Nonsensical Ravings of a Lutheranatic mind

No one has talked about it. . .

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:04:38 GMT

Since no one has talked about it. . . what are people's thoughts on the bill that passed in the House for health care. Specifically, I am interested in:

A. What you think of the bill as stands.
B. What you think it's prospects are for a Senate bill passing.
C. If you think the combined bill will look anything like the house bill, and if not, what will be changed.

Note: There will be ground rules for this.

1. You get one comment, to be made to this post directly. I don't want a debate, I just want to know what people are thinking. (Note, if your thoughts go over one comment, you can reply to your own comment - however, use this to expand your ideas, not to critique or complain about what others have written)

2. I will not respond -- I am not trying to trap any one or make you feel burdened upon or threatened for your opinion. I simply want to know what people are thinking - as most of you are much more passionate on this issue than I am.

(++edit+++ If I could make a suggestion - don't even read the comments before you post - simply put forth your ideas if you are so inclined. We should have opportunity to put forth our thoughts +++edit+++)

+++++++++++

My own brief note -- I think the abortion amendment shows how loose a coalition the Democratic party is internally. One issue almost tanked the whole thing.

Also - Pelosi said that as one Republican voted for the bill that it was a bi-partisan bill. I think something along the lines of, "This bill was not as bi-partisan as I would have liked, but hopefully when we vote on the bill that has been reconciled with the Senate that there will be more support for the wishes of the American people shown on both side of the aisle" would have been much better.

It was 20 years ago today. . .

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:51:21 GMT

no, not that Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play.

It was 20 years ago today that the Berlin Wall fell. Just. . . hmmm.

O.o???

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:41:25 GMT

Buffy had a kid September 19th

Take from this any strange significance that you will.

New Jordan. . . is out.

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:56:57 GMT

So you guys know, the 12th book of the Wheel of Time has been released - "The Gathering Storm" by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson.

No, it is not the last book. According to Sanderson's forward, the notes would yield a book three times the size of a typical Jordan book - so we are getting this one and two more (and he was halfway through number 13 as of June, 2009).

...

Oh, and Jordan had written the entire ending beforehand.

I've read the prologue and part of the first chapter -- seems to be quite a bit tighter than the more recent ones (feels more like Lord of Chaos in terms of rambillage).

No, Rebel Owl, I am your father. . .

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:48:22 GMT

Rebelowl robbed again!

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:13:39 GMT

Wow. . well, once again Rebelowl came in second in the Heisman voting (although he won the Maxwell and the Doak Walker). I think this happened because we ran things up a bit in the Big 12 Championship game - his 370 yards and 6 TDs in our 84-28 defeat of Nebraska was seen as excessive (all we did was run in the second half)

But, after 13 games, with the national championship to go - Rebelowl had 3191 yards rushing (on 276 attempts for a 11.6 per carry average) and 53 touchdowns. Oh, you caught for 408 yards (25 catches) and 2 TDs as well.

Fox_C won the Thorpe award for best DB. Explosive Turtle had the best defensive play where she tipped a pass to herself and rumbled 90 yards for a touchdown on a pick.

As for me - 178-271 for 3404 yards, 30 TD, 6 Picks.

Now to play the Concordia Theological Seminary Kingsmen (Big East Champs) in the title game.

But if I used real money. .

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:44:08 GMT

Yahoo has a fantasy game where you predict College Football games (of all the top 25 teams) against the spread (i.e. what you would use when betting). This year, I am right 60% of the time - 90 out of 150, which puts me in the 97%, 2078 overall.

Now, a few thoughts:

1. The fact that I am only hitting 60% and am 97th percentile shows why Vegas makes money.
2. If I tried this with real money, I'd only be hitting 40%.

Firefly on Castle

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:48:22 GMT

For those of you who missed it here is the Firefly reference to end all references on Castle.

Wow. . .

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:44:27 GMT

"Badger" is showing up as a potential villain in the new show "White Collar"

Thought 2: Who needs Twitter, I have livejournal.

