We have to be progressive, because the future is coming whether we like it or not. But being sensible is also a good idea, because learning from history is a lot less painful than learning from mistakes.
I know full well that "Colbert" is an anti-gun liberal guy ... but this video is just plain funny. And actually a little informative.
And I love when he says "I'm in a committed relationship with my life partner, sweetness" and pulls out a snubby. But then says, "but that doesn't mean I'm dead. Who doesn't appreciate the supple curves of the banana clip?"
There's nothing really offensive in this particular clip to pro-gun guys, though there's certainly plenty about Colbert in general that is offensive. And a lot that is funny, too.
I really don't want to lower myself to their level, but what they are doing is despicable. People have been brutally murdered, and they are using those deaths to single out a single piece of steel, because apparently they have given up on the issue of gun bans overall and I guess they are looking for whatever rationale they can find to ban guns one at a time.
But if we really want to look at the "butcher's bill," let's do a few morbid comparisons. And again ... I'd rather not ... but this is the kind of crap the anti-gunners bring to the argument and repeat loudly in order to take away rights from the rest of us, and someone needs to respond.
1. Columbine massacre, various weapons used, but particularly 9mm carbines and shotguns: 13 dead 24 wounded
2. Virginia Tech massacre, 9mm pistol and .22 pistol: 32 killed 25 wounded (some from jumping out of windows)
3. Fort Hood massacre, FN Herstal Five-seveN: 13 dead 34 wounded
Of these three mass murders, the Herstal has by far the least percentage killed of those who were shot. Almost 1:3. The case could be made that Herstal was the least deadly of those we can compare it to, and a gun that VPC and other anti-gun groups should be promoting for civilian use because it just might be a little less deadly than some others.
I don't really want to make that case or any other except to say ... blaming the carnage of the type of gun is ridiculous and unworthy of anyone viewing such a horrendous and useless slaughter of American GIs. The point is not the kind of gun used, but that people were so brutally killed. I really can't believe they're doing this.
Is the Fort Hood massacre legitimate to use in their case against guns overall? Of course. Is it a legitimate reason to claim that this particular pistol is somehow particularly deadly? Clearly not.
I could care less if this particular gun is banned. I do know that with the right kind of ammunition it was marketed as being highly effective against police bullet proof vests, but that ammo shouldn't be legal in this country in any case and the shooter probably didn't have it (no details yet). But it's a moot point because his victims weren't wearing vests, and the fast little bullets probably did much less damage than a bigger heavier bullet.
No more to say here ... except maybe we should try to keep the debate honest and not try to manipulate a national tragedy to a focused political purpose. There are parents, children, wives, etc. out there who are grieving over a loved one yanked from their life in a manner unthinkable just a few weeks ago -- they deserve better than their loved ones becoming debate points in a decades old political argument.
Sphere: Related Content
TSA was diligent last night and dutifully protected the flying public. From me. My job has me flying a fair amount, so I'm an old hand at TSA security. But last night at Logan was something special.
As I always do, as soon as I got to the Xray machine I threw a train of plastic bins onto the conveyor and loaded them up. Shoes, belt, phone, baggie of gels and shampoo (all in 3oz or less containers), laptop computer, coat, etc. The train went through and I walked through the metal detector without beeping it.
But then the trouble started ...
No sooner was I through the metal detector than the TSA thug (that's a joke -- he was very polite and friendly) made me turn around and go back through. I had a paperback book in my pocket, and that had to go through the xray machine. Oooops.
And since I had to go back through the metal detector, of course I had to be singled out for a pat down. No problem.
I started collecting my stuff from the belt when I realized my bag was still in the Xray and being scrutinized by several people. NOT a good sign. And sure enough my bag was pulled aside for an inspection.
While I sat and watched and put my shoes on the poor TSA guy dug through my dirty clothes and underwear and pulled out my shaving bag. He then pulled out a nail clipper with a *GASP* 1/2 inch folding knife. Oooooh CRAP!
Now at this point I actually was a little worried. It was a tiny knife, but I've heard stories about some checkers making a big deal out little things like that. I pictured myself losing an hour while I talked to Boston police. Fortunately, this was another very nice guy. He tossed out the nail clipper at my request, put the bag back through, and then sent me on my way.
I of course didn't bother to mention to the man that I've had that nail clipper in my bag for at least a year, and it's been successfully through security checkpoints a minimum of 8 times -- and quite likely many more.
