DanCaveman's blog

Well, I was surfing the drudge report to see what kind of "ideas" the conservatives have and I came across this:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pid=512216&id=136264019722601&ref=fbx_album&fbid=151290924886577
It is a picture of a color guard at Rush Limbaugh's wedding.  I just don't feel like he has earned the honor of a color guard.  It has nothing to do with his views.  I don't think Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, or anyone else that has never served has earned that honor.

I don't have too much more to say, this seems wrong and disrespectful.  This isn't honoring the military, this is the military honoring Rush Limbaugh.   Rush Limbaugh has not earned that honor.

Yeah, there are crazies of all stripes; however, I am sick of one side (conservatives) justifying actions by those they respect, listen to, admire, etc.., by saying "it is the same on both sides."
This is a stupid argument.  Let me make two quick points.  First and foremost, unlike a conservative, I believe that if someone does something wrong, it is wrong, whether we philosophically agree or not.

Second, it most definitely NOT the same on both sides.  I can list example after example of equivalent situations on both sides and how the conservatives handled them very differently than progressives; instead, Olbermann makes a good point using a very good example:
 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I was watching as the former Marine Corps General, who said that it is perfectly ok for straight military personnel to announce that they are straight, but if gays are allowed to, they have been given "special accommodations".  Even worse than that, he concluded that the worst genocide that has happened since WWII was allowed to happen because the Dutch allows gays and lesbians to serve openly.
Paraphrasing his "proof" - **some unspecified individual in the Dutch military mentioned that being gay has something to do with the atmosphere where they were not properly trained....

Ok, General, I have a question for you - If you told a subordinate to do something, and he said, Sir, I can't do that because someone somewhere told me that it will contribute somehow to something bad.... WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT RESPONSE?

If you are going to testify before congress, use facts, figures, or even some basic logical argument.  Don't use some vague here-say from someone that may have been on a totally different subject.  Oh yea, it you do, at least cite that individual so we can verify that you aren't full of crap.  At the very least DON'T MAKE SHIT UP!  Now, I am being somewhat harsh, since I don't know for sure that someone in the Dutch army didn't make a comment to him, but if you can't site who, or even what they said, keep quiet.  I also doubt someone said the massacre happened because the Dutch have gays in their military.  So, although I don't have proof, I find it VERY hard to believe.

One last point... Does General Sheehan think the military is so poorly trained or undisciplined that they couldn't act professional serving with other Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine because of what they do in their in their private lives.  The best, most effective, and thoroughly trained military in the world would fall apart because gays would be allowed to serve?

Let me preface this comment by saying, I am not trashing Christianity, I am trashing the ignorance and disregard and disrespect for anyone that does not believe as he does.
He essentially degrades anyone who is not Christian.  If you are Christian, it shows. The subtext being that, if you are not Christian, you are somehow less extraordinary, or possibly worse.  I don't care what religion you are, you have to see that it is offensive.

This is NOT a Christian nation.  Men of all colors, creeds, and nationalities have shed blood and gave their lives for a country that stands for respect, and even pride in our differences.  Brit Hume, you disgust me!

I was watching Olbermann, waiting for Rachel Maddow, when Keith played a clip of Michael Steele on Sean Hannity. Olbermann focused on Steele backtracking about Republican's taking over the house or "softening the blow". The real news is not the admission that Republicans won't take back the house, but the admission that Steel doesn't know if they [the Republicans] are ready to take over the house.  When he is asked to answer his own question.
Steele:  "[...] If we do that, are we ready..."
Hannity: "Are you...are you. "

Steele:  "are we ready, are we..."
Hannity: "Answer your own question, do you think they are ready?"
Steele:  "...are we ready, I don't know....."

Then Steele does his normal rambling about power hungry .... drinking the Potomac, you know, the usual Steele nonsense.

Now I can just easily chalk it up to Steele's mindless rambling, but it also seems to be an admission of his lack of confidence of direction and ability of the Republican candidates as well as the message (or lack there of)

Well, I guess it doesn't surprise me that Texas would accidentally ban all marriages in a state constitution amendment that was intended to discriminate against gays and lesbians.  The language from the ballot is as follows:

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

A quick grammatical breakdown of the language shows two separate clauses.  The first one describing the definition of marriage, then the second clause says that such unions and anything like them are not legal in Texas.

Now, if that isn't bad enough, when I read this amendment, I would argue that does not ban all marriages, but really, if read literally, it only bans straight marriage.  Since the first clause describes exactly what marriage is ("only of the union of one man and one woman"), and then bans things "identical or similar" to that definition, I guess two men could get "married" if they called it something else.

Way to go Texas!  You might want to get a handle on the English language before you start passing any more amendments to your constitution.

While making a point about how veterans don't like the VA Healthcare System, Tancredo is interrupted by Markos Moulitsas of The Daily Kos, who informs Tancredo that he is a veteran and Markos throws in a little tidbit about Tancredo skipping out of Vietnam after being an activist for the war.

Well, maybe the shot about Tancredo's service was a bit of a low blow, but for Tancredo to become indignant and demand an apology is laughable. He and other Republicans use the military as little props for their own agendas, then when it comes time to support them by giving them MRAPs, more armor when in combat, or education benefits when they get home they turn their backs.

