I suspect one of the reasons a majority of people are opposed to health care reform as currently proposed by the federal government, specifically H.R. 3200, is the fact that it grants too much authority to them over the most personal matters, those best left to individuals, families or at worst the states.
Obama said during a February 2008 debate, "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo," Obama said. "And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision-making process of the families. It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped," he said. "And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better," Obama continued.
Obama also said during an April 2007 debate that he should have fought to cut off Schiavo's food and water earlier. "And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that Schiavo's parents were not allowed to pursue arguments in federal court."
As gut-wrenching as that whole situation was to me at the time and as much as I still shake my head in disbelief that government at all levels failed to protect this innocent life, I bring it up again only to make this point: Obama was opposed to federal government intervention in a health care situation worthy of it, when a citizen was denied due process by Florida's state courts who ordered the removal of food and water, but he is now in favor of federal government intervention in a health care situation where the Constitution grants them no right whatsoever so to do.
Are the President and Congress people of their word? They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Central to this is doing only what it allows and refraining from what it does not allow. Behold some of the very recent, relatively small programs taken on by the federal government, such as stimulus checks and cash for clunkers, that have, to be kind, been mismanaged. What makes them think they can manage our $2+ trillion health care system, even with its current imperfections, any better than we the people? They have yet to earn my confidence.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Charity
I heard a talk-radio host this past week chastise one of his callers that, as someone who goes to church, he should be ashamed of himself for not supporting government-run health care reform...or is it health insurance reform now. The host suspected the caller was a Christian but was actually a Jew. The point was that he read and believed in the Bible, or at least some portion thereof.
I was left with the impression that the teachings of the Bible should guide policy-making, or our voice and vote, and more specifically justify government-run health care. Now, I thought we religious people were supposed to keep our faith out of the public square. (Maybe the biggest example is abortion. People in the pro-life movement abhor abortion because it takes an innocent human life which the government is supposed to protect at all levels of development, but that's Biblical.) When, if at all, should the Bible guide policy-making? Is it a violation of the ACLU's beloved "wall of separation", a phrase Thomas Jefferson coined in a personal letter to a church not a clause of the Consitution, to use the teachings of the Bible to justify public policy?
The host believed in taxation to support those in need; the caller believed, as do I, in individual charity, not in mandated charity, to support those in need. (Is it really charity if it's mandated? Give to those in need or go to prison. Well, let me think about it.) The caller also believed in individual responsibility and was then asked where in the Bible that was taught. He could not immediately cite a verse, but now that it's acceptable use the Bible to justify our positions in the policy-making, at least for this debate, here are just a few of the many exhortations to work and to give to those in need.
Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4
He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5
He who works with his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment. Proverbs 12:11
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slavery. Proverbs12:24
The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Proverbs 13:4
All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23
He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Epesians 4:28
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 14:31
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done. Proverbs 19:17
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 1 Thess 4:11-12
So should the teachings of the Bible guide policy-making? Yes, in the sense that they should guide its adherents heart, voice and vote whether they be citizens or politicians and in the same way that the Koran would guide a Muslim citizen or politician.
As a Christian, I feel that it's the mandate of the individual, not the government, to support those in need whatever the need may be. Some of us may be discouraged by our lack of money to do so, but wouldn't we all have more of it if the government at all levels would not take so much. Even if money is tight, we have an even more valuable and personal resource...time.
I was left with the impression that the teachings of the Bible should guide policy-making, or our voice and vote, and more specifically justify government-run health care. Now, I thought we religious people were supposed to keep our faith out of the public square. (Maybe the biggest example is abortion. People in the pro-life movement abhor abortion because it takes an innocent human life which the government is supposed to protect at all levels of development, but that's Biblical.) When, if at all, should the Bible guide policy-making? Is it a violation of the ACLU's beloved "wall of separation", a phrase Thomas Jefferson coined in a personal letter to a church not a clause of the Consitution, to use the teachings of the Bible to justify public policy?
The host believed in taxation to support those in need; the caller believed, as do I, in individual charity, not in mandated charity, to support those in need. (Is it really charity if it's mandated? Give to those in need or go to prison. Well, let me think about it.) The caller also believed in individual responsibility and was then asked where in the Bible that was taught. He could not immediately cite a verse, but now that it's acceptable use the Bible to justify our positions in the policy-making, at least for this debate, here are just a few of the many exhortations to work and to give to those in need.
Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth. Proverbs 10:4
He who gathers crops in summer is a wise son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. Proverbs 10:5
He who works with his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment. Proverbs 12:11
Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slavery. Proverbs12:24
The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. Proverbs 13:4
All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. Proverbs 14:23
He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Epesians 4:28
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. Proverbs 14:31
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done. Proverbs 19:17
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody. 1 Thess 4:11-12
So should the teachings of the Bible guide policy-making? Yes, in the sense that they should guide its adherents heart, voice and vote whether they be citizens or politicians and in the same way that the Koran would guide a Muslim citizen or politician.
As a Christian, I feel that it's the mandate of the individual, not the government, to support those in need whatever the need may be. Some of us may be discouraged by our lack of money to do so, but wouldn't we all have more of it if the government at all levels would not take so much. Even if money is tight, we have an even more valuable and personal resource...time.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Extreme vs. mainstream speech
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said Republican operatives and special interests are funding and organizing these groups in an effort to stop Obama's top domestic priority...health care reform also described by me and others as the public option, government-run health care, single-payer health care or universal health care.
"The right wing extremists' use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are," he said. "This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 ... and it is bound to backfire again."
How many times was Bush depicted as a devil by left wing extremists as some Congressman (TX Rep. Doggett) are now being depicted? Remember a few years ago when Hugo Chavez spoke to the UN, right after Bush had spoken, and described the residual smell of sulfur?
How many times was Bush hung in effigy by Iraq war protesters both in this country and across the world as are some Congressman at these townhalls?
How many times, prior to both the 2000 and 2004 elections, was Bush's National Guard service questioned by his opponents as Obama's citizenship is now being questioned by members of both parties? It's not the facts that matter only the seriousness of the charge, right?
Remember when IL Senator Durbin described the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag? How many times did the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein refer to Bush as Hitler during his trial?
I thought all of these things were out of the mainstream prior to the last two election cycles but they seemed to serve the Democratic party pretty well? I sure thought they took the GOP to the cleaners. All of those words and actions were lauded as free speech. Will it backfire on the GOP or will it serve them well in the next election?
"The right wing extremists' use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are," he said. "This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 ... and it is bound to backfire again."
How many times was Bush depicted as a devil by left wing extremists as some Congressman (TX Rep. Doggett) are now being depicted? Remember a few years ago when Hugo Chavez spoke to the UN, right after Bush had spoken, and described the residual smell of sulfur?
How many times was Bush hung in effigy by Iraq war protesters both in this country and across the world as are some Congressman at these townhalls?
How many times, prior to both the 2000 and 2004 elections, was Bush's National Guard service questioned by his opponents as Obama's citizenship is now being questioned by members of both parties? It's not the facts that matter only the seriousness of the charge, right?
Remember when IL Senator Durbin described the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay to a Nazi concentration camp or a Soviet gulag? How many times did the former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein refer to Bush as Hitler during his trial?
I thought all of these things were out of the mainstream prior to the last two election cycles but they seemed to serve the Democratic party pretty well? I sure thought they took the GOP to the cleaners. All of those words and actions were lauded as free speech. Will it backfire on the GOP or will it serve them well in the next election?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Deconstructing the language of the left
Here is an 7/31/09 excerpt from a Joe Klein op-ed in Time magazine, the same magazine that has only put President Obama on its cover 12 times in the past year. This one paragraph is loaded with premises which are peddled by the left and for far too long have been accepted by shallow-thinkers. They are entilted to their opinion but there is only one truth.
"There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets - and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts or the wildly irresponsible, unfunded Medicare drug bill that George W. Bush enacted. Occasionally, responsible actions take place in the budget process. Bill Clinton spent most of his political capital on deficit reduction, which helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama has just managed to kill the F-22, an anachronistic fighter jet. Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin - as the teachers' unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn't like. But the passage of landmark legislation like the health-industry reforms that Obama is seeking has become about as common as politicians who refuse to run television ads. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore."
1. Cotton-candy giveaways - Since when is letting the people, yes even the rich, keep more of their own money (i.e. property) called a giveaway? The left assumes that the government is giving us something that belongs to them first and foremost. No. A tax cut is simply the government taking less money from us.
