OMG!! I Find Myself Agreeing With Obama... But Only On ONE Issue!

The AP headline reads, "More school: Obama would curtail summer vacation", which is an excellent idea. Especially since it has no impact whatsoever on ME! I am on a permanent "summer vacation", having completed my requirement to spend seven hours per day in our public "education" system decades ago.

As I matured, and - hopefully - gained in wisdom, I have come to appreciate that which I learned under the tutelage of Miss Pease (my 1st grade teacher and first love), Mr. Robert Twitty (my 7th grade science teacher and assistant principal), and Ms. Clark (my 9th grade speech and drama teacher). After completing elementary school I was not a particularly responsive student during the rest of my basic education. (As I recall, I attended 5 different schools, and at the time took some satisfaction in "holding out" on the system. It was undoubtedly true that the only person I was hurting by coasting was myself... but, like most teenagers, I was the smartest person I knew. Also like most teenagers, I lacked sound judgment, which I demonstrated by "cheating the system" out of being dazzled by my genius.)

In the mid-1960's there developed an educational philosophy of augmenting (which immediately became replacing) increase of student knowledge with increasing feelings of self-worth... and this was before anybody had even heard of Dr. Phil. For a child to be labeled a failure was damaging to his/her ego, and was to be avoided at all costs!

TRANSITIONING FROM THE AGE OF EUPHEMISM
TO THE AGE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

This is approximately the time when we replaced the grade of "F", for failure, with the grade of "U" for unsatisfactory. It was considered less blunt and less damning than the word previously used to describe a students inability - or lack of desire - to master the subject matter presented in our schools. Simultaneously, we began lowering our grading standards so as not to damage the ego of those who otherwise would be labeled as failures. The curriculum was also modified to support that end - replacing established and accepted facts with easier to remember information, and eliminating the less pleasant elements of history that some may find offensive.

As a result, the United States has slipped from world leadership in education, to somewhere around number three or four in science and mathematics. We have even dropped in our functional literacy rate... we have young people graduating from high school who can't read their diploma easily! What do we excel in? Texting, cell phone usage, XBox, PSP, long-boarding and substance abuse! These "abilities" are all absolutely worthless in the workplace.

CORRECTING A FAILING SYSTEM

We DO need longer hours and more days in our public education system... but ONLY if the system focuses on appropriate education, rather than political indoctrination. We need to insure that those students who wish to succeed in the real world master the basic lessons of elementary school before going on to middle or junior high school. Restore the schools ability to "hold back" a student who hasn't acquired the necessary skills to proceed to the next grade or level, and find alternative education for those who are less academically inclined - technical training. We need more workers than we need supervisors and managers - get those who are more "hands on" oriented prepared to enter the workforce at an acceptable entry level. Those who are neither academically or technically inclined will find plenty of work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart... or in politics!

On the other hand, students do need some free time to recharge. Sitting in a classroom all year long, for eight to ten hours a day, and then having homework would not be conducive to the good mental health of students. Children need some time to interact with their family members and peers to develop social skills. An eight hour class day, six days a week, for forty-six weeks with limited homework during the school year would probably be sufficient for us to recover the human resources we have crippled during the past fifty years... by 2040.

We do not need to be Draconian in educating our children, but we do need to return to the basics, restore a higher standard, and require our system to provide more student motivation.

CORRECTING HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.A.

Correcting just the end product of health care is not the answer to America's health care "problem". Health care is indeed a problem, but the problem is systemic and must be attacked at all levels, not just at the hospital level. However, in order to correct the system we must first correct GREED at the individual and corporate level.

How do we do that? In reality, we probably cannot/will not because everybody likes money. For me, personally, I have never made so much money that I ever had an excess of it. I have owned some nice cars in my life, but they were bought used, owned one at a time, and financed for YEARS. I do not own any stocks or bonds, nor do I belong to a country club. I have been fortunate enough to live indoors all my life, but never in opulence (unless you compared my domicile to the ones in some 3rd world ghetto... a Somali native might consider my abode to be opulent by comparison to his). I have never really known "want", but like most working-class Americans, I have always had sufficient. I have always been able to afford everything I truly need, and most of the things I have wanted but could have lived without. I suppose you could call me "content" with my lot in life. Don't misunderstand me though - I am not the reincarnation of Mother Teresa - if I were to win the lottery I would not refuse the money, but I rarely buy a lottery ticket, and I don't worry about not winning. I like to think of myself as "Joe Average" in most respects. Now let's get to the GREED problem...

