Rich People Problems

So, Obama is president for another four years. Predictably, there are a bunch of blowhards talking about leaving the US, seceding from the US, or even assassination or armed Revolution. For my part, I'm happy to see him re-elected. In doing so, it's possible that we staved off an armed revolution. Romney would have continued and likely strengthened the policies that were inching us closer and closer to one.

The fact is that we are dangerously close to the same circumstances that did cause the American revolution. We probably have been closer in the past, such as perhaps in the Great Depression, or maybe before the birth of labor unions. But that doesn't change the fact now - the only thing that's changed is the people's willingness to take up arms compared to in the past. But what has also changed is how quickly and widespread information travels.

But let me go back to how close we are to the same circumstances that led to the Revolution. I've spoken before about the East India Company, and its role in the actual Boston Tea Party, and thus, in the American Revolution as a whole. To review, the East India Company had gotten so big that it pretty much owned the British monarchy. They had bought representation, had their own private armies, you name it. So, they had gotten too big for their britches and were about to crash. The monarchy took the taxes off tea from the East India Company while leaving taxes on all competitors' tea. A corporate tax break and a bailout at the cost of all smaller competitors.

Next, we have whining like this:
"People who don't have money don't understand the stress."

...and this:
Papa John's CEO says he'll cut hours in response to Obama being re-elected.
I mean, really? His own math comes out to a cost of fourteen cents per pizza. Big deal... I can dig fourteen cents out of my couch cushions. And have you seen the guy's house?
Casa de Papa John

I won't pick on Papa John too much here, partially because I do love their pizza, but mostly because he isn't the exception, he's actually a good example of the norm in corporate whining.

Call it class warfare if you want... but the fact is that in America, there weren't supposed to be any firm social classes. Remember that part about "no titles of nobility" in the Constitution? Well, we do have those again... just without the official titles. The rich are making sure they stay rich, regardless of whether they are successful or failures. And if they are failures, it's the ones under them who suffer. It's the ones below them who lose their jobs and all sense of financial security. The guy may as well have said, "you peasants don't understand our sacrifices!"

And that mentality is pervading the Republican Party right now.
A Rush Limbaugh rant.

If you're reading the news, it also seems they're trying to find new ways (or revive old ways) of keeping people who don't side with them from voting.
Supreme Court to hear challenge to the Voter Rights Act.

Scared yet? There may be good reason to be at this point, and I don't say that often.

The people have spoken decisively - we prefer Obama's approach over that of the Republicans. The Republicans don't care - they still want things done their way, and only their way. They say the common person is not educated enough to know what's best. Again, that sounds like something we'd hear from a monarchy, not a democracy (or even a representative republic). The rich are basically locking themselves into that status, as though a title of nobility, and are not downwardly mobile. Only upward. Everyone else can go up or down, and that's just capitalism. The rich ones get the bailouts and golden parachutes if they fail. The regular people just get walking orders and maybe unemployment checks.

Obama won! But what does eet mean, man!?

Well, if you ask Fox News, it means that mainstream media (except for Fox News, of course - they're the only ones we can trust) has brainwashed us into a bunch of sheep, bleeting praises of Obama, and that it's the end of America as we know it. If you ask Rush Limbaugh, it means the rich, white men are being oppressed and all the people waiting in line for government handouts (the 47%?) tipped the scales for Obama... and oh yeah, it's the end of America as we know it.

Apparently, Wall Street feels much the same, as the stock market took a dive. I'm anticipating it to continue to dive a bit further down and bottom out for a few weeks, maybe a couple months, then start to go back up as people get tired of not making money. Keep in mind that the market was doing the best it had in a long time under Obama's watch.