I don't write this to knock TSA, BTW, as I think they do a good enough job. The concept of airport security isn't to strip search and probe every person -- that would be too much and too time consuming. And while no doubt it would make us all a tiny bit safer -- the tiny difference wouldn't be worth the cost or humiliation, and even then security wouldn't be perfect, as bad guys are as clever as good guys and sometimes they win a battle of wits. The idea is to make sure terrorist know that if they try to sneak something on a plane there is an unacceptable level of doubt that they will make it through. Because if just one person gets caught an entire major operation is scuttled.
But apparently the other 8 times I took that 1/2 inch knife through TSA failed to protect the public, and I was a danger to the planes and travelers I shared them with.
Sphere: Related Content
For the last week I've been on business travel and attached at the hip to my co-workers, which is one reason I haven't blogged. But since we are in Boston, and our travels took us past the huge anti-2nd amendment billboard on the side of Fenway Park, the subject of guns came up, and I was asked the most common question: So do you think that more guns will make your country and daughters safer? This is a question I have given much thought to, and my short answer is: Yes
Now does that mean all guns intrinsically make my daughter's lives safer? No. Duh. If the gun in question belongs to a crazed shooter or a criminal and is used to shoot them, then the existence of that gun made them no safer. If they own the gun and have an accident with it, then it didn't make their lives safer. But then ... if I Google people killed by automotive air bags, I find that the airbags designed for safety can also kill:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that, as of September 1, 1998, air bags have saved 3,448 lives (2,954 drivers, 494 passengers) since they were first installed in quantity in the late 1980s. During the same period 115 people (66 of them children) have been killed by air bags, with another 40 unconfirmed deaths, for a total of 155
but few people argue for the banning or restriction of air bags, and those that do are not taken seriously. Because the good outweighs the bad. But does the same hold true for gun ownership?
Yes.
The bottom line is that when people who have money and don't care about breaking the law want something, they get it. As in illegal drugs, which are banned everywhere but easily available to those who don't care. And as with drugs, we've seen that outlawing guns (as in England, D.C., Australia, Chicago) has done nothing to stop murders or violence, only stopped law abiding people from being empowered to defend themselves. In most places in the U.S. people are empowered to defend themselves, and they do so frequently and effectively.
But the difference is, that while drug laws only restrict my law abiding family from getting heroin and meth, there is NO positive value to my kids being enabled to buy them. Only negatives. But there is plenty of positive value for my children (when they grow up) and myself to be able to own guns, and given the statistics on defensive gun usage versus the minimal negatives (accidents, etc.).
So yes ... free availability of guns does make my children's world safer, because reducing availability would restrict law abiding people such as my family from buying guns but accomplish very little with criminals. And in the long term, I also believe access to unregistered guns keeps the entire country safer.
Humorously, BTW, the conversation started with ... "We should stop there and let Stephen by some guns." Yup -- my co-workers thought it was a billboard for a gun shop. The "close the gunshow loophole" business was too small to catch on a drive by.
Sphere: Related Content
But oddly enough, blind hatred alone of anyone, even Glen Beck, isn't enough to sustain an Onion video. Who thinks it's funny to say things like ...
* ... a grizzly death only Glenn Beck could deserve.
* She wasn't some fat dumb Mormon f***face who should have drank herself to death when he had the chance.
Then other "jokes" about how Glen Beck should be dead, assaulted by a Rottweiler, etc.
When did liberals lose all compassion and think this kind of violence is funny? When it became cool to talk about going back in history and killing GW Bush, or write alternative histories where he is assassinated? Where are those that are ashamed of these kinds of actions? What happened to liberals being the compassionate ones? (that last concept is long gone and shows no signs of returning).
Glen Beck is many things ... but he's also a father with a family. His wife and children will see this crap. And it will be around forever.
I watch Beck's show on occasion, and I can tell you that he is not hateful in the least. He strings together verifiable facts to create a political picture that is probably a bit exaggerated, but you'll almost never hear him call anybody any kind of bad name (well, Marxist/socialist, but often it's earned) or purposefully tell outright lies.
On the other hand watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and you'll hear those he disagrees with described with every insulting word it's possible to say on a family rated show. I watch them both about the same amount, and liberally use the jump forward button for both, but of the two Glen Beck is much more stomachable and intelligent. Even though I think the relationships he strings together big conspiracy theories out of are often tenuous and sometimes coincidental (or maybe not -- time will tell).
