A junior French minister has told young Muslims living in France they should dress properly, find a job and stop speaking slang.
Whereas finding a job is noble goal, the manner in which someone dresses, how they speak, and their culture are something that a government official should not be making broad generalizations about.
And, really, why should this idiot give a damn how anybody wears their cap (front to back or back to front)?
The world has enough diversity for us all to be individuals and not dictate how others live.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
"Whereas finding a job is noble goal, the manner in which someone dresses, how they speak, and their culture are something that a government official should not be making broad generalizations about."
But telling a citizen how much money he/she can make, what health care procedures will be "reasonalble and customary" and what foods should be edged out of a citizen's diet are realms the government has a legitimate voice on?
It depends, Bawdy. If that citizen, and the community at large, is willing to let the ininsured just die instead of treating them at other's expense, then I would agree that it is not something that government should involve itself in. Unfortunately, most people cannot agree with the first part of that sentence. So, if I have to underwrite the healthcare costs of the uninsured, then I want a government involving itself in how that comes about... not just letting it happen willy nilly as it does not (and yes, willy nilly is a technical term that describes most emergency rooms quite well)
Ooops... the word "not" right before the left parenthesis should be "now"
So we need this massive, complex overhaul of the health insurance industry because we are currently "willing to let the uninsured just die"? Those are the only two choices?
In case you haven't noticed, this bill currently being debated has very little to do with insuring those who are currently uninsured (particularly now that the "public option" has been dropped). Most of it is about controlling insurance companies and the citizenry in general.
Well here is where the rubber meets the road. If you come to me looking for a job and you expect me to provide a prayer rug, foot washing stations and give you extra breaks to bow to Mecca, don't be surprised if I go elsewhere.
On the same token, if you come to me with pants hanging below the crack of the smile, throwing in a few yo-yos after each sentence and calling me dawg (fly is OK), don't be surprised if I go elsewhere.
Now, maybe the government official was offering some sound advice for finding a job. If your cultural practices are more important than the job I have for you, no hard feelings. I have standards and that just how this dragonfly rolls. Yes, I am a bigot but I am a consistent bigot.
I think you are spot on there, Mike. One can hire an individual based on needs that can require a certain dress, look, way of speaking, etc. But the government should not try to dictate what that dress, look, or way of speaking is IMHO.
No G, you mis-read. We collectively currently underwrite the uninsured by paying more for insurance and treatment so they won't die. I am saying that the consistent way for those opposed to healthcare reform (not necessarily the bastardized bills being worked on now, mind you) is for them to be in favor of just letting the uninsured die.
I doubt that you could find anyone who is opposed to "healthcare reform" in general. Only a complete fool would think the current system is flawless. But the "reform" most people would be willing to support is nothing like the monstrosity the Dems are proposing.
At this point, after it has been gutted and sliced and destroyed by Dem ineptitude and Rep partisanship, you are most likely correct, G.
I don't think it was what most Americans wanted from the beginning. The more people learned what was in it, the more they hated it. And of course, it doesn't help matters when politicians are supporting and debating a bill when they don't even know all the details that are included.
Almost every poll has consistently shown that when a public option is included in the plan that the majority of Americans support it. And that support wanes when such an option is not included.
That isn't true at all. You must get all your polling information from Huffington Post and MoveOn.
RasmussenReports
Pollster.com
CSM you have gotten on the bottle early for Christmas. Americans do not want a government run option by a huge margin.
Essentially what is coming down if it gets back through the House (and it will) is massive regulations of Insurance companies. Once the collapse of the major corporations takes place under the burden of regulation, then government run option can step in and fill the gap. That is the long range plan.
The best CEOs will either go overseas or into industries where pay in not regulated. Much like MLB. You go where you can get paid.
No, Mike, my statement is backed up by multiple polls over long periods of time. Re-read what I said and try not to get all emotional there Dragonfly (and please, try not to release). A Google search by you would have confirmed that. Of course, most people are so mired in their own position that a Google search is not within the realm of something they'd consider, so...
