Annals of the Homestarmy - Politics

Health Care (Reform) Bill

nospam@example.com (The Mad Giggler) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:43:17 -0600

So as most of you should know, Congress has passed a bill that will affect how health care works in America. It was a pretty thick document, filled with lots of legal-speak. I enjoyed this op-ed in the New York Times about it. I'll post some excerpts for the link-clicking impaired.

[I]f liberals are right, health care reform will save tens of thousands of lives every year. Not some lives, on the margins, in hard-to-measure ways that may or may not justify the bill’s price tag. Tens of thousands every year. . .

Right now, these assumptions are hotly contested between left and right. But if the bill passes, by 2018 we’ll find out who’s right. . .

[P]assing the bill will shed some light on them.

It will shed light, as well, on all other promises that piled up as the health care vote drew near — that the bill, its implicit abortion subsidies notwithstanding, will actually reduce the abortion rate, as T.R. Reid argued last week in the Washington Post; that it will create 400,000 new jobs “almost immediately,” as Pelosi recently claimed; that it will become more popular once implemented, as every Democrat insists; and so on through an array of happy possibilities.

The same goes for all the things that liberals are sure won’t happen. We’ll find out if the bill makes premiums skyrocket. We’ll find out if it creates doctor shortages. We’ll find out if the array of new taxes destroys more jobs than the new spending creates. We’ll find out if the fiscally essential firewall between the new, heavily subsidized exchanges and the old, less-subsidized employer-based system holds up. And in the (only slightly) longer run, we’ll find out if tacking an entitlement to comprehensive health insurance atop a groaning system speeds America’s rendezvous with a bankrupt, Californian future.

But the part I most heartily agreed with was this:

As a conservative, I suspect they’re wrong. But now that the bill has passed, as a citizen of the United States, I dearly hope they’re right. Indeed, I hope that 20 years from now, in an America that’s healthier, richer and more solvent than today, a liberal can brandish this column and say “I told you so.” Because the alternative would mean that we’re all about to be very sorry, and for a very long time to come.

Let's Get Political

nospam@example.com (The Mad Giggler) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:37:58 -0600

I teach a Sunday School class for twelve and thirteen year olds. This past week's lesson was on leadership and we were supposed to be reviewing it in the context of Harold B. Lee's life. We started by discussing current events and how good leaders help us through wars, famine, natural disasters, etc.

As we were discussing what qualities a good leader possesses, I was surprised to suddenly hear scathing remarks about President Obama. One of the students began to recount how his grandmother hates the President, calls him a monster, and even went so far as to say that his biggest problem is that he's still breathing. Needless to say, I was a little shocked.
Continue reading "Let's Get Political"

Global Climate Change

nospam@example.com (The Mad Giggler) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:16:52 -0600

Some of my facebook friends have been discussing the affects of legislation currently going before Congress, namely the Waxman-Markey Act or cap-and-trade climate bill. Some of their arguments have seemed a little weird to me until I read this article by a Nobel Prize winning economist in the New York Times Opinion section.

He starts his essay by playfully pointing out that the debate over health care reform has not exactly been an intellectual stunner and that we can expect more of the same from this piece of legislation.

I'll go ahead and quote heavily from the article, because I know some of you are link-challenged. If the New York Times comes knocking on my door for plagiarism or copyright infringment, I'll tell them it's your fault.

So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy. . .

First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey, concluding that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income. That’s roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day. . .

[L]ast week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts. . .

So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.

So if you start seeing articles claiming that the cap and trade bill is going to destroy our economy, you now have a rebuttal by a world renowned economist. And you can always fall back on my favorite argument, which is that it will eventually cost more just to walk outside if we don't start doing more about pollution. The inversion+smog in Salt Lake is deadly and will only get worse unless we do something about it.

What do you think?

nospam@example.com (The Mad Giggler) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:19:36 -0700

Do you agree with this take on Obama's presidency? What are the chances we pull out of this recession/depression during his first term? Is it necessary to have more goodwill among the world community or are we holding our nation back by looking for the approval of foreigners?

Magic and Realism
By ROGER COHEN of the New York Times

So the next new thing is “smart power.” The phrase was sprinkled through Senator Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It means using all the levers of influence — diplomatic, economic, military, legal, political and cultural — to get what you want.

I’ve nothing against smart power, a blend of soft and hard. It’s better than dumb power, of which we’ve had a dose.

Dumb power estranges friends, privileges force, undermines United States credibility and proclaims war without end.

But what I want from the Obama administration is something more than Harvard-to-the-Beltway smarts. I want magical realism.

Seldom has so much hope confronted so much anxiety as in these five days before Barack Obama becomes the 44th president and the first African-American one.
Continue reading "What do *you* think?"

I am sad today

nospam@example.com (Radar) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:38:24 -0600

Former White House Press Secretary and host of Fox News Sunday Tony Snow died this week.

The phrase fair and balanced has always been a source of humor with me, but in my opinion, he was one man who truely embodied fair and balanced. I will miss him.

Yeah, I hate Mitt too... ???

nospam@example.com (Radar) — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:38:29 -0600

I was listening to the Nightside Project on Friday night when they started talking about a website where you could go and encourage John McCain to not make Mitt Romney his running mate.