Mr. Beck is certainly an intelligent man, however, and worthy of respect even if you don't agree with him. Or like the various silly voices and sounds he uses in his show (something Olbermann also does).
And just to prove I do have a sense of humor ... here is one of my favorite Onion videos which is actually supposed to be anti-gun by comparing gun ownership to suicide vest ownership. But instead of being just hateful it actually draws some comparisons and makes some points. I think the theme is ridiculous, because suicide belts have no desirous uses in society and gun most certainly do, but once you understand they're making a point about oranges by talking about apples ... it's pretty funny. And I think it shows very well how the anti-gun people think, that allowing gun ownership is similar to allowing suicide vest ownership.
I'm looking forward to seeing the results of today's elections. I'd particularly like Gov. Corzine of NJ to lose, just because he's so viciously anti-gun. Ever since it became clear all of the 3 widely watched contests are close or going conservative, conservative pundits have decided they mean a lot while the Democrats have decided they mean nothing (though Obama has been to NJ about 5 times to campaign). For myself, I tend to think the truth is the NJ governer's election is going to be closely watched and have some kind of impact, but NY's 23rd congressional race is in turmoil and the VA governer's election is not such a big deal. Whatever happens ... the side that wins in each election is going to suddenly declear it's the deciding factor for every issue America faces. Of that I guarantee you.
But the real annoying thing about American politics right now is the divisiveness of the issues and single issue voters ... though I am a single issue voter myself. But I think the basis of these divisive issues shows one major reason by anti-gun groups are finding few supporters; with the other issues looming so large, no one wants a third issue.
Abortion: * If you believe that life begins at conception or even implantation, you will absolutely NOT vote for someone who thinks it's okay to kill babies at any age, in the womb or out. * But many of the women I know, though appalled at the thought of a late-term abortion, believe the uninhibited right is the cornerstone of women's rights and won't vote for someone who wants to limit it.
Gay Marriage: * Many people believe that normalizing the gay lifestyle will turn every parade into a S.F. style gay day parade. They believe a man/woman/children marriage is a cornerstone of our society, that being gay is a choice and a sin, and will NOT vote for anyone who supports gay marriage. * Gay people are a strong and well educated voter bloc and they have many supporters. They obviously will NOT vote for someone who won't give them the rights of non-gay people, any more than an African American would vote for a KKK member. Duh.
Gun Rights: * Those of us who believe in gun ownership as a foundation of American society and a still-important constitutional right will NOT vote for someone who would needlessly oppress us or take our right away. * Of those who are for gun control ... the majority of them acknowledge the 2nd amendment right to own a gun, but only want to limit it. And don't really have a consensus as to how. And most realize that gun control is of limited help since criminals tend to find the things they want anyway ...
So you can see why gun rights is being ignored as an issue or more are joining our pro-gun side. You get a fairly small but solid bloc of voters against you if you vote anti-gun while you gain almost nothing. So might as well stay neutral on guns or go pro and get some traction. With some exceptions in limited areas.
The other two issues, however, are the most problematic. I don't know how we'll get past them in real life, though as a blogger I have some suggestions. ;-)
Stephen's Solutions:
Abortion: As a Christian father, I would do everything I could to talk my daughters out of an abortion REGARDLESS of the circumstances. A life is a life, and I think few women have given birth to a baby and then thought, "Geez. I just wish I'd killed this little munchkin in the womb." (And I even know a woman who gave birth to a baby conceived from violent rape)
But ... while that's my belief, I don't think it's my place to force that belief on others by force of law. It's my place to gently try and guide them to the right decisions, but not to put in place criminal penalties if they don't make the choices I want.
So the solution is simply to pass laws based on the best science we have, and do the following: 1. Abortion by choice (though I hope they choose against) until the fetus is viable.
2. Once the fetus is viable (about month 4 or 5 now? Some arbitrary standard would have to be set) it's a human, and must be given the protection of the state, and you've missed your wide window to get rid of it. Unless there's some compelling physical health reason, have the baby and then give it up if you want.
Gay Marriage: This is a hard one, as I understand some of the arguments of those against it (and believe they stand up to non-religious scrutiny) but I also have several friends who are Gay, and one gay couple we are friends with has been together for over 30 years. And they are good people and certainly seem as though they should have the same legal protections as my wife and I.
