Congressman Mike Rogers: "Boldly Saying What No Man Has Said Before"

Recently, in a congressional hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers (Michigan), spoke up boldly against Pres. Obama's infamous Healthcare Reform Bill. He essentially said that the bill is destroying what makes America great. More specifically, by giving the government "unprecedented power" to "rip you off your own individual [insurance/healthcare] plan." (click to view the video)

He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.

While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?

One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."

Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?

Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?

I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.

Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.

Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.

I am positively Twitter-fied

As of the other day, I have started Twitter.  It's kind of a neat concept.  It really levels the playing field in terms of communication with people.  You get to keep astride the events in the lives of people you know or are interested in, i.e. celebrities and others.  As far as I can tell you can personally reply to things they say.

Now, unfortunately for me, I don't have an iPhone or other mobile device that can access the internet, so my use is limited to when I am at a computer.  My updates are much  less frequent, in fact, I think I use my facebook message option more, but I am determined to master this new facet of global communication.  That is, when I am not in China and it is censored by the government.  I am writing this blog on the computers at school, whose servers are in Hong Kong, thereby circumventing the Binary Curtain of China (I think that's a nifty term; help me spread its usage).

I guess the bottomline of this is that I recommend setting up an account (free), and getting connected to other people.  I am currently following the activities of my favorite writers, directors, actors, newspapers, and sports organizations.  The NYTimes and NBA update several times each hour with links to breaking stories.  It's a wonderful way to have instant access to current events, with the sifting and sorting almost completely done for you.

Go for it!

Warning: Security Checkpoint Ahead

Seeing as how I consider myself a frequent flier, mostly because when someone talks about "home cooking" I picture reheated tinfoil entrees with Styrofoam "bread" rolls, I have had ample experience in the fun-and-friendly world of airport security.

I realize that this is the time of year when people will, like birds in the winter, take flight and go south.  Or at least go somewhere.  And with that glorious spreading of our wings, we must also undergo the laugh-a-minute security checkpoints.  I hope you can tell that my sarcasm is dripping like a first grader's nose in Antarctica.

Like most people, I relegate myself to the poking, prodding, and general invasion of bodily privacy in return for the knowledge that I will probably have a safe flight.  That is, unless some whack-job comes up with a better way of killing people, like ingesting a chemical that allows him, or her (I am not sexist), to breathe fire or cry tears of searing acid.

I find it strange that you are not allowed to bring on basic liquids, while you are allowed to bring on a belt, or a pen, or a cell phone.  All of these items are equally as deadly.  The only thing is that they don't explode.

How many of us have seen movies where the hero uses makeshift weapons?  It only takes a touch of creativity to turn anything into a lethal death-toy.  Heck, what did man have before tools?  His fists.  Are they going to start asking you not to bring hands on board an aircraft?  Will you be able to check them in your bags?  If it nudges you over the miserly weight allowance will you really have to pay the fine?  If you forget that you can't bring them on an airplane can you mail them to your destination or back home?  I think you get the idea.

Another bit of juicy irony is that, at least in America, parading around in your birthday suit is a criminal offense, yet in airport security checkpoints ask you to remove your belt, shoes, coats, watches, toupees, etc.  If you somehow manage to set off the metal detector, then they get their magic wand out and run it over your body.  I'm sorry, but that is too much like the criminal offense of molesting people or physical assault.  There has got to be a more decent way to search crowds for death-bringers.

Another interesting thought: they, meaning the Powers That Control The "Friendly Skies," don't want you taking weapons out of the country either.  I understand accountability and how international safety is a team sport.  But when it comes down to it, don't you want the bad guys and their weapons, etc, to leave?  Why try to find them and keep them within your borders?

Please don't take this last statement too seriously.  It's all in jest.  If you actually consider what I'm saying, it's obvious that my statements are flawed.  Again, it's just a joke.  But back to the issue at hand...

We must not forget the advantages of this system.  Firstly, it keeps the airways safe.  Until the next maniac tries something.  Secondly, it gives people peace of mind.  Once they make it past the Judgement Day security checkpoints.  Finally, it saves money on cleaning.  The floor around the checkpoints have got to be some of the cleanest places in the whole airport; no one is allowed to wear shoes!

