Singing Praises to Obama

I read an article recently and a link that I found troubling. A class of Elementary students were instructed to sing a song literally praising Obama and his "accomplishments." Ironically, no one really knows the consequences of his "accomplishments" but they are none-the-less singing his praises.

The question develops, is this right? Maybe there should be indifference. Why not sing and celebrate the first African American President? Well, the lyrics are troubling because they literally praise him for his policies. Is this not indoctrination of some sort? Do these children really have a say if they want to participate and are they at an age where they can really make that decision for themselves? This is wrong. Imagine if a teacher taught the children to sing the praises of Former President George W. Bush. Would this be a quiet matter? I think not.

Here is the link to the school children's song. Judge for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zrsl8o4ZPo

Missed the flight or perhaps the point...?

So I’m going to preface this article with two comments. First: it’s the first article in a long time on this site, and Second: I’m a bit intoxicated while writing this. With that said, let me just say how ridiculous I think this story is.

CNN is reporting that Mr. Obama intends to nominate a top Los Angeles International Airport police department official to head the Transportation Security Administration, the agency charged with protecting airplanes and other forms of transportation from terrorists. And while I obviously think that the TSA is of crucial importance in the post 9-11 era, I do not think its internal administrative policies should trump its overall importance in protecting Americans from acts of terrorism, whether domestic or foreign.

Yet for some reason, CNN felt it necessary to lead this story by discussing the fact that Erroll Southers, an African American who is the California deputy director of homeland security and a special agent with the FBI, is in favor of collective bargaining for TSA airport screeners.

Are you kidding me!? The newsworthy issue here is that this guy supports the idea that the baggage screeners should have the right to go on strike if they feel they aren’t paid enough? Why is it that I had the idea that this guy was supposed to be more concerned with the airplane I’m on not being hi-jacked, blown up, or flown into a building? In addition they discuss how he opposes Bush administration policies which prohibited such action because they would impair the agency during times of disaster.

So my question is do you think the media (especially CNN) manipulated the story in such a way that it deviates from the true discuss of whether this gentleman is qualified to protect our air transportation or do you think it’s discussion of unionization and emergency efforts trumps any attempt at securing our air borders and national security?

The Bull in a China Shop

Everyone knows the cliche. The implication is that a person goes in carelessly, or I guess maybe intentionally, to a situation and destroys the place. This is my impression of President Obama's LESS THAN 100 days in office. It is almost impossible to even keep up with all the changes he is making to our country but I will not comment on all of them for lack of time and space. This is more than my complaining about differences in ideology. This is becoming fear for what we as a country can and/or will become under his policies. Let me explain.

The most recent mud slinging at the Bush administration over the interrogation tactics is appauling. How in the world can anyone say that the tactic of water boarding on key terrorists was not helpful? For the record, which the media fails to reveal, water boarding was used on three people. One would never know that based upon the media's and the left wing extremists' reports. Other reports say these tactics revealed important information that helped protect the citizens of this great country. Ironically, the people who performed these interrogations did the jobs we have entrusted them to do. Or, do the people of our country so quickly forget the attacks on 9/11 where over 3,000 Americans died?! This is outrageous. The other forms of interrogation that is under investigation is almost comical: one terrorist had a neck brace put on to prevent injury when he was getting pushed around; another, who had a fear of stinging insects, had a caterpillar put on him and was told it stung. Seriously, even if these tactics were harsher, we are in a war and these men are trying to kill us. Would any one of you out there act differently if you thought your family was potentially the next target? If these interrogations failed, they might have been.

Second, this is a threat to our national security! As one general put it, by making this information public you are allowing the next terrorists to train and prepare themselves in the case of capture. These terrorists do in fact train to go through these interrogations so as not to give up information. Not only this, but by softening our position we can only be emboldening our enemies as we go after our own people who did what they thought right to protect our country. Our enemies do not play by the rules. They don't care about our rules. If we were not at war and we were not constantly a target, I agree, these tactics would be a excessive but we are not. American lives are continually in jeopardy and it is the President who is responsible to make sure that safety is ensured.

