Random Thoughts, or As George Called it "Brain Droppings"
I have been thinking about posting for the last week but I've been having this internal battle in my head about what exactly I should discuss in my post. Do I want to get into a big discussion about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? Not really. Do I want to do a whole blog post about the NSA/Snowden thing? Not really.
Instead I've decided to touch on those subjects and a few others that I have been pondering. The ACA (Obamacare) has been the biggest thing in the news lately and I've listened to a lot of rhetoric from both sides on this. This is one of those issues where I can actually see both sides have relevant points and even though many of the people opposed to this are disingenuous in why they are opposed to it, some of the points they make are accurate.
When I say disingenuous I mean that most of those people would bitch about anything that President Obama, or as they call him the black devil, put forth especially since it is his key piece of legislation as President.
Since this is a brain droppings post I'm not going to go in overwhelming point by point arguments on this issue but my basic thoughts are this. The ACA is a weak piece of legislation from an overall weak president. It does a few good things like patients with pre-existing conditions can no longer be turned down, people who really have no other viable healthcare options now have another option, and it could be an improvement to some peoples current insurance.
On the other hand it falls short, Universal Healthcare is the only serious option that should be on the table. Unfortunately that was never even invited to the kiddie table by this administration. He campaigned as a Progressive candidate and he has led as a centrist "old school" Republican.
In conclusion I do think that it will ultimately get going and shake off the cobwebs of the shaky start that it has had but it will only be a footnote in history once we get a president that puts people before profit and makes Universal Healthcare the law of the land.
O.k now onto the NSA issue. We are becoming more and more of an electronic based society. This has both positive and negative connotations to it. The obvious advancements in the spread of information and learning are wondrous to say the least. Just think about the fact that people who are older than 35-40 years old did not have access to computers at school. Just go back to when I was in school, Wikipedia was not around back then, we had to look up stuff in books like a bunch of savages!!
Where am I going with this trip down memory lane? Well the convenience the internet has provided is also a double edged sword. More and more information is stored on a virtual database that can be accessed by people who you may not want accessing said information. It really is harder and harder to live off the grid now, and that may not be a good thing. Big brother is real, and while I am not one of the people who see Big Brother as a malevolent force who is masterminding a bunch of wicked stuff, I do think the potential for dangerous people getting dangerous information is a real threat.
As for the NSA itself I think it has almost turned into an un-elected fourth branch of the government. A colossal waste of money that like many of the other post 9/11 government agencies has become a bloated incompetent government jobs program.
Back to the bigger issue, should the NSA have the power it has and should Snowden be able to release the information he did without consequences to him? My answer to those questions are no, the NSA should be downsized set to specific tasks that can be proven to help really fight/curb terrorism both foreign and domestic. The answer to the second question is also no. He had to expect consequences and while he can claim to be a whistleblower he never went through the proper channels to become one. With that said, good for him. If he did go through the proper channels we wouldn't be discussing any of this right now.
The next topic that has been orbiting my prefrontal cortex is the question what amount of money does it take for people to throwaway their better judgement? I don't even mean on any particular issue because I've been thinking about people who rationalize something that is so against their self interest but they do so because they are likely to make a buck off of it. Or even worse they rationalize it because it is something that is more convenient for them then doing the right thing.
A few example of what I'm talking about because that last paragraph came off kind of vague. So here are a list of people who I think fit the above paragraph.
-People who support Hydrofrack Drilling
-People who shop at Wal-Mart
-People who work for places that blatantly rip people off like insurance companies & lenders.
-People who support political agendas that without a doubt do not support their interests whatsoever.
The final thought that has been pestering me to write my opinion on it is the ever growing political correct movement. People are now getting fired from their jobs, threatened, and all sorts of crazy shit for expressing their opinions on things. Whether I agree with you or not I think you have a right to whatever dumb fucking opinion you can think of. The only caveat to that thought is if you are using your opinion to insight hateful violence i.e Nazism, KKK, real looney religious shit, stuff like that.
Do I think some girl should be tracked down and fired because she made some off the cuff dumb comment about Trayvon Martin being killed? No, no I don't. She isn't running for political office or anything where you can use her stupid opinions as a reason to disqualify her from a job. She is just a somewhat ignorant person that should have either made her opinion funny and witty so that she could argue that it was just a joke or she should have toned it down or just shared it with like minded friends.
Or I guess if you are into a fairer form of freedom of speech than chew on this Carlin quote "Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights - I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where you gonna find a fairer fucking deal than that? So the next time some asshole says to you, "I have a right to my opinion," you say, "Oh yeah? Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion." Then shoot the fuck and walk away!
Instead I've decided to touch on those subjects and a few others that I have been pondering. The ACA (Obamacare) has been the biggest thing in the news lately and I've listened to a lot of rhetoric from both sides on this. This is one of those issues where I can actually see both sides have relevant points and even though many of the people opposed to this are disingenuous in why they are opposed to it, some of the points they make are accurate.
When I say disingenuous I mean that most of those people would bitch about anything that President Obama, or as they call him the black devil, put forth especially since it is his key piece of legislation as President.
Since this is a brain droppings post I'm not going to go in overwhelming point by point arguments on this issue but my basic thoughts are this. The ACA is a weak piece of legislation from an overall weak president. It does a few good things like patients with pre-existing conditions can no longer be turned down, people who really have no other viable healthcare options now have another option, and it could be an improvement to some peoples current insurance.
On the other hand it falls short, Universal Healthcare is the only serious option that should be on the table. Unfortunately that was never even invited to the kiddie table by this administration. He campaigned as a Progressive candidate and he has led as a centrist "old school" Republican.
In conclusion I do think that it will ultimately get going and shake off the cobwebs of the shaky start that it has had but it will only be a footnote in history once we get a president that puts people before profit and makes Universal Healthcare the law of the land.
O.k now onto the NSA issue. We are becoming more and more of an electronic based society. This has both positive and negative connotations to it. The obvious advancements in the spread of information and learning are wondrous to say the least. Just think about the fact that people who are older than 35-40 years old did not have access to computers at school. Just go back to when I was in school, Wikipedia was not around back then, we had to look up stuff in books like a bunch of savages!!
Where am I going with this trip down memory lane? Well the convenience the internet has provided is also a double edged sword. More and more information is stored on a virtual database that can be accessed by people who you may not want accessing said information. It really is harder and harder to live off the grid now, and that may not be a good thing. Big brother is real, and while I am not one of the people who see Big Brother as a malevolent force who is masterminding a bunch of wicked stuff, I do think the potential for dangerous people getting dangerous information is a real threat.
As for the NSA itself I think it has almost turned into an un-elected fourth branch of the government. A colossal waste of money that like many of the other post 9/11 government agencies has become a bloated incompetent government jobs program.
Back to the bigger issue, should the NSA have the power it has and should Snowden be able to release the information he did without consequences to him? My answer to those questions are no, the NSA should be downsized set to specific tasks that can be proven to help really fight/curb terrorism both foreign and domestic. The answer to the second question is also no. He had to expect consequences and while he can claim to be a whistleblower he never went through the proper channels to become one. With that said, good for him. If he did go through the proper channels we wouldn't be discussing any of this right now.
The next topic that has been orbiting my prefrontal cortex is the question what amount of money does it take for people to throwaway their better judgement? I don't even mean on any particular issue because I've been thinking about people who rationalize something that is so against their self interest but they do so because they are likely to make a buck off of it. Or even worse they rationalize it because it is something that is more convenient for them then doing the right thing.
A few example of what I'm talking about because that last paragraph came off kind of vague. So here are a list of people who I think fit the above paragraph.
-People who support Hydrofrack Drilling
-People who shop at Wal-Mart
-People who work for places that blatantly rip people off like insurance companies & lenders.
-People who support political agendas that without a doubt do not support their interests whatsoever.
The final thought that has been pestering me to write my opinion on it is the ever growing political correct movement. People are now getting fired from their jobs, threatened, and all sorts of crazy shit for expressing their opinions on things. Whether I agree with you or not I think you have a right to whatever dumb fucking opinion you can think of. The only caveat to that thought is if you are using your opinion to insight hateful violence i.e Nazism, KKK, real looney religious shit, stuff like that.
Do I think some girl should be tracked down and fired because she made some off the cuff dumb comment about Trayvon Martin being killed? No, no I don't. She isn't running for political office or anything where you can use her stupid opinions as a reason to disqualify her from a job. She is just a somewhat ignorant person that should have either made her opinion funny and witty so that she could argue that it was just a joke or she should have toned it down or just shared it with like minded friends.
Or I guess if you are into a fairer form of freedom of speech than chew on this Carlin quote "Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. Personally, I lean toward unlimited rights - I feel, for instance, I have the right to do anything I please. But, if I do something you don't like, I think you have the right to kill me. So where you gonna find a fairer fucking deal than that? So the next time some asshole says to you, "I have a right to my opinion," you say, "Oh yeah? Well, I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion." Then shoot the fuck and walk away!
Good blog, man.
ReplyDeleteThanks man!
ReplyDeleteNo problemo.
Delete