The Bigsibling Blog

Government run health care, a.k.a Socialized medicine. Some are ‘fer’ it and some are ‘agin’ it. Those in socialized medicine’s corner include (but are not wholly limited to) the looney fringe leftists that 1) reside in America 2) claim to love America 3) but want to change America into some socialist utopia (but they love America). Those in the ‘agin’ category include (but is not limited to) most of the rationally thinking adults in the United States of America.

The ‘agin’ it folks will usually point to Canada as a reason not to have socialized medicine. They claim there are gigantic waiting lines for life saving procedures. That the Canucks are coming down to American to receive better, quicker medical care (at least, those that can afford it).

What this crowd needs to do is get wise and start telling the stories of our great equalizing socialist neighbor to the south – Venezuela. HugoCare (as I have dubbed it) is such a great and wonderful thing, that recently a man who survived an automobile accident was laying on the autopsy table. Yes, I said “survived” and auto accident. The HugoCare medical experts didn’t know the guy was alive until they started their autopsy and he woke up in extreme pain.

Man, I can’t wait for HillaryCare to come to good ol’ US of A, can you?

source

Technorati Tags: Venezuela, Socialism, Socialized Medicine, Health Care

Stumble it!

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
                                                – Billy Shakespeare

Using this timeless quote as a starting point, I paraphrase it a bit;

“What’s in a name? that which we call censorship
By any other name would smell as foul.”
                                               – Bigsibling (by way of Billy Shakespeare)

Preachers, Reverends, and other ‘men of the cloth’ are getting nervous. And they have good reason to be nervous. Before the Senate, right now, is a new hate crimes bill. The bill would give stiffer penalties for anyone who injures or kills a person based on their gender, homosexuality or disability.

The men of God are nervous because, what if they preach that homosexuality is a sin? The Bible says it is a sin. The Torah says it is a sin, the Koran says it is a sin. In fact, I don’t know of any religion that condones homosexuality. Granted, I’m not any type of religious scholar, and I’m certain there is some fringe (i.e. non- mainstream) religion out there that promotes homosexuality. But the “Big 3″ so to speak, all condemn it.

What Mr. Preacher man is nervous about is that if he gets up on his pulpit, and preaches the evils of homosexuality (as related in the Bible), and one of his flock goes out later and kills some fag, will he be held liable for that? Can he be punished as inciting this action because he gave a sermon condemning homosexuality?

Many are believing that this will happen – in spite of the assurances by those fag loving dems like Kennedy. Personally? I think it will happen as well. Also, I don’t think the federal government should be getting into this business in the first place. This is a local issue. This is an issue for city, county and state lawmakers to deal with. I believe that the vast majority of states already have hate crimes laws on the books (I still can’t see why, if this beaner knifes a gringo, it is more hateful than if he knifes another beaner – go figure).

I fear there is something more insidious in this hate crimes bill that just making it more criminal to kill a fag than a straight, a person in a wheel chair than one walking around, or a woman than a man. I fear that this bill – like many that have been passed before it – is just another way for the federal government to rip away the rights of the states. This is the federal government making more and more laws that it should not, and really, has no right to make. Currently, if i kill another beaner, no problems with the feds. I am tried and incarcerated by the state. But, if I kill a gringo, suddenly it is a federal offense, and not only do I get state time for the crime I get federal time too. Granted, I do live the by adage “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”. But it seems to me, that soon enough almost all crime will be federal crime. Then we would not need the state courts any longer, and the states would not need their lawmakers and everything will be run from a strong federal government. Kinda like…oh…China, or the USSR.

source

Technorati Tags: hate crimes, federal law, homosexuality, sin, God, Bible, Matthew Shepard

Stumble it!

More on government trying to run private businesses. kowtowing to special interests to the detriment of industry – and all of us. The senate has recently passed a bill mandating a 40% increase in mileage for all cars, SUVs and trucks by 2020, and requiring huge increases in the production of ethanol.

What I am seeing here is, “it doesn’t matter what the consequences are to industry or the individual, we are going to make theses requirements.” Other than using diesel, I don’t see how a 1 ton dually is going to get the mandated 35 MPG and still have enough power and torque to do what it needs to do.