Third, come to find out, new reports are surfacing that many of these Democrats accusing the Bush administration were in fact informed of what was happening yet had no objections at the time. If this is true then this is obviously more a political move than it is a matter of virtue (which I believe it is). The leadership in this country, whether Republican or Democrat, needs to start acting like leaders and stop basing decisions upon poles and "popular opinion." It is also way too easy to look at something far removed from the freshness of 9/11 and judge whether these tactics were extreme or not. Frankly, that is unfair and hypocritical. It is also interesting that Obama has flip-flopped on whether or not to prosecute these lawyers and aids over their interpretation of the law. Especially after the U.N. (which is useless in and of itself) publicly condemned this as well as other left wing extremists.

Fourth is the matter if Obama can distinguish between friend and enemy. Prior to April 15's tea parties, the Obama administration publicized a new threat to our homeland security. Interestingly enough, myself and people with similar convictions earily resembled this new threat. The threat is of "Right Wing Extremists." There is some language in there that is quite troubling, in fact very troubling. Also worth mentioning is the fact every tea party was a peaceful demonstration, not a cause for conern despite what CNN would like to portray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo; not family viewing? It was a peaceful demonstration!).

The document begins by saying, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

First, they admit there is no evidence any harm is going to be done. No evidence. Second, they are turning opposition to Obama into a race issue. This is ridiculous. If my opposing President Obama's policies, which by the way he has even admitted to wanting to change the foundation of our country , makes me a racist then I'm a racist. BUT, I am not a racist if you mean I oppose him because of his skin color. Ethnicity, race, and/or color is not the issue here. I believe President Obama to be more extreme every day in his ideologies. He is hypocritical for criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending then he goes and quadrupals it in his first year. His ideologies reflect more of a Communist than they do a Capitalist. Maybe this is why he condemns "right wingers" and shakes hands with people who hate our country.

There are other very disconcerting things about this document. It also states, "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Uumm, where do I start? First, let's deal with "hate." This term is used very broadly to describe those who oppose homosexual marriage, people's religious convictions (such as Christians believing there is one way to heaven), and even conservatives who oppose President Obama's policies; therefore, they must be racist. Also, the rejection of federal authority in favor of state or local is actually constitutional. The federal government is not a monarchy. The President of the Unite States is not Czar. Nor is he a Communist dictator. The Federal government has limited power over the states. Finally, the issues mentioned here that the "right wing extremists" would rally under are quite confusing. So if you strongly oppose abortion, or you would like the government to actually do its job concerning immigration (i.e., like secure the borders, like consider it a crime to illegally cross the borders, etc.) you are right wing extremists? Seriously?

The document gets into more than this. I didn't even get into what it says about the military. If you would like to read it, the link is hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf or I'm sure you can search for it with Google.

As I have seen the actions this new adminstration has done, I feel like I'm in an alternate reality. Our President is befriending enemies and accusing conservatives who differ in ideology. He is reaching out to our enemies all the while apologizing for his country as he travels the world. If he is that ashamed of our country he should have never run for President. Personally, I think the President needs to stop focusing on his popularity and start running this country in a responsible way. Instead, he chooses to be a bull in the china shop and dismantle most everything.

Medical Tourism...Catch a Colonoscopy and a Show!

Never before has it been more apparent than now of our current healthcare crisis. With rising uninsured, to rising premiums, to decreased coverage, our nation is posed with a problem just as large as our current economic woes. The range of solutions go from regulation of insurance companies to socialized medicine. The later, of course, I vehemently oppose.

Looking through recent news publications I happened upon a renewed interest in "medical tourism". http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html This is an increasing regularity among Americans, but has been going on throughout the rest of the world starting with the ancient Greeks. Many uninsured patients have found it exponentially cheaper to fly overseas to seek treatment. This may be a shock to some, but is gaining a lot of popularity.

