The Health Care Problem

The debate rages concerning health care in this nation. This is a double edged sword and it appears there is little room for the "middle ground." It is undeniable that this country has some of the best health care facilities in the world. People come from all over to the Houston Medical Center and other facilities for treatment options that may be unavailable in their country. Canadians cross the border to take advantage of the benefits that this country's system has to offer. If you have good health insurance, then you should have no real problem getting the care needed, even if you have a catastrophic event. If you have poor or no health insurance then you may have a dire problem. There are documented cases in which a person's treatment is denied due to an insurance company simply not wanting to pay. This is criminal. Consider this, if you have a child that is diagnosed with (God Forbid) lymphoma, you will demand that treatment begin immediately with no argument whatsoever. What if your insurance company determines that they are not interested in providing the cost of treatment. Think it can't happen? Think again! There are those in the insurance industry that will place obstacles in the way that will delay treatment to the point that any treatment eventually becomes a moot point. This of course is the goal of these gorgons. If something like this were to happen, would you not be at least tempted to conduct a personal interview with the scum that delayed and denied your child's treatment? I think you would. Let us also consider this. If the "decision maker" with the insurance company determines that your child's treatment is not cost effective, but that the outcome of delayed or no treatment is probable death; would they not be guilty of murder in the 1st degree?Common sense would dictate that this is the case. Think about it, the person delays or denies your child's treatment, knowing full well what the probable outcome is, they have forethought the matter. Forethought is a major parameter for classifying murder as 1st degree. The person representing the insurance company could also be guilty of malice, another parameter. If the prime motivator for delaying treatment is to save their employer money at the expense of your child's life, they have evil intent and therefore are malicious. What if the state you lived in utilized capital punishment? If a person, with malice and forethought, denied care to your child and the outcome was fatal, would that not justify capital punishment? If it destroyed your family you would think so with all your soul. Of course, those in the insurance industry do this daily with no sanction. If you have no insurance at all, well then you are probably just screwed unless you are very, very wealthy.
Just the above reason alone makes it difficult to sympathize with the insurance industry when they fight any kind of reform. The industry is deathly afraid of any further oversight or competing government plan. Abuse by the insurance industry is why this country has a possible government option in the works anyway. My heart tells me that quality health care is a public service and the right of any American citizen.
Now we have a problem. I told you the whole mess is a double edged sword. Does this nation really want the government further involved in our lives? It is unthinkable that they would be able to manage this nation's health care. The federal government does very little with competence as far a I can tell. Even our war fighting capability could be improved on, and that is one thing we seem to be pretty good at. Have you ever been treated at a VA or USPHS facility?
What about some local health district's facility? Some are pretty good and others are just not. I'm afraid that the "bad" treatment that one gets at some government facilities would be the norm. No I don't trust the government one bit. Number one, the scenario that is noted above concerning insurance abuse would probably occur also with the government run option. In spades! Number two, those that work in government are usually less competent than those in the private sector. This is somewhat of a generalization. Of course there are some fine people in government service, but the sense of "customer service" that is necessary in the private sector is undeniably lacking in the public sector.
Another major problem is those that are pushing for a government plan are untrustworthy. Let us take a look at the President. His past associations alone are enough to doubt his common sense. The "Rev" Wright is garbage and Bill Ayers goes way beyond just being your typical communist (which is stupid, but perfectly legal). This man is a terrorist. There is no "was" in terrorist. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist. The only difference between this guy and Mcvie is that Mcvie was unfortunately succesful, while Ayers fortunately was and is a fuck up. Do we really trust a man to be President with such lack of judgement in his personal associations to be ultimately in control of our health care (much less the nation)? That is worrisome.
Nancy Pelosi is another who is pushing for a national system. If you think that she just looks crazy, wait until she opens her mouth. She reportedly said that some people showing up at "town hall meetings," to discuss health care were brandishing swastikas. That is craaaaaazy.
The recent comment by Barbara Boxer concerning the way people at "town hall meetings" were dressed is a little odd. Babs is not a bad looking old broad though.
Of course Dick Durbin would be among this bunch. My contempt for this treasonous individual is documented in an earlier editorial. The man is a poonween.
I do not know much about Henry Waxman, but he sure look weird. Sort of like a vampire in the Will Smith film "I Am Legend.
Then we come to Rahm Emanuel. This guy is certainly not to be trusted. Have you ever seen the movie "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson and the late Heath Ledger? There is a wonderful actor in that film named Jason Isaacs who plays the antagonist Col. Tavington. (He is quite good at playing the villain, after all, he also plays the evil Lucius Malfoy in the "Harry Potter" films). In "The Patriot" Col. Tavington (Isaacs) asks Capt. Wilkins (Adam Baldwin) who is a Tory, something to the effect of; Why should I trust a man who would war upon his neighbors and countrymen? This is not a direct quote, but you get the gist. Consider this, Mr. Emanuel is Jewish and yet he serves an administration that appears to be at least somewhat hostile to Israel. Now it is true that Mr. Emanuel, as an American, should put the interests of the United States in front of those of a foreign power, and appears to do so, yet it still gives you pause. The fate and well being of Israel is something that most American Jewish people, rightly or wrongly, appear to have an interest in. Capt Wilkins was an American who served the interests of Britain in the movie. There is a difference but also a similarity. Apparently Mr. Emanuel served Israel during the first Gulf War, and yet he now serves a possible anti Israel administration. Hmmmmmm. Do we really want this guy to have anything to do with our health care system, or anything else for that matter?