Right now, think of Republicans as sullen children who refuse to play with the other kids, because the other kids won't bow to their rules. "No fair! You're cheating! I'm not playing anymore!" Much like in said scenario, the Republicans will get bored if largely ignored and start playing again. Meanwhile, I see Wall Street as a buyer's market. I bought some shares last night, actually. If you want to join in the fun, I actually use and recommend sharebuilder.com. Pretty simple and straightforward, not a lot of bullshit, and I've been using them and trusting them for years. And no, as far as I know, they're not paying me to plug them... although I quite honestly would accept it if they did.

Here's what it actually means: another four years of Obama. Some things will change - I like that he's come out in support of same-sex marriage. And he does seem to be on the right track economically, if the Republicans would stop their obstructionism. On the other hand, some things won't change. I don't like that he's kept quiet about the issues I really want him to address: things like NDAA and the Patriot Act. They need to go - sooner rather than later. But, it's not the end of the world. It wouldn't even be the end of the world if Romney was elected (although I probably would be pissed - I really don't want the fifties to make a comeback)

Obama's not perfect; I don't see him as anything resembling a messiah. But, he's a smart guy with good intentions. I'm sure Romney had good intentions too, at least from his own point of view... but as I've said, he is painfully out of touch. And it seems that the Republican party as a whole... well, any moderate voices have been drowned out by the extremists. And I'm also not saying that all who oppose Obama are racist, but I damn well know there wouldn't be this much fuss about him if he was white, or his name didn't sound middle-eastern.

Anyway, I hope that now the Republicans can settle down and actually play nice with the other side of the aisle, as they took a hell of a beating last night... but I'm not counting on it. Please, please prove me wrong, Republicans.

Of course, the other possibility is a cheerful one: people get pissed about the extremism and whining from the Republicans, they fall into third party status, and the Libertarians step up in their place. Gary Johnson 2016!!! Hey, I can dream... and it is doable.

Election Day

While I was watching the news and Family Guy tonight, I noticed that it seemed like every single commercial was campaign stuff, back-to-back. It all followed a certain pattern: if it was local, it was about who spent the most time in the area, who grew up where, who hated/loved their hometowns, who was more corrupt. I even saw one local ad making issue of the fact the opponent had never married. That's getting rather personal and frivolous, in my opinion.

On the national level, the biggest issue of choice more predictably is the economy. I really wish I saw more about how Obama broke his promise on killing the Patriot Act... but of course, that wasn't going to be brought up by the Republicans, who introduced it and signed it into law. The ones who rightfully would make issue of it were never taken seriously by the media: the Libertarians.

Between the Democrats and Republicans, I find myself siding more with the Democrats. And ultimately, that's who I voted for (my state has early voting): Obama. Contrary to what Republicans would have us believe, he's proven himself a moderate. Perhaps too much for my liking. That's not to say I want an extreme liberal - I do not. What I want is a leader who keeps promises, stands up for what's right, and won't make the country move backwards. Obama has tried, although like I said, I'm deeply disappointed in him for the Patriot Act and NDAA.

I think I've mentioned before that the one and only reason my vote went to Obama instead of Johnson is because I want the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to have a chance to work.

Meanwhile, the Republican ads are reminding me of that one relative or frienemy that we all have. You know the one - they preach responsibility while doing every stupid and irresponsible thing you can imagine, and are probably on welfare while they do so. Nothing against welfare, but to preach responsibility while using welfare like a piggy bank... yeah. Pretty hypocritical.

You see, the Republicans have consistently increased government spending. While increasing spending, they cut taxes, particularly on the rich. This sounds nice, I guess. Work less, spend more.

That's exactly what it is. And we know as working Americans that this doesn't work. Bush started his presidency with tax rebates, tax cuts, followed by a war on two fronts, more tax cuts, and I think more rebates. That there's some "fuzzy math." And this is the party of fiscal responsibility? Really?

Come on, I like keeping my money just as much as anyone else. But, if I get a flat tire on my car, it has to be fixed, and I have to pay for it. Similarly, the government does provide services on a wide range of things. To break it down in private sector terms, the government provides security, insurance, transportation, infrastructure, etc. And as with the private sector, it's not free. Unless you want to tell a soldier why you don't think he deserves a paycheck or healthcare.