The other part is what bothers me the most; that is the requirement for increases in ethanol production. Who are they requiring to produce it? And does it matter whether the companies forced into this production can profit from it? I don’t think the Dems care whether anyone can profit from it. As long as it satisfies the special interests and kowtows to faithful follower of the Church of AlGoreism and their global warming brouhaha.

By what right? By what right to people who have not financial stake in whether a company lives or dies, make decisions on how that company should be run or what it should produce? Is that some innate right that people have? To be able to force industry to bend to their will, not by supporting or rejecting what that industry produces, but by sheer force of want or need?

When did this happen in America? When is it that the needs of someone outweighed reason and common sense? Just because one needs ethanol, why is it that a company is obligated to make it for them? Why can’t they make their own ethanol? Why is it that they must force another to supply their needs? Whatever happened to fulfilling one’s own needs? Where did that go? If I need a glass of water, I get up and get myself a glass of water. I don’t call the police or the fire department to come over and get me a glass of water. They are there to fulfill needs, why can’t they fulfill this need of mine? It is utterly ridiculous what is happening.

Thanks for visiting, I really do appreciate it. And I apologize for being gone the last 10 days or so. But you know…

Technorati Tags: Socialism, Congress, Gas Mileage, MPG, legislation

Stumble it!

In a move reminiscent of just about every dictator and despot with intentions on seizing power, Chavez has closed yet another non-state owned television station in Venezuela – and replaced with a state sponsored television station.

One of the country’s leading dailies, El Nacional, denounced it as “end of pluralism in Venezuela,” and slammed the government’s growing “information monopoly.”

Next, look for the newspaper El Nacional to be closed down and replaced with a state sponsored rag. The more people are kept in the dark about the truth, the more they will follow whatever is told to them but those in power.

The EU’s German presidency said it worried Venezuela let the network’s broadcast license expire “without holding an open competition” for a successor station.

Well…DUH. Chavez doesn’t want freedom of speech. He doesn’t want the press to print anything but official and approved stories. He doesn’t want his people to be an informed thinking populace. That would be dangerous to him and his program. Eventually, a thinking people will come to the conclusion that what Chavez is up to is no good. But if the people are kept stupid and in the dark, they don’t know any better. I’ll be terribly surprised if there is ever another election in Venezuela after the next one. Watch; over the next several years, Chavez will gain more and more power, taken from the people, and will emerge as the newest despot with global ambitions.

As all of this is happening, other countries in South and Central America are moving towards the left, towards socialism. This in and of itself isn’t a problem. There are many socialist states which still provide exceptional freedoms of their people (freedom of press and expression being the most ardent of all). The problem with those states in Central and South America moving towards socialism, is that they are using Venezuela as a model. The question now becomes, will they follow in Venezuela’s footsteps – taking freedoms from the people – or will they do it right? Does anyone remember the (then chastised) Reagan warnings of the “domino effect”? We may now have the opportunity to witness this in our won back yard.

source

Technorati Tags: Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, Television, Socialism, Dictator, Despot, Totalitarian

Stumble it!

MoveOn.Org is whining and crying because they believe MySpace – the ultra-popular social networking site – is selectively censoring it’s content. My answer to this, of couse, so what? Who cares? Is MySpace some government entity that is violating the 1st Amendment? No. MySpace is a private company, and therefore have every right to run their company as they see fit.

MoveOn and some users believe MySpace should bend to their will. They believe, that since the users is what made MySpace popular, that MySpace should let the users do whatever they want. Buuuuull-caca.

MySpace explains much of its censorship by claiming violations of it’s “community’s terms.” But those terms are one-sided, saying, “MySpace.com may modify this Agreement from time to time and such modification shall be effective upon posting by MySpace.com.” If MySpace is going to cite the “community’s terms” when censoring content, shouldn’t the community have some power over amending those terms? And some power in the adjudication of profile takedowns [sic] and link disabling?

Of course MySpace’s terms are one-sided. Of course they were written in such a way that MySpace will always come out the winner. They paid to have those terms written! Should the community have some power in amending terms of use? No. The community does not have any financial investment in MySpace. The community is allowed to use MySpace server space and bandwidth for FREE. Get that? It is FREE, GRATIS, costs the user NOTHING.

By what right does the man begging on the street for alms demand gold currency instead of paper? When one is given something for free, by what right do they demand of the giver something different or better?

Not only does MySpace censor specific points of view (like those opposing Rupert Murdoch) but they are creating a “walled” public square – disabling links to sites they don’t like. This includes blocking links to video sharing sites like Revver that compensate video producers, so producers get corralled into MySpace Video.

