A few days ago I got into a fairly wide ranging debate on facebook with a friend and as usual these things tend to spiral into several topics. Instead of hashing out on facebook I thought it might be more appropriate for our blog. The conversation started off of a post of kind of a snark comment that I made about Michelle Bachmann not seeking re-election after this term. That didnt seem to be the issue for my friend though as he asked me what my thoughts were on "the recent scandals rocking the Obama administration these days". The issues he chose bring up were "the IRS targeting political opponents of the president, The Justice Department subpoenaing phone records of the media without notifying them to defend themselves, HHS pressuring businesses to donate money to Obama care because it is vastly underfunded and going to jack the price of medical care through the roof, along with no one in the administration ever knowing anything about anything until they hear about it through news reports." I will try to address them individually to make sure I cover everything in our conversation.
The one I wanted to start with was the justice department scandal with the Associated Press. There wont be any argument from me on this one nor was there an argument on the facebook post. I stated that I despise the idea of government doing any kind of spying on anyone without a warrant and any kind of Patriot Act nonsense that goes on with the government. That was the easy one for me. However, I havent seen anything to this point linking this to the President and unfortunately because of horrible laws like the Patriot Act what went on with this story although immoral, was technically not illegal.
As far as the IRS targeting political opponents of the President for auditing their tax exempt status, on its face it seems dispicable. The IRS is supposed to be non partisan and if this is actually what happened there is no excuse for it and heads need to roll. Its my understanding though that there is a little more to the story here. Section 501c of the tax code says that all tax exempt organizations are to be used for social welfare and forbids the use of tax exemption for political purposes. After the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case in 2010 there was a massive influx of organizations applying for tax exempt status who's names included words like "Tea Party" and other political labels. I dont see how this doesnt raise red flags when your job in the IRS is to make sure that these organizations arent exploiting the tax code for political purposes. Again, there really hasnt been anything to this point that says that Obama has anything to do with what went on here. If more information comes out linking him to this I reserve the right to criticize the President but right now there just is nothing there. I also made the point that it was a little hard for me to take some critics serious because when this type of thing was going on with the NAACP during the last administration no one seemed to be raising a stink about it. My friend then went on to accuse me of trying to use the "two wrongs make a right" argument because I raised this point. This is rediculous. My point actually was that because no one talked about it in the prior administration that there motivation for turning this into a scandal seems to be politcally motivated because of thier distaste for the president and not that they are actually concerned about what the IRS was doing here. That doesnt mean more information wont come out and who knows, maybe it will turn out to be more serious but all I was saying is that its tough to take some critics serious for this reason.
The next issue I want to talk about was the argument that my friend made that "HHS pressuring businesses to donate money to Obama care because it is vastly underfunded and going to jack the price of medical care through the roof". The point that I made was that ever since the Republican Party took majority of the House of Representatives in 2010 they have been talking about de-funding the bill as a means to dismantle the new law. To address this HHS issue specifically, this is exactly what happened. The government had set aside not trillions, not billions, but a few million dollars to promote the implementation of the new law. They wanted to make sure people were informed on certain things like how to join the new exchanges, and that subsidies were going to be made available for some people and also who would now qualify for the Medicaid expansion. The House has decided to get in the way of this advertising by blocking the funds so the only way to get the money to help people get informed was to go out and try to raise money from private industry. This actually was likely going to happen anyway because many of the private health insurance companies are going to be getting millions of new customers and they would likely want all of the new eligible Americans to know how to get access to their product. This somehow got twisted into the HHS "pressuring businesses into donating money".