But to me, the fact is ... marriage is, and always has been, a religious state. Government issues marriage licenses, but that license is really just a legal template for tax breaks and a bunch of various agreements that take place between the parties for inheritance, child rearing, etc. Governments grant legal licenses, but Churches actually marry people.
So to me ... if a state wants to issue licenses to gay couples to give them the same template of agreements and tax breaks, it doesn't really affect me, even if they call it a "marriage" license. Gay marriage won't create gay people any more than gun ownership creates murderers. i.e. you don't marry someone of the same sex just because a gay marriage license is available any more than you murder someone because a gun is available.
There are many churches that will sanctify a gay marriage, and that's their choice. Though I personally am unlikely to attend them.
Gun Rights: The solution is clear. Everyone should just be pro-gun. Politicians, voters, everyone. Pro owning guns, pro carrying guns, pro owning semi-automatic rifles, pro owning machine guns (at least with proper tax stamps). And against anything that limits, inhibits, or makes gun ownership or ammunition purchases more expensive. ;-)
Any questions? Comments? No? Then let's get to work on this new agenda of real Hope and Change.
Sphere: Related Content
I'm a big fan of both of the blogs he manages, particularly the armed citizen stories blog he hosts on his site.
Anyone out there looking for a a brilliant guy and leader like Mr. Cramer? We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he's done, particularly in debunking the work of Michael Bellesiles, who tried to claim that gun ownership was a new phenomenon in America and had no historical basis. Because those pioneers just didn't feel a need for a firearm back in the day, dontcha know? The NRA made all that "pioneers defending themselves with guns" up because really pioneers preferred axes and weren't really interested in getting free meat from hunting.
I don't know if Mr. Cramer actually wanted this posted at all, but several are passing it around. If he want's it taken down, I'll certainly do so ...
Sphere: Related Content
First the talking head guy who often fills in for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown makes a speech about how a journalist should have a "healthy adversarial relationship with the people and institutions you cover..." which is certainly true. But for damned sure doesn't describe anything from the Olbermann show. Olbermann at most will gently chide Mr. Obama for letting the Republicans and "idiots" he doesn't like have any say at all. And shouldn't the America-saving-Democrats find some way around that silly 60% voting rule to pass something in the Senate, because when you're doing something as important as Healthcare reform you shouldn't be limited by honored democratic rules of order or stupid votes? Right?
The he claims that Fox news just emerged from 8 year record of "utter presidential fealty," which must refer to the Bush administration. And yeah, there were certainly apologists for Bush among the opinion commentators on Fox news. But the majority of the programming certainly had no problem criticising Bush.
But the whole point of this post is this clip itself, which they claim is proof that FOX fired the "first shots" in the war with the Whitehouse. But while they do show some opinion commentators, like Beck and Hannity, saying some negative things about the President (few of which are close to the vitriol spewed by nearly every show on MSNBC toward the Bush whitehouse) a lot of them are just lead-ins to news segments that dared challenge the president's world outlook (global warming is real, government run insurance is NOT to be referred to as socialist, he's kept all his campaign promises, etc.).
But a few facts ...
1. Like it or not, President Obama has fulfilled very few major campaign promises YET (not to say that he won't, whether good or bad) and tossed several by the wayside. That's a fact that even the liberals have noticed, as we saw in the SNL skit and the reactions of gay groups who have failed to get "don't ask/don't tell" repealed. So why was it anti-Obama for Brit Hume to say that?
2. Lots of people, even those who support it, recognize that the government running an insurance plan (the public option) IS a move toward socialized medicine and a Canadian type healthcare system. Duh!
3. There are still people who believe a lot of science shows that climate change may not be as serious as some claim, or caused by human actions, and that proof of this is a lack of world wide warming over the last decade. Those are facts. So how is it wrong to report on them?
But anyway ... check the below out. While there are anti-Obama quotes uttered both by people interviewed (should even interviewees be censored of non-Obama-approved opinions?) and opinion show hosts, a large number of the clips are simply lead-ins to valid news stories. The fact that MSNBC finds doing a story that doesn't agree with the President's view of the world to be offensive and not good journalism ... well, it boggles the mind. I once studied journalism, and American journalism has a mottled but overall proud history. I hope that Olbermann and his ilk are just more mottling and not the sign of things to come.