I noted earlier that I truly believe that all Americans are entitled, yes I said entitled, to the best health care that is available, but unfortunately those who are pushing for an alternative now are flat untrustworthy. They just don't give me the "warm and fuzzies."

How To Save The Whales

I like whales. Who doesn't? They are beautiful, graceful, mysterious, intelligent, and well worth the effort it takes to protect them. Unfortunately in the ocean near Antarctica, there are apparently few looking out for their well being except for Sea Shepherds cruising on the M/V Steve Irwin. Now this is both good and bad. The good is obvious. The Sea Shepherds are certainly better than nothing, but not a whole lot. The show "Whale Wars" is quite good and brings a good deal of publicity highlighting the problem. There is after all, no need for Japanese "research" vessels to be slaughtering these creatures. What the Japanese really do is kill them as a delicacy for the table. This is not only ridiculous it is criminal. As a friend of mine says "Fuck a Japanese, they don't need to eat a whale." I couldn't agree more. This is not out of control environmental extremism, this is a real issue that should transcend politics. There are those that say the Sea Shepherds are eco- terrorists and pirates and that may be technically true. If that is the case, then the Japanese whaling vessels have every right to eliminate them. Thankfully they do not seem inclined to do this, probably because of the bad publicity that would ensue. Remember Greenpeace and the "Rainbow Warrior?" The French government took care of that problem pragmatically. The firestorm of international protest however was not something that the French wanted to deal with. If I am not mistaken, the French ended up apologizing for this incident. What if the government of Japan was willing to ignore the criticism that would occur if they sunk the Steve Irwin? What if the next time the whaling fleet was accompanied by the Haruna or Shirane with orders to fire if the whaling fleet is provoked? Have any of the "sailors" on the Steve Irwin thought of this? Probably Captain Watson has, but doubtful if many of the rest of the crew have considered this possibility. After all, it would be big news for a while if this occurred, but it would eventually die down, and the crew of the Steve Irwin would still be dead. The problem seems to be that the crew of the Steve Irwin are mainly young idealists. While one has to admire their dedication and bravery, they, for the most part, are not competent sailors. Some of them are obviously oblivious to the danger that they are in. The peril comes not just from the Japanese, the incompetence of Sea Shepherd leadership is evident and puts the young environmentalists in harms way. Have you noticed that even the simplest of evolutions, like launching the small boats, often turns into a fiasco? There is a definite lack of training that is necessary to turn these people into even semi sailors. Captain Paul Watson must take the blame for this. To truly damage the whaling fleet, before Japan's military becomes involved, a complete change in strategy needs to be implemented. Instead of relying on amateurish volunteers, the Sea Shepherd organization needs to consider using professionals. Hiring them at great expense if necessary. I am sure there is enough money in worldwide donations to fund such a venture. I would suggest hiring some of the men from "The Deadliest Catch" to harass and damage the Japanese whalers. These guys are real sailormen with balls the size of watermelons. Perhaps they could even throw in one or two of the "Ice Road Truckers" to round out the crew. If this occurred I don't think that the whalers would stand a chance. At least one of the whaling ships would have her screws fouled. It is possible that these bad asses could incapacitate the entire fleet. Plus, the "Deadliest Catch" guys talk like real sailors as do the "Ice Road Truckers." I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever heard one of the Sea Shepherds say "fuck." How on earth can you be taken seriously as a sailor if you don't say that at least once in a while.