We all get several benefits from taxes that we take so much for granted that we don't even see them. And even if such benefits are pointed out to many nay-sayers, they will childishly say, "well, I don't benefit from it," or "I didn't ask for it."

Well, that's the way things work. With Hurricane Sandy, I didn't see any Republicans turning down help from the government. Even Chris Christie was happy to accept help, even going so far as to thank Obama. That took a lot of guts (and I will refrain from making a joke about Christie's ample gut... or does that in itself count as one? Damn). Of course, the more partisan Republicans (and Fox News) turned on him for doing so. But, let's be honest: these same ones that were graciously accepting help were griping about such government programs a month or so earlier. Wasn't Romney wanting to privatize and profit off emergency response stuff?

How does one profit off this? By gouging those who already lost everything?

Anyway, this is the start of election day. If you can do so, vote. Vote your conscience, and know the truth.

Media Bias

I won't bullshit here - media bias is a real thing. And not just in Fox News. It'd be impossible to enforce a rule that the media must report without bias. The media can happily have whatever bias they please. They can do this overtly, or covertly through more subtle means, such as choosing what to report on, or choices of words used when reporting. However, they generally are not allowed to outright lie, else they do risk legal consequences - libel and the like.

The more often complained about bias is that of the "liberal media." I have seen some things to support such a claim, although it's often debatable as to whether it's actual bias, or simply trolling for ratings. Or sometimes, such perceived bias is actually a sense of common decency. People who think of war as a feel-good family show aren't going to want to see pictures of the actual carnage and destruction, along with the very human faces of those suffering the most from it. Therefore, news stories such as that might be painted as having a liberal bias, as many of today's conservatives choose to see the "enemies" as less than human.

Nonetheless, the media bias in this election cycle, as well as the accusations of such, have been amusing to say the least. Quoting Romney is now "liberal bias" coming from the media. One wouldn't expect that from a supposedly conservative candidate, but hey - I'm just a know-nothing know-it-all hack with a blog. What do I know?

On the other hand, we have everyone's favorite, Fox News! They're fair and balanced. It says so right in their logo, so it has to be true. I was watching them scramble on their website to fact check and somehow discredit Obama. I also heard that Fox News is blaming Romney's loss of the debate on the audience. Aren't they the ones the debate is supposed to be about? I haven't found mention of this on the Fox News website, though.

One thing that just rubs me wrong, though. Romney's opportunism as far as the Libya thing. First of all, it's never right to use a tragedy for political gain. This is why I was pissed off at Bush well before the 2004 election came. Anyway, the complaint didn't even have real substance to it - there was so much made of whether or not Obama labeled it as a terror attack fast enough. First of all, yes, he did do so in that speech in the rose garden, although Fox News says that's debatable.

Next, though... what the fuck does it matter? Seriously. People were killed. Does calling it a terrorist attack make them any less dead? It seems like Romney's camp is doing its best to harp on about gestures. Personally, I like my leaders to be more concerned with action rather than getting in a pissing contest over who feels more tragic anguish over such a thing.

But, maybe it's the best the Romney camp has to offer. "Gee, I won't get anything done, but I'll sure do my best to convince you that I cry myself to sleep over it!"

"Corporations are People"

There is a trend on both sides that annoys me - if a candidate on the other side says something that sounds bad out of context, or sounds the least bit stupid, they latch onto it like a hungry snake. One that the left really latched onto is the, "corporations are people, my friend." Out of context, it sounds like a dumb out of touch rich guy (fair description of Romney, perhaps) saying quite literally that corporations as a whole deserve all the same rights as people.

That's not quite what he was saying, though. Let's put in the rest of what he said for context (thanks to Washington Post for the text):

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

That much is true. I won't argue that point. But, contrary to what Romney said, corporations indeed are not people. They are made of people, but in themselves are not people. What the businessmen built were not people, but businesses. Made of people, from the lowly customer service type people who will likely side with the ones who say they're underpaid (liberals) to the execs and business owners who will side with whoever will let them keep the larger portion of their wealth (conservatives) and everyone in-between.