Random Post Number 2

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:09:32 GMT

Having some pet Lemmings would be awesome.

That is all.

Hotnessilism

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:52:38 GMT

When I was in England, I noticed that, as a rule of thumb, the men there were better looking then the women. Just, if you took an 80% British male and an 80% British woman, the guy would be much better looking than the gal.

This stood out to me because I have my basic American theory of attractiveness -- we tend to be pretty good at finding someone roughly on our appearance level, and those levels tend to be pretty equal. The hotties end up with the hunks, and the trolls end up with the other trolls, and everything moves on relatively well (with the few exceptions. . . but eventually Angelina Jolie moves away from Billy Bob Thorton to Brad Pitt, and all is right in the world again).

Is this superficial? Yes - but guess what, we live in a pretty superficial world.

At any rate, England has a dearth of good looking women. At least London does. So I have long been advising my single female friends to consider moving to Britian - I mean, a decent looking American gal ought to be able to rope in a quite fine British gent.

This past weekend, sitting in an Indian restuarant in Kansas City, with the Indian TV going in the background, I made a realization (one that should be quite obvious to any of us who know the illustrious Tashar) -- the ratio in India is the exact opposite of what it is in England -- there are lots more hot women than men. Even at the higher "Bollywood" levels -- the gals just are so much better looking than the guys.

Even consider the image of the typical Indian Housewife as presented in the media - always gonna be better looking than the guy. Simple as that.

Which made me wonder - could this have been a factor in the British interest in India? Indeed, in colonization as a whole, perhaps? Did centuries worth of British men leave home just in search of better looking women? Let's consider:

Ireland - hotter women, oh yeah.
India - hotter women, oh yeah.
The Far East - hotter women, oh yeah.

Compare this with England's half hearted attempts at places elsewhere where the women were less hot.

I wonder if this could be a way of reevaluating all of history -- are actions based not on economics, or ideals, or religion, but primarily on hotness? Could Hotnessilism provide an explanation to various historical problems that socialist or post-modern truth-power paradigms couldn't answer.

For example - the US doesn't really go Imperialist until we end up getting less hot immigrants from overseas and at the same time have an increase in obesity. . . perhaps this isn't coincidence.

(Insert your own JFK and Vietnam observation here)

And then, of course, the main point of contention between the US and Russia is of course -- the hot Russian spy.

Hmmm... this could also be why we pulled away from England at the end of the 18th Century and starting interacting more with France. . . who knows, who knows.

Well, it's something to consider.

+++ Edit +++

Additional Anecdotal evidence regarding India.

Dr. Doty once told a story in class when we were discussing Caste systems. India came up. Apparently he had an Indian roommate when he was in college. Didn't think anything of it - until he saw a picture of the fellow's sister, who was much, much more attractive than him, surprisingly so. Quoth Doty - "My first thought was, 'My God, I'm rooming with the wrong one.'" Hence, anecdotal evidence.

Also, the brother was proud because she was going to marry a fellow of a higher caste - her bethrothed was a troll. Again. . . more evidence.

Hitchery

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:29:16 GMT

If you are planning on getting hitched in the coming year, and more importantly are wanting me involved with the hitchery, if you would let me know here so I can start planning where I am supposed to be and when.

Thanks.

My mom's humor

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:58:26 GMT

I rarely send forth anything my mom sends me, but this was good.

Obama Named Country Music Entertainer of the Year

NASHVILLE (The Borowitz Report) - President Barack Obama stunned the country music world today by picking up its highest honor, Country Music Entertainer of the Year.

Mr. Obama was chosen unanimously, according to the Country Music Association, beating out such favorites as Carrie Underwood and Toby Keith.

In Nashville, country music insiders were shocked by Mr. Obama's selection, given that he has only been in office for eight months and during that time has yet to record a single country song.

But Mr. Obama was gracious in receiving the honor, saying that he was "honored and humbled" by the award before excusing himself to accept this year's Heisman Trophy.

