Number of deaths for leading causes of death ( 2009 data)
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Question:
How does ObamaCare improve these statistics for YOU?
Are you more or less likely to find a solution for mitigating these risks wth this act of Congress?
My belief is no.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Are you better off than four years ago?
Comparisons have been made between this election and 32 years ago. In the Reagan Carter debate that preceded the election, Reagan asked that famous question.
It is interesting to observe that Democrats like to ask that question in terms that if "we" are better off as opposed to "you" being better off. I think that the "you" is better than the "we" because you are a better judge of your own case than the Democrats are. When the Democrats say "we", they are speaking for "you" without you being asked.
With respect to one issue, ObamaCare, the Democrats didn't seem to give a tinker's damn about what "you" think. They passed it anyway and continue to support it no matter what. Obama said that he even liked the name "ObamaCare". Yet, the polls said that the law is unpopular.
So, the question could be re-phrased as follows: "Does the ObamaCare law improve your situation, or does it make matters worse for you ?"
The Democrats also like to say that the people vote against their own self-interests. The Democrats think people are stupid.
People are fallible. They are subject to mistakes. Some are truly stupid. Others are not. On the whole, the entire population is average. Average is not stupid. So, I'll give the people a little more credit than what the Democrats will give. However, the people, being average, can be fooled.
Vote for Obama if you like ObamaCare. Because if he is elected, we are going to be stuck with it. Vote for the Democrats in the Senate, for if the Senate remains with the Democrats, they will block any attempts to get rid of ObamaCare. If the Democrats can just hang on to the Senate, we are stuck with ObamaCare. This may well be our only chance of getting rid of it. So, if you like ObamaCare, vote Democrat.
Otherwise, throw the bums out.
It is interesting to observe that Democrats like to ask that question in terms that if "we" are better off as opposed to "you" being better off. I think that the "you" is better than the "we" because you are a better judge of your own case than the Democrats are. When the Democrats say "we", they are speaking for "you" without you being asked.
With respect to one issue, ObamaCare, the Democrats didn't seem to give a tinker's damn about what "you" think. They passed it anyway and continue to support it no matter what. Obama said that he even liked the name "ObamaCare". Yet, the polls said that the law is unpopular.
So, the question could be re-phrased as follows: "Does the ObamaCare law improve your situation, or does it make matters worse for you ?"
The Democrats also like to say that the people vote against their own self-interests. The Democrats think people are stupid.
People are fallible. They are subject to mistakes. Some are truly stupid. Others are not. On the whole, the entire population is average. Average is not stupid. So, I'll give the people a little more credit than what the Democrats will give. However, the people, being average, can be fooled.
Vote for Obama if you like ObamaCare. Because if he is elected, we are going to be stuck with it. Vote for the Democrats in the Senate, for if the Senate remains with the Democrats, they will block any attempts to get rid of ObamaCare. If the Democrats can just hang on to the Senate, we are stuck with ObamaCare. This may well be our only chance of getting rid of it. So, if you like ObamaCare, vote Democrat.
Otherwise, throw the bums out.
Today's the day
Election day, that is.
Everywhere I look, it seems, there's some prediction of the outcome. As usual, I'm not running with the pack.
Instead, I'll comment upon something I saw about Michael Moore. It was about how the Founding Fathers disenfranchised voters. Rather than comment negatively on that, it seemed interesting to speculate a bit on what the government should actually be like.
Should the president be elected by a nationwide popular vote, as some like Moore would prefer? Or should it be more like the Founders intended?
What did the Founders intend? The intention was a pluralistic governance based upon a system of checks and balances. The natural tendency is toward factionalism. This is not necessarily good, but the theory was that if there were enough factions spread out over a large extent, it could temper and control the effects. The government was designed so as to be divided against itself in many ways. To put it simply, the Founders didn't trust government, nor did they trust pure democracy.
I think I'd trust their judgment more than Michael Moore's.
Moore has this faith in democracy which does not square with history. Democracies tend to commit suicide. If anything, that appears to be getting validated in the West, as this culture is doing itself in. Why be so enamored of democracy?
Moore's critique is the type of accusatory style you often see of liberals. The Founders were just a bunch of bigots. So are all conservatives. The liberals and the liberals alone are the standard bearers of all that is good. That bit of self-proclaimed goodness and innocence is a bit sickening, if you ask me. I'm inclined to believe that human beings are flawed. People cannot be always trusted to do the right thing.
The Founders understood it that way. They recognized the need for government because people are not angels. The government needed to control the population, but it also had to control itself. Therefore, its powers should be limited and diffuse. Just enough to ensure order, but not too much to become overbearing and oppressive. I think they had the right idea.
Let's hope that the Founders' idea of governance continues, and the ideas of Moore's do not go too far. Benjamin Franklin was asked about what kind of government they had created at the Constitutional Convention. His reply was: " A republic, if you can keep it." If the people realize their limitations, they'll understand the need for the government to be limited and kept within the limits of a republic. A democracy is to be avoided.
If that is done, the Republic will be safe for now. Let us hope that this will be the most important outcome of this election. That is to say, let us hope that the friends of the Constitution and the Republic are the winners.
I leave it to the voters to do the right thing. [ cross my fingers ]
Everywhere I look, it seems, there's some prediction of the outcome. As usual, I'm not running with the pack.
Instead, I'll comment upon something I saw about Michael Moore. It was about how the Founding Fathers disenfranchised voters. Rather than comment negatively on that, it seemed interesting to speculate a bit on what the government should actually be like.