What Romney was saying here was that giving tax cuts to a corporation is the same as giving tax cuts to people as a whole. I'm guessing that he figures it will trickle down. But, remember what I keep saying: the rich really like to just keep their money. Why trickle it down when they could just keep it instead? It's not like there's any limit on how much money they can have.

Yeah, they'll spend some money, and that will help keep other businesses in business... but in general, they will not hire more workers than they really have to, and they will not pay said workers much more than they have to. Raise the legal wages? Fine, they'll raise prices and lay off workers, then keep even more profits to themselves. That's the way it works. Trickle Down is a rotten lie. But, in general, the rich like it. It moves their responsibilities to a "good faith" footing.

Hey, Republicans - don't look at me like that. I said I was putting the quote in context, not that I was defending Romney.

Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.

The "real" Tea Party

A lot on my mind tonight (or this morning) and perhaps I've had more home brewed beer and Irish whiskey than is good for me. Anyway, quick history lesson for those who don't know the whole story about the Boston Tea Party (something modern TEA Partiers often hide). The original Tea party was a response to a corporate tax break for a huge corporation that had gained control of the monarchy - the East India Company. You may recognize the name from the Pirates of the Carribean series, but make no mistake - it was a very real corporation, and they had a large role in the reason why America's founders decided revolution was justified.

You see, the English monarchy had exempted said corporation from taxes. But, they didn't exempt smaller businesses or individuals from taxes. This was obvious favoritism for those who could buy votes/representation, and it made smaller businesses unable to compete. Because they still had to pay taxes, their prices were no longer competitive. So, they threw the East India Company's tea into the harbor. This was true corporate government, as the monarchy was granting special favors. This is also something we see coming especially from the Republicans - "give more tax breaks!" they say. "Don't hate the rich" they say. "Don't turn this into class warfare!" they say.

They vilify anger and those who oppose them by throwing around terms that have become dirty words. "Class warfare." Really? Perhaps the "class warfare" has been around longer than they care to admit, and they throw this "dirty word" at their opposition to discredit them. To portray them as simply being jealous and perhaps lazy. Anger itself has become a dirty word. Is it not justified?

I'm not going to call for violence or destruction - only for realization. Realization that we've been lied to and manipulated. While the Democrats sure as hell aren't innocent, the Republicans have made themselves the aggressors. They keep using the same, worn-down "trickle-down" theory - make the rich richer to the point where they don't know what to do with their money, and they might pass some down to the poor. "Don't hate the rich," they say. I honestly don't. I have the American dream - work hard to achieve success and be wealthy. Is that not the American dream? Equal opportunity?

While it may not be openly institutionalized as it once was, there are established social classes. And it's not as easy to move between them as our founders would have liked. As in the past, the super-rich buy politicians. There remain some few altruistic people, but mostly, the wealthy are inclined to simply protect their wealth. Romney is an unfortunate prime example. He did decent things in the past, such as inspiring the Affordable Care Act (read: ObamaCare), but is controlled by his desire to maintain his wealth and power, and the support of those who provide him it.

Anyway, here's a meme to post to Facebook and the like. For easy viewing, I'd recommend saving to your own album and sharing - I've already got my blog linked on the meme. But, you can still always right click, "view image," and post the link on Facebook. Still always looking to expand my audience.

I'm Calling Bullshit on the Republicans.

As I continue to watch the campaigns, the economy, and the news in general, one thing has become plainly obvious: the Republicans just don't get it. Or if they do get it, they just don't give a rat's ass and are being deliberately deceptive. The Democrats kind of get it, but they are naive and don't seem to get just how deep the greed and cynicism is running. Things truly are getting to look more and more like what we fought the Revolution to get the hell away from - a ruling class is re-establishing itself, the corporations have a louder voice than the people. Remember the East India Company? Yeah, we're seeing a return to that... and those who oppose are being labeled "anti-business" or "anti-capitalism" or "Socialist."

