As if Obama’s health care proposals were not flawed enough, CBS News reports a previously unnoticed provision of the bill which makes a shambles of any privacy surrounding your federal tax returns.
Must have missed Bob Dole on Cavuto.
In a blog, CBSNews’ Declan McCullagh reports that “Section 431 (a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted grow income, the number of dependents, and ‘other information as is prescribed by’ regulation” to the “new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs.”
Shorter Dick, if a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its’ ass when it jumped.
Updated already! &YA
I’m pretty sure that my two friends left in the blogosphere are wondering why I’m doing what I’m doing, which is a valid question, and maybe others are too, but I think it worth letting those who read this know what’s going on in my head, and why I’m not hammering the GOP on various issues anymore.
I’ve already pinched Mazarin as a prelude to where I’m going, which is not to say anything more than my only obligation is to the good governance of the United States, not to any particular issue that I may or may not support. I’m sorry, but I just don’t care to do that anymore, for various reasons, one being having the time necessary to devout to good snark for political infighting,.
The other is I have really done all I could, and achieved all I really wanted to, as far as electoral politics goes, and where snark is most useful. I can be a pretty destructive force, if I do say so myself, but it isn’t unidirectional. I met and matched the Republicans at it a long time ago and it’s just a constant wear. This isn’t the blog most people on the right want to see their names on, nor most of the media either, I would expect. It just gets old.
Nor am I interested in being confined by any issue or ideological position that may be current with any particular group of people, be it the Democratic Party’s or the blogosphere, when I don’t really see things in that particular way. I can’t think of anything I haven’t advocated in alignment with my side of the aisle, up to the economic melt down when I supported the President, even though it would have been better for the Party to have made him into another Herbert Hoover. You may, but for the moment I can’t think of anything, and I can think of couple of people that I couldn’t advocate for because I had taken a position that would not be supportive of their aspirations in the electoral process. I don’t owe anyone, and I don’t call in favors either.
So larger forces are calling me now, and I’m moving on. I’m tired of the feedback loops and the hula hoops, always subtle, besides a few from Kossacks named Marcos, anyway. The buzz of the whole thing suggest its’ disuse far more than other brain chemical inducing externalities, and so there you have it.
I’m not going away, I’m just leaving the band.
Just to be clear, I wouldn’t want any right wing window dressing to think I’ll loose my touch. I’m ambidextrous and I always hit my mark.
(fixed the spelling,)
One of the reasons I’m a big supporter of universal educational opportunities is because it is imperative in democracies to have, or at least try to achieve, a proximate number of brains to head count participating in the process.
It is a difficult enough process to accomplish anything in our form of government, which leads some to prefer, or at least point the efficiency of more centralized governments, and for that matter economies because they are quicker to respond to a crisis. To an extent I would agree, with the caveat, that it easier under a monarchical or totalitarian system to fit one head with a rope as opposed to the many required for the mob.
One thing being over looked in the “your one,” “no you’re one,” blathering of the demagogues is the impugning of motives that cannot be factually establish with an normative definition of empiricism. At some point it becomes more destructive to the whole than it is constructive to any particular side or party of the debate.
I do not expect all politicians to be honest, but I would hope that they all would be honorable. To some extent I would also think that the demagogues would also give some consideration to the well being of the republic, no matter which position they take on any given issue, even given the addiction of the glory they bask in from the public.
I try very hard not to listen to, or watch them anymore, but to say that I think Glenn Beck is a twit is not to ascribe a motive to what he does, because I don’t know what that motive actually is. I think he is a twit because he uses his emotionalism, or the personae of the overly emotional to try and make an empirical point he wishes to establish in any given debate. This isn’t unique to Beck, it is ubiquitous to the whole genre of the lubricious locutions of these loquacious talking heads.
(Hows that Mr. Will?)
I need to install a site meter so I can gonkulate the probabilities of how many meanings does a poem how.
I had a vision of the city in metallic flames
I heard the sirens screaming out all their names
I felt a cold wind blowing their minds away
So I stayed away, it didn’t matter anyway.
I saw a country girl at the fair looking fine
I whistled an old tune and made her mine
I felt the hot breathe of the hurricane
blow it all away, all the same, I remain.
I looked for hell and found it was only in my head
I went singing with the angels when I fell dead
I went swimming in the silence of its’ all been said.
What could I say, it didn’t matter anyway.
I watched the twinkling of the stars on an endless ride
I listened to the spheres gurgling in the formaldehyde,
eye to eye with marbled statues made of the driven insane
standing in their main, all the same, the games remain.