You can search google and find many travel sites specialized in this type of tourism. Where one procedure in the US may cost upwards of 150k, the same procedure can be done in India for less than 15k including travel expenses. Some insurance companies are climbing aboard and offering policies that cover many of these procedures/trips. Most of the coordinating hospitals/countries offer teleconferences with the doctors to get necessary info and answer any questions. As well as offering state-of-the-art medical facilities that many here can't even get without going to a large city.

So this brings me to the question of how can we adequately take care of our own citizens without sending them into bankruptcy? Here are the stipulations that we must accept; 1. The level of care must not decrease, but continue to provide the most current of treatments, 2. Must provide for preventative medicines, and 3. Must be affordable (that in itself is probably the most difficult to address). Although our current Administration has an intense desire for this, I don't think that leaving it up to Congress and the likes of senators like Barney Frank to make it work is the answer. It needs to be worked out by an non-governmental committee of Physicians, Hospital Administrators, Insurance CEO's, and of course a representation of "patients". I think that it would be the only way to develop a plan that includes aggreements and compromises from all parties effected with less political agenda.

If I were on a committee to help develop a healthcare reform plan, here is what I would suggest.

First of all, we need a type of nationalized basic insurance policy. By basic I mean preventative care, non-specialized physician office visits, generic prescription coverage, and ER visits. This should be made available to all people. It would would be paid out of pre-tax wages like any other insurance premium. Most people would be likely to accept insurance if it is this way because when you never see the money come to you, it doesn't affect your perception of paying for it in the same way. Upon employment each person would have the option to accept the coverage or not. It would not be mandatory and would be based off of a percentage of income not a fixed rate, up to a certain point. Children, up to working age, would have coverage regardless of a parents current coverage. It would also be non-discriminatory of pre-existing conditions and this national coverage would automatically qualify you for advance private coverage without any conditions being classified as pre-existing. Disabled and retired would still have Medicare (although a reformed and more beneficial form) would still be available.

Secondly, Health Insurance Companies need reform and some type of regulation (not government control). Focus needs to be on prevention of disease rather than treatment of it once it has developed. I understand that certain things cannot be caught and prevented, but I am speaking of diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain types of cancers, etc. These are diseases that can be prevented or screened for that a lot of insurance companies don't like to pay for until you need by-pass surgery or chemotherapy (much more expensive than prevention). A tax deduction for insurance premiums would encourage competition between companies and help bring down the cost. These companies should be working with the patients/doctors not against them.

Thirdly, malpractice needs reform. Our nation has become the most litigous bunch of sissies I have every heard of. This is a huge factor in the cost of healthcare today. Regulations need to be in place that limit the types of lawsuits to the ones that are ligitimate. Doctors are only human, and do make mistakes. If a patient comes into the hospital and dies, but would have died if they didn't come to the hospital the family shouldn't be allowed to sue unless the death was caused by negligence. If you have the wrong leg cut of in surgery, yes sue the hell out of them! If a patient dies on the operating table, without gross negligence, no. If people are complaining that doctors make too much, they need to turn to the lawyers who make twice that. Our judges need to grow backbones and tell these sleasy lawyers to get out of their courtroom!

I'm sure that there are other aspects of healthcare that need reform, such as electronic medical records, that I have mixed feelings about. To me, these are at the top of my list on things to fix. Socialized healthcare is not the answer, and I pray that it doesn't go in that direction. It hasn't been the best thing for Canada. Some patients have to wait months to get treatments, and many of them are going out of the country as well. Not to mention that in our society, we would lose many doctors, and the rate at which we get new ones would decrease. Not only due to income but to the cost of school.

What else can you think of that needs to be changed? Or if you think that my suggestions are wrong, please inform me of your alternatives. We're all hoping for "change", so here's to "hoping" for the positive.