I guess, after all of this ranting about security, I truly am thankful for the wonderful surly TSA workers who stand around all day telling people what they have to take off.  And trust me, there are people who go through the checkout line that you never want to see with anything less than a full-length parka on.  These unsung heroes keep the planes filled with safe people; old people who snore loudly; babies who scream the entire flight; kids that kick your seat-back as you are nodding off to sleep.  

Come to think of it, it truly is a miracle that there are hardly any casualties from commercial flights.

I encourage you all, despite your jet lag, blood-shot eyes, and swollen feet, to smile and thank your TSA agent the next time you go through the security checkpoint.  After all, they could let bad people through if they really wanted to...

Rain, Rain, Go Away!

So, folks, it's been a long time.  I mean a really long time, like, a "two-month" long time.  I apologize.  I fell off the world during that time.

Today in Beijing it rained.  "Big deal," you say, brushing the news aside.  Yeah, it is a big deal!  It normally takes my dad and I about 25 minutes to get me to where I work.  It took us 45 minutes to get one block.  All of this because of rain.  Well, it's nice to blame the weather because you can't be called insensitive if you criticize it.  You can if you blame the actual problem: the drivers' etiquette, or lack thereof.

When people talk about repression and the denial of freedoms being an inherently insidious thing, they were clearly living in some fantasy world.  Some people are just not interested in living democratically and taking the initiative to fix things.  It's not their "thing."  

The traffic jam that I was trapped in was not due to a car accident, or a fallen tree.  It was because the drivers were not willing to work together.  They were all focused on getting themselves through the intersection, regardless of how it was accomplished.  No one would yield to another.  No one was willing to give an inch of ground.  In fact, many were taking inches that weren't there to take in the first place!  It was like watching a bunch of kindergartners scramble after a handful of Skittles thrown on the ground; complete and utter chaos!

From this isolated example, it does not seem like democracy would work for those several dozen drivers, as they just didn't care about the welfare of others or the advancement of a group, and coincidentally it applies in the literal sense as well.  They only wanted to focus on them and theirs.  There was no "working for the common good."  In fact, less freedom, harsher rules, and more punishment for the violation of them would have been the best solution to the issue at hand.

Wait, with the whole "focusing on them and theirs" thing has jogged my memory; that's just what it's like in most democratic societies anyway!

Never mind, everyone.

"Muddah, Faddah, kindly disregard this letter."

How to be Successful

Recent political developments have offered me the chance to reflect on success and prosperity. While I agree that all people deserve opportunities to grow and find success, I do not agree that people are entitled to success. Success comes as a result of hard work; plain, old-fashioned work.

Too often we see the Ponzi schemes of society, offering something for nothing. We all took elementary school math, right? Zero cannot equal 100, so why would it be any different in the business world? Even the fundamentals of physics affirms the impossibility of something for nothing in the Conservation of Matter theorem; that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only reallocated.

In ages past, alchemy was a sought-after skill. Later it was gold digging and treasure hunting. The get-rich-quick schemes that are so prevalent today are merely the alchemy and gold digging of our day.

One would be seen as unwise to pursue a career in alchemy or gold digging, yet today people regularly get involved in schemes that promise rewards for very little or no work or investment. All too soon becomes clear that the meager amount invested, in some cases an entire savings account, is lost and there is nothing to show for it.

Unfortunately, for many this is an experience that has to be lived before they learn that lasting success, cannot come from taking shortcuts. As my mom always taught me, “Cheaters never prosper.” It was this pursuit of shortcuts that contributed to the current economic situation. How can we hope to rebuild an economy if we don’t use the proper materials and processes to lay the foundations?

Egypt was built on the backs of slaves; slaves who were not allowed to skip details; slaves who completed the process in full, however agonizing is must have been. The pyramids and tombs that they built are a lasting monument to the merits of hard work.

P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Most of them soon lose everything the have if they don’t learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before them. For true success, you must put forth true effort.

