| Jump to bottom |
Fat So
Come on Fat So; say it ain't so; I agree that obese individuals should not be discriminated against, per se. However, it is not unreasonable to charge them appropriately for the "space" that they take up. For instance, if one fills up two seats in an airplane; then they should have to pay for two seats.
You really cannot be fat and healthy; just as you cannot smoke and be healthy. Obesity costs are skyrocketing; at least 120 billion last year. It's called metabolic syndrome; obesity, Type II Diabetes, hyperlipidemia and hypertension. Being obese is as big of a risk for cancer as is cigarette smoking. Coronary artery disease, stroke, sleep apnea etc.etc. , the list goes on and on. Now we are seeing these lifestyle diseases in adolescents-shocking. It's due to the Western Diet, processed food, junk food, fast food, pop etc. etc.. Humans were not made to ingest this crap. Additionally, folks just don't exercise much; it's no wonder that the Girth of a Nation is expanding unabated. No, Fat So, you are WRONG, sorry. "We have met the enemy and he is us"
Teacher Education
Really, Mr. Bullard? Michigan teachers are dumb?
When did you last teach an AP Calculus class? When did you last PASS a college level physics exam or statistics test, let alone teach an AP class like those taught every day at local high schools?
My Michigan public-school educated kids passed AP tests in physics, chemistry, calculus, US History, and Spanish. They couldn't have done it without smart, skilled, professional teachers.
Your knee-jerk verbal vomit makes me sick.
Our Markets are not "Free Markets"!
What does the American auto industry, the health care industry, wall street firms and the banking industry all have in common; other than they were all on the brink of failure?
These are industries where the production side of the industry is no longer a free market with many producers competing head-to head to earn the business of consumers, or customers, of the industry. Instead each of these industries are controlled by a relatively small number of very large corporations that have transformed these markets into oligopolies.
Adam Smith when he discussed "rational self interest" and competitive markets in his book Wealth of Nations, envisioned many consumers buying goods and services from many producers with everyone looking out for their self-interest. By keeping markets "free", producers pursue rational self-interest and this will best meet the needs of the consumers and the citizens of our country. Under this system of free markets, what is in the producers self interest is to provide the best product possible to the consumer, while striving to be a low cost producer for their niche.
This consolidation of markets began in the late 1960's early 1970's in the auto industry when it was transformed from a free market to an industry that was controlled by three giant corporations and one union. As this transformation was occurring the auto company's and auto union's self-interest became separated from what the consumer wanted and/or needed. Competition between the companies broke down and this gave an opening for foreign competition to enter our markets and the beginning of the end of the American auto industry as we knew it.
Other industries saw what was happening in the auto industry and saw that government was not objecting so naturally they followed the same path with little concern on any ones part that we were losing our free market system to a more centralized market system of oligopolies. As a result we now have major markets where the producing entities self-interest is not always in line with the self-interest of the consumer. What is in the self-interest of the entities in these industries is to keep the oligopoly alive. Thus the creation of special interests and lobbyists.
These oligopolies have bought the protection of our representatives in Washington and state capitals. I am always baffled by the fact that corporations and unions cannot vote in this country, however they are allowed to buy votes with their contributions.
We lost track of a key ingredient that Adam Smith identified as necessary in order for "rational self interest" to work. There must be many producers. In too many industries, the number of producers has shrunk and the ones remaining have gotten "too big to fail". This is true in the auto industry, the banking industry, wall street, health care and will soon be true in the computer software industry.
When discussing the health insurance industry proponents for this specific oligopoly site the fact that the bigger the insured pool, the lower insurance premiums can be. However, I submit that this "bigger pool savings" is more than offset by the fact that the rational self-interest of the companies is not totally aligned with the rational self interest of the insured. The insurance industries self-interest is to keep the oligopoly alive. The self-interest of the insured is to have as many insurance companies as possible clawing to get his business and thus ringing out all excessive cost, including unconscionable salaries for top executives, to earn the consumers business.
The liberals are right that regulation is required and conservatives are right that a free market is the best way to meet the needs and wants of our citizens. The common ground is that regulation is essential to make our markets more free. We have too many industries where companies have too much power, their self interest is not aligned with the citizens of this country and they are too big to fail.
It is time that our politicians breakaway from the shackles of oligopolies, special interests groups and lobbyists. Use antitrust legislation to bring back free markets.
Health care reform: the federal hand is in your pocket again
I suppose it would be an imposition to ask that people in America actually pay their own way? Many of the so called Uninsured are that way out of choice. Many millions more are in this country illegally.
Yet it will once again be left up to the average Joe/Jane in this country to stand by and let the "Government" pick their pockets once again.
Perhaps I should quit my comfortable middleclass life and move to skid row. Then I can be the recipient of all of this windfall from the honest labor of others instead of spending my life supporting everyone else.
Medical Insurance
Big Red One (a political leaning perhaps?)
The Government take over of Health care is nothing more than a very thinly vieled attempt to steal from "me" the Citizen, the fruits of Liberty purchased with the Blood of generations of Hero's.
The middleclass will be defined down (They have to Tax someone to pay the frieght). The poor (and sometimes undeserving) will be catapulted into ever greater "dependance" upon the largess government. The rich will still be rich (Obama is, after all one of them).
But, I suppose that's the "Change" Obama was talking about all along.
In the End, personal freedom as a Citizen of this Republic (no, it's not a Democracy) will be a casualty and we'll still have to listen to some windbag in Washington tell us how if we just paid more to them they could fix it.