MySpace wants people to use its own devices. It wants people to use MySpace video instead of YouTube or Revver – and quite possibly also – wants other sites, like YouTube or Revver, to pay MySpace a fee for allowing their content to be displayed over the MySpace bandwidth. The decisions MySpace makes in this area are entirely their own. The MySpace admins do not answer to the users or MoveOn.org. No, the MySpace admins answer to the MySpace board of directors – and ultimately to media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

And yes, if I were the owner of MySpace, and I was pouring money into the project, I sure as heck might seriously think about removing content that was critical of me and my endeavors. Let them go somewhere else, let them use someone else’s space and bandwidth to lambaste me.

When a company builds an online public square, shouldn’t Internet users have rights, and be able to demand that the company not censor legal speech within that public square?

The users have the right to say whatever they want. Just as MySpace has the right to take down whatever they deem to be inappropriate.

The internet is a big, big place. If MoveOn.org doesn’t like the way MySpace runs its shop, then MoveOn.org has, a responsibility…nay…a duty to start a similar social networking site run the way they believe it should be run.

If the users of MySpace do not like what MySpace does, they still do not have any right to force a change. They do have the right to quit using MySpace. They have the right to move themselves and their content to another social networking site. That is what free enterprise is all about. When enough users leave MySpace, they will either change, or fold. It is that simple. The market drives these things, and the market should drive these things.

MoveOn does whine about the cost of switching from MySpace to another company, but so what? What made these people use MySpace in the first place? Why should MySpace be responsible for the actions of its users? It shouldn’t. MySpace is accountable to its shareholders, and no one else.

source

Stumble it!

Ever since a couple of weeks ago when Kathy Sierra was “cyber-bullied” into canceling an appearance, people have been debating on how to combat this type of activity. I even heard a PSA on the radio yesterday about cyber bullying.

Now Tim O’Reilly is creating what he calls a “Blogger’s Code of Conduct“.
I’m not going to go into it’s nuts and bolts. There are plenty of places around the web – both for and against – which dissect the code.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to someone getting their feelings hurt and being afraid. Seriously. I feel for Ms. Sierra. I am not a woman, so I could never imagine what it would be like to receive the kind of threats she has had to deal with. And I am in no way meaning to diminish what she has had to go through in this ordeal.

How can anyone really believe that this code of conduct thing would prevent this from happening in the future? How will a blogger subscribing to this code of conduct keep the blogger, or anyone else for that matter, safe and sound? Bloggers have the ability to moderate, edit and delete comments on their own sites.

Some of these comments were on Ms. Sierra’s own blog. She would have had to read these things if she moderated her comments anyway. Just because they don’t make it out into the general public, does not mean that they were not made.

Of course, what do I know? I’m just a bloke in fly-over country with a couple of readers and an opinion. But it does sound to me that a blogger handing control of their content over to a third party is rather…anti-American.

Technorati Tags: Kathy Sierra, Tim O’Reilly, Code of Conduct, Blogs, Bloggers

Stumble it!

The New York Times reports that the income gap is getting bigger. That top 10 percent of wage earners pulled in a minimum of $100K last year, while the rest of us dropped 0.6 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively
enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per
person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person
in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Please note that in the article, the top 300K Americans enjoyed the income and received 440 times as much as the average Joe (read: you and me).  They ENJOYED and RECEIVED the income.  But apparently, according to the NYT, they did not EARN it.  I would submit that those people EARNED their money.  It was not a gift.  It was not alms.  It was not taken from someone who had earned it and given to them.

My question is ’so what?’. What is the problem here? Those that produce should earn more. Those with a abilities should profit from them. Those with no abilities, or those who do not produce, should get less. It is as simple as that.

The Times article is attempting to create class envy. The Times believes that those who have abilities and produce should give their money to those who have not abilities or who do not produce. It is a typical socialist/communist agenda they are pushing.

I have asked it before, and I will continue to ask it. By what right do those who do not produce demand to be supported by those who do produce? By what right do those who will not help themselves demand that the producers work for their benefit? By what right does the bloke at McDonald’s deserve anything other than what he receives?

source

Technorati Tags: Communism, Socialism, Income Redistribution, Wealthy, Poor, Class Envy

Stumble it!