NOTE: I can't get the MSNBC video to embed. Just doesn't work.
I think the biggest problem Amtrak has with the policy passed in the senate that would force them to allow safely stored firearms in "checked baggage," besides the fact that the bureaucrats in charge are simply anti-gun, is that many of their trains don't have baggage cars ... which means no luggage is checked ... which means guns end up in bags in places where they can be grabbed by about anybody on the train. If what I'm reading is true, I actually understand that concern. But it runs into the same logic problems as all other gun control.
Amtrak doesn't currently screen all luggage or put people through metal detectors. So they don't know what is getting on their trains now. Which they even admit:
Amtrak Police Chief John O'Connor said it's possible the system's random bag inspections could catch someone with an illegal weapon, but that Amtrak does not even have baggage cars on every train.
He said he does not want any weapons, checked or unchecked, on his trains.
So Mr. O'Connor doesn't know what illegal weapons are on the train NOW, which means there may be any number of them. But nonetheless he would like to make sure law-abiding people are NOT allowed to transport guns, just ... because that's gun control and somehow it's good. Another case of a rule that affects criminals not at all but hinders the law abiding gun owners greatly. As it stands now, we can't travel on Amtrak by any means even though we pay tax dollars to support it.
I would remind the fearful Mr. O'Connor they he many not want guns on his trains, checked or unchecked, but a criminal or terrorist will simply slip them on anyway. That is just a fact that changing this rule won't affect.
I see a couple of commons sense options:
1. Put a few lockers on every train where people who declare weapons can lock them up. Maybe charge a small fee for this service. 2. Allow people to keep their weapons near them, under their immediate control, though still in bags. 3. Allow people with concealed carry permits to just carry their guns on the trains, like we are about to in National Parks. It will keep the guns safe -- not to mention putting off a potential terrorist who would like to shoot up a train full of unarmed people (this would not help hunters with their long guns, of course, but the lockers would take care of that).
Somehow we've got to get people in power past this "I'll just always fight against gun ownership because that's what's politically safest" and make it NOT politically safe. I doubt we'll manage that with unelected bureaucrats in this administration, but it's a goal to work toward.
As a note ... I have read that it WAS legal to transport firearms on Amtrak pre-911, and I don't remember any hunters going nuts with their bolt action rifles and shooting up trains. Odd Mr. O'Connor thinks it would happen now.
Sphere: Related Content
Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi (team Obalosi?) are still intent on making sure there is a government run insurance plan -- basically making the government an insurance company. One plan currently being pushed is to expand Medicare (which is a government run insurance plan already in place) to cover more than just the elderly. Call it "Medicare E" (E for Everyone).
While I know this would be made to work over the long term, and the numbers on it look good ... the numbers are a short term sham. The end result will be a year or two of lowering health insurance costs as people move to Medicare E followed by either some serious increases in price for Medicare, an extreme shortage of doctors who will take the cut rate government plan, or a very painful and abrupt change of how doctor's do business to survive (or revoking of the government plan). We'll survive any of those things, of course, but it may not be fun. And the end result may be far from ideal.
I spent years working in the medical industry for a group of Doctors in Denver. Mostly I supported a big room full of billers who charged back insurance companies for patient visits. It was NOT an efficient system, as a huge number of claims stayed in "accounts receivable" for months while dealing with insurers -- including Medicare, though I do seem to recall Medicare generally paid a little faster than some of the private companies.
We accepted Medicare, but we hated it. The reason was simply that Medicare would not pay enough. There was even talk from time to time of refusing Medicare, but it never happened for a couple of basic reasons:
1. Medicare was old people. Turning away old people is not something doctors with a heart want to do. 2. There were a LOT of people on Medicare who made a lot of visits. We might have broken even or even lost a little money on Medicare patients, but it kept our clinics and doctors busy and gave us a stable base of cash flow.
In fact, Sen. Conrad of North Dakota has said that forcing all N.D. hospitals to accept only Medicare level payments would close them all down. You see the problem there?
But now suddenly Medicare isn't just going to be old people, it's going to become a growing percentage of the population. Sure, Ms. Pelosi says I can keep my insurance if I like it ... but like most Americans my employer pays the bulk of my insurance costs. If there is a cheaper public option I can be shunted to what are the chances they're not going to do that? Or if they can't sign up for the new Medicare directly it might be cheaper for them to pay the penalty for dropping my insurance because they know I can get Medicare directly.
