Despite Obama’s promises, pet projects still coddled - The Boston Globe
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
No Obamacare
It is obvious that the attempt by the far left to completely re-invent the health care system so as to be controlled and run by the government will fail. The proposals that would create a monstrous new government bureaucracy are too expensive, too complicated and too disruptive to succeed and the American people know it.
The debate with the radical left must cease.
We need our government to help create a fair marketplace that will afford opportunities for health care for all Americans. We need government money to expand high risk pools so those with pre- existing conditions will be protected. we need government regulations so Americans who change jobs don't loose their health care. We need to help small businesses and develop affordable individual policies. We may even need government oversight of insurance company profits. We need tort reform ( amazingly absent from all current proposals ).
The problems of providing health care to those Americans who can not afford it can be solved without the creation of an immense government infrastructure as proposed by Obamacare. The disastrous proposal in Congress is more about an attempt by the radical left to insinuate their agenda of big government social engineering on the American people than reforming health care. As our national debt moves at a terrifying speed toward ten trillion dollars any attempt to impose more debt based government is doomed.
Any dialogue with the far left, whom by misrepresentation and abetted by the incompetence of the Bush administration, have a noisy but disproportionate voice in the Democratic Party is a waste of precious time. Obamacare is a monumental failure and is deservedly stillborn.
The shrill voices, in the words of Paul Krugman, who espouse the " virtures of big government " should be returned to their elite ivy covered ivory towers so we can get on with the business of solving the health care problem, creating jobs in the private sector, reducing our debt and bringing our forces home as quickly as we safely can.
Americans understand that we must limit our debt and avoid the wholesale devaluation of our currency to avoid leaving our children a very different country.
It is obvious that the attempt by the far left to completely re-invent the health care system so as to be controlled and run by the government will fail. The proposals that would create a monstrous new government bureaucracy are too expensive, too complicated and too disruptive to succeed and the American people know it.
The debate with the radical left must cease.
We need our government to help create a fair marketplace that will afford opportunities for health care for all Americans. We need government money to expand high risk pools so those with pre- existing conditions will be protected. we need government regulations so Americans who change jobs don't loose their health care. We need to help small businesses and develop affordable individual policies. We may even need government oversight of insurance company profits. We need tort reform ( amazingly absent from all current proposals ).
The problems of providing health care to those Americans who can not afford it can be solved without the creation of an immense government infrastructure as proposed by Obamacare. The disastrous proposal in Congress is more about an attempt by the radical left to insinuate their agenda of big government social engineering on the American people than reforming health care. As our national debt moves at a terrifying speed toward ten trillion dollars any attempt to impose more debt based government is doomed.
Any dialogue with the far left, whom by misrepresentation and abetted by the incompetence of the Bush administration, have a noisy but disproportionate voice in the Democratic Party is a waste of precious time. Obamacare is a monumental failure and is deservedly stillborn.
The shrill voices, in the words of Paul Krugman, who espouse the " virtures of big government " should be returned to their elite ivy covered ivory towers so we can get on with the business of solving the health care problem, creating jobs in the private sector, reducing our debt and bringing our forces home as quickly as we safely can.
Americans understand that we must limit our debt and avoid the wholesale devaluation of our currency to avoid leaving our children a very different country.
-- Posted by coydog on Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 11:18 am EST
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Row over Afghan wife-starving law | |||
An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law. The original bill caused outrage earlier this year, forcing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to withdraw it. But critics say the amended version of the law remains highly repressive. They accuse Mr Karzai of selling out Afghan women for the sake of conservative Shia support at next week's presidential election. The law governs family life for Afghanistan's Shia minority. Sexual demands The original version obliged Shia women to have sex with their husbands every four days at a minimum, and it effectively condoned rape by removing the need for consent to sex within marriage.
Western leaders and Afghan women's groups were united in condemning an apparent reversal of key freedoms won by women after the fall of the Taliban. Now an amended version of the same bill has passed quietly into law with the apparent approval of President Karzai. Just ahead of this Thursday's Afghan presidential election, human rights groups suggest the timing is no accident. "There was a review process - Karzai came under huge pressure from all over the world to amend this law, but many of the most oppressive laws remain," Rachel Reid, the Human Rights Watch representative in Kabul, told the BBC. "What matters more to Karzai is the support of fundamentalists and hardliners here in Afghanistan whose support he thinks he needs in the elections." Women's groups say its new wording still violates the principle of equality that is enshrined in their constitution. It allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children. BBC World NEWS | |||
Saturday, August 15, 2009
French minister urges burka ban | |||||
A ban on the wearing of the burka in France would help stem the spread of the "cancer" of radical Islam, one of its female Muslim ministers has said. Urban Regeneration Minister Fadela Amara told the Financial Times that a veil covering everything but the eyes represented "the oppression of women". Ms Amara said she was "in favour of the burka not existing in my country". The comments come as French MPs hold hearings on whether to ban the garment, which covers the body from head to toe. The National Assembly set up the 32-member commission after President Nicolas Sarkozy said the burka was "not welcome" in France, home to Western Europe's largest population of Muslims.
Mr Sarkozy said it was unacceptable to have women who were "prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity". In 2004, France controversially banned Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols in state schools and by public employees. 'Political manipulation' In an interview with the Financial Times on Saturday, Mr Amara said she was in favour of an outright ban on the burka, even though it might be difficult to apply.
"The burka represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic," she said. France was a beacon for an enlightened Islam at ease with modernity, so it was necessary to fight the "gangrene, the cancer of radical Islam which completely distorts the message of Islam", she said. Ms Amara, who is of Algerian descent, argued that banning the burka would help women to stand up to the extremists in their communities. "The vast majority of Muslims are against the burka. It is obvious why," she said. "Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties." She added that the 2004 ban on headscarves in schools had helped Muslim women face up to male chauvinism in their communities. BBC World News | |||||
The burka represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion 
In graphics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bookmark with: