The liberals are running amok praising themselves for a "job-well done"...
they're comparing what they did for the country as similar to Medicare/Medicaid... proudly.
umm... DEMOCRAPS! Listen up ... THOSE SYSTEMS ARE FAILED. RUNNING OUT!!!!!!! UNFUNDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM THE NEW DEAL IS FAILING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO VOTE, NVM BE IN POWER?!
21 comments:
Tell me ... Do you think that you could raze a dilapidated, crumblimg shack and construct a brand new state-of-the-art mansion in its place - with both hands and one leg tied behind your back? It's a bit like the challenge that the Dems faced as they tried to craft an effective, economical, all-encompassing healthcare bill as the Conservatives placed every obstacle possible in its path. Is the new bill perfect? Heck no - far from it! But it's a baby step in the right direction, at least. And it's disingeneous for anyone to believe that the final product is anywhere near as comprehensive, economical, and logical as it could have been without all of the barriers set in its path ny people who have likely never had to worry about whether they could afford medical treatment or medicine they needed, and who never worried that divulging that a family member had some (often innocuous) pre-existing condition might forever result in that individual being turned down for health insurance coverage. That, as my mother would say, is an absolute "shunda". It's just unthinkable, and something that we, as a country,should be appalled and embarrassed to admit has been a very real issue for so many
families who live and work here. And if we can make further inroads in putting some shackles on the insurance providers, and the for-profiteers who now run our hospitals as big businesses rather than as providers of healthcare services, we'll be even further down the path we need to travel. But what do I know, right? I'll just have to remember to don my "liberal" armband, and report to those of you who are so much more enlightened to learn about the error of my ways.
I read your blog often, and I'm usually impressed with what you have to say and how you say it. But this post ... Wekl, I'm disappointed. I don't begrudge you your opinions, but you are much to good a writer and much to smart a person to fall back on broad-brush insults and name-calling. Really: "Democraps"?? My admiration for your usual open-minded outlook - particularly in light of the rhetoric you're bombarded with by many of your less-fair-minded and often vituperative frum counterparts - dimmed a bit tonight. I hope it's only a temporary "blip"; surely you must at least agree with the basic premise of affordable, quality healthcare for all US citizens, right? If not, I think we have a bigger chasm between us than a bit of name-calling.
Shabbat shalom, and wishes for a happy and sweet Pesach. (Apologies for any typos; I wrote this on my b'berry
.)
(Shoot, my post had WAY more typos than I'd imagined! Yes, I actually DO know the difference between "to" and "too"! Again, my apologies for the typos and formatting issues!)
"surely you must at least agree with the basic premise of affordable, quality healthcare for all US citizens, right?"
Of course everyone would like that. But it depends on the methods one uses to make that happen if someone would agree to that. For example, someone in the income bracket of 250K+/year, would most likely say yes to the premise, but no to the methods used, as the "affordable", quality healthcare of other people will be coming out of their checkbook under the bill.
And if they refuse to pay those extra taxes, they will get thrown into jail by the wonderful Democratic Government.
"You give me more money or I throw you into a cage and lock you up." doesn't sound so peachy, even under noble intentions.
(Warning - responding once again from my b'berry, sorry in advance for typos) I would assume that all of us pay at least a portion of our taxes toward programs that we either don't need ourselves or that we might not agree with. Where I live, for example, the school taxes are *very* high. And everyone who lives here pays those taxes, whether or not they have children who attend our schools. Hopefully, the investment that all of us make in those kids (and yes, my son is one of them right now, but if we live here once he's out of school - which is likely - we'll still be paying that tax) will "pay off" in terms of yielding a "crop" of well-educated individuals who are amply prepared to take on serving, contributing to, and leading our town, state, country, and world as the up-and-coming generation who will be "taking over" (and hopefully doing a better job than some of its predecessors).
To me, assuming some of the financial burden of making sure that those who don't have health insurance are able to receive quality care is just the RIGHT thing to do. It will also likely encourage more in that group to seek preventative care and follow through with the care plans that they receive; too many people now use "guaranteed" ER care as their one and only medical caregiver, and wait until a situation is acute/chronic before even going that route. Tell me, who do you think winds up paying for THAT care - that very expensive care - when the patient or his family is unable to do so??