For many people in this world there is no such word as "enough" - it simply does not exist in their vocabulary. This is a big part of the health care problem, and many other "social ills", but we do not correct it by redistribution of the wealth. That which an individual has earned (through honest and noble means) as the fruits of his/her labors entitles them to enjoy that wealth, however massive or paltry it may be. On the other hand, what honest and noble human being walking the face of this Earth produces fruits worth $10,000,000 or more per annum, other than perhaps the founder of his/her own corporation? There is no level of hired management worth that kind of money! But our major corporations pay that much and more for CEO's, CFO's, COO's and other executives, ostensibly because "they can't get the best and brightest for less" . On top of their obscene salaries, they get expense accounts, stock options, bonuses, company cars/limousines, (and in some cases drivers)/airplanes, and health, dental, life and vision insurance as part of their compensation packages.

If the government feels the need to get involved in something in industry, that would be a good starting point, but the government's job is to regulate industry, not manage it. Therefore the Congress would need to pass legislation something to the effect of:

1. No executive compensation packages worth more than $2,000,000 TOTAL - in any industry. That would eliminate the possibility of one industry "raiding" another for top executives, and anybody should be able to live very nicely on $2,000,000 per year!

2. No "Golden Parachutes" for any executive who is terminated for cause, or who fails to live up to the terms of his/her contract, or who has not increased the market value of the corporation by at least 15% during his/her tenure. Naturally there would be no "Golden Parachutes" for executives who left or were discharged from a failing corporation. We do not reward failure!

3. Corporate stockholders would receive a fair return on their investments, of say 20% - not to exceed $1,000,000 per year in total cash value regardless of the amount of corporate stock held. It would be against the law for American corporations or private investors to invest outside the United States of America.

4. Manufacturers of durable goods items, such as automobiles, appliances, and medical equipment, would have a restricted wholesale markup of not more than 20% of the total manufacturing cost. Retailers of those items would likewise be held to a 20% markup over and above their acquisition cost.

5. Union labor compensation package rates would be reduced to the average level of non-union workers performing the same work within the state where they are employed, plus 20%. A union member may be terminated at any time for just cause, as would any non-union employee, and a union member will enjoy no more recourse than that which would be available to the non-union worker.

6. Successful corporations would pay bonuses equal to one weeks earnings to all employees twice a year. Corporations posting losses during the fiscal year would correct those losses by replacing marketing and sales personnel beginning with executives - unless the product was found to be defective. If sales were down due to defective or inferior merchandise, Quality Control and responsible production workers would be replaced.

7. Outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries would be eliminated, thereby reducing our unemployment rates. Any corporation with existing foreign operations would be allowed to maintain that operation for 5 years, however those corporations would be required to pay to the state(s) in which they have production facilities, full U.S. unemployment benefits for each job created in those foreign countries on a worker-for-worker basis. One hundred employees in Sri Lanka would mean that Corporation "X" would have to pay full unemployment compensation for 100 unemployed Americans in the USA, even if they do not have production facilities in the USA.

Health Industry Specific Requirements
Items 1 through 3 and five through 7, as outlined above, would apply throughout the Health Care Industry. Additionally:

8. A cap of $500,000 maximum payment per medical malpractice lawsuit would be established.

9. Doctors working in a hospital/clinic/urgent care environment would be salaried. General Practitioners would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,250 per week and would work no more than 50 hours per week. Specialists would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,500 and work no more than 50 hours per week. Nursing Staff would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $875 per week, and work no more than 50 hours per week. Support personnel would be paid at the prevailing rate for their employment type within that state.

10. Medical Schools may charge no more than $150,000 for any training provided, to be repaid by the student over a period of not less than 20 years.

11. Health Insurance will be made available nationwide - from any state to any state. For example, all health insurance companies will be able to offer coverage in any of the 50 United States, thereby increasing competition to give the consumer the best value for his/her money.