For my own part, I am damned well none of those. I like capitalism, as it is freedom in one of its purest forms. What I'm seeing now though is a corrupted form of capitalism - as I said, a return of a ruling class with a widening income gap while the rich are perpetually whining for more and more. Wall Street is at its highest levels in years - as I write this, DOW is at 13,102. I remember when staying above the 10,000 mark was a big deal. So yeah, the rich ain't hurting. Yet, where the fuck are the jobs? Where the fuck is the money?

The money is lining the pockets of the rich. The money is in off-shore bank accounts and blind trusts. While the rich still whine for more and more. "We need more tax breaks!" Or, something that's also become amusing that I've been hearing about more lately - "Congratulations, employees! We just hit record profits! We will now be cutting your hours/wages/benefits/making lay-off's." It's pure greed. It's not a matter of hating people for being rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich. It's a matter of hating people for being greedy and fucking over the ones that got them there.

Then the Republicans have the nerve to call their opponents hateful. Just because the Republicans are smiling during their speeches doesn't make them less hateful - it just makes them more smug in their hate. When various people are being bashed, they will eventually fight back. Even the most loyal of dogs will bite if it's been smacked around one time too many. And this after they were exposed for plotting to sabotage Obama at all costs! The peasants American people were made into pawns for their damned political game. They hurt the American people so they could blame Obama! These are the men who sold the world.

I normally don't get this angry in my blog posts, but this truly is the purest bullshit. While I do like Gary Johnson, I'm becoming more and more inclined to again give Obama my vote. I wish this election were one just between Johnson and Obama, as I'd consider either candidate to be a victory for America.

Election Stuff

Ah, the smell of feces being hurled through the air! That can only mean one thing: campaign season!

The Republicans, if not for being such morons, would have had this election handed to them on a silver platter. And don't get me wrong - I'm not devoutly against Republicans as a whole. While I am liberal, I'm a moderate one. I vote based on the person, not the party. That said, yes, I do tend to cast a fair number of votes for Republicans. That does not change the fact that the Republicans are being bloody morons in this campaign season, though.

The TEA party is a big part to blame. Allow me to explain: the TEA Party is of course very politically active, and devoutly anti-Obama. In itself, not too big a deal. Hell, I was against Bush the lesser to the point of wanting a treason investigation on his administration. That's another story entirely however, and something I still stand by.

The TEA Party however is making its points largely by denying facts and obstructing. They tend to favor the most extreme candidates, usually religious fundamentalists (think Bachmann and O'Donnell). The candidate does well in rallies full of like-minded people, so they get the nomination. Then having the Republican party nomination, they do poorly in debates where there assertions and stances are actually questioned and exposed to contradicting facts.

Such extreme candidates tend to disgust moderates, even those who would otherwise be more inclined to vote against the liberal candidate. O'Donnell is a good example of this, as the one she ran against was openly socialist, if memory serves. Just let yourself consider that for a moment: people chose a Socialist over a Republican nominee. Republicans are in serious trouble.

Their presidential nominee does not help. Make no mistake - out of the choices of the ones that were allowed any exposure, Romney really was the best one, I think. But he still is an out of touch hypocrite.

Don't even get me started on the War on Women. That just keeps getting pushed further and further, with it now pretty much impossible to deny in good conscience that a War on Women is exactly what it is.

I think we may see in the near future the Republicans falling to the insignificance of "third party" status with the Libertarians rising up to their place. I don't know if it will be this election, but the way things are going now, that's what is coming.

What does eet meeean, man!?

In case you didn't hear, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), including the individual mandate. Reactions are varied, including many saying they'll move to Canada to avoid the universal healthcare. Well, I'll hope that works out for them. Maybe they'll find Canada's universal healthcare more acceptable. Yes... I am being ironic.