++++++++++++++++

There was a wonderful campaign photo of the President wearing a big old black hat, tipping it in greeting. It was good.

I hadn't realized. . .

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:36:05 GMT

That it was Seth Green who unleshed the whole Cha-ching thing of the 90s upon us.

Nor that Oz was Willow's girlfriend way back in "My Stepmother is a Alien". Things that happen when you are bored and looking at imdb.

++++ Edit ++++

Ack! Seth Green is the uber-burger pimp! He even did Burger ads in the 80s as a child!

And Nerf toys

Agh, you tube will melt my brain!

Slight political pontification

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:08:59 GMT

What will follow is an insight into how I am thinking politically. If not interested, look not behind the cut - but what will follow will be neither liberal nor conservative, will not deal with specific policies (other than in an cursory, referential fashion), or the like. It is my general thoughts.

I know that I have been quite contrary on almost all things political. Many folks here tend towards a more liberal position, and so a more conservative bent comes out. Many folks in town and Church where I live come from a more conservative position, and so they've been hearing things from a more liberal bent.

I have been pondering this all - seeing my comments, my reactions to things. And I think I know what is spurring it.

I think Americans have too high expectations. We think we should have the best of everything, and it should be cheap and readily available, and we should be kept safe without any dangers or hardship. I find I don't have expectations that are nearly as high.

Folks mention the expense of cable - I'm still astounded at the 290+ channels I get (and also astounded at the fact that even with this there are times I will sit and say, "Wow, there's nothing on).

The expense and frustrations of cell phone service are brought up - I'm pleased I can actually get service in my house.

People talk about how we need more and more safety measures to keep the terrorists away. I'm amazed at how little we've seen in my life time - that 9/11 wasn't in 1988 or so. Or '79. We've been remarkably safe and secure already.

The rising costs of health care are brought up - I'm astonished what health care can be had in Enid -- and how little I have to drive down to OKC for when people need surgery.

We complain about the cost of food - yet we have access to the best food supply in the world; indeed access to food from all over the world.

It is as though we expect the best of everything to be handed to us - and when we don't get what we want right away, we neglect the wonders of what we do have. And this is what gets to me - this desire for more and more, more stuff and more security, more opportunity but less risk. It's so. . . unrealistic, and yet dismissive of the opportunties we do have.

Part of this is where I've been. I've lived in government housing for three years - anything more than that is fantastic. I've eaten out of a food bank (dented cans we think a peaches, anyone) - being able to shop at a grocery store is a wonder. I've lived, in 1991, in rural Nebraska where we got only three channels (or 13 if you had the cable) - I've lived in the places where there was no high-speed lines, where there was no cell phone coverage.

And right now, here I am in Lahoma - I've got my wireless laptop on my lap, using my high speed in my front room over wireless. If I want something to eat, I have a stocked fridge, and if that's not enough, I can get 90% of whatever I could want in Enid at my leisure, and 9% percent in OKC at a slight, adventurous trip to town. I lament Enid because it only has a K-Mart and a Walmart, but no Target; a Hastings and a Penny's, but no Best Buy, Fry's, or Macy's.

And it is not as though I am among the insanely wealthy - certainly not by American standards. Shoot, I didn't make enough to pay Federal income tax last year - yet behold all that I have.

In reality, with what I make, I am in the top 5% of wealth in the world.

This is what I see. This is why I complain and grouse. Because even with all we have, we want more, and not only that, we want someone else to give it to us. We want security, so we will sacrifice our neighbor's rights. We want the feds to pay for something, so we will tax the "rich" -- you know, anyone who is richer than us. We are spoiled rich kids of the world.

...

I think I know how to end this, how to sum up what I am thinking, albeit in a slightly dated way.

The first rule of fight club is, you do not talk about fight club.

What would Kurt say?

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:40:42 GMT

I just used a copy of Vonnegut's "Player Piano" to smash a spider.

