President Obama Signs Health Bill

This is Tuesday mid day of March 23, 2010. This is a historic day because it’s the day that President Obama expanded the rights of millions of Americans in signing that Health Care bill just about at the stroke of nine AM our time. The ceremony was slated to begin at 8:15 and was about fifteen minutes late. Joe Byden spoke first. Like LBJ before him with the Civil Rights bill he used not a small number of pens to do it, so more people can say they have one. Rush Limbaugh today talked about “Love” on his show. He says all the people against the Health Bill have more “Love” than people who are for it. Last Saturday, perhaps I was gone much of the day, I failed to mention all the racial epithets thrown at congressmen by tea baggers on the Capitol grounds. Bart Stupic was called a “baby killer” because it was a deal he made with the President that enabled the bill to pass to begin with. Randy Rhodes believes the phrase of “breaking” a President stems back in South Carolina when they used to “break” slaves. Of course there have been death threats on people who are for the bill and people hit with pellet and bee-bee guns as well as the unauthorized publication of home addresses. There was definitely an element of ugly racism in last Saturday’s gathering. I guess I thought we were past that, but all that stuff from fifty years ago appears to be headed for a revival. Randy Rhodes had the apparently Black majority whip on her show. (It wasn’t TV) Rush Limbaugh said that all liberals wanted to do is go “Nya – nya!” to the Republican opposition. Well, some of that may well be in order. Of course now Mc Cain and other Republicans are ready to introduce a bill in the Senate to repeal this legislation two days after it’s passed. As you know on Sunday evening close to midnight local time the bill passed in the House on a vote of 119 to 111. So they actually had three votes to spare. I guess it was Gingrich that said that this bill would be a death blow to the Democrats just as LBJ signing the Civil Rights and Medicare bills were a death blow to the Democratic Party for forty years. Rush Limbaugh did point out something very apt and that is 25 years ago the republicans could never have gotten away with such a hate campaign because back then the democrats, by in large, ruled the media. Republicans, by his own admission, were restricted to a few elitist and “think tank” magazines for intellectuals. (Before talk radio his crowd was so illiterate they couldn’t express themselves in writing, anyhow) I may remind you and I’ve heard the allegation elsewhere that this bill is designed to “wreck the insurance companies” and drive them eventually out of business in favor of single payer. Many liberals like Thom Hartman hold this as a hope, while others regard it as a threat or the “camel’s head under the tent”. All I can say is for people like Dr. Levy who claim they are optimists, they don’t approach the outcome of this bill with a cheerful, hopeful attitude, like they should. I wasn’t for this particular bill, but like a good American I’m hoping for the best.

Conrad Murry, Michael Jackson's doctor, is in more hot water now because he was ordering a member of Jackson's enterage to gather up all the syringes and stuff while he was supposed to be performing C P R on Mr. Jackson, such that he delayed in calling 911 for at least twenty minutes. Clearly he cared more about his own skin than the health of his patient. I assure you this little scene won't play out at all well in front of a jury. If I were were the good doctor I've be working out my plea bargain right now. People who change their testimony after two months shouldn't out of hand be dismissed as liars. People do have a conscience and a conscience is a powerful thing and it can work on you. You may not have wanted to implicate yourself to the cops that you were instrumental in a cover-up rounding up medical syringes and "cleaning up the murder site" so to speak. But scripture does say, "The truth will make you free".