2. Wildly irresponsible and unfunded Medicare drug bill - Why is it wildly irresponsible? Aren't we supposed to take care of our nation's elderly? Isn't that what a compassionate society does? Wasn't the drug bill just an extension of the 35 year old Medicare program which was the hallmark of the Great Society programs of the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House? Maybe it's because GWB enacted it and the GOP is not supposed to be compassionate. And why is it unfunded? Is the Medicare trust fund depleted? No, but it's on its way with over $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Are senior citizens not paying their premiums, or are we workers not paying our +/-1% Medicare withholdings? Not unless we want to go to jail. Since someone else is perceived to be paying the bill, seniors won't look for the best deals and costs will rise.
3. 1990's deficit reduction - Who was responsible for deficit reduction? Would Clinton have even had a balanced budget if the GOP-controlled House not given him one to sign? And did it really lead to an economic boom? Despite Clinton presiding over a tax increase early in his first term, taxes were still much lower than they were before one of the greatest executives, Ronald Reagan, promoted and presided over the largest tax cuts ever seen since income taxes became constitutional.
4. No Child Left Behind - So what if teachers' union "took it on the chin". The name of the bill was "No Child Left Behind" not "No Teacher Union Left Behind". Aren't our great public schools in place for the benefit of our children? I certainly agree that teachers need to be compensated for their work as long as it's commensurate with their students' better or improved test scores, reading and math levels, etc.
5. Landmark legislation - Why lament the slow to no passage of landmark legislation? Why lament the process of debate within each chamber of Congress and out here in the heartland? I for one do not want fast passage of landmark legislation especially on something as big, far-reaching and personal as health care reform. Our system of government was established for just such slow to no passage of legislation.
As we question the news, so we must also question their opinions which sometimes look the same.
"There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets - and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts or the wildly irresponsible, unfunded Medicare drug bill that George W. Bush enacted. Occasionally, responsible actions take place in the budget process. Bill Clinton spent most of his political capital on deficit reduction, which helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama has just managed to kill the F-22, an anachronistic fighter jet. Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin - as the teachers' unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn't like. But the passage of landmark legislation like the health-industry reforms that Obama is seeking has become about as common as politicians who refuse to run television ads. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore."
1. Cotton-candy giveaways - Since when is letting the people, yes even the rich, keep more of their own money (i.e. property) called a giveaway? The left assumes that the government is giving us something that belongs to them first and foremost. No. A tax cut is simply the government taking less money from us.
2. Wildly irresponsible and unfunded Medicare drug bill - Why is it wildly irresponsible? Aren't we supposed to take care of our nation's elderly? Isn't that what a compassionate society does? Wasn't the drug bill just an extension of the 35 year old Medicare program which was the hallmark of the Great Society programs of the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House? Maybe it's because GWB enacted it and the GOP is not supposed to be compassionate. And why is it unfunded? Is the Medicare trust fund depleted? No, but it's on its way with over $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Are senior citizens not paying their premiums, or are we workers not paying our +/-1% Medicare withholdings? Not unless we want to go to jail. Since someone else is perceived to be paying the bill, seniors won't look for the best deals and costs will rise.
3. 1990's deficit reduction - Who was responsible for deficit reduction? Would Clinton have even had a balanced budget if the GOP-controlled House not given him one to sign? And did it really lead to an economic boom? Despite Clinton presiding over a tax increase early in his first term, taxes were still much lower than they were before one of the greatest executives, Ronald Reagan, promoted and presided over the largest tax cuts ever seen since income taxes became constitutional.
4. No Child Left Behind - So what if teachers' union "took it on the chin". The name of the bill was "No Child Left Behind" not "No Teacher Union Left Behind". Aren't our great public schools in place for the benefit of our children? I certainly agree that teachers need to be compensated for their work as long as it's commensurate with their students' better or improved test scores, reading and math levels, etc.
5. Landmark legislation - Why lament the slow to no passage of landmark legislation? Why lament the process of debate within each chamber of Congress and out here in the heartland? I for one do not want fast passage of landmark legislation especially on something as big, far-reaching and personal as health care reform. Our system of government was established for just such slow to no passage of legislation.
As we question the news, so we must also question their opinions which sometimes look the same.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mandatory healthcare?
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin hosted a townhall meeting recently and fielded this question from audience member Robert Broadus.
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Judge Sotomayor & Abortion
In questioning Judge Sotomayor on Wednesday July 15th, TX Senator Cornyn asked her to explain the following words from a 1996 speech: "change, sometimes radical change, can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes" and "a given judge or judges may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction".
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Going green or saving green?
Does every hotel now have one of those "Save the planet" tags in the room? I'm wrapping up a 10 day vacation, and every hotel room we've used has had one. The latest one reads the following:
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)