This seems like it should have some sort of significance.

Hey WBJ, where you going?

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:36:11 GMT

What follows is a post WBJ made - I know many of you don't follow anymore. I found this to be. . . amusing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK. So ... I've been working for over two weeks... but the government has been on me to take re-employment training (teaching me how to make a resume and how to interview properly), or 'measures may be taken'.

So I called the number they gave me.

The person on that line told me to call a second number.

After waiting on hold for a while, I got someone who took my information. They will

Submit a request for consideration of a work search waiver on the grounds that I am currently employed full-time to their legal department. Someone should get back to me eventually on whether or not this is sufficient reason to consider me eligible for consideration of a waiver.

And people wonder why I don't trust government agencies to make my decisions for me...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I just find this amusing. . . and I will say that I think any bureaucracy can do such things (just to be neither liberal nor conservative with this)

But they are orange

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:23:12 GMT

I'm re-reading 8-bit theater. I this link in honor of old friends from college and their dietary struggles.

And I still say that in that game she was just resting her heart.

Um. . .

Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:19:42 GMT

Okay. . . so President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts to. . . well. . . apparently it is summed up in the fact that he's nice when it comes to diplomacy.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," it said.

So. . . how to react to this?

My second reaction was to consider what a blunt statement this was on Bush. I mean, when a new President can win a Nobel Peace Prize which he would have been nominated for within 10 days of assuming office (nominations are due Feb. 1) - Bush must have really, really screwed the diplomatic pooch (which we all knew).

But my first reaction was. . . why? Because we. . . rattled our sabers at Iran over nuclear issues? Or are thinking about a surge in Afghanistan? Or are still plugging away in Iraq? Or still running Gitmo? And still have no work down concerning Israel and the Palestinians?

What has he done?

Apparently it's not about what he has done - Jagland said he hoped the prize would help Obama resolve the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also. . .The Nobel committee recognized Obama's efforts to solve complex global problems including working toward a world free of nuclear weapons. You mean global problems like. . . global warming. . . or a new nuclear treaty. . . or. . . um. . . I just don't get it.

Wow. . . maybe we should call it the Nobel Hope for Peace Prize. . . which is just so, so ironic that it is released on the eve of our 8th anniversary of being in Afghanistan as the debate rages over how much to increase troop numbers by - (not if. . . how much).

And he had to have been nominated by Feb 1st. . .

++++++ Edit ++++++

I knew I should have gone to Fox News for additional entertainment this morning. How's this for a quote:

"So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate.

When the even the Poles go "Huh?"....

More Rough news for Rebelowl

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:48:57 GMT

RebelOwl,

I'm sad to inform you that you finished 2nd in the Heisman voting to Tim Tebow by one point - 1777 to 1776. Tebow had only 344 first place votes to your 355, but 321 second to your 308, and 103 third place votes to your 95.

There was obviously some bias against the Pacmen of Pasadena Community College, even though they won the Big 12 South with an undefeated season. You at least got the Doak Walker Award.

Here are some stats prior to the Bowl Game

I was 191-295 for 3064 yards, 30 TD and 9 picks
Rebel Owl had 219 carries for 2251 yards and 34 TDs - also caught 28 balls for 261 and 2 TDs. . . and you were 13 of 14 in field goals and averaged 44.5 yards per punt - and and 9 tackles on kickoff coverage

Wyvern - well, you were the number 2 wideout - 32 catches for 398 yards and 2 TDs.

Marimblanlr - 36 catches for 923 and 9 TDs

Me bride caught 28 for 368 and 6 TDs as a tight end. . . aw yeah.

Wolfbrother - as a FB you caught 11 balls for 100 yards and 2 TDs, also rushing 15 times for 62 yards and a TD

Defensively, FoX_C (SS) led the team in tackles with 91 - 23 for loss, 3 sacks, and 4 INTS (2 returned for touchdowns)

Your hubby at FS had 56 tacks, and only 1 pick

The cornerbacks were our Alaskan friends. The beautiful one had 53 tackles and 5 picks (3 for TD) - the studly one only had 33 tackles but 7 picks, again for 3 TDs.