Here We Go Again

Apparently there has been another episode where an African American man was arrested and a firestorm ensured. It appears that one Prof Gates, a Harvard scholar, was taken from his home and transported to the local pokey on disturbance charges. From all apparent released evidence this is a cut and dry case. Prof Gates was questioned by Sgt. Crowley, became uncooperative, and was arrested. Easy Peasy Japaneseee as they say. This should be a simple matter that should have not even made the local paper. It is probable that after all involved cooled down a bit, that there would be no charges. It probably would have just gone away, (no harm, no foul) but Mr. Gates chose to throw the "race card" on the table and "away we go." Now this country must (again) endure Jackson and Sharpton, Christian pillars that they are, jabbering their predictable nonsense, President Obama making ill informed comments, and an irresponsible media fanning the flames. There has probably even been numerous X's and a Shabazz or two chiming in. Have you ever heard of a Mohammedan with the name of X or Shabazz? Tariq Aziz X or Nizar Hamdoon Shabazz, I don't think so. These "community organizers" sure do show up a lot. Must be profitable. A pretty good gig if you can get it, I'd suppose. Jackson, Sharpton, and their like do their small part to keep this country divided. The Gates episode is a small matter, and it is undeniable that some cops are stupid, but this has been blown way out of proportion. Prof. Gates, Harvard professor, is not a "downtrodden Black Man" and Sgt Crowley appears not to be a heavy handed racist cop. Yet Gates is now portrayed as downtrodden and Crowley as racist. I am pretty sure Americans are tired of crap like this. There are racists in every culture in our society and all of us hold some prejudice, but we as Americans should not divide ourselves into African Americans, Mexican Americans, Irish Americans, etc. etc. It matters not whether one is descended from this nation's native population, descended from those brought over in bondage, from the original families on the Mayflower, or was naturalized 20 minutes ago. We are all Americans. There is reportedly big money in keeping the racial coals glowing and if we are not careful the issue can burst into flames again. That is damaging to our society and is beneficial to our enemies and potential adversaries. Those whose business is division are doing all of us a disservice. Let us look at some of those that are ripping this nation apart.
Rev. Jackson and Sharpton are always at the forefront whenever there is some kind of racial issue. Their "work" is well known and need not be discussed further.
In the Houston area there is a man named Johnny Mata who is very quick to get his face in the media whenever there is some kind of episode that involves Hispanics. It would be interesting to know how much money Mr. Mata makes with his detrimental "defense of the community"
Same thing with Quanell X. Whenever there is some problem that involves a member of the Houston area Black community he is yapping on the television.. Some local radio comedians have dubbed him Quanell 10. I like that.
The organization "La Raza" literally means "The Race" and is a Hispanic organization. They certainly do more harm than good and are a player in keeping this nation in turmoil. One note to La Raza, Hispanic is not a race.
Have you ever read the writings of Dr. David Duke and his associates? Boy they are slick and convincing. Much more sophisticated than the Panthers, Nation of Islam, La Raza, Queer Nation, etc. etc. Look a little deeper though and do you know what you will find? The Klan in Brooks Brothers. We all should consider ourselves lucky that these guys are marginalized.
Then we come to the "do gooder" brand of racism. This is the most interesting and perhaps more damaging than the overt variety. A short, but very telling, example of this type of racism is the recent dialogue between Sen. Boxer and Mr. Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. While the NBCC in itself is a symptom of divisiveness that is plaguing the nation, the President of the organization recognized subtle racism when he saw it. He then called Sen Boxer out on it. In no uncertain terms. It is interesting that many of these "do gooders" attempt to align themselves with the various minority communities, when in reality, they consider themselves superior to minorities. Another example is the election of the current President. This would have never come to pass if the "do gooder" population did not overwhelmingly vote for the man. It probably made them feel quite good about themselves. They think themselves hip. They are with it. They certainly are not racist. Just ask them. In fact they really are quite racist. If the Republican nominee would have been Alan Keyes (Why do I always want to call him Johnny?), we might have had a Black conservative President. You see, ideology may make little difference to some of these people. Many would have voted for any minority just to prove to themselves and others that they are above racism. These people are more dangerous (and ridiculous) than the Klan.