You may have seen reports recently from noted non partisan think tanks(sarcasm) like Fox News, The Blaze, or the Heritage Foundation that say the cost of Obamacare is now going to be double and millions will be left without insurance. My friend also stated in our conversation that Obamacare is "going to jack the cost of health care through the roof". First of all, the latest projections from the CBO , as of about 2 weeks ago, shows very little change in the cost of the ACA. Secondly, there has been a lot of speculation that the cost of care is going to sky rocket after the law is fully implemented. My response to that is rise in costs compared to what? Our current system? Since the 1990's and prior to the ACA being passed into law the cost of health care has been skyrocketing faster than any other country in the world. In fact, since the law was passed in 2010 the cost of health care in the US has actually risen slower than projected. Now while the hard core left will attribute this slowing of growth to the ACA I actually dont share that opinon. Most of the few cost controlling measures in the bill have not yet been implemented yet so its hard to draw that conclusion if we are going to be honest. This idea that somehow all we have to do to control costs is repeal Obamacare is very trivial to me. All I have heard to this point though is speculation. "The new taxes will kill business!". "This provision will do this and this provision will do that!". I havent seen any data outside of the non partisan organisations that shows that the cost of health care will rise any faster than it already has without the ACA. Who knows, maybe some of that stuff will turn out to be true and if it does, well then that is something that will need to be fixed in the bill. But until I see something more than speculation I am just not savvy enough to know more than organizations like the CBO who do this stuff for a living. I guess you could try to discredit these organizations and say they will just be wrong and you may actually be right. Of course a partisan pundit would assume only that they could be wrong and the bill will cost more than expected. Based on the most recent significant health care reform which was the Mediacare Part D that the CBO scored they actually predicted that the bill would cost more than it actually did. This means that they sort of overshot their projections and it was actually cheaper than expected. That doesnt mean you still cant try to discredit the CBO but you cant use precedent to do it.
The final part of our debate was me blaming the House of Representatives for doing whatever they can to block funding for the bill and then criticizing the bill for not working. Like the situation with the HHS I talked about earlier, they are doing everything they can to block the implementation of the bill so they can point the finger at Obama later and say how much of a failure it was. The same thing is happening with a bunch of states who are refusing the Medicaid expansion. To avoid sounding partisan I wont name the political party that the vast majority of the governers of the 35 states are that are refusing the expansion. The point is though that about half of the 30 million uninsured people that were supposed to get insurance now wont be able to because they wont be allowed medicaid by their states. Ironically enough these states will still have to pay all of the new federal taxes associated with the ACA so that people in other states that participate in the medicaid expansion can still get insurance. Clearly this is partisan bickering and political posturing when you put principle in front of people. You may think this is OK and that is your right, but I just wont hear criticism about what wont work when crucial parts of the entire bill are being blocked for political purposes.
I hope this inspires some debate because some of this stuff I am really passionate about and I'm sorry for the length of the topic but these type of debates always spiral out into several topics.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
A Logical Breakdown of Marriage Equality
This is my first post on this blog, and its long over due. I am going to write what I believe is the truth about the recent push for homosexuals to have the right to marry whomever they love.
I'm a religious person. I believe in God. I believe He created the universe exactly how it is today and nobody ever evolved from anything. But I'm going to leave God, the Bible and religion completely out of this conversation. Why? Because when God is brought into the conversation, the conservative side is instantly branded as people who take God's views, aka whats written in the Bible, and don't think logically or in a "modern" way about the issue of gay marriage. The truth is, there are several arguments that can be made, which I intend to point out.
Let's define the issue. What is the battle-cry? There should be marriage equality for everyone right? Actually there is no legal inequality. A gay man has the right to marry any woman he wants, but cannot marry another man(in most states). A straight man also has the right to marry any woman he wants, but cannot marry another man. There is no inequality, so let's stop using that "victimized, minority, socially degrading" term to define the problem. What gay people want is more freedom or an additional marriage law that allows them the privilege to marry other gay people.
The more appropriate battle-cry should be: we want the freedom to marry whomever we love. Here is where the major objection lies. If this wish is granted by the federal lawmakers, it opens an incredible door to hundreds of future social issues that nobody wants to admit exist. Once that banner is constructed, many more people will try to ride under it, and use the same exact argument.