Arywlen -- I controlled you on D - you had 8 sacks as a Defensive end.

And the explosive turtle, due to her former temporary size increase, also played on the line - she had 40 tackles and 8 sacks as well.

Those are the major highlights - a good season for you all!

SNL President Obama Spoof

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:26:05 GMT

Saturday Night Live opened with a spoof on President Obama this past week. Spoofing political figures is a tried and true part of SNL's history. In fact, a year ago this time, let's face it, we were all cracking up at Tina Fey as Sarah Palin (the return of which is perhaps the only positive thing that would result from a Palin run for 2012).

They Skewer the president rather hard - but rather well, too.

A post on Ethics

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:12:45 GMT

Behind the Cut is a post I made on another blog on my theological approach to ethics. I put it here simply if any of you are interested.

Recent discussions have gotten me to thinking more about "ethics" the past few weeks than I normally do. This is not because (in spite of what some people might think) I am an inherently unethical person, but rather because so many of the discussions revolving around ethics seem. . . how to say this. . . overly precise, or even micromanaging in nature. I have very little interest in trying to plumb the nitty-gritty details of the ethical implications of something that is outside my ken - rather I view ethics as the blanket that can be draped over any situation, and whoever is on the spot should be able to see how the fabric falls on their particular situation and say, "Ah, this is ethical! This is not." For an ethical system to be of value, it must be easily applied by the individual to whatever situation they encounter - otherwise we are no more acting ethically than the actor in the play really is King Lear.

As such, I wish to delve into no details here, no specific examples of modern day life. I will not try to answer the ethical issues of the age, and I do not intend to raise any specific issues in this post (although what comes in comments comes). Rather, I would speak to an approach that I think can be applied to any situation or question - I would contend that the key to Christian ethics can be summed up in 2 words - show love.

Now, I'm sure I would not get a lot of flak for summing up Christian Ethics right in line with Christ's explanation of the Law - Love God, Love your neighbor (or, in otherwords, show love). The problem comes in that I think we can blow by this simple foundation of ethics and be so eager to win the point over and against some unethical act that we forget the simple, key fact - if people do not know what it is to show love, they will never act in an ethical matter. The heart of the matter is not abortion, or reproductive rights, or just war theory, or whatever other hot topic comes to the fore this day - those are just the trees; the forest we have forgotten to defend is love itself.

I don't suppose I am saying anything shocking here, but there are a lot of twisted ideas of what love is rummaging around out there in the world. The problem, I think, it that we can assume that people know what love is (he may not be a smart man, but surely he knows what love is!). And flawed, twisted views of love are left in the background of every discussion, and all our wisdom and guile and logic in the specific issues fall flat, for we have given ground on what love is. When people think that 2 is actually 5, you can shout 2+2=4 till you are blue in the face, but it will never make sense.

Now, I would submit, once again in a most unshocking fashion, that if we wish to define what love is, our best way of doing this would be to consider Christ our Lord upon the Cross. Christ's example of the Love shown from the Cross is the prime example of Love - it is the essence of taking up our own Cross and following Him (again, another description of the ethical life). Indeed, the Cross stands over and against the falsely-called loves of the world. So, what do we see and learn about love from the Cross?

1. Love is obedient to God. The first thing we see is that love involves obeying God. Christ our Lord does not enjoy being Crucified, but as it is what the Father wishes, He takes the cup, the Son obeys the Father's will. If there were no obedience, there would have been no Cross. Likewise, if we desire to exercise ethics, there must be a clear focus upon what God commands and what God forbids in His Word.

To forgo God's commands is automatically unethical, because it prevents love from being rightly shown. If God has said, "Thou shalt", we must, whatever the personal cost to ourselves. Likewise, what God has forbidden we must avoid, however fine it seems. We know these bounds that God has placed upon us from His Word. As such, any approach to Scripture which devalues it and contradicts it strikes a damaging blow to any attempt at ethical behavior.