Also, those in that "$250+ tax bracket" ... Trust me, it's very easy to be up there one day and to fall ingloriously the next. And yes, people should plan, save, yada yada yada. But sh*t happens. Jobs are lost. People become disabled, or they die. I truly hope that nothing earth-shattering befalls you, but if it does I hope that you will still be able to get the medical care you need. And I guess that I'm willing to take a bit more of a tax hit to make sure that's going to happen - just as I'm grateful to those who are also taking the tax hit, in the event it will one day benefit my own family. The myopic and, yes, selfish attitude of "I don't want to contribute unless it will benefit me and mine personally" is a dangerous one. And it's one that can really bounce back to bite you in the @ss, since life IS so unpredictable. And yep - you can choose to pay, or you can choose jail. Just like the choice you have regarding paying any other tax, or adhering to any other law. It's all a matter of whether those consequences are worth the choices that are made.
I work in a senior management level position, and we're in a pretty high tax bracket, one that will definitely feel the pinch of the new healthcare reform taxes. But until very recently, I had been out of work for almost a year after being part of a very large "staff reduction" last spring. I fruitlessly looked for work - any work - like crazy, and it was a scary, demoralizing time for us. My husband is disabled so I provide the sole financial support of my family. Thank G-d for COBRA, although the high payments were killing us. But because of pre-existing conditions we all have, we did not qualify for private coverage. Oh, did I mention that my husband requireed two major surgeries (cancer-related) during that time, and that our son had a (medically-necessary) surgery to remove his tonsils and adenoids? And that's on top of the regular "shtick" that requires medical attention. If we'd had no healthcare coverage ... I can't even comprehend that scenario. But it's one that millions of other families face as their own reality. And that's just not acceptable to me - as a mother, as a wife, as a daughter, as a Jew, or as a human being.
Anyone who wants "free" health care is selfish and lazy and greedy, because what these people are hoping for is for someone else to foot the bill for them. And their excuse is that there are some people who can't afford it.
#1 - People who can't afford it automatically qualify for Medicaid.
#2 - People majority of whose who are not covered are those who choose not to be covered. My own brother needs to see a doctor but he doesn't have an insurance. Medicaid said that he makes too much. He checked out and it would cost him $200 a month to be insured. He said, "I have better things to spend this money on." On of the better things is spending $350 on a sail boat ride.
#3 Yes, there will always be an eye tearing story about someone without insurance who fell through the cracks, but with government controlling our health care (as it already does) many more people will suffer. In England there are hospitals to refused to admit laboring women with over 33% bmi. Their dental care is almost none-existent. In Canada, the waiting lists for cancer screening are so long that people literally dying because they were diagnosed too late. In Russia if one is over a certain age he is strongly advised against seeking a doctor. In Netherlands people are euthenized on regular basis as part of their medical care policy. I don't want that to happen here, but we have communists and socialists running this country who think that they have a right to make life and death decisions on my behalf.
Blah. This is a disappointing post. I agree with "50 is the new 35" (and I love the name, BTW).
Thank God, my husband and I are in stellar shape financially and we have pretty decent (though expensive- we pay about $900/month in premiums for a family of four) healthcare through my husband's work. But... I worry about the silliest thing.
My husband just finished his graduate degree and is looking for a new job. We're both young and healthy, with the exception of two relatively minor issues (one issue is his, one issue is mine) for which we both take medication. When he does find a new job, we will have to change insurance because its not transferable. And, chances are, our two issues will be considered pre-existing and we'll have to pay, out-of-pocket, to be treated for these conditions... for the rest of our lives.
So, in short mlevin, we don't fall into any of your three categories and we're still encouraged by what "50" describes as a baby step forward. Yes, it is hardly perfect but it is a step towards reform. And reform is badly needed.
"I would assume that all of us pay at least a portion of our taxes toward programs that we either don't need ourselves or that we might not agree with."
I'm not sure what your point is here. Simply because something is already happening does not give us justification to increase the magnitude that it is happening. (In my mind that is already a problem as it is, this will just make it a bigger problem. )
"To me, assuming some of the financial burden of making sure that those who don't have health insurance are able to receive quality care is just the RIGHT thing to do."
Except you aren't just doing that. That would be charity. You are not just assuming some of the financial burden, you are forcing other people under threat of being locked up in a cage (jail) to give away their money and assume the financial burden as well, simply because the end matches your subjective moral preference.
Perhaps I believe that assuming some of the financial burden of making sure that those who don't have a golden toilet are able to receive a quality golden toilet is just the RIGHT thing to do. Perhaps this is my subjective moral preference.
Would that allow me to force others to pay for it?
"Tell me, who do you think winds up paying for THAT care"
Taxpayers under threat of being locked up in a cage?