What am I talking about? Once society gets used to the idea that its normal for gay people to be married and run a household, more extreme conflicts will rise, all in the name of love. Soon, it will be a man wanting to marry more than one man, or women or any number of people. And what happens when a grandmother falls in love with her grandson and wants to get married for financial, tax, or insurance purposes? As long as they love each other its ok right? Or what happens when a father and daughter fall in love? They also should have the right to love whomever they choose right? That's absurd! Ok ok, what about when somebody decides they will never be able to love a human being, and they "fall in love" with their pet? Even if it's nothing more than the legal ability to claim them as a dependent for tax purposes, there should be marriage equality for everyone right? Once the definition of marriage is changed, a whole bunch of "unique circumstances" will present themselves under the same exact argument as homosexuals plead. Now the only reason I chose to use extreme examples like those, is because those circumstances have already been tested in this country. Just Google it. There are plenty of real stories of people that fall in love with family members, and their pets, and are simply waiting for society to take that next step towards "equality".
But all that stuff is never going to be allowed...right? Seriously? I'm not a social expert by any means. But all I have to do is look back in very recent history, to know that those kinds of laws are indeed coming.
About two dozen states still have criminal adultery provisions. What's that? That means it's legally possible for you to go to jail for having an affair with someone other than who your legally married to. However, prosecutions are extremely rare today. Most states have thrown out the law because that's such an extreme punishment for having sex with whomever you want. Truth is, as early as the 1950's, women served prison time for violating their marriage vows. Federal law viewed infidelity as a criminal offense. Yes, Tiger Woods would be in prison for life.
Now that kind of law existing, much less being enforced, is crazy to think about! Infidelity is so extremely common in society today. In some places... its quite the norm. The point I am making, is that society is gradually declining morally. It's all in the name of freedom and equality. If you don't think that legal battles will be fought over polygamy(having more than one wife/husband) rights, incest rights and bestiality rights, than you are very wrong. That day is coming. But it's hard to imagine because, right now, society frowns on that kind of behavior.
According to the Center for Disease Control, gay and bisexual men account for over 75% of HIV contractions in the United States today. That number is rapidly increasing. Life expectancy rates for gay and bisexual men are 12-20 years less because of it. Please draw your own conclusions to these numbers. But there are piles of data that prove the lifestyles of homosexuals, people that practice incest and bestiality are extremely dangerous physically. Please don't let me inform you. Please research it yourself.
One last thing. Homosexuality is not natural. Regardless of the 20 year-old college student that says he was born gay, homosexuality is not an inborn trait. It is an adaption. The large majority of older homosexuals turned gay or "came out of the closet". People are becoming gay at younger ages because of the society they have lived in all their life. Our sexual bodies were designed to reproduce. If man is evolving, and homosexuality is another evolved trait, than shouldn't at least half of born gay men have female reproduction organs? That would make sense if it were indeed natural. Right?
Also, a majority of lesbians and gays do their best to portray the opposite gender. Why is that? If a man is attracted to other men, why do they do everything in their power to look, act and sound like women. The truth is very simple. Most gay men and lesbian woman have decided for whatever reason that they want to spend their life with someone of the same gender. Maybe their parent's marriage was a terrible experience for them growing up and society screamed to them that there are other options available, and they don't have to follow in their parents footsteps??? The truth is, even gay men want a female presence but would rather it be a guy. Even lesbians dress like men and get haircuts like men because their partner(and they) naturally desire the presence of a man--- but without the man.
My viewpoints on this topic do not mean I hate gay and lesbian people and I want them to suffer and be treated unfairly. I simply believe their decision to live an unhealthy lifestyle is dangerous to a society I have to raise my children in someday.
So the next time someone changes their facebook profile picture to an equal sign and cries for equality, there's a good chance they don't know what they're really asking for. Before you join that increasingly popular social crusade... please consider this logical, and modern argument against homosexual marriage.
Thank you for your time.