Democrats are Weenies and Republicans are Space Aliens

I bartend part time in the Houston area and have done so for quite a number of years. I have worked events that make some of the scenes from the Tom Cruise movie "Cocktail" look pretty tame. Some of the Super Bowl and NBA Allstar Game parties were so busy it was almost amazing. I have also had the pleasure of working some major Democrat and Republican Party events and have noticed quite a bit of difference in the drinking habits, general behavior, and most amazingly even the differences in the "looks" of those folks.

The largest Democrat party event that I worked was held at the Hyatt Regency Downtown in Houston. I believe it was the state or some kind of regional convention and the ballroom was packed with probably over 800 people. This would usually cause no real problem except that the Hyatt only provided 9 or 10 bartenders for the event. Usually even this would not be a real big deal if the drinkers ordered wine , beer and quick and easy drinks. Democrats, even the men, tend to drink labor intensive foofoo drinks. The result of course was nothing less than chaotic as people were ordering drinks that take a little extra time. I even had one twidget at my bar wanting a Creamsickle. Have you ever heard of a "Wicky Wacky Woo?" I never had, but I learned to make one that night. One thing is certain; these Democrats pound down the alcohol and get quite loud. There was dancing, some of it dirty, and very heavy drinking. At one point Dumbass Sheila Jackson Lee got on stage and addressed the crowd. From the reaction you would have thought that Bill himself had made a surprise appearance. I am pretty sure that some of these folks would have had to been carried out if the Hyatt had provided another couple of bartenders to make the service faster. I also noticed that the Democrats had a certain look. The crowd seemed to be pretty equally divided between men and women. A lot of the women were pretty good looking but I saw no stunners. Some of them looked a little in need of a bath. Perhaps the men were the most diverse. I saw a few hippy types, quite a few that looked a little light in the loafers, and a good many that looked moneyed, young and hip. There were a few older limousine liberals in attendance also. At one point one guy asked me if I was a Republican or Democrat. I gave him some non committal answer because I did not want to put any tip in jeopardy. I could not bring myself to identify with these goobers though, tips notwithstanding. What really surprises me was that I got out of there without anyone asking to blow me. That was good as it doubtless would have been a guy.

Republicans are so different from the Democrats that it is hard to believe that they are the same species. I have worked two different Republican events, on major and one minor. The large event was held at the Hilton Americas in downtown Houston, which is a much newer and nicer venue than the Hyatt. Republicans are drinkers also but their tastes tend to be in the Cabernet Sauvignon, beer, and Scotch or Crown and water category. Serving Republicans is much easier than Dems. At first glance a Democrat function is much more interesting to watch than a Republican one. There was heavy drinking and dancing but no borderline depravity on the dance floor. They also made a lot of noise when that ass Tom DeLay made an appearance, but it was not orgiastic. They are a much more subdued bunch. They certainly do not tip real well. There were not a lot of women at the Hilton event, but there were a few stunners ( I think some were "escorts). I would guess it was about at 70 man to 30 women ratio. Like I said, on the surface they just do not seem as interesting than as the Democrats but look a little closer however and one might notice something really disturbing. Some of those people did not look human! I know that sounds crazy but I honestly noticed that some of them looked like humanoids. I saw a documentary recently where a Japanese scientist or engineer built a robot that was a remarkable likeness of him, but still had an odd plastic look look about it. That was what some of these Republicans looked like; plastic, robotic, and humanoid. I even asked my bartending partner if she thought some of the people looked odd and she confessed she thought so also. I did not elaborate on my suspicions, but I came to the conclusion that some of those folks were space aliens.

Some say that the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but I know otherwise. Many Democrats tend to be weenies, swingers and twits while many Republicans are not from this planet at all.