This website is hilarious!!! Up until today, you could go in and sign up and encourage Senator McCain to avoid Mitt Romney. They were then posting all of the comments from those who had written something to the Senator. Well the vast majority (no numbers were actually counted, though as I perused them very few were anti-Mitt) of comments were people saying that they would only vote for McCain if Romney was on the ticket, or other such things like that. It was hilarious. The Nightside Project then decided to take it one step further: sabotage the data and have fun doing it (click on the Nightside link above to be able to hear that part of the segment).

Apparently the comments were so bad that the site administrators decided to completely close off the comments section. And I quote:

Because of insensitive and offensive posts public viewing of comments has been blocked. Click here for a complete explanation. Note: If you support Romney you should not be signing a petition against him in order to make pro-Romney statements. That is flat out dishonest.

Classic Politics: If your smear campaign backfires, just blame the guy you were smearing!

You've got to be kidding me!!!

nospam@example.com (Radar) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:52:32 -0700

I was watching the news one morning this week and they were doing a brief overview of the bills being discussed during the legislative term when they mentioned SB 183. I was to say, more than a little shocked about the bill. This bill would make it a crime to view child pornography (for the remainder of this post to be known as CP as I don't want to be responsible for getting people to this blog by that search).
Continue reading "You've got to be kidding me!!!"

Castro Resigns

nospam@example.com (Ancient of Days) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:40:36 -0700

I realize you'll probably have heard it somewhere else first, but I just wanted to say: Fidel Castro has resigned as President of Cuba.

Presidential Stuffs: An Answer for Wren

nospam@example.com (Ancient of Days) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:23:17 -0700

I've spent some time reviewing their published stances on the issues and here's where I've landed:

Between Romney and any of the Dem candidates, I'll take Romney - I've long thought we needed someone who had some business acumen in the White House
Between McCain and Obama, I'll take Obama - if I have to take someone on my left, I may as well go all the way
Between McCain and Clinton, I'll take McCain - I can't think of a single instance where I would vote for Clinton

As distasteful as it is to me, it looks as if I'll probably be voting for McCain.

An "allegory" for our times.

nospam@example.com (The Jet) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:50:18 -0700

Sup.

So I've seen a couple of entries here that discuss the primaries, and to that end, wondered if you, keen observers of the world (real and warcraft...y) might enjoy a little story I wrote, allegory actually, about the absurdity that is the Rebulican race thus far on LaskoVision. If you would be so Kind:

The Tale of Phollyville

Thanks in advance and honored to have a login to such a prestigious roundtable such as the Homestarmy. I hope I do has what it takes.

Speaking of Primaries

nospam@example.com (Sideshow) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:55:05 -0700

Anyone interested in voting in Utah's Primary elections can actually vote anytime between now, and the 5th.

There are a few rules though.

In order to vote in the Democratic primary you must either be affiliated with the Democrats, or unaffiliated. Voting in the primary does not require you to affiliate with the Dems.

For the Republican primary you must either be affiliated with the Republicans or unaffiliated. Voting in the primary does require you to affiliate with the Republican party.

Here is some information about early voting and the primary election. And here is where you can find out what your official registered affiliation is, and where your normal polling place is.

*Note the 2nd link is for the SL County Clerk office. And remember to use the address that you inputted on your last voter registration form. Those registered outside of SL County, I don't have a link for you.

Victory: Much Needed, and Hollow

nospam@example.com (Sideshow) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:49:36 -0700

Well Romney finally managed to win a state in Michigan, McCain was second and Huckabee third. I think we can count Guiliani out as he's yet to actually do anything in either of the caucases/primaries so far. Though he'll probably have a decent showing.

The victory however is huge for Romney, who needed desperately to win one of these pre Super Tuesday elections. Though he might not win all the states, this victory proved he can win some big states. Plus he'll probably be 2nd in most states if he doesn't win. Since the other candidates aren't consistent, so far, as long as he's consistent percentage wise he's the front runner for the GOP.

On the democrats side Clinton won a meaningless and hollow victory. Due to democratic primary rules Michigan is not one of the elite states that is allowed to have a primary prior to February. When it was announced that Michigan was going to have their primary early the Democratic Party told them move it, or lose your delegates. They didn't move so the main front runners took their names off the ballot. All the front runners that is except Hilary.

Romney (ATTN: Wren)

nospam@example.com (The Mad Giggler) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:26:42 -0700

Since you asked what's so great about Mitt Romney, I thought you might find this opinion piece interesting:

Driving Mr. Romney

As a longtime admirer of Mr. Romney's, it pains me that many Americans believe these things. Even worse, Mr. Romney's presidential campaign has given them cause to feel this way.

More Huckabee Abuse

nospam@example.com (Wren) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:22:17 -0700

Seriously, I'll stop badmouthing Huckabee if anyone asks me too. But this guy is just too bad to be true! He's like the Britney Spears of the political world. Self-centered, shallow, and way too well known for his own good. Just read this article and thought, 'How did he win in Iowa?' Seriously. WTF.

a new direction...

nospam@example.com (Wren) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:21:48 -0700

While Obama and Huckabee were victorious in Iowa, Clinton and McCain won last night in New Hampshire.

Discuss.