- William Charles Case
I'm a religious person. I believe in God. I believe He created the universe exactly how it is today and nobody ever evolved from anything. But I'm going to leave God, the Bible and religion completely out of this conversation. Why? Because when God is brought into the conversation, the conservative side is instantly branded as people who take God's views, aka whats written in the Bible, and don't think logically or in a "modern" way about the issue of gay marriage. The truth is, there are several arguments that can be made, which I intend to point out.
Let's define the issue. What is the battle-cry? There should be marriage equality for everyone right? Actually there is no legal inequality. A gay man has the right to marry any woman he wants, but cannot marry another man(in most states). A straight man also has the right to marry any woman he wants, but cannot marry another man. There is no inequality, so let's stop using that "victimized, minority, socially degrading" term to define the problem. What gay people want is more freedom or an additional marriage law that allows them the privilege to marry other gay people.
The more appropriate battle-cry should be: we want the freedom to marry whomever we love. Here is where the major objection lies. If this wish is granted by the federal lawmakers, it opens an incredible door to hundreds of future social issues that nobody wants to admit exist. Once that banner is constructed, many more people will try to ride under it, and use the same exact argument.
What am I talking about? Once society gets used to the idea that its normal for gay people to be married and run a household, more extreme conflicts will rise, all in the name of love. Soon, it will be a man wanting to marry more than one man, or women or any number of people. And what happens when a grandmother falls in love with her grandson and wants to get married for financial, tax, or insurance purposes? As long as they love each other its ok right? Or what happens when a father and daughter fall in love? They also should have the right to love whomever they choose right? That's absurd! Ok ok, what about when somebody decides they will never be able to love a human being, and they "fall in love" with their pet? Even if it's nothing more than the legal ability to claim them as a dependent for tax purposes, there should be marriage equality for everyone right? Once the definition of marriage is changed, a whole bunch of "unique circumstances" will present themselves under the same exact argument as homosexuals plead. Now the only reason I chose to use extreme examples like those, is because those circumstances have already been tested in this country. Just Google it. There are plenty of real stories of people that fall in love with family members, and their pets, and are simply waiting for society to take that next step towards "equality".
But all that stuff is never going to be allowed...right? Seriously? I'm not a social expert by any means. But all I have to do is look back in very recent history, to know that those kinds of laws are indeed coming.
About two dozen states still have criminal adultery provisions. What's that? That means it's legally possible for you to go to jail for having an affair with someone other than who your legally married to. However, prosecutions are extremely rare today. Most states have thrown out the law because that's such an extreme punishment for having sex with whomever you want. Truth is, as early as the 1950's, women served prison time for violating their marriage vows. Federal law viewed infidelity as a criminal offense. Yes, Tiger Woods would be in prison for life.
Now that kind of law existing, much less being enforced, is crazy to think about! Infidelity is so extremely common in society today. In some places... its quite the norm. The point I am making, is that society is gradually declining morally. It's all in the name of freedom and equality. If you don't think that legal battles will be fought over polygamy(having more than one wife/husband) rights, incest rights and bestiality rights, than you are very wrong. That day is coming. But it's hard to imagine because, right now, society frowns on that kind of behavior.
According to the Center for Disease Control, gay and bisexual men account for over 75% of HIV contractions in the United States today. That number is rapidly increasing. Life expectancy rates for gay and bisexual men are 12-20 years less because of it. Please draw your own conclusions to these numbers. But there are piles of data that prove the lifestyles of homosexuals, people that practice incest and bestiality are extremely dangerous physically. Please don't let me inform you. Please research it yourself.
One last thing. Homosexuality is not natural. Regardless of the 20 year-old college student that says he was born gay, homosexuality is not an inborn trait. It is an adaption. The large majority of older homosexuals turned gay or "came out of the closet". People are becoming gay at younger ages because of the society they have lived in all their life. Our sexual bodies were designed to reproduce. If man is evolving, and homosexuality is another evolved trait, than shouldn't at least half of born gay men have female reproduction organs? That would make sense if it were indeed natural. Right?