"I truly hope that nothing earth-shattering befalls you, but if it does I hope that you will still be able to get the medical care you need."
Why thank you.
"And I guess that I'm willing to take a bit more of a tax hit to make sure that's going to happen"
I'm flattered. Feel free to donate. Just don't force others to.
""I don't want to contribute unless it will benefit me and mine personally" is a dangerous one."
And "If people don't want to contribute, we will force them to contribute or lock them in a cage" is not a dangerous mindset?
"And yep - you can choose to pay, or you can choose jail."
Listen to your words. You have just illuminated the fundamental problem with Democracy. You have allowed and supported the government in becoming an extortion racket. Not that different than a mafia or a highway robber who gives his victim a choice between his money or his life. (if you resist going to jail and resist the police you could face death)
Avi - I agree with everything you said, but you forgot to mention that ObamaCare does not guarantee quality care. All it guarantees is that money will be stolen from those people who are making money to pay for a general practitioner's visit. Everything else, like seeing a specialist, being treated for a condition and etc are not a guarantee at all. They could just be as easily denied because you are too old or too fat or too blond or whatever else they could come up with.
AML - please enlighten me how is it a government's problem whether or not you have a preexisting condition or need certain medication. Government is there to ensure law and order and protection from foreign invasion.
Wow. Just ... wow. I am usually not at a loss for words, but there's just not much of a comback to small-mindnedness, selfishness, and the misinformed-who-refuse-to-be-informed. And then to throw in the red herrings of "communism" and "socialism" and "death panels" - c'mon people.
Newsflash: There will *always* be people who are looking for a hand-out, a free-ride. Those are people who will, unfortunately, figure out how to "play the system", ***no matter what the specifics of that system***. However, although I don't have "hard data", I'd venture that the vast majority of people don't want (or at least expect) "free" - they just don't want to be buried financially or literally - to lose their homes, or to get progressively sicker and die or at the very least be ultimately be unable to make a living - if they are in need of medical care.
So, mlevin, you know someone who bought a boat rather than pay for health insurance? Shame on them. But you'd use that one anecdotal story to condemn the remainder of our citizens to a lack of medical care? And throw in the strawman of "death councils" (which is so ridiculous, and has been refuted so many times, that I won't even take the time to respond to that issue), to boot? (Oh, and as a sidebar, not every provider accepts Medicaid, btw.)
As averse as I've always been to using broad-brush labels to describe entire groups of people(a' la the "stupid liberals" label that was used by our blog hostess), I have to confess that I've always considered us Jews, as a group, to be emphatically charitable, empathetic, and concerned about others. The closed-minded, judgemental, bitter, selfish, downright-cold comments I've seen here - including the original post - are staggering to me. (I'm assuming, based on the screen nicks, that all commenters so far are Jewish - apologies if I'm mistaken.) If I were a non-Jew reading these posts, I might find AMPLE justification to believe the old myths about Jews being stingy and non-inclusive of any individual or group aside from other Jews.
Again, I sincerely hope that none of you who are so quick to judge others, to label them as lazy or weak or evil, are ever in a position where you find yourselves in need of compassion and care (for either yourselves or for your family) that you are unable to afford. But if you are, I hope that the care you need is available to you, and that you are not made to jump through hoops that just add a layer of embarrassment and pain to an already-stressful situation.
And again (because bottom-line effects about all some of you are interested in considering): If those who can benefit from this new opportunity begin to avail themselves of preventative care, and seek care for issues before they become severe, then the "hit" to our wallets will be less than you are imagining.
I never considered myself to be a "flaming liberal", but I'm beginning to think that my leanings are a heck of a lot more liberal than those of most of those who post here. (I even fall within the dreaded "Reform" affiliation, if that helps add any fuel to your fire!) As a Jew, and as a "humanist", I guess I never wanted to think of "compassion" or "generosity" or "empathy" as characteristics that were limited to one sub-set of our political system. Heck, I know of many Republicans who personify those attributes, and other Dems who do not. But reading such judgemental, selfish, and misinformed crap written by other Jews who believe in ways so counter to those that - to me, at least - are emblemic of ... basic decency - again, wow.
Peace out.
@AML ... I was THRILLED to see your post (we apparently cross-posted when I was constructing my latest tome) when I refreshed my browser. I was honestly beginning to get very depressed, wondering if I was the only one out in cyber-space who is not stuck on the 'if i am not for me, who will be??' portion of that particular quote. NEVER have I come across a more self-serving and less empathetic or socially-aware bunch!