it out yet, I am a HUGE nerd. So just for kicks, I'll say the total was 1,000 hours. Even though it's probably way, way higher. Some quick math figures that to be about a month and a half of my total life. Do I see that as wasted time, or time that was spent turning me into a crazed killer? Absolutely not. In fact, I completely attribute almost all of my problem solving skills, reflex times, and knowledge about football/basketball/baseball strategies to video games. And let's just say that I'm probably better than 90% of the American population in at least two of those categories. So basically, video games are not evil and in fact are very beneficial.
On a closing note, I hope you have not lost all respect for me as a human being because of that last paragraph. Though I would be totally OK with it if you did.
And here are the statements made by Lyndon LaRouche: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/09/26/halo-3-third-wave-destroying-u-s.html
On a somewhat more serious note, politicians seriously need to get off the whole attacking video games thing. Do they honestly make people that much more violent than violent movies, TV, or news? More importantly, do these other violent things provide any benefits. I recently was bored and started thinking about, in my lifetime, how many hours I've spent playing video games. After it got into the thousands I just kinda got sad and stopped trying to count. Yes, in case you hadn't figured it out yet, I am a HUGE nerd. So just for kicks, I'll say the total was 1,000 hours. Even though it's probably way, way higher. Some quick math figures that to be about a month and a half of my total life. Do I see that as wasted time, or time that was spent turning me into a crazed killer? Absolutely not. In fact, I completely attribute almost all of my problem solving skills, reflex times, and knowledge about football/basketball/baseball strategies to video games. And let's just say that I'm probably better than 90% of the American population in at least two of those categories. So basically, video games are not evil and in fact are very beneficial.
On a closing note, I hope you have not lost all respect for me as a human being because of that last paragraph. Though I would be totally OK with it if you did.
And here are the statements made by Lyndon LaRouche: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/09/26/halo-3-third-wave-destroying-u-s.html
Friday, October 5, 2007
Today an orange grasshopper tried to maul my face. As in it jumped at me screeching. I personally think it was a trained assassin come to silence me for my blogging. But on to the actual post, I was having some trouble getting this post up earlier, something was wrong with my internet or something, but now I can get this baby rolling. The article this is based off of is http://tinyurl.com/2tv3hf.
Despite the fact that the first voting for who will run for president in the next election will begin within the next three months, the religious right has yet to determine who their favorite candidate is. This makes religious leaders afraid that Rudy Giuliani could take the cake, which would be a blow to their cause. This is because Giuliani would be the first Republican hopeful to openly support abortion rights since it was legalized. But the problem lies far beyond just who to vote for as a presidential candidate, the evangelical leaders have many internal problems as well. In the past, these leaders have pushed for legislation on the most pressing religious issues (which has been hampered by the loss of Congress due to sex scandals), but now their movement has become somewhat “diluted” as they are fighting for a multitude of issues. The seemingly most religious of candidates, like Mitt Romney and former Governor Mike Huckabee are dubious choices because of how they conveniently flip flop on issues depending on what state they are in. These religious leaders are even threatening to support a third candidate, just to make sure that Giuliani does not win the nomination.
I think it is sad that the agenda is so set for these people, but then again I might be biased. I’m sure there are issues that I would like to see resolved quickly but don’t see as foolish just because I don’t disagree with them. The religious right should most certainly do whatever it takes for them to get their candidate, as it is very important to have every point of view represented in government.
Despite the fact that the first voting for who will run for president in the next election will begin within the next three months, the religious right has yet to determine who their favorite candidate is. This makes religious leaders afraid that Rudy Giuliani could take the cake, which would be a blow to their cause. This is because Giuliani would be the first Republican hopeful to openly support abortion rights since it was legalized. But the problem lies far beyond just who to vote for as a presidential candidate, the evangelical leaders have many internal problems as well. In the past, these leaders have pushed for legislation on the most pressing religious issues (which has been hampered by the loss of Congress due to sex scandals), but now their movement has become somewhat “diluted” as they are fighting for a multitude of issues. The seemingly most religious of candidates, like Mitt Romney and former Governor Mike Huckabee are dubious choices because of how they conveniently flip flop on issues depending on what state they are in. These religious leaders are even threatening to support a third candidate, just to make sure that Giuliani does not win the nomination.
I think it is sad that the agenda is so set for these people, but then again I might be biased. I’m sure there are issues that I would like to see resolved quickly but don’t see as foolish just because I don’t disagree with them. The religious right should most certainly do whatever it takes for them to get their candidate, as it is very important to have every point of view represented in government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)