Also, a majority of lesbians and gays do their best to portray the opposite gender. Why is that? If a man is attracted to other men, why do they do everything in their power to look, act and sound like women. The truth is very simple. Most gay men and lesbian woman have decided for whatever reason that they want to spend their life with someone of the same gender. Maybe their parent's marriage was a terrible experience for them growing up and society screamed to them that there are other options available, and they don't have to follow in their parents footsteps??? The truth is, even gay men want a female presence but would rather it be a guy. Even lesbians dress like men and get haircuts like men because their partner(and they) naturally desire the presence of a man--- but without the man.
My viewpoints on this topic do not mean I hate gay and lesbian people and I want them to suffer and be treated unfairly. I simply believe their decision to live an unhealthy lifestyle is dangerous to a society I have to raise my children in someday.
So the next time someone changes their facebook profile picture to an equal sign and cries for equality, there's a good chance they don't know what they're really asking for. Before you join that increasingly popular social crusade... please consider this logical, and modern argument against homosexual marriage.
Thank you for your time.
- William Charles Case
Thursday, April 4, 2013
My take on the gun debate
Its a little frustrating to me that the entire subject of guns seems to be taboo in todays politics. I am a multiple gun owner, avid hunter and recreational shooter and completely understand the culture in America around guns. However, I just cant comprehend how people can think that it is somehow a subject which deserves no attention. I am one of those who would say that "guns dont kill people, people kill people" phrase that seems to be cliche at this point. But I also am not ignorant to the fact that people use guns on occasion to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible. I really dont think that things like an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, or limits on high capacity magazines will have any significant impact on the overall number of gun deaths. The data shows that the vast majority of gun deaths come from suicide and more individual incidents like gang killings and drug violence.
However, I still think that some of these things shouldn't be left out of the conversation completely. Here is the problem, there are not really any metrics to say how many deaths could be prevented or any way to forecast the future if we did implement a limit on high capacity magazines or made everyone get a background check before purchasing a firearm. While we can say with a certain amount of certainty based on certain past gun control measures that these things wont do much to curb the overall numbers, is it really fair to say that it wont do anything? What if a background check stopped even one person who was going to shoot up a theater or a school from getting a gun. After all, the majority of guns used in gun crimes are purchased LEGALLY. Maybe someone who is in the act of a shooting spree has to stop "mid-massacre" to re-load and is subdued while doing so and a few less people are murdered like in the Gabbi Giffords shooting.
I generally am not a person who likes to use anecdotal evidence and extreme cases when talking about congress proposing legislation but in this instance would it really be too much to ask to have to pass a background check before getting a gun? Would it really be too much of an inconvenience to have to re-load your clip after 10 rounds instead of 12 or 16? You may think it is, and thats certainly your right. I dont think it would be that terrible if a majority of elected officials decided that such a small sacrifice could save even ONE life. Some of you will take the hard stance that any single measure to address guns is a complete violation of your rights and nothing can be done whatsoever. That is also your right. My understanding among others of the history of the second ammendment probably differs from yours and that is why I think we should at least be able to sit down and have an intelligent conversation about anything that could make a difference.
However, I still think that some of these things shouldn't be left out of the conversation completely. Here is the problem, there are not really any metrics to say how many deaths could be prevented or any way to forecast the future if we did implement a limit on high capacity magazines or made everyone get a background check before purchasing a firearm. While we can say with a certain amount of certainty based on certain past gun control measures that these things wont do much to curb the overall numbers, is it really fair to say that it wont do anything? What if a background check stopped even one person who was going to shoot up a theater or a school from getting a gun. After all, the majority of guns used in gun crimes are purchased LEGALLY. Maybe someone who is in the act of a shooting spree has to stop "mid-massacre" to re-load and is subdued while doing so and a few less people are murdered like in the Gabbi Giffords shooting.