No Cheese for you: The Cheese Nazis

Today I offer a hot tip for all of you international travelers. Word on the street is that Chinese customs is no longer allowing travelers to bring in foreign cheeses. Why? One can only speculate.

The background on the issue is this: in the not-to-distant past, there was the damaging discovery that there were many Chinese-made dairy products that contained melamine, resulting in a decline in the consumption of Asian dairy products. The correlation between those events and today’s issue can be interpreted in several ways.

One viewpoint could be that this is wrought from the blatant cruelty of the government; the government is proactively seeking to make life miserable for the ex-pat community, forcing them to buy Chinese products that, by the way, are not renowned for their excellence throughout the international market. Quite frankly, that opinion is ignorant and biased, not to mentioned more than a bit far-fetched. Only a moron would consider it valid.

Another angle is that this is another move by the government to remind everyone that they are in control and the can do as they darn well please, not unlike a six-year-old on a power trip. Again, this is another incorrect assumption spawned from the ranting of flippant liberals.

On the other hand, perhaps this was actually a planned, tactical action to stimulate the flagging industry. With the confiscation of the cheeses, it would close the foreign cheese “grey” market among the ex-pat community and divert the consumers’ resources into the Chinese dairy industry, hopefully helping in the resuscitation the flagging sector. While this final view is overly complicated and may be reading too far into the situation, it can be seen as logical. Granted, though, it is not necessarily the most effective means to the desired end.

In the end, who can say why this travesty is taking place? No one from the Chinese side is saying anything and there is no clear explanation as to why this move would benefit anyone in the long- or short-term. Also, I thought is was the Chinese stuff that was dangerous…

Coming up next: Tips to help you succeed

Kim Jong "The Mentally" Il

It's been a little while, eons for the blogosphere, but I am back, writer's block gone, and I am commentating on, as promised, everyone's favorite Korean sociopath: Kim Jong Il.

I will begin with a brief biography, taken straight from his autobiography, "How To Lose Friends and Alienate Yourself, but Gain Control of a Withering Northeast Asian Country in the Process," available anywhere non-existent books are sold. It reads as follows:

In the beginning, there was Kim Jong Il, no further information is required.

The book goes on and on about how he is to rule over the world one day and other ramblings of a depraved mind, so to speak. What he doesn't mention is that the rest of the world exists solely for the purpose of making sure he doesn't nuke himself, or more importantly us, by erecting more embargoes than Elizabeth Taylor had marriages.

It seems that every few minutes he decides that his country, the ironically names "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (emphasis added) might have a nuclear missile and threatens to launch it. However, as we have found out through experience, the missiles are generally no more effective than a bottle rocket, often with the same effect. One may be led to think that he does not bother to ask his scientists what they have actually developed before he makes brash statements about WMDs.

Mr. Il... he just never learns does he? How many more sanctions can the U.N. place on North Korea? I am really quite curious. It seems as that as long as I could remember we have been alienating the DPRK. What is left to embargo? Do we start blockading migratory birds?

I recall a few weeks back that I was reading an article about Supreme Ruler of the Universe Kim Jong Il and how he and his cronies were in the final development stages of their Taepodong II missile and that they didn't know what to expect from the Obama administration, as opposed to the Bush administration. Well, in my frank and uneducated opinion, that is probably the wrong information to leak.

Let's just review the necessary facts: 1. The DPRK is determined to spite the U.N. with their missile development. 2. They do this with history suggesting that only negative outcomes will result. 3. They do this without having the foggiest idea of how Obama's administration will result. Is it me, or does that sound like KJI slept through "Dictatorship 101?"

Now it's a well-known fact that I can't end without the obligatory slam on his hair: it's utter silliness. He, Donald Trump, and Rod Blagojevich should start a club: Those Who Have Hair But Don't Know How To Wear It.

Honestly, how do you expect people to follow you or take your threats seriously when you look like the offspring of the Bride of Frankenstein and Elmer Fudd? You simply cannot demand credibility and respect, even if you have a country and your own army!

Well, our time is up, but I already have a treat prepared for next week:

Why are Chinese customs officers confiscating foreign cheese in suitcases?

Until tomorrow...