Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Welcome Back Jon Stewart!

In case you did not notice, Jon Stewart is back on the air; so is Stephen Colbert. Both shows had been off the air because of the writer's strike, and I missed them both. Stewart is now calling his show "A Daily Show" instead of "The Daily Show," because he says that "The" Daily Show is the one put on with his full staff of writers.

It was on Stewart's show that I finally got to see the video of Hillary supposedly breaking down in tears. In reality, her voice cracked a little and she was more emotional as she spoke than usual. But she did not cry; she came nowhere near crying. I'm ashamed of myself for "believing" that she did.

And Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, even as the pundits had all but coronated Barack Obama as the winner. I still support Hillary Clinton and hope she is the Democratic nominee. I think she'll make a fantastic president.

Oh, and McCain won in New Hampshire, too. I wouldn't be surprised if that re-energizes ol' Yosemite's campaign and he becomes the eventual Republican nominee because, let's face it, he is probably the best of a very sorry lot... but that ain't saying much.




Don't you ever go to YouTube. After I got the news that Hillary was caught on tape crying, that was the first place I went to to view it myself. Normally videos are up within an hour. I agree with you, she wasn't ballin' her head off and most reports were way overblown. Where we begin to part ways, my friend, is the benefit to this country as to her candidacy.

csm said...

You're right, I should have checked YouTube right away. Don't know why I didn't - I'm usually more skeptical of most news items.

And I know we part ways on Hillary. She's not perfect, but I think she is the best of the candidates with a shot at actually winning (and I recall your position on winnability as a component of deciding for whom to vote, too). Bottom line, this time around I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that happens to be. I still think it will be Hillary Clinton.



I was hoping you could clear up some confusion I am experiencing with your positions. Before we both posted we would forgo any SS benefits in the future if they were to stop taking the requisite taxes out of our paychecks now. I take that as an individualist's view that we can handle our own finances and can plan for the future without the help of Big Brother. I agree and commend you for sharing that view(but correct me if I am wrong). My confusion comes in with your major(?) backing for Sen. Clinton. This position on SS would seem to be diametrically opposed to Clinton's seeming desire to have the "village" raise everybody. In just about every point in her platform there is a federal government program waiting to take flight. I believe an individual's rights come first, before and on top of any other governmental structure this country has employed. These individual rights are supposed to be protected BY these government entities. I don't find this to be the case with Clinton(and most of the others are guilty of the same)as she(I believe)is of the thinking the federal government knows best and the best is what we will be fed. What do you say friend?

I asked the question before, but got no takers(so I'll try again), does anyone here think if universal healthcare becomes the law of the land, will we have MORE freedom or LESS?

csm said...

I responded to your SS question in a "blue sky" kind of way. I do not think there is a snowball's chance in hell of SS going away. As an idealist, I support no SS, the FairTax, and liberatrianism. As a realist I know this country is not ready for any of that. Of the remaining candidates (other than Dr. Paul), there are several that I can ethically support. At this point in time, I back Hillary.

You mention Hillary's "village" in a disparaging tone (I think). If so you are mischaracterizing her position. She does not advocate that everyone needs to be nannied by the government, but that it takes a village (multiple people and entitities) to raise individuals properly. Not everyone agrees with this, of course, nor do they have to.

I know you are anti-federal programs. They are not going anywhere. I would rather have Hillary guiding them than Huckabee or Romney or...

You believe that an individual's rights come first. OK, that sounds good. In many cases I can embrace that. On the other hand, as a humanist I embrace programs that support those who need it. Health care falls into this category. So does a minimum wage. Pure individual rights would allow anyone to pay any wage. It would allow worker exploitation. It would allow bigotry to guide who you hire and fire (e.g. "We only hire white people here").

You ask "if universal healthcare becomes the law of the land, will we have MORE freedom or LESS?"

I answer that freedom is not the main driver. You lose freedom when you pay taxes (I want to be free not to pay); you lose freedom when you choose to drive a car (I want to drive without a license); you lose freedom when you own a dog (I want to let my dog run free without a leash, shitting on every lawn in the neighborhood). Adults understand that there a things we have to do in order to live in a civilized world. My civilized would just includes health care coverage, in addition to funding the treasury, ensurety driver safety, and keeping the shit off the grass.



You make my thinking on individual rights sound one sided. Using your analogy of letting my dog run free is only exposing one side. The lawn owner is an individual too. And that lawn owner has the right to have a shit free lawn if he wants. If there becomes a problem between the dog owner and the lawn owner there is a court system to settle the dispute.

One individual's rights you are forgetting in the healthcare debate is the right for a physician to charge what he sees fit for the job he performs. With universal healthcare, physicians will lose that freedom(they already have with the example you mentioned before, Medicare). And when you dictate to educated people, such as doctors, how much they can charge for the work they do, you inevitably end up with less and less doctors. This is exactly what is going on in England right now. And I'll bet that wasn't mentioned in "Sicko". Doctors are like plumbers and electricians; when you need them they are the most important people in the world at that time. But, csm, you certainly aren't putting forth the proposition that the government should set the pay scale for plumbers and electricians, are you?

csm said...

Nope, I'm not Bawdy. But doctors ain't plumbers. My dad could fix most of our plumbing problems and he wasn't a plumber. But I wouldn't let him medicate me.

Although I am for better health care for the uninsured, I am not an advocate for any particular system. I admit to a bit of ignorance on details of the topic. I do want those too poor to afford coverage to be provided some basic health care services by our government. I think this falls within providing for the general welfare of the nation.

I think the biggest problem with the health care system today is large pharma and lawsuits. If there was a way to attack those issues and resolve them, then perhaps a level of health care becomes more affordable.

But I think we, as a nation, need to do something to improve the health care system, and that will likely be a federal program (or twelve).

Ceroill said...

Ahh, this kind of discussion is the main reason I do so enjoy coming here. In many ways I go along with csm about healthcare.

On a different topic though, I think that sometimes inefficiency in a government is a good thing. Example: The recent news item featuring FBI wiretaps that got cut off because nobody paid the phone bill for them.