Now with hand-picked press conferences.
According to Chicago Sun-Times Journalist Carol Marin, many of the journalists at press conferences for President-elect Barack Obama (what? You thought this was about G.W.?) "don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."
So certain Journalists at the press conferences are pre-approved to ask questions, and if you're not on that pre-approved list, don't even bother trying to get the President-elect's attention.
Yeah, so what if this has been going on down through the ages? So what if G.W. did it, too. It's too late to go Bush Bashing (unless you've got a Holden Ute, then I'm in), we're entering the Age of Obama, baby!
And all I have to say to that is: Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Ron Paul voter here. I couldn't get behind Bob Barr, even if RP "endorsed" him.
I am way beyond sick with the media, though. Maybe that's why I blog and play games? Hrm...
This just in! The media has complete control over public opinion. Don't bother trying to point out the facts because the people don't care. Anyone who appears to care will be endlessly ridiculed and called any of the following: nutjob, conspiracy theorist -also to be combined with nutjob- kook, terrorist, backward, or any other vague insult that is designed to alienate their facts.
When you control the questions, you control all possible results. Now imagine being a reporter who is fired because you didn't ask "the proper questions."
Hooray for socialism. I can't wait until we all work for government and when we get fired from the state-owned Burger King, we can't go across the street to state-owned McDonalds because we have a reputation for being a bad apple.
If old G. W. had controlled the media access this well, everyone would have loved him too. Having integrity sucks some days.
Hold on to your wallets folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride!
The American Healthcare system always puzzled me...
Is it true that about 40 million americans have less access to health care than a citizen of Cape Verde?
How do the libertarians stand on this? Do you believe each one for himself or are taxes acceptable in order to make healthcare affordable (if not free) for everybody.
And yes, I am one of those big bad children eating european communists who wants to smother all freedom and blood out of honest, hard working ayn randesque enterpreneurial people. ;)
Hi, Wyrm.
I can't confirm the validity of the 40 million Health Care-less Americans, but my view on Health Care (in the current U.S. climate) is that the individual should be responsible for their own Health Care.
Whether this means you negotiate subsidized Health Care through your employer, or you buy your Health Care directly from the Health Insurance company, that's up to you.
For those people who are reluctant to buy their own Health Insurance, or cannot afford it, then by all means have the government set up clinics where these people can go for their "emergencies", where they'll be assessed and seen/treated on a first come, first served basis (expect lengthy delays). And if they still turn up at a hospital that only accepts patients with Health Insurance (or the ability to pay up front), as long as they're not in immediate & obvious danger of dying the hospitals should be entitled to refuse them treatment and direct them to these government clinics.
Essentially, your health, and Health Insurance, are your own responsibility. If you don't have Health Insurance (for whatever reason) and you aren't prepared to take care of yourself by eating healthy and exercising regularly, you've got nobody to blame but yourself when you get sick.
This is what being a Libertarian means, that everyone accepts responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Unfortunately, in today's society, 'accountability' seems to have become a dirty word, as illustrated brilliantly in Bel Elton's novel Popcorn.
Sorry for the gruesome example of why are you wrong, but here it goes:
Imagine that this guy likes your wife. And he thinks your kids would make fine servants.
So he can wait until you get out of your house, shoot you with his rifle and take your wife and children and burn your house to the ground.
I mean, if you are against universal healthcare, why should you be for universal security services such as the police? Or pay taxes to set up courts. Or even why should you pay taxes for an army?
I think a true libertarian must go all the way in his ideology.
Therefore, if you couldn't stop that man from shooting you and take your family, it's your problem. Not everybody else's. Why should people pay for your protection?
It's accountability. Your protection and your family's is your own responsibility. And if you think that a shotgun in the cabinet and a 9mm in a shoe box are going to protect you then guess again.
The moral of the story is, there are more people dying from untreated diseases than from crime. Why is it alright to pay taxes for the police but not for healthcare?
While I can see some reason behind Libertarian and Objectivist ideals, I also think most people forgot of what made our species successful.
We are gregarious animals and the only reason we thrived was because we chose to group and share risks.
The Libertarian and Objectivist ideals were just the means of control. Divide and conquer is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and since Tocqueville (and others) have been used by the "elites" of this world in order to better control the masses.
And no, I don't have a tin foil hat. Once again sorry for the gruesome example.
By the way, I enjoy this blog very much.
Dat's some lots o big werds an tots in der dat I dun unerstan. 'esplain ta me 'gain how is, I'm suppose keep werkin' and payin fer yer TV and Stereo, and yer docter bill.
Wyrm, you're being an extremist (would you like me to name some other extremists for you, so you have an idea of the company you keep?). The federal gov't does indeed have a place and purpose. I don't mind paying taxes for things which the society as a whole benefits, even if I don't specifically, namely infrastructure and national security. I also don't mind paying more taxes for local security and infrastructure (state/city). When my dollar goes to an individual's benefit though, I have a very big problem with that.
What does this have to do with controlling the media again?
Well, you can name Pinochet, from Chile, for once. He was an extremist. :)
Also, Friedman and Hayek were other two extremists. :D
Seriously though, isn't it a matter of opinion?
You have some valid points, but how is universal healthcare different from that? If everybody has access to healthcare, that would mean more people fit for work, fit to be productive and able to provide for their families.
I agree with some of what you're saying but i also feel that society has to take care of it's number one resource: the people.
It bothers me that people who work all day long can barely afford a home let alone expensive healthcare. I'm not talking about USA for I've never lived there, (although I would bet the farm that there are some cases as well) but In many coutries we are seeing a whole new type of poor. The poor who works from sunrise to sundown and earns such a low wages that he has to choose between healthcare insurance or having a home and food on the table.
That hurts society as a whole for misery breeds social conflit. A very simple thing as Universal healthcare has a great impact on poverty, crime, unemployement, disability pensions, etc.
So I do mind paying the unemployement benefits to perfectly able people, i do mind paying disability pensions to able people who work the system and so on. But I don't mind paying for healthcare. That, in my opinion, is the very least a healthy society can do for it's people.
Check out the Dutch healthcare system and tell me if it isn't a good balance?
Two things on health care:
Beyond the personal responsibility argument, if we nationalize health care, that means we're trusting our health to the same idiots who think bailing out Wall Street will help everyone, and raising taxes to increase welfare (er, pass out stimulus checks) is a good idea.
These people shouldn't be trusted with ten bucks for groceries, much less health care money.
Second, the problem is insurance. Subsidizing high prices encourages them. Making service and commodity providers compete in an open market, free of cartels and government price fixing, is how to reduce prices. Insurance is already a problem. Giving control to the government who can't balance a budget to save their life is asking for higher prices and more red tape.
Really?
Things here in the Netherlands seem to disprove your theory, Tesh.
There is an open market but regulated. No one is left out. The state owns nothing, but it regulates.
Besides, what are you all complaining about? The period where the US were more prosper, when everybody had a piece of the pie and the american dream was established the one comprised roughly between 1945-1975. That was when the US really asserted themselves as the world super-power.
Guess whose politics were prevalent? Keynes. Yep, big ole Keynes with it's Big Gov' and social security.
And now we have a trillion dollar national debt and a Ponzi Social Security poised to crash in a few years. Keynes just kicked the tab down the road a generation or three. They "heyday" of US power game at the cost of obligations that are now coming home to bite us in the butt.
I'm not against government regulation of an open market. Unfortunately, that's not what we have, nor is it what we're talking about changing to.
Well, I see the post has become about healthcare, so what the hell, I'll take a shot ;-)
Sorry in advance if deviating from the topic bugs you John.
Is the issue cost, or is it humanity? If it is cost then I think it is important to point out that your average worker would pull in an extra 30% if his LABOR wasn't reclassified as INCOME. Income tax is bullshit, unconstitutional and was originally supposed to disappear once World War I was finished. With that being said, if the government still made it's money from tariffs instead of fleecing its citizens, I'm sure healthcare would be much more affordable to the average Joe and this would be a non-issue. I've heard people say prices would go up, but this is non-sense. This wouldn't create anything new, just redistribute.
But since we, the people, are content with border line financial feudalism -or the majority are anyway- then the issue becomes humanity. Should we feel sorry for our brothers and sisters without healthcare and toss them a bone? Or should we let them rely on their own income for healthcare. At this point, I almost think that universal healthcare is the answer since we are NEVER going to get our 30% back, so we may as well see something from it; all of us.
My issue with the welfare state isn't so much the welfare but the doublethink required to believe this line of shit. We care about everyone! But your not going to get a penny of your own money back unless you are broke and have 6 kids. It inspires people who don't have the highest level of motivation to contribute jack to society and take as much as possible. It also gives an unfair advantage to people on welfare as they can charge their bills to the state while I have to put mine on a credit card that charges 13%. Am I a libertarian? Yes. Is there a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist who thinks police, water, and a justice system are unnecessary? I think anyone with common sense and no agenda would say there is. just my 2 cents.
First of all, I am all for healthcare, not welfare.
I personally think that if you are employed and make a valid contribution to society then you should access the best health care possible if you get sick. I don't mean single-room, meals cooked by a chef and so on. But a cancer diagnostic should not be a death sentence if you have a low-income job.
This is my only beef. Health care should be universal and jobs that don't allow people to provide for their basic needs (food, shelter, health care) shouldn't even exist.
So how come paying taxes for police forces sits well with libertarians but pay taxes to provide health care to everybody does not? Personal accountability can be applied to both cases.
Perhaps our political views are largely defined by what we can afford (or think you can afford) at a given moment. That is why left-wing hard working people (yes, contrary to the us popular belief, they do exist) become right wing as soon as they prosper. :)
Wow! I think this is the longest discussion any of my posts have generated, without me needing to step in an censor anyone.
Wolf, the Tag for this thread is politics, and our discussion is still political in nature so as far as I'm concerned there's been no hijacking yet.
Wyrm, I think how a Libertarian can think it's okay to pay taxes for the police but not socialized healthcaer is because we don't have to fully embrace every aspect of the party with which we affiliate.
For a long time I considered myself a Republican (because I'd been duped by the system into thinking I was either a Democrat or a Republican) and yet I'm pro-homosexual rights, up to and including a state-recognized union which offers gays exactly the same benefits as my wife & I enjoy in our state-recognized union, and I'm also pro-choice. Neither of which would sit very well with a dyed in the wool Republican.
I also embrace one of the more draconian aspects of Communism, that is, the individual has no right to private ownership of land. You can purchase a house, but you're only purchasing the house, the land belongs to the State, and always will. This way when the State needs to make room for their new Intergalactic Highway they come in, offer you fair market value for your house, and give you X days to pack up & move out. I agree with this, because I don't believe one individual should be able to negatively impact society, and one person standing in the way of a rail line is definitely doing just that.
This ideal also flies in the face of Libertarians, but it doesn't make me a Communist.
I think it would be a rare case where a person fully identifies with every single aspect of their chosen party. I'm sure there are people like that, but I'm sure most people make concessions when it comes to choosing a political party.
Otherwise how can a pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-death penalty guy decide on which party to support?
Post a Comment