I generally am not a person who likes to use anecdotal evidence and extreme cases when talking about congress proposing legislation but in this instance would it really be too much to ask to have to pass a background check before getting a gun? Would it really be too much of an inconvenience to have to re-load your clip after 10 rounds instead of 12 or 16? You may think it is, and thats certainly your right. I dont think it would be that terrible if a majority of elected officials decided that such a small sacrifice could save even ONE life. Some of you will take the hard stance that any single measure to address guns is a complete violation of your rights and nothing can be done whatsoever. That is also your right. My understanding among others of the history of the second ammendment probably differs from yours and that is why I think we should at least be able to sit down and have an intelligent conversation about anything that could make a difference.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Goals for this blog
Alright people this is my first crack at blogging so cut me some slack. I have been graciously invited to contribute to this blog by someone who I have had great discussions with before on several topics. On the particular topic of politics, I feel like I have been able to have a more civil discussion with him than anyone I can think of. We certainly disagree on many political issues but somehow we always manage to leave out the usual heated rhetoric and quick reverting to talking points. I am kind of hoping we can have the same sort of discussion on this blog. By no means am I perfect. Anyone who has had a conversation with me on politics knows that I can quickly divert from constructive conversation by letting my emotions get the best of me and falling into the trap. I dont want to pretend that I am this "straight down the center" thinker on all things politics.
However, I would like that to be the ultimate goal of our conversations here. I know it wont always happen. I know for sure that I will have many people that think I am radical on some issues and they wont be able to handle it without emotions getting the best of them. I know for sure I wont be able to take some of the comments on my posts with a grain of salt. Civility is just something I want to strive for on this blog. Its not an original idea by any means, but its just something you dont here very often now days. Anyone can turn on Fox News or MSNBC and here what they WANT to hear but this can hopefully be a place where we can disagree whole heartedly on something but still find a way to have a constructive conversation about it.
Some of the other contributors on this blog may or may not have the same goals for the conversation that I do and thats fine. They will likely post provacative things just as I'm sure I will and whatever happens on a topic that any of the other contributors deserves no criticism from me. For a lot of people politics is a very taboo subject. I understand that some people think that voting is enough and the rest should be left out of every day conversations. While I completely respect that view, I happen to think that constructive debate and opposing views are essential to a democracy and have a very important place in conversations not just by politicians and representatives but by the people that elect them. I am hoping this blog can be a place where we can have these discussions and not flood facebook with stuff that most people frankly dont want to read on a social network site. Again, I surely will be a hypocrite on this blog when it comes to being objective and always striving for taking the high road but I dont think that is a good enough reason to not try to keep focus on actual issues instead of the every day politics that we hear everywhere. I look forward to our discussions and I hope everyone else does too!
However, I would like that to be the ultimate goal of our conversations here. I know it wont always happen. I know for sure that I will have many people that think I am radical on some issues and they wont be able to handle it without emotions getting the best of them. I know for sure I wont be able to take some of the comments on my posts with a grain of salt. Civility is just something I want to strive for on this blog. Its not an original idea by any means, but its just something you dont here very often now days. Anyone can turn on Fox News or MSNBC and here what they WANT to hear but this can hopefully be a place where we can disagree whole heartedly on something but still find a way to have a constructive conversation about it.
Some of the other contributors on this blog may or may not have the same goals for the conversation that I do and thats fine. They will likely post provacative things just as I'm sure I will and whatever happens on a topic that any of the other contributors deserves no criticism from me. For a lot of people politics is a very taboo subject. I understand that some people think that voting is enough and the rest should be left out of every day conversations. While I completely respect that view, I happen to think that constructive debate and opposing views are essential to a democracy and have a very important place in conversations not just by politicians and representatives but by the people that elect them. I am hoping this blog can be a place where we can have these discussions and not flood facebook with stuff that most people frankly dont want to read on a social network site. Again, I surely will be a hypocrite on this blog when it comes to being objective and always striving for taking the high road but I dont think that is a good enough reason to not try to keep focus on actual issues instead of the every day politics that we hear everywhere. I look forward to our discussions and I hope everyone else does too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)