Should the president be elected by a nationwide popular vote, as some like Moore would prefer? Or should it be more like the Founders intended?
What did the Founders intend? The intention was a pluralistic governance based upon a system of checks and balances. The natural tendency is toward factionalism. This is not necessarily good, but the theory was that if there were enough factions spread out over a large extent, it could temper and control the effects. The government was designed so as to be divided against itself in many ways. To put it simply, the Founders didn't trust government, nor did they trust pure democracy.
I think I'd trust their judgment more than Michael Moore's.
Moore has this faith in democracy which does not square with history. Democracies tend to commit suicide. If anything, that appears to be getting validated in the West, as this culture is doing itself in. Why be so enamored of democracy?
Moore's critique is the type of accusatory style you often see of liberals. The Founders were just a bunch of bigots. So are all conservatives. The liberals and the liberals alone are the standard bearers of all that is good. That bit of self-proclaimed goodness and innocence is a bit sickening, if you ask me. I'm inclined to believe that human beings are flawed. People cannot be always trusted to do the right thing.
The Founders understood it that way. They recognized the need for government because people are not angels. The government needed to control the population, but it also had to control itself. Therefore, its powers should be limited and diffuse. Just enough to ensure order, but not too much to become overbearing and oppressive. I think they had the right idea.
Let's hope that the Founders' idea of governance continues, and the ideas of Moore's do not go too far. Benjamin Franklin was asked about what kind of government they had created at the Constitutional Convention. His reply was: " A republic, if you can keep it." If the people realize their limitations, they'll understand the need for the government to be limited and kept within the limits of a republic. A democracy is to be avoided.
If that is done, the Republic will be safe for now. Let us hope that this will be the most important outcome of this election. That is to say, let us hope that the friends of the Constitution and the Republic are the winners.
I leave it to the voters to do the right thing. [ cross my fingers ]
Monday, November 5, 2012
The Blues Brothers - She Caught the Katy
For some strange reason, I'm thinking of this song. A Chicago politician is up for reelection tomorrow. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Obama's re-election would reward failure
This post will be made with an insistence upon truth. As it will be thought of as being nothing more than partisan hatchet job.
Several questions need to be asked and answered honestly for those who dare:
Several questions need to be asked and answered honestly for those who dare:
- Why is Romney's Bain Capital background a minus and not a plus? Since when did success become a liability?
- Why does the defense of America become a problem and not a solution? Why abandon America's defense if it is worth defending?
- Why do policy makers insist upon the most complex and expensive ways to solve an alleged problem like global warming--- such as cellulosic ethanol as a biofuel? Why not a simpler and cheaper way --- such as pyrolysis of switchgrass?
- Why do policy makers insist upon ineffective and expensive ways of providing clean energy such as solar and wind energy --- when such things as molten salt nuclear reactor technology is feasible and has been feasible for decades?
- Update: Why continue to fund expensive fusion projects like ITER, when a cheaper and simpler way may be found? Examples: Polywell and Focus Fusion. Others exist as well.
- Why credit someone for defending America when he insists upon blaming it for a problem that he himself would not address in Benghazi?
- Why listen to the media when they are so often wrong about so many things?
- In short---Why punish success and reward failure? Isn't the re-election of Obama just exactly that?
On the eve of the election
It is very early Monday morning here, the beginning of a new work week. As I am wrapping up for the early morning part of posting on this blog, this could be one of the last posts prior to the opening of the polls on Tuesday.
It is rather remarkable to look at the news sites on the web. It is quite political and quite biased. It is either Democrat or Republican. Both claim that the election is a foregone conclusion. Both cannot be right. One side will lose and it will be very disappointing.
As for me, it is hard to believe that Obama can win in this environment. Yet, he could. It was hard for me to believe that a man such as himself with such a radical background could win in 2008, yet it happened. The charge of racism is highly overblown. If Obama was white and Romney was black, the same people would be voting the same way. Race has nothing to do with it. Race is a smoke screen, an excuse. If anything, the racial motivations are coming from the left.
Whatever happens, the focus of this blog will be on solutions to problems. These solutions are not likely to come from the political process. The best that we can hope for from the politicians is for them to stay out of the way. My hunch is that most of the people in this country understand it that way and will vote accordingly.
If the worst happens and Obama returns, the blog may become something of an escape from the lunacy overtaking the world and this country. To a certain extent, that's what the blog already is. But let us hope that sanity returns and Obama is on the way out. The world will be better for it.
It is rather remarkable to look at the news sites on the web. It is quite political and quite biased. It is either Democrat or Republican. Both claim that the election is a foregone conclusion. Both cannot be right. One side will lose and it will be very disappointing.
As for me, it is hard to believe that Obama can win in this environment. Yet, he could. It was hard for me to believe that a man such as himself with such a radical background could win in 2008, yet it happened. The charge of racism is highly overblown. If Obama was white and Romney was black, the same people would be voting the same way. Race has nothing to do with it. Race is a smoke screen, an excuse. If anything, the racial motivations are coming from the left.
Whatever happens, the focus of this blog will be on solutions to problems. These solutions are not likely to come from the political process. The best that we can hope for from the politicians is for them to stay out of the way. My hunch is that most of the people in this country understand it that way and will vote accordingly.
If the worst happens and Obama returns, the blog may become something of an escape from the lunacy overtaking the world and this country. To a certain extent, that's what the blog already is. But let us hope that sanity returns and Obama is on the way out. The world will be better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)