I like to think of the Law of God as being a fence around a yard - the boundaries are set, we cannot go beyond them and be safe. As God is love, to go beyond His bounds is fundamentally to act outside of and contrary to love. In side that yard one may go about one's business, especially tending the specific things which God has instructed you to tend. Anything out side of this is unethical.

2. Love is always focused on someone other than yourself. While there are benefits to Christ in His crucifixion (for indeed, He wins for Himself a holy people), His crucifixion is not done for primarily His own benefit. Rather, Christ's focus upon the Cross is clearly focused upon us, His neighbors. This is demonstrated repeatedly, especially with His words from the Cross.

As such, any approach to ethical behavior must be focused not upon one's own self, but upon one's neighbor. Any decision that is made to benefit one's own self first and foremost is automatically unethical. Now, this makes ethics quite messy, because God in His love and mercy to us has so ordered His creation that many times the love that we show to our neighbor rebounds back to us. This means that in some cases the point of ethics is not simply the act, but the motivation for the act. This is not to say that "good intentions" can make a sinful act good, but rather that a wicked heart spoils even the acts that appear outwardly appropriate and good.

Whenever discussing ethics, the individual's wants, desires, and preferences must be subordinate to showing love to the neighbor, to the person with whom he is interacting, otherwise the act is fundamentally unethical.

3. Love is focused on what is best for the other, not what is pleasing to them. To show love to your neighbor is not merely an attempt to please them. This is demonstrated again by the Cross. Mary and John are by no means pleased on Good Friday as they stand watching our Lord's Crucifixion in unabated horror and sorrow. It is not a pleasant experience. However, it is for their good.

To often we equate showing love with doing that which is pleasing to another. To love someone is not merely an attempt to make them happy - it is to use your abilities for their benefit. The simple fact is that in a sinful world, many of the things which are beneficial for us are. . . uncomfortable, things which we would rather not see. Surgery demonstrates this - the cancer must be cut out, there must be the pain of the surgery, so that the right and proper care might be shown. This is also true in all interactions and relationships. The old adage that the truth hurts is right. We cannot judge whether or not an action is ethical simply by the reaction it causes.

4. Love is bound by office. Christ is upon the Cross because it is His office. He is the Lamb of God, He must be there. As such, no one else can do it, it must be Christ. John can not attempt to take His place. There are two aspects raised here. First, ethics clearly involves fulfilling the duties given to you in whatever your situation in life is. That is clear. However, the second many not be as obvious. You cannot act ethically when performing an act which is not given to you to do. It is fundamentally unethical to take up an office not given to you and to perform its functions.

This is especially vital as, in the sinful world, the exercise of an office often brings pain and suffering upon others. I think now of an example, of the man who slapped the crying child in the store. This man stepped outside his office - and as such, the act was unethical. He abrogated the rights and duties of the parent - which is unethical. Our Lord's Command to us to love is bound and shaped by the offices into which He has placed us. To attempt to step into another's office is to thwart God's order in the world.

5. Love is sacrifice. Christ sacrifices Himself upon the Cross. He takes the chief suffering, so that we may live. Love is sacrificial. It is often painful to the one who loves. As such, if sacrifice is sought to be avoided at the expense of showing love, the action is unethical.

Now, this is not to say that we are to attempt to be martyrs and seek out sacrifices that are not ours to make. Rather this - when there are multiple ways of showing love to the neighbor, we chose the act which shows the most love, even if this involves greater sacrifice on our part. To show a love which is easier or less painful to ourselves, when a greater love is there (albeit more painful or difficult) is fundamentally unethical.

