Please Explain

Louisiana man, angry with
wife, arrested for firing
shotgun blasts at his fence.

I heard some newscaster today say that conditions were now favorable for the Republicans. Perhaps that is so, but if so, I would like someone to explain it to me. His remark was in the context of the outcome of the 2010 elections. I understand why people might be upset with the Democrats, and I understand they might want a change, but please, what have Republicans done that would make anyone in their right mind want to vote for them? A third party I could understand, even a vote for a Green party, or Socialists, or perhaps even Communists I might understand, but Republicans? I defy you to tell me one thing the Republican Party under Bush/Cheney, or even now as the minority party, has done for the American people (this is what government is about, isn’t it, unless, of course, you believe, like Republicans, that government is really for the corporations and the wealthy). The Bush/Cheney career is well known for its war crimes, tax breaks for the wealthy, and privatization...period. The current Republican Party is basically treasonous in their wish to see our current administration fail. Thus I fail to understand how, even if one wished to vote against Democrats, one could possibly vote for Republicans, who created this unholy mess we are in and have advanced not a single viable or feasible alternative idea about anything, unless you believe their usual nonsense about tax breaks for the rich, limited government, the privatization of everything, and unbridled capitalism (the very problems that are threatening to destroy our country).

I believe that expanding health care for some 30 million citizens who do not now have it is a very worthy cause. Similarly, I believe that keeping Insurance companies from their terrible abuses is also a worthy cause. I believe that saving 45,000 lives a year by expanding health care is a worthy cause. The question that tugs at my mind is: is giving the Insurance companies further billions upon billions of profit worth it? I suppose one might argue that saving all these lives and expanding health care is worth whatever the cost may be. But this is not very satisfying when one realizes it does not have to be that way. We could have a workable, efficient, economic, single-payer system that would be far better than what we will have if this bill actually does pass, and will not require giving billions more in profits to the insurance companies. Even a public option will not exclude the insurance companies from participation in health care, a situation you can be sure they will exploit to the utmost. As I have said before, many times, some things are too important to be left to the private sector, health care is surely one of them. The profit motive, which is the backbone of the American enterprise system, is basically incompatible with a truly Democratic society. Privatization ought to be reserved for things like cosmetics, jewelry, fashion, and other non-necessities, not vital human needs like health care, energy, water, food (except maybe junk food), prisons, and education.

It appears that even our stalwart, Dennis Kusinich, may have been sweet-talked into voting for this terrible billion dollar gift to the insurance industry, with, of course, the promise that it will be changed over time into something that actually may resemble genuine health care reform. I confess I wonder if we are about to be betrayed by those who have claimed to support the public option. As I understand it, the Senate has said they would pass a public option if Pelosi would produce one out of the House, but it is not at all clear that she will do so. This in spite of the fact that the public is in favor of a public option, Pelosi has claimed to be in favor, Obama has likewise claimed to be in favor, and it would seem at the moment to be entirely possible – but may not happen if, as Pelosi claims, she does not have the votes, which I find almost impossible to believe.
I think about “States’ Rights” pretty much the same way I feel about privatization in general. If we are going to allow States any rights they should be restricted to picking a state flower, animal, fish, or fowl. Some of them have in the past, and are proving again at the moment, they are unwilling to enter the 21st century along with the rest of us. Texas is about to rule on changes to the textbooks their children will be allowed that essentially will keep them immersed in the 18th century, and they wish to re-write history according to religious and other nut-cases. As Texas is an important buyer of textbooks there is some chance their changes might eventually affect other states (textbook publishers have no more morals than anyone else actively engaged in the profit business). Personally, I think Texas should be encouraged to secede and take Oklahoma, and perhaps another couple of Southern States along with them. I’m beginning to think winning the Civil War may have been a mistake.

LKBIQ:
It cost about 75 cents to kill a man in Ceasar's time. The price rose to about $3,000 per man during the Napoleonic wars; to $5,000 in the American Civil War; and then to $21,000 per man in World War I. Estimates for the future wars indicate that it may cost the warring countries not less than $50,000 for each man killed.
Senator Homer T. Bone

TILT:
Horses have the largest eyes of any land mammal.