Time: Fifty-six percent said they supported a "public health insurance option" to compete with private plans.
ABCNEWS/Washington Post: Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.
YouGovPolimetrix: Public option support at 59.1 percent
NY Times/CBS News: Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent...Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade.
Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC)/Democracy for America (DFA) survey: only 33 percent of voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance...Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea.
Washington Post-ABC News: As in previous polls, a majority supports a government-sponsored heath insurance plan to compete with private insurers, although the percentage supporting the general idea has slipped slightly over the past month to 53 percent. Support for the scheme jumps to 72 percent when the public plan is limited to those who lack access to coverage through an employer or the Medicare or Medicaid systems.
Politico: ...one survey finds that 55 percent of Americans support the public option, while another says 79 percent favor one...
All that said, I agree that this issue is divisive and that a lot of folks don't know much about what some of these things might mean. But my statement stands as true and is backed by many, many polls, not just the ones you seem to think I care about...
"By significant margins, survey respondents said they believe the final health-reform legislation is likely to raise health-care costs in the long run (62%), make everything about health care more complicated (65%) and offer less freedom to choose doctors and coverage (56%)."
This, my friend(csm), is from the second paragraph of the first example YOU posted. And this is before any mention of any numbers on the numbers of people in favor of a "public option". Doesn't look like the citizenery in thrilled with what Congress is up to by any means.
And have a Merry Christmas(that is what I have always called it) and let us all hope Congress gets snowed in and our representatives get a real long chance to reread that old tome...the Constitution. That or they starve to death, either way is good for me.
I know a lot of people will chalk these rumblings up to partisanship, but it's the most encouraging political news I've heard for quite some time.
Top SC prosecutor, others probing health care deal
Partisan or not, it's good to see someone FINALLY showing the will to challenge congress' continual disdain for constitutional limitations on their power... and the blatant corruption that is its byproduct.
Too bad the issue is specific to this one state exclusion and not the unConsitutionality of the whole fucking mess.
Hey Bawdy, no problem with that quote. And I never said that the public liked what congress was doing. What I said earlier, I stand by, and it IS backed up by the polls.
And merry christmas to you too, Bawdy.
So it is OK for Congress to do their own bidding, doing what they feel is the correct way(the Progressive way, the power to change the world to the liking of the Fairness God) despite the opposite feeling of the majority of the citizenry. Sounds like the exact thing the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid when writing the Constitution. The individual was the subject of this societal experiment known as the United States of America, but that isn't the case anymore, it is the collective now and it ain't gonna change.
To that I say...bend over and spread 'em, here comes the nanny state(I sure hope it all fits in there).
CSM is becoming a Bev (no no please not that!). Cherry picking the polls in order to back his policies. The NYT and the WSJ did articles on these polls and how important the wording was to how the respondent answered. The bottom line to keep this short. Americans want choices, competition and minimal government in their healthcare. They do NOT want a public option IF it runs insurance companies out of business. Lets think about this just a sec. An entity that requires no profit vs. entities that must have a profit? Yes, government option will bring about a monopoly and therfore a resounding NO from the public.
That should surprise few in view of our capitalistic culture. The good news is the DNC will be able to removes some of the dead wood from the party in 10. Purging is good practice.
Bawdy, I think you know the answer to your question. Yes, it is absolutely fine - and directly what the Founding Fathers intended - for the Congress to do what they think is best. And if the people disagree, then they can vote 'em out.
And Mike, I did not cherry pick any polls. Almost all of 'em state what I said. And I wasn't trying to say anything other than what I said.
Don't be surprised if they DO vote them out. Unfortunately for us, the likely replacements will be Republicans.
Agreed. I think all the regulars here know that I find Democrats much less scary than Republicans. Basically, though, Democrats are wimps and the Republicans are assholes.
Post a Comment