Again, this is not a simple matter, for each of us places a different value upon things in our lives, and giving them up might be a greater sacrifice for one than it is for another. We must be aware of our own wants and desires, and how they might push us away from showing love in ways that are unique to us. Our own desires must be placed below the true needs of another - or as Paul would say, we must submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. Even our desires for that which is a "good" thing, that which is a blessing, must be curtailed if love to another demands it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

These are the points describing true love (as over and contrasted to the selfish sentimental tripe that is spoken of love in popular culture) that I see as derivable from the example of Christ upon the Cross. There are others that one can find in Scripture, but I wished to key in simply upon the Cross today. 1 Corinthians 13 is a great place, but I would argue already that this chapter is nothing but commentary upon the Cross anyway. And no, this post has no conclusion -- because it may not be finished yet.

Thoughts on Health Care

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:26:09 GMT

I figured I would chime in on health care - by looking at the plans as summed up at CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/health.care/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

First, the Baucus plan - I dislike the idea of potentially fining those who do not have health care, although this dislike is mitigated in the fact that if you are making 133% or less of the poverty line, you would be eligible for medicaid. Frankly, if the government must be involved, I'd rather expand the existing bureaucracy than establish an entire new one. However, I don't think this will really address the issue of cost, for I see no increase in competition.

Second, the Senate HELP committee - I do sort of like the gateway idea - this could provide some competition. Again, I do not like the tax penalties for those without insurance - but they increase Medicaid to 150% of poverty -- so there shouldn't be too much excuse.

Third - the House Tri-Committee Plan - Again, the tax penalties -- however, they say that it will be no more than a 2% penalty that is no higher than the average premium. Is health care only 2% of the typical family income? That requirement seems dubious to me - unless it factors in the mandate that employers pay 72% of health insurance costs or 8% into the national health care plan. That's basically an 8% tax hike on the workers who have the crappiest jobs (i.e. the ones that don't already get insurance) -- ugly idea.

Fourth - the House GOP Plan - It "encourages" states to create a Universal Access plan. While I like the idea of a insurance clearing house to promote competition. . . "encouraging" isn't the same as doing - and it probably wouldn't get done. I do like the idea of allowing small businesses to collectively bargain with insurance companies -- that would work well -- but too much of this plan speaks to "encourage" -- which doesn't get stuff done.

What I would like to see is some plan that opens up the insurance market - that would make insurance companies compete against each other. There would need to be some sort of protection for people who switch their care. Also, I'd like to see provisions where if you do not accept folks or drop their coverage after illness, that you get severely penalized. That would protect people with illness from having their insurance bail on them - and also allow them to switch as well.

I just don't see any of these plans really addressing the heart of the matter, which is the cost of insurance. I suppose I'm not horrified with expanding Medicaid as an option for poorer Americans. . . but still. Sheesh.

Wow. . .

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:33:30 GMT

I really do love Darths and Droids which is basically reinvisioning the prequel trilogy as though it were done by people role playing. Fantastic site. Of particular joy is today's post -- it is at the Funeral of Shmi Skywalker. . .

Here is the vision impaired transcript:

R2-D2: I can't believe you're having a funeral for an NPC.
Padmé: Shhh, Pete. This is serious.
R2-D2: Nobody gave my thief a funeral when he died.
Padmé: We were too busy. We were still chasing the pirate ninja.
R2-D2: You let him get away! With the princess!
Padmé: He was her True Love. You can't stand in the way of True Love.
Anakin: Love is... irrelevant.
R2-D2: See!
Padmé: No, love is important! It's important to you, right?
Anakin: It couldn't save my mother. What good is it?
Padmé: Love doesn't stop death. That's not its purpose. It's to make life worth living.
Padmé: Love and death are entwined; the sweetness of one balances the bitterness of the other.
R2-D2: Have we just slipped into Vampire: the Masquerade?

I love how things slip IC and OC so fluidly, just like a game.

Why didn't this happen while I was in college?

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:39:03 GMT

Okay, there is a project to have fans reshoot Star Wars. Basically, the film is split into 15 second clips - you claim up to three, and you film those scenes however you see fit. . . and then they are gonna splice it all together.

Wow.