Monday, July 27, 2009
Same Old Song and Dance
Amazingly enough another politician has opened his mouth and stuck his foot deeply inside. This time the prize goes to John Conyers, Democrat Congressman from Michigan. He stated "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Such a brilliant statement by one of our elected officials tasked with deciding whether or not to pass the National Health Care Bill. He wonders why on earth anyone would actually read something important that they are attaching their signature to?
I hardly even know how to respond to that line of idiocy. I suppose he just signs anything and everything placed in front of him? Is this man for real? Are we supposed to be as naive as him to believe that whatever happens to be included in this bill, however it is worded and whatever the actual details are (many of which will not be filled in until much later) is good and proper and desirable and legal and if not, well we can always fix it later?
Disastrous and incredibly arrogant and elitist. If you, Mr. John Conyers, cannot be bothered to actually read every single bill that you vote for or against, then perhaps you should look for a job in another profession. You obviously cannot handle the detailed, precision work involved in passing legislation. Perhaps Government Motors has a job you can handle better.
It seems to me to be a very common theme amongst our Federal legislators these days. Hurry up and pass something and work out the details later. Everyone knows the devil himself is in those very details, so who really has an interest in exposing him? Just get the damned thing passed, signed and into law, then we'll discuss it. Wonderful logic.
I'm wondering, if John Conyers thinks it does no good to read a bill that's 1000 pages long unless you have a lawyer and two days to figure it out, why should the American people think this is such a good idea. Didn't Congress just pass a law directing the Credit Card Companies to make their terms and agreements easy to understand and posted prominently on the web for anyone to access?
Why, yes they did do just that very thing last month. It's standard procedure for Washington to tell everyone else how they should act and run their business but always, always exempting themselves. Shouldn't this Health Care Bill be simple enough for the ordinary citizen to understand? After all, the ordinary citizen is who will have to abide by the rules.
And how damn long does it take to type something up and put a link to it on a web site so that anyone could read what's in it. I guarantee anyone that there are many, many ordinary citizens that would take the time to read and understand everything in this bill if it were made easily available to them, as was once promised by both the President and Congress. And they would not be hesitant to report what they learn on every facet of this complicated, bloated monstrosity.
The very reason they do not read large bills and do not make them available for others to read is because they know these bills will not stand under the scrutiny of their details. They practice deception while preaching transparency.
Same old song and dance.
OH
Such a brilliant statement by one of our elected officials tasked with deciding whether or not to pass the National Health Care Bill. He wonders why on earth anyone would actually read something important that they are attaching their signature to?
I hardly even know how to respond to that line of idiocy. I suppose he just signs anything and everything placed in front of him? Is this man for real? Are we supposed to be as naive as him to believe that whatever happens to be included in this bill, however it is worded and whatever the actual details are (many of which will not be filled in until much later) is good and proper and desirable and legal and if not, well we can always fix it later?
Disastrous and incredibly arrogant and elitist. If you, Mr. John Conyers, cannot be bothered to actually read every single bill that you vote for or against, then perhaps you should look for a job in another profession. You obviously cannot handle the detailed, precision work involved in passing legislation. Perhaps Government Motors has a job you can handle better.
It seems to me to be a very common theme amongst our Federal legislators these days. Hurry up and pass something and work out the details later. Everyone knows the devil himself is in those very details, so who really has an interest in exposing him? Just get the damned thing passed, signed and into law, then we'll discuss it. Wonderful logic.
I'm wondering, if John Conyers thinks it does no good to read a bill that's 1000 pages long unless you have a lawyer and two days to figure it out, why should the American people think this is such a good idea. Didn't Congress just pass a law directing the Credit Card Companies to make their terms and agreements easy to understand and posted prominently on the web for anyone to access?
Why, yes they did do just that very thing last month. It's standard procedure for Washington to tell everyone else how they should act and run their business but always, always exempting themselves. Shouldn't this Health Care Bill be simple enough for the ordinary citizen to understand? After all, the ordinary citizen is who will have to abide by the rules.
And how damn long does it take to type something up and put a link to it on a web site so that anyone could read what's in it. I guarantee anyone that there are many, many ordinary citizens that would take the time to read and understand everything in this bill if it were made easily available to them, as was once promised by both the President and Congress. And they would not be hesitant to report what they learn on every facet of this complicated, bloated monstrosity.
The very reason they do not read large bills and do not make them available for others to read is because they know these bills will not stand under the scrutiny of their details. They practice deception while preaching transparency.
Same old song and dance.
OH
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Czars Galore
czar - noun
| 1. | an emperor or king. |
| 2. | (often initial capital letter ) the former emperor of Russia. |
| 3. | an autocratic ruler or leader. |
| 4. | any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry. |
Obviously the term "czar" in the United States fits definition 4 above and I would like to know just how many czars is enough for this new, transparent president? We may never know because he keeps creating new ones all the time.
It seems to me that creating a position of czar of anything is simply a left-handed attempt to circumvent the Constitutional duties of the president and Congress. There is not one czar position whose authority did not already fall under a constitutional or congressional mandated department in the first place. It just smacks of a president usurping powers from where they currently reside so that he who rules from the White House can exert greater control without getting it from the Constitution or Congress.
Our government is not supposed to work this way. I never liked the idea of a drug czar since the official appointment of a drug czar in the late 60s or early 70s. It seems Richard Nixon coined the phrase "War on Drugs" in 1969 and what better time to create a czar than to handle this idiotic, useless "War". Nixon felt emboldened to create this term since Lyndon Johnson coined the phrase "War on Poverty" to gin up support for his incredibly naive "Great Society".
I see no point in creating more bureaucracy and pushing our country closer and closer to socialism or fascism or communism or statism or marxism or whatever term trips your trigger. America is a Capitalistic country and needs to stay that way. No country has ever created more wealth and knowledge and good than this country foistered by a climate of free enterprise and hard work. Why are we trying to change that?
Here a czar, there a czar, everywhere a czar czar. Hey, that's what we need now, a "czar czar". Someone needs to control and oversee all the other czars. God knows Obama doesn't have the time to do so. I wait patiently for that announcement.
Will the 4th Estate in this country ever wake up and stand up for our Constitution? Doubtful, in the near future anyway. Maybe Obama needs to appoint a Media Czar to oversee what is being reported on in this country and take control of information. I wonder how the media would react if their chosen one did something like that? Perhaps then they would wake up and start to question authority instead of abetting it. Or would they cower in fear of their signal caller?
I am sometimes a dreamer, I know. But I'm not the only one. John Lennon roll over in your grave. I just used one of your lines but not in the way you meant it.
OK, how about Dream On, sing for the years, sing for the laughter, sing for the tears. Sing with me, if it's just for today, maybe tomorrow the good Lord will take you away. Sorry, Aerosmith.
Alright, I'm just getting kinda punchy right now. I've been working long hours and lots of days and I'm really, really tired. I'm so Tired, I haven't slept a wink. Oops. Slipped into a Beatles tune. Sorry.
I'm going to quit now. Hey Peter, do you like this one? Leave a comment.
Bye Bye Love. Was that a song by the Cars or the car czar? Lol.
TTFN,
OH.