Meanwhile: Elected represenatives in Washington get huge pay raises every year (but none "again" for Senior Citizens who paid into the system their whole life) and the taxpays bites the bullet. More and more "layers" of government are being created with ever useless bill Obama signs into Law. The Lion's share of the money going to "feel good" programs of doubtful origin and even more dubious usefulness.
This is in my humble opinion, not the kind of "Change" I can afford.
Medical Insurance
The only winners in this whole debacle will be the insurance companies and the Congressmen who will be the beneficiaries of their generous campaign contributions. The insurance companies will be delivered 45 million new subscribers and are already spreading the word that costs will rise because of it. Thet are already anticipating having to increase their overhead costs which are already at 31% of the total cost of coverage. Of course, profits must increase proportionately to keep pace.
The only answer is to seriously consider the untthinkable....a system of taxpayer suported, universal medical insurance that removes the greedy, disingenuous insurance companies from the picture. Congress started this debacle by excluding that option from consideration and has never given it a fair chance to be copared to a retail, for-profit model. The American public is being fooled into thinking this mess is "reform" when, in fact it is nothing short of mandated, government endorse mney laundering.
Amazing.
I actually did this once on a website for our restaurant! (not the bad words, but a suggestion of affection for my girl at the time). Cheers, Mr. B. Mako out.
Give balloon boy a break
Libby and Nixon paid a price (Notice their GOP connection). Rich, Clinton, Geithner and Rangle are Dems. How aboy Corzine and Dodd? The balloon boys parents used the system to perpetuate a lie...sock it to em!
Marc Rich, Scooter Libby, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were let off the hook. Nobody prosecuted U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for skipping out on taxes he owed. And currently it looks as if Congressman Charlie Rangel, after flouting the tax laws on several occasions, is headed for only a wrist slap.
Fighting fire with gasoline
"As a matter of of logic, feminism contributed to unemployment be putting more workers in the job market. Right or wrong, more workers means more people vying for "x" number of jobs, therefore higher unemployment."
You can call it logic if you think the world is flat. The idea that women entering the marketplace led to higher unemployment is laughable. First, it assumes that all men are entitled to jobs and women are not and that women only get those jobs by taking them from men. Second, it assumes that the job market is static, which it's not. By Bullard logic, we should have all starved to death by now because as more people have been born each year, there was only "x" amount of food to feed us. Somehow we're all still living.
A what?
No, I'm thinking Mr. B meant "anal", as in "anal retentive", as in "uptight, rigid". Which is what these rules, and rulings, are. Why use critical thinking and make decisions when we can invoke "zero tolerance" rules and not think at all? Brilliant example, particularly in an educational setting.
Yeah, you're right. Anal, the short form of anal-retentive, which is referenced down in the blog.
"Anal-retentive" is just too much to squeeze into a headline.
--Bullard
Anal?
Anal? Don't you mean anile, as in the female equivalent of senile....which the editors must be to have let this one get past them. No wonder the News has become a joke around here!
"Anile" could work. But I like "anal," as in this dictionary definition: "A collection of very irritating personality traits that include stubbornness, orderliness, and a desire to control others and their surroundings."
Is that Bigred1 as in the Army's famed infantry division?
--B.
Fighting fire with gasoline
What a clever idea. Let's make some more laws. Why not a protection of bloggers act, which would provide special protection against comments which assert the blogger's inanity? Or a protection of readers act, to provide protection against especially foolish or poorly written editorials or blogs published in the newspaper?
Regardless of the foolishness of the Violence Against Women Act, one whose true purpose was political, the remedy surely is not to install some absurd Violence Against Men act. Unless the object, as it appears to be with the Violence Against Women Act, is to sever relationships.
Or did you forget that your mother taught you that two wrongs do not make a right?
The overarching point of the blog: Gender specific laws, as well as hate crime laws, are to no point other than political posturing.
For years, money has been pumped into getting women into college and the workplace. Now women are the majority of students in U.S. higher education and are on track to become the majority of Americans with jobs.
You can bet there will be no program to balance the books by attracting more men to school or to the workplace.
As a matter of of logic, feminism contributed to unemployment be putting more workers in the job market. Right or wrong, more workers means more people vying for "x" number of jobs, therefore higher unemployment.
--Bullard
olympics
Who wants the Olympics? Who wants to pay the immense costs for many sports that we do not care about? The expenditure would be better spent on libraries, museums and the arts- or a token reduction in the deficit. Brazil is the "winner". Brazil is a country that pleads poverty rather then making reasonable payments for the intellectual capital behind drugs and yet will spend huge amounts of money for the Olympic show.
Agreed. Sports are pretty much out of control.
On the smaller scale, I think colleges and universities should ban recruiting for sports teams. Using walk-ons -- people who actually go to college for an education -- would be true amateur sport.
--B.
Roman Polanski
So now, George is the arbiter of who does time in the U.S. and who doesn't do time.
Justice isn't blind.
Justice is George.
I just want to know where I get in the "Justice is George" line down at the court house.
Roman Polanski
So George's philosophy, apparently, is this:
1) If you commit a crime in the U.S., just flee the country.
2) After "X" years of living "on the lamb", you can return to the U.S. No harm, no foul.
So this is the new legal strategy for rapists.
George, just make a check next to the items below the so we can start our list of what other crimes this new leagl system is applicable to:
___ murderer
___ arson
___ theft
___ assault
___ robbery
___ bribery
Geez, what the heck is Kwame doing in Dallas? He should just leave the country for 30 years and forget the one million dollars. What a dope.
Who in this country should ever have to be punished for a crime?
What a bunch of lemmings. You actually think the law should be enforced?
Get a clue. The law is arbitrary. It's optional.
It's open season in the U.S.
Don't want to do the time? Just leave. We'll forget this ever happened.
| Jump to top |