First you will have to define the terms.
I’m sorry but half of what I’m reading about conservatives, liberals, and libertarians is making zero sense either politically or philosophically.
All forms of libertarianism support broad civil liberties. … The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism. Libertarianism in this sense is still encountered in metaphysics in discussions of free will. The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views. Metaphysical and philosophical contrasts between philosophies of necessity and libertarianism continued in the early 19th century.
Principled people can discuss these things as concepts, but it has to be kept within the framework of what is politically achievable, not politically religious.
“If God did not exist we would have to invent him.” Why? If the state did not exist we would have to invent one. Why? If society did not exist we would have to invent one to build a civilization with.
Woodstock only worked because it didn’t last very long as a physical reality, but remained a long time as a metaphysical one. It still required the existence of the state, or no one could have got there. Infrastructure doesn’t fall off of the moon. Smashing the state is regressive, unless you think that somehow modern people are superior to the Europeans after the sacking of Rome and the fall of the Empire.
I’m a liberal because I believe that the state can and must change to meet the needs of the current generation, and that new facts require a reassessment, and reexamination of old positions and beliefs of what the role of the state is and what its’ relationship is to individuals within it, and that those facts are not solely determined and established within, or by any one state, nor by anyone within those states.
I said a long time ago that I wasn’t concerned about humans ability to think, but our capabilities to think. I posted up a picture of a human brain stem cell with a a conception of the multi-verse to illustrate the point in another way, in another field.
People want to get religious about politics, and political about religion without understanding either beyond what it means to them personally, oblivious to the needs of society and hence their own civilization.
I’m a liberal because I want conservatives to keep almost all of their money except that which is required by the state to peacefully expand the pie and include the ever growing population’s needs and desires for personal necessities and fulfillment in a modern world.
People always say they want the truth, but I tend to think they want their opinion verified as being so.
There is probably a reason why most biographies start with college, after that age you should know how not to get caught.
Moral absolutes are something you only find at the birth of a religion.
Legislating is called making the sausage, which when digested the optimist says will make the child grow, while the pessimist thinks they are the toilet.
Since I’m not going to have time to keep up on every little nuance and faux pas of everyone involved in politics I don’t have to do the rat-ta-tat anymore either which lets me get back to writing just to write, and perhaps establish some clarity and transparency around here which has been lacking. Blame it on Jeff Jarvis who has used the word penis on his blog, which he told me about on television.
I suppose foul, salty language should be discussed, dissed and cussed, discouraged and tolerated depending on the context it is used in, and I will probably quote some people verbatim when they say something worthwhile and happen to emphasize certain things using expletives as we all do do so well. It is hardly persuasive so if that is the intention of what is being said, to persuade, I think I would find some other way of emphasizing what it is I’m saying. But lets be real here too, swearing is as common as white lies, which are bullshit wrapped in acceptability. I’ll do my best to keep it to a minimum.
I have to be careful about how I clarify and make transparent since I live in a small town and I am not interested in exposing anyone to the intertubes just because I perceive or they perceive somebody’s done somebody wrong.
I think people look for reasons to exclude rather than include other people in their lives because other people are a hassle. They take us away from our preoccupation with ourselves, whom most of us dearly love. It’s hard enough dealing with whatever social relationships we are already in, family, job, church and beer joint. We look for offenses and find them when they aren’t there in those outside our social groups just as we fail to see them, or overlook them within the group if we gauge that there is an advantage to ourselves to do so, and in that case we apply constructive criticisms for the benefit of the offender.
Ripping people off isn’t just physical material either, and so we call it all sorts of other things like professional courtesy. If you deal in ideas you want people to rip you off. But in some sense it is establishing that somehow you are better than someone else, and we are back to junkie trig.
I’m not going to write my drunk story here about having spend a great deal of time in debauch and the idiocy of those days which you can’t apologize for, because contrary to common beliefs of non alcoholics drunks don’t always say what they are thinking or how they really feel, they say stuff to get another drink and being drunk screw it all up. Someday I will, but part of the program is to do no harm and sometimes just to apologize to some people hurts them over again and so you have to use some discretion, and perhaps error on the side of caution without, erring on the cowardice of admitting and accepting the consequences of having been a horses ass. It is a line all of us in recovery have to deal with and I can’t give anyone any advice there. I wished I could.
There will be more, but I think that is enough of a start so that, I too, can use the word penis on my blog.
Since I will on occasion be posting, like this one, I’ve opened up comments. You be nice and I’ll be nice. It isn’t that hard and it is better on the soul, I guarantee you.