For my part, I'm not fond of the individual mandate, but I can see why it may be needed. It's either that or more taxes... although it would take me about fifteen minutes to come up with a list of things we could axe or scale back on to make up for it, starting with a fairly thorough audit on all government spending.

However, on the idea of universal healthcare coverage in itself, I like it. Healthcare is expensive. Very fucking expensive. There are any number of reasons for it... many can be attributed to greed, some of it corporate, some of it belonging to those who are overly quick to run to a malpractice attorney. And it is easy to see why many people think of the insurance companies as being evil. Yes, they are a business, yes, that means they should be turning a profit. But at the same time, what if instead of spending all those extra profits on ad campaigns and lobbying, they spent it on actually taking care of people?

I'll let you in on a little info on myself. I've been without any kind of health insurance for well over two years now, starting when I was laid off from a particular job. The next job I had simply didn't provide health insurance. COBRA wasn't a viable option, as it wouldn't have left me enough money to even come close to paying rent each month. My present job isn't giving me enough hours to qualify for their health insurance. Thankfully, I'm in fairly good health overall, but that can always change... in a heartbeat, so to speak. However, if I were to try for private insurance, I would be denied. Why? Because of the pre-existing conditions. In my case, depression or possibly PTSD, either one's a kiss of death for insurance. Also, having had asthma as a child would disqualify me.

My girlfriend was also laid off from a job a few months ago. She's a little more concerned about the "what-if's" than I am. She tried for private insurance, and after a very invasive phone interview, she was rejected based on having PCOS - a fairly common condition, affecting 5-10% of all women, maybe more, and in her case, not severe. She receives no special treatments for it. But it was still enough to deny her coverage altogether.

With Obama himself, I remember him saying his inspiration for this (other than Romney's own bill in Massachusetts) was his own mother having cancer and being denied live-saving coverage as a result.

So yeah, for me it's personal. It's personal for Obama as well.

2012 Elections and my Endorsement

By now, you are probably tired of hearing about election stuff. I know I am, and there is still a number of months to go. However, that doesn't make it any less important.

Republicans... Republicans. Ugh. They had a chance to get some major victories in. While many of the reasons people hate Obama are basically bullshit, the fact is that a lot of people still hate him regardless. But hate is generally synonymous with stupidity, so it requires only a little rhyme and no reason.

All in all, I'd say that the TEA Party is the worst thing to happen to Republicans and the best thing to happen to Democrats in a very long time. Regardless of how stupid they are, the fact is that they are good at getting their candidates nominated. And said candidates tend to be extreme... like Christine O'Donnell. While such candidates may set the conservatives all afire with glee, it's ultimately the moderates who decide an election. We moderates tend to dislike extremists. Most politicians are aware of this, and thus switch to pandering to moderates once they get the party nomination, never mind how much they painted themselves as an extreme party loyalist during primaries. Just remember... "Independent" isn't spelled with an (R) or (D).

Anyway, generally speaking, the Republican Party didn't give choices to be very enthusiastic about during the recent primaries. The one I liked ended up being shunned as a trouble maker and was generally ignored. Unfortunate for the Republicans, because I think the guy could have won against Obama. No, I'm not talking about Ron Paul - I see him as a hypocrite and religious fundamentalist.

Consider the choices offered, though. Most were TEA Party types. Religious fundamentalists to the core, all logic be damned. Preaching smaller government in the same breath as preaching for more invasive government... sorry, but small government doesn't tell you who you can marry or be in the bedroom with, or dictate religious morals as a whole.

Well, counting out the one I like, I'd say Romney was the lesser of the evils offered... but still evil. It is painfully obvious that he is out of touch with all but the rich and super rich, though he tries to paint himself as being otherwise. Don't get me wrong; I'm not one who hates the rich... I only hate those who are greedy/snobby about it, or painfully out of touch. I still remember reading a complaint from one rich person (not a parody) about how people without money just don't understand how hard it is to live on $250,000 a year. Perhaps he should try living on about $10/hour to see why we're not exactly sympathetic to his plight.