What is a Centrist?

A Centrist in the U.S. is considered by many on either side of the current political spectrum to be a moderate and is distrusted and even ridiculed by both. A Centrist can ally themselves with any party on any issue or stand alone as a voice of moderation. However, a Centrist is above all a pragmatist and will fight for the right and workable choice on the issues. Above all a Centrist does not necessarily have to be a moderate and in fact usually is not. Let us look at a few examples.
A Centrist trusts neither of the major American parties and realizes that many of our elected representatives are "bought and paid for."
A Centrist may understand and sympathize with illegal immigrants but require that the illegal immigration be stopped immediately by any humane means available.
A Centrist may understand the desire for American businesses to lessen their labor costs, but will be in favor of stiff penalties for those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
A Centrist should understand the need for a strong national defense and require that the United States maintain forces that frighten enemies and reassure allies.
A Centrist should understand that our military forces need to constantly train with the forces of our allies and stand with them if one or more of them is under threat. After all our allies are standing with us. Don't believe that? Just look at the number of British, German, Canadian, and other troops killed in the fight with the Mohammedans.
A Centrist should understand that this nation reserves the right of first strike on a potential threat. This includes limited use of atomic arms if necessary.
A Centrist may understand that the current sitting chief executive of this nation may not be legally qualified to hold the post. A Centrist would also understand that cowardice in the legislative branch will prevent his immediate removal from office if it should be proven that he is in the position illegally.
A Centrist would understand that the current state of health care in the nation is unfair and that people die from lack of treatment due to lack of insurance or funds. A Centrist would be in favor of immediate overhaul of the system so that all are treated with the best that medical science has to offer. Unfortunately a Centrist would distrust any solution that is advanced by the current administration.
A Centrist may believe that some alternative energy is viable and funding should go to the research and development of these sources. However, a Centrist would also understand that doing so at the expense of the national economy and defense capability would be foolish.
A Centrist would support a "drill here, drill now" policy to lessen our dependence on Muslim oil thus improving our defense capability.
A Centrist may understand that clean coal energy and atomic power are an important ingredient in the energy policy and should be defended from the radical environmental movement.
A Centrist always knows that the radical left and the radical right take different roads to the same destination. That destination is tyranny and totalitarianism.
A Centrist may understand that unionization can be a road to a better standard of living for many workers. A Centrist would further understand that a functioning union/management partnership can maintain a healthy check on the corporate malfeasance.
A Centrist will also understand that unions that gain inordinate influence can and will destroy an industry, damage the national economy and potential defense capabilities. The UAW was allowed to severely damage the auto industry and the teachers unions have had an impact on damaging the educational system.
A Centrist can listen to both conservative and liberal commentary and make rational decisions on what to and not to support.
A Centrist will understand that businesses that outsource American jobs to third world nations are damaging this nation beyond repair.
What distinguishes a Centrist from those that blindly follow a party line? The ability to think. A great many of our citizens do not have the ability to think for themselves and will follow whatever brand name is most appealing. Unfortunately these people are not very much different than cattle that will follow each other to the slaughter house. Something to ponder.

Let us not go overboard

Well today was Mr. Jackson's memorial service at the Staples Center in L.A. It was all over the television I am sure and I did not watch it. I have already heard enough talk about his tragic life and his unfortunate death to last for a while. Recently there has been a rash of "celebrity" deaths and as far as I can tell none of them aroused as much media interest as the events associated with Michael Jackson. What will Michael be remembered for most? Will it be his undeniable talent or will it be other less savory aspects that one associates with his personage? Steve McNair whose death certainly was not in the natural category did not even come close to garnishing the media interest that Jackson's demise did. What would one think that McNair will be remembered most for? Coming out of a small college to play at the highest level in professional football? His ability to be a successful field general in the NFL? Probably he will be remembered for both of these, but he will also be remembered as a guy who allegedly died in circumstances due to what some would consider abhorrent behaviour. What will Billy Mays be remembered for? Other than for those who personally knew him, he will be remembered chiefly as a huckster on infomercials. He was so annoying that I really liked him. You could not turn on the television it seemed without him blaring at you "Billy Mays here." I will miss him. What about Farah Fawcett? She died tragically from a disease that I am sure ravaged her body, but not her soul. From what I have seen on television she was a good person who had her share of success and disappointment.
All of these people led public lives to varying degrees and all of their deaths were tragic for those who knew and loved them. That is the point here. Their deaths were a tragedy to loved ones, but the rest of us should show some moderation in our grief process. The circus like event surrounding Michael Jackson's death is quite frankly morbid. The constant barrage of media attention is nothing less than voyeuristic and way out of proportion for a man whose contribution to society was as a jester and (let us be honest) an object of prurient curiosity. I am sorry for the grief of those who knew and loved the man , especially his children, but I feel sorry for those who take such unhealthy interest in his demise. Their lives must be missing something that only they would know. If we feel the need to mourn those who truly contribute to society, let us mourn the U.S. and allied troops that were killed this week in combat. They truly deserve public adoration. Something to ponder.