12. Health Insurance companies may charge, based on reliable actuary data, at a rate not to exceed $10.00 per month per $1,000 of potential annual loss, based upon all physical contributing factors, such as age, sex, weight, race, general physical health at the time of application, pre-existing conditions, use of tobacco, alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, and the potential for loss over the length of the contract.

13. All prescription medicines offered for sale by pharmaceutical companies will be sold at a global rate, not to exceed the rate billed to the poorest of nations.

14. Corporate R&D costs will be recouped over a 5 year period via a tax credit of 20% of the total R&D cost per year, per new product. R&D costs will not be passed along to the consumer.

15. Hospitals/clinics/urgent care facilities providing over the counter (OTC) medicines or medical supplies (i.e. - aspirin, band-aids)can charge for those medicines and/or supplies at a rate not to exceed five times the per unit cost for said medicines and/or supplies.

This is certainly not meant to be the "be all and end all" of health care system regulation, but it could provide someone more intelligent than I with a "jumping off point". And, by the time our legislators - 95% of whom are lawyers - got through rewording and earmarking it, these 15 items would have been transmogrified into 1500 PAGES of government regulation!

There is certainly a remote chance that I could be "fulla" in this area, since I am neither a health care professional nor a lawyer. It just seems to me that something that appears to be so simple doesn't have to become Labyrinthine as it passes through the House and Senate!

Dissent Not Permitted: The Assault on Our First Amendment Rights

A quick review of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America reveals the intent of our Nation's founders was very straightforward:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphases added for clarification)

Now, let's play the Bill Clinton game... "it depends on what abridge means". Here we go:

abridge

Pronunciation:

\ə-ˈbrij\

Function:

transitive verb

Inflected Form(s):

abridged; abridg·ing

Etymology:

Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at

Date:

14th century

1 archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish 2: to shorten abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

synonyms see shorten

Now that we all know the human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling legalese definition) we can proceed.

The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":

spade (1)

"tool for digging," O.E. spadu, from P.Gmc. *spadon (cf. O.Fris. spada, M.Du. spade, O.S. spado, M.L.G. spade, Ger. Spaten), from PIE *spe- "long, flat piece of wood" (cf. Gk. spathe "wooden blade, paddle," O.E. spon "chip of wood, splinter," O.N. spann "shingle, chip"). To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans)

It means to use blunt language - a definition that was established over 450 years ago! The racially charged, derogatory use of the word didn't come about until 1928, and today, most people still understand the phrase to mean use blunt language. As laughable as we may find the implied necessity to use idiotic euphemisms to express honest thoughts, it was the beginning of the assault on free speech. However, that assault is only in effect toward those who disagree with positions of the radical left-wing liberals.

Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".

There's an old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach." This brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's far left politically, and has an unusual view of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing." Excuse me, but where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would click on them... or would that be mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is FREEDOM! Freedom of speech, of expression, of thought, and of action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. - not PC). That's what "freedom" IS - the right of the individual to CHOOSE!

Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be NO democratic process in our REPUBLIC!

Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":

• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
  
  
• In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
  
  
• In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
  
  
• In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."

The radical left has long desired to silence those with opposing viewpoints. They present themselves as "the tolerant ones", but they only tolerate that with which they agree! What exactly have they attacked? Anything in conflict with their world view. Religion, via "hate speech" legislation, which equates the quoting of the Scriptural detestation of homosexuality as "hate speech" - which is a matter they should take up with God instead of the Legislature. They attack "freedom of the press" when that freedom is extended to include all media reportage. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or any media reflecting the expression of conservative thoughts, principals, or ideals. They attack freedom of expression by attempting to marginalize activities such as the recent nationwide Tax Day Tea Party - with well over one million participants - as "Republican backed", and "radical extremists that bear close watching", and "the uneducated masses blindly serving the interests of big money". These are descriptive phrases denoting their FEAR! The left FEARS opposition, simply because their emotional arguments have no basis in a realistic world view, and are too weak to withstand intelligent, objective scrutiny.

I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to insure that any story with political implications has the proper "I own this company, and you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is not likely.

The thirst for power is the great motivator. Gaining personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.

The media has power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of churches, synagogues, and mosques have power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The public school boards have power over the primary and secondary "education" (read: social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes, greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost all people, of almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews - anything which that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is power.

If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it won't be the least bit enjoyable!

There is a remote chance that I could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?