Hey Tom, this is for you - you want to talk the issue - fine. Every veteran I know (especially the ones that need it the most - those that actually served in Vietnam who are now getting older or were injured during the conflict), rave about the system. All the older vets I know keep telling me to go get my benefits. It was so confusing to set them up when I got home, I just went with my employer healthcare - I think I made a mistake. I don't know what veterans organizations you are talking to, but not one of them that I have heard about is advocating a "voucher" system. That is the same BS idea as privatizing social security. All it does is put the vast amount of money into hands that are going to squeeze it for profit. Right now, every dollar goes for overhead (much less than the private system), or healthcare. By advocating a voucher system, you are essentially asking veterans to sacrifice even more - give a little bit of the money that they are paying for healthcare to some hospital or insurance exec. Good plan genius.
 

 

Ok Tancredo, back to your cowardice. Do you have any shame? It is also insulting how gung ho you are to start and advocate wars when you get to send others. I am sensing a pattern here - you love war (an activist supporting the Vietnam war), but when asked to serve, you got a deferment for "depression". How many in the military are getting deferments for that now? If these wars are so important, why haven't you asked the rest of America to sacrifice? Many in the military are on their 5 tours or more and you can't even so much as ask for more taxes. Maybe you are like W and think that people are sacrificing enough when they have to suffer through images on the news.

The following is from a facebook post gone awry; I put too much time into it, I figured I should share it here :)
------------------------------------------------------

I guess I am confused about what we are actually debating.  There is a ton of demogoguery and lashing out at labels and boogey men, and very little facts or discussion on specific policy, problems, or solutions.

I see a ton of talk and anger about taxes and how Obama making businesses go out of business, but no reference to exactly what policy he has implemented that has caused this.  I see anger about taxes, but as  Mike points out, the tax rates are nowhere out of the norm, and I would guess that everyone here (even those with businesses) are paying less than the last 8 years.  I agree that he missed a very good opportunity to get the economy going quicker with better use of the stimulus money.  We need tons of municipal projects like roads and bridges, so they don't fall down.  We are in deparate need of more hospitals, schools, and fire departments.  We could build more police deparments and fund them so they aren't spread so thin.  As shown by Moody's research (hardly a partisan source), food stamps is also a good way to jump start the economy.  (http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=102598  about half way down the pay - or if you don't want to read - http://endtheecho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mz_012208_1t.gif).  Of course that is politically difficult and he would have been attacked by the same people, and, I am sure the communist, socialist, fascist labels would be flying even higher and louder.  Even though the logic makes perfect sense it is ignored by those with an agenda or those protecting their ideology.  Building stuff means you have to hire people.  People who buy stuff.  Stuff that has to be made that hires more people.  There is beauty in the simplicity.  

If a large company, whose products aren't selling, gets a tax break, do they give it to the employees?  Do they start making more product that isn't selling?  If you say yes, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.  Sarcasm aside, it goes directly to shareholders, investors and maybe a couple of executives.  Now, take the same amount of money and give it to those who are barely getting by, and guess what, they spend it.  Maybe they go out to dinner.  Maybe they treat their children to something that they normally can't afford, or maybe they just eat better.  Whatever it is, it goes directly out the door again.  And VOILA, the big company is now selling more widgets, and making a profit.  They now need more workers - who get hired and buy more widgets.  It is amazing how it works for both rich and poor.  Amazing, something good for the country is good for EVERYONE.

That being said, I know more than one company that is staying alive directly because of the stimulus.  An architectural firm I know about is staying afloat because of state projects coming down the line from stimulus money.  As I mentioned above, this is the type of stimulus needed.

I see anger about people getting handouts and taking advantage of the sytem, however, those are a minor problem.  In addition, the simplicity that seems to strike me is ** Healthcare is going to be cheaper if we take profit out of the equation **.  I don't see access to ones care that could keep someone healthy or save their life as any less of a right than police protection.  How can I have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if I am denied life?  Is it any more tragic that a child, adult, or senior citizen dies of an easily treatable disease than murder?  Well, I don't and about three times the number that are murdered die every year for lack of health care. http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917 - cut the numbers in half and it is still appalling.  Especially when they are easy to prevent.  Making a profit - now lets get this clear, I am not talking about doctor pay, I am talking about "investors" and executives of the insurance companies - making a profit on healthcare is dangerous at best.  The incentive for the insurance companies is NOT to pay claims.  This isn't fantasy, this is seen over and over again, I have had it happen to me.  They deny a claim that they clearly should pay - that is easy.  You figure some people won't argue and just pay.  You have to fight to get what you have paid for.  That isn't even including the snide tricks to disqualify someone or catch them with fine print or procedural clauses.  I have worked in medical billing, I have seen some of these tricks and loopholes.  

It comes down to this, profit is not evil in all circumstances.  I am all for it in selling widgets or whatchamahoos.  It is not good when it is life or death.  There is no time or energy for fighting the insurance companies when you are also fighting for your life. Plain and simple, profit should be taken out of healthcare.  Healthcare is ALWAYS LESS than Healthcare + Profit + Marketing.

Let me point out, that, even though I feel like I am pretty well researched, I welcome sound logical arguments that prove me wrong.  Sound arguments like that help shape my opinions and let me be stronger, smarter, and more informed; however, shouting communist, socialist, "love it or leave it", is going to do nothing for my opinion and tells me more about you than my views.