Friday, April 16, 2010

Tangible Progress

Like a little socialist butterfly, I find myself fluttering from blog to blog, “defending” Obama. Let me make something clear from the outset: I didn’t vote for Obama, I still do not plan to vote for him in 2012, I did not donate a dollar to him, I don’t even like most of his decisions. That said, I like Obama much better than Bush.

Where is all the hostility directed at Obama coming from? Was America in a stupid-induced coma between 2001 and 2009? Is it leftover rage from the Bush years that people are unable to intellectually separate from the current administration?

Don’t get me wrong, not only “can” you criticize the guy (first amendment…), there are plenty of issues which one could justifiably criticize him for. But where is this vitriolic hatred for the guy (much of it manifested before he even took office) coming from?

I can’t relate to most people’s complaints about the guy. I thought healthcare reform didn’t go nearly far enough and I am dumbfounded at his inability to fulfill simple promises he made that would require little more than a firmly worded memo.

So imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning to two pieces of good news. First, insurance companies are going to be mandated by law to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar (85 cents for large-group plans) in premiums on actual medical care (rather than “administrative costs,” i.e. their pockets).

That wasn’t even the best news of the morning (though perhaps it was simply made bitter by the fact that insurance companies are already looking for loopholes). The best news this morning is that Obama decided to finally flex some federal muscle in forcing hospitals that accept Medicaid and Medicare funding to allow homosexual partner visitation privileges.

This has been one of the more heart-wrenching issues in the struggle for gay rights. People were literally dying alone as their partners are forced to sit in waiting rooms. Not only do family-only visitation rights affect homosexuals, it affected childless widows/widowers and unmarried clergy. This sort of thing happens too often, and it is one of the single greatest injustices endured by homosexual couples in America.

If gays are never allowed to serve in the military, I think most people could care less. Steps like this would have never occurred under Bush or any Republican. These little victories prevent me from harboring an irrational hatred for Obama. I would prefer to live in a country without a Democrat or Republican at the helm, but I think it’s better to be wandering lost at sea under a Democrat than to run aground on a reef under a Republican.

14 comments:

  1. Atheists,

    but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH... therefore you FAIL...


    THE DEATH TRAP

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
    ********

    THE REAL QUESTION:

    DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

    AND THE ANSWER - NO!

    http://www.disclose.tv/forum/does-ath-ism-have-a-future-no-t19859.html




    Shermer - Harris - Myers - Dawkins - Randi VS. NOSTRADAMUS - EINSTEIN - MARKUZE


    you're ANNIHILATED!


    Atheists,

    Repent and turn to God.


    add comment moderation to your blasphemy blog, you fool...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ginx, are you trying to prove you're against "censorship" (yeah, it deserves the quotation marks) by letting Dumbass McFail's cut and paste lameness stand?

    Dennis, you're boring, and trolls should never be tedious. Go back to troll school, fool!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just can't be on every minute to delete them, and if someone references his post... I leave it... so nice job :P

    I assure you, I'm not trying to give him a podium or prove a point to you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. you are going to PAY THE PRICE FOR ATTACKING THE SUPERNATURAL - WITH YOUR LIVES...

    ReplyDelete
  5. DM, maybe we can have lunch together next time I'm in Montreal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Should I reach you at (514)745-3123 or (416)322-6512? I'm assuming from your IP it's the Montreal (514) area code...

    ReplyDelete
  7. DM, Bill Gnade thinks you're a fake! Tell the truth now, you are an atheist attempting (and succeeding, I might add-GOOD JOB!) to make religious people look like psychotic nutjobs, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. DM doesn't make religious people look like psychotic nut jobs. They do an adequate job of that themselves. DM brings attention to proper treatment for mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DM brings attention to proper treatment for mental illness.

    It's doubtful that there even is such a thing as "mental illness". That's just a way of labeling people whose ideas or habits you disapprove of, just as political dissidents were sent to psychiatric hospitals in the USSR.

    DM does things that are not healthy for him, no doubt, but can not blame his evil behavior on any "illness". If it's an illness he is not responsible, is he?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Illness doesn't negate responsibility. Quite the contrary, illness adds the responsibility of treatment to the ever-present responsibility to not harm others. If I have a mental illness, a cold, AIDS, or any of a number of illness (the last two being pathogen induced and certainly quite different), it is my responsibility to act in such a way as to prevent problems for others.

    I understand the frustration at the over-diagnosis and hyper-medicalization of America (I can't speak for the USSR...). I'm of the camp who believes most ADD/ADHD kids have nothing actually wrong with them. I also know from experience there are people with mental problems which are likely irreversable brain damage or chemical imbalances, some of which can gain benefit from various treatments. They may not be able to naturally help the way they act, but it's not a pass on trying.

    I don't think DM is mentally ill because he opposes atheism. He is mentally ill because he does not see anything wrong with threatening the lives of others. I would prescribe some fine Canadian cannabis and tell him that in my medical opinion, he should chill the fuck out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ginx, there are a lot of problems with your "diagnosis".

    it is my responsibility to act in such a way as to prevent problems for others.

    Well, that's my point. You ARE responsible, but not for having some organic disease (though you may be responsible-in some cases-for certain behavior that lead to the disease). But if my "mental illness" has a biochemical cause, I'm not responsible for what that illness makes me do, any more than I'm responsible for having to pee every five minutes if I have "overactive bladder" syndrome.

    He is mentally ill because he does not see anything wrong with threatening the lives of others.

    That doesn't make him mentally ill, it makes him a bad person, period. Otherwise, let's just label Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot as victims of mental illness, instead of what they really were, evil with a capital E.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I disagree, and the law tends to disagree. Just as a person who is drunk or high may not have "control" over their actions and may do things which in a more sober light would not be done, a person who is "mentally ill" and "can't control" their actions is still responsible for the consequences.

    Personally, I think people who are mentally ill, cannot control themselves AND who hurt others should be locked up just as someone who isn't mentally ill. How are they not to blame? Mental illness is an explanation, not an excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the law tends to disagree.

    The law once support human slavery, so what's your point? Besides, modern cases like that of Dan White would indicate otherwise (though the law was changed in the aftermath due to public reaction). Also, under California law, there had been a long history of "diminished capacity", including that caused by a state of intoxication, legally reducing an accused person's criminal culpability.

    Mental illness is an explanation, not an excuse.

    There is a difference between behavior that is labeled "mental illness" and insanity brought on perhaps by a delusional state of mind (that I don't believe has a physical cause).

    How are they not to blame?

    Are you equivocating here? They are to blame in the sense that they did it, but can not be held morally responsible.

    Someone who, say, kills their neighbor because they really believe he's a demon from Hell out to get them should not be locked up and punished as if responsible for their actions. As soon as the delusion is gone, they should be let go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If they think their neighbor is a demon... just tell them their cell is Disneyland, they shouldn't know the difference. You can't let someone roam free if they might go around killing people if they lose their grip on reality again.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...