And if that last happens ... I'll make the decision many Americans will make; I'll probably drop insurance entirely, knowing I can sign up again if something bad happens, pay the minimal fine, and just pay out of pocket for my families minimal medical expenses.
So when too large of a population gets on Medicare, doctor's are going to have a problem: they're either going to have to force Medicare to pay more, find a way to live within Medicare means, or change their practices to take only higher paying (if they still exist) private insurance.
And then Medicare will have a choice: Increase payments, or accept that the people on their program are going to deal with long lines and reduced health care quality because of limited providers. Which is exactly what you see in countries like Germany, which allow both public and private insurance.
As I've said many times, I'm not against some reforms. A friend of mine, the sole provider for his family of 5, just got laid off and now must deal with the problem of how to insure his kids when COBRA is so unaffordable. And one of his kids may have a difficult/expensive to insure pre-existing condition.
My own job is always on the bubble in this economy, and unless our sales go up I wouldn't be surprised if I also get my walking notice around the end of the year or early in the 1st quarter. And then I'll once again have to deal with the same insurance issues.
So I wouldn't mind seeing some reform. And I think there are things the government can do. But dammit ... why do we have to have such an all or nothing outlook in our government? The Democrats seem intent on a plan intended to eventually create a single payer system and the debate has become so polarized the Republicans are probably going to fight anything at this point. I'm still afraid we're going to end up with one extreme or the other; a horrible bill that will take decades to fix and adjust to or butkus.
That is the danger of representative democracy, but it doesn't make the crappy bills we get stuck with suck any less.
So again I ask ... why not take this a few steps at a time? I'm a firm believer in the Pareto Principle, which states that "for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes." In other words, change 20% of the system now, which will fix 80% of the problems and pain, and then after the economy adjusts to that look at how to go further -- if it's even necessary. I'm not an expert (though I've been given full faith and credibility by blogspot.com to speak on any matters pertaining to this planet) but from the endless debates on this decision I would say a good path might be:
1. Make catastrophic health care, to take care of any major issues, a mandatory part of unemployment. SOLVED: The problem of working people who lose their job also losing their health care.
2. Allow insurance companies to sell nationwide, across state lines (and I'm not sure doing this via government managed coops might not be a bad idea, though I'm not an expert on that either). Costs reduced.
3. Significant tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance costs (which can costs doctors in some fields hundreds of thousands of dollars a year). Costs reduced.
4. For people who have maintained insurance, force insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, covering those conditions for at least the level covered by the previous plan if it was less than the current plan. SOLVED: Problem of uninsurable people due to preexisting conditions.
5. Possibly tied in with number 2, I wouldn't be against government run insurance coops so long as those coops were limited to catastrophic care only, meaning they wouldn't really compete with private insurance. Hopefully this will greatly expand the percentage of people covered.
That's my solution. Or some mix thereof. I'll be the majority of Americans would be happy just to be covered while on unemployment.
Here are some random samplings of people talking about the fact that the public option is a maneuver toward "single payer" (socialized) medicine. There's a few too many to listen all the way through, but I thought the one from the Tides group was particularly interesting (public option is not a "trojan horse" for socialized medicine ... it's "right there)."
And just to make this clear ... I realize that Medicare as it now stands is a socialized medicine program. And knowing that I both like it and support it. But the reason is ... it was set up for OLD PEOPLE who can't GET insurance through normal means because they need constant care and it would be too expensive. Which is why every American at EVERY AGE pays payroll taxes for it; to take care of our treasured elderly and to make sure we're taken care of when we reach that age. Same with social security ... if I screw up my 401K at least I'll have some small amount of money coming in when I can no longer work.
So I'm fine paying my medicare taxes to support my own parents and the elderly of this country. I think most of us are. But we don't need the same system for the large percentage of the population young and active and still working. And I believe that most American's don't want it.
We just want our current system streamlined and made more affordable. Which I'm afraid is NOT what is going to happen.
Sphere: Related Content
Technology changes constantly, but people don't change, and the underlying forces of society don't change. And of course God has never changed.
Traditional American values are too crucial to our posterity to be traded for Politically Correct fears. And I think it's clear that it was God, Guns and Family Values that made America great. And we need all three to keep it great.
Posts