Don't get excited about words

I have been wondering why people get so excited by words. People are so easily offended now by words they consider derogatory that it has become dangerous for the average guy to sit down with his buddies and just talk. After all, if your waiter overhears you and is offended he might be tempted to put a "little wang" in your coffee. This probably won't happen if you are at the country diner after a day of duck hunting (even if you talk about the server's buttocks, it would probably be appreciated), but at the big city bistro you might be in trouble. I guess the word that is most bothersome is fag. The word itself is misunderstood. The Brits often call a cigarette a fag, which is descended from one of the original definitions of the word faggot. According to wordiq.com faggot is defined as an "archaic unit of measurement, a type of food, or a bundle of sticks." It is also defined as a derogatory term for gay men. If one were to call another a "faggot" this would be very insulting, but if one were just to use the word "fag" to another it may or may not be a big deal. It must be taken in context. For instance when friends are together and one advises his buddy to "Get in the car you fag, we're going for more beer" then there would be no offense taken. "Catch the ball next time you fag" is not going draw any ire. The point being that this is a common word among males and does not necessarily allude to sexuality. It is similar to calling a friend a pussy, although that crosses the line somewhat and could be construed as a "fighting word." If you add the "got" to "fag" and come up with the word "faggot," well then a fight might ensue. Recently there was some sort of stupid controversy that came to light considering the words used in a professional baseball locker room. I would imagine that the guys were calling each other fags. This language will be heard in every locker room in every sport from little league on up.
Now it is noted that the word "faggot" is a derogatory word when describing gay males. Using the word "fag" is not the same thing. You might be gay and be a fag, but most likely a gay person is not. Then again there are a whole lot of people who are not gay that are deserving of the term. Think about it. After our country was attacked by Muslim terrorists (let us call them what they are) there were many people who protested against this nation and our policies. Thousands had been killed in a cowardly fashion and these people were whining about the impending military action the United States would take and in effect blaming their own nation for the actions of the terrorists. I submit to you that those people are fags. I suspect that a good many people in the so called Green Movement are also fags. Don't misunderstand, healthy environmentalism is a good thing. Nobody in their right mind wants to damage the ecology and if some industries have to clean up their act at substantial cost to them, so be it! What I am alluding to are those that are so environmentally conscious that they are willing to damage to nation in the relentless pursuit of environmentalism. There are those who say that mindless environmentalism is a religion to some and I would have to agree. The whole Cap and Trade thing that is hot right now is probably not the best thing for this nation. I would imagine that those behind it are fags. Let me take this a step further. The military of this nation is homophobic and the whole "don't ask, don't tell" thing has been resented by the services. It is ironic however that anyone who has ever served can tell you that gays are now and have been serving in the armed forces. This usually causes no difficulty as most gay people, out of self preservation, keep this part of their lives private. It is time for gays to be allowed to serve openly. Just like anybody else gay people have the right to serve and if necessary die in that service to their nation. Fags on the other hand are not normally interested in military service. They look upon such service as evil and those that serve as agents of evil (no I won't use the term evil doers). Many of them seem to hate their country. Most also have a "we are the world" mentality that is unrealistic. That is all fine and good until it begins to affect the lives of Americans and the rightful defense of this nation's prosperity not to mention the actual physical well being of the citizens. Remember, just because you are straight, you still might be a fag and conversely you might be gay but not be. Something to ponder.