Here is a moral problem for you Christians. We so often hear that old grudges and transgressions are best forgotten about. President Obama wants to not prosecute anybody in the Bush Administration or examine any kind of civil liberty or civil right abuses by the Bush Administration. Such a stand sounds almost lofty. Till you look at the details. Here is one. Suppose you are a person of interest in an FBI investigation and you are just about to finger a criminal in such a way that will get him (or her) in a lot of trouble. But while the agent is questioning you you're at a religious tent revival and that very minute you "find Jesus" and jump up and down and are so excited and say "I'm so happy!" and the agent looks at you and says, "Before we were distracted you were about to give me a name" and the subject says to the agent, "Oh, I'm so happy I don't want to wallow in the past. Things like that don't matter now, I'm a new person - I'm born again". You soap freaks know where I'm headed with this. Agent Hernandez was questioning Nicole Walker on the disappearence of baby Sydney, and Nicole said she at least remembers who took her. But then she gets a phone call. It's from the warden. He hands the call off to the Governor? "Who, me?" The governor informs her personally she's received a full pardon for her crimes. Nicole and the black guard hi five each other in celebration. Now suddenly Nicole gives a name, the wrong name, to throw the FBI agent off the scene. Agent Hernandez can't help but think there is "something really funny about the timing of that phone call". He has more questions now. But those who hate "investigating the past" would say he's an old grouch and not "in the spirit of this wonderful moment". Some of us are just that way. Sometimes when you fill in the remaining details of the "artist rendering of the crime scene" things get revealed that were they known to everybody the Truth would be obvious and those who are LOOKING for the truth, and those trying to cover it up, would also be made obvious. Capish?

Chief psychiatrist: Allright, Mr. Mc Murphy, you're a good Irish Catholic, aren't you?

Mac Murphy: "Yess siritos!

Chief psychiatrist: Then could you give me your interperation of the parable Jesus gave in the gospels of The Two Debtors? Certainly you know it.

Mac Murphy: Well, I guess the moral there is- - - You cover up my crimes and I'll cover up yours".

Chief psychiatrist: Allright- - (sighs) I'll write that one right next your answer about "Don't wash your dirty laundry in public".

The Nanny State is something I don't like and a lot of people don't like. Suppose they can do brain scans that can reveal not only what a suspect is withholding, but what he intends to do when he leaves your presence. Should the State adopt this technology. Would THIS be a "Nanny State" or just good government. Is "the right to withhold information" a civil right guaranteed by the constitution? The notion of having a national compulsory requirement of every American purchasing health insurance is a far reaching incursion into our lives. Corporations do psychological profiling to either qualify you or rule you out from contention for a coveted job position. Should the government make broader use of such information gathering? Personally I say no. Just how FAR do you go with "promoting the general welfare"? Could this notion of "promoting the general welfare" be an easy concept to abuse? Now Kraft or one of the big food manufacturers is going to cut salt and sodium in their products by ten percent. But this is no small thing. Radio cooking host Melinda Lee says that being a baker, rather than just a "cook" is an exacting science. For instance the ammount of sugar you put in ice cream with fruit in it is dictated by the freezing point of the fruit. Sodium in food products is used as a "binding" and preservative agent, in addition to taste. Corporations run numerous taste test to come up with ever improving recipes for every product. The federal government dictating such a move is no small inconvienience, as also it would be for this anti trans fat craze. People tie everything together and conversations about smoking invariably turn into conversations about fat and sugar in diets and a whole host of other things. The State of California just banned smoking in almost all areas in State Parks and state beaches. Just smoking in the completely open air is a crime. Whatever happened to "protecting the rights of the minority". One computer link said that homosexuality was only in two percent of the population. We spare no expense in protecting that minority, and yet legislators feel they can raises taxes on cigarettes to the moon and don't think anybody's rights are being trampled on. In the area of texting and cell phones while driving, only here do I feel you do have a legitimate public safety issue. Because people who talk on cell phones are four times more likely to be involved in an accident and people who text while driving are eight times more likely. This is twice the rate of a person legally drunk. We need to as legeslators- - dissern which issues are true public safety issues and which is just fad legeslation. For instance, counties and whole states "going dry" was a fad for a while. Drinking is much more dangerous to public safety than smoking but it gets a pass. Nobody has the notion that habitual alcohol consumption is at all injurious to health. How much better to blame the jelly donut. People say this health bill is "for our own good" and people like Thom Hartman say we owe it to society to "share the risk of getting sick" among everyone in society. It could be that the tea baggers, while nuts on so many issues, may be prophets here- - pointing to a gigantic Nanny State no independent thinking American wants to live in.