Romney really is a politician through and through, and a painfully out of touch rich guy through and through. He is one of those who really has loved "off-shoring" American jobs for quick profits, and he panders relentlessly, constantly changing his stances. I can respect someone who changes their stance after thinking things through... but his changes in stance have been a result of pandering, not deep thought.

For any who may have been curious about an endorsement from me... I like Obama overall. He did inherit a hell of a mess from Bush the lesser, and I knew before anyone even announced they were considering to run for the spot that the next president would likely be unpopular for making hard, but necessary decisions. That's not to say that I endorse him or entirely approve of his actions. For instance, I am thoroughly disappointed in his decision to not only not overturn, but to instead strengthen the misnamed Patriot Act. As for Obamacare... I'm watching and waiting. I don't like the individual mandate... but other than that, I'm waiting for a better alternative to be offered. "Let them die" isn't an option, else I suggest you volunteer yourself to that philosophy.

If I endorse a candidate, it would be the one I mentioned earlier that the Republicans shunned and ignored - Gary Johnson, who now is on the Libertarian ticket. I don't agree with all his stances, but I do know that 1) he is brilliant, 2) he is fair, and 3) he's willing to think about and reconsider his stances if new evidence is presented (for example, his change in stance on the death penalty, now being against it after finding that his policy also would have resulted in the execution of a specific innocent man). In truth, what more can one ask for in a leader? Check him out and give him your support... and spread the word! Gary Johnson (L) for president, 2012

Minimum Wage

I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, although I'd prefer him over Gingrich. But, I came across this article on CBSnews.com: Club for Growth doesn't like Romney's minimum wage stance. The short of it is that Romney has a fairly progressive attitude toward wages, and does believe in a minimum wage. Although I know it's not anything new, it still does surprise me when I hear Republicans wanting wages to be completely left to the free market.

Why, you ask? Because businesses have proven time and time again that they really can't be trusted any more than anyone else. Sure, we want business to grow. But don't we also want fewer people on welfare? I think that the current wage standards are more than reasonable from a business standpoint, although still pretty impossible to really live on.

We keep seeing such experiments every time Republicans are in power. Remember Bush's "trickle down" philosophies? Remember how the only thing to trickle down was a stream of urine from the rich? I hate to sound like I'm just spouting liberal propaganda here, but this is simple greed. The rich want to get richer, and they don't care whose heads they step on on their way up. And, news flash: the economy really didn't improve under Bush. Instead, we kept seeing a steady stream of jobs leaving the US from greedy companies whose executives only cared about making more money.

The problems that come from a minimum wage (and increases in it) are this: in a perfect world, when the minimum wage is increased, the business owners might slap their foreheads and say, "holy shit, what have we been doing to our workers? I guess I can accept a little less pay this year." That seems to be what people expect when they hear of a minimum wage increase.

But what actually happens is, "shit, I'm not giving up my money. Guess I better make some lay-offs and jack up prices." So, we have increased unemployment and price inflation as a result.

It might seem like the solution would be to set a maximum wage. But no, that would be counterproductive. I don't want to punish people for being rich; I have nothing against the rich. I want to discourage greed. I don't use "greedy" and "rich" interchangeably. Hell, I'd like to be rich... but I don't see myself being greedy. Perhaps then the solution could be setting wages at percentages? To give an extreme example, imagine a CEO deciding him and the board of executives gets 90% of the company's money for wages, leaving the remaining 10% to be split among everyone else - the manufacturers, the customer service, the marketing, the accountants, the engineers, etc. Not very fair, right? Start with adjusting those percentages until they are more fair. I'm willing to still let the owners and execs have the lion's share, but not to the point of starving everyone else. For the companies, it would have the advantage of encouraging better work and loyalty from the employees, as they would see the more direct results of their success or failure. Seems also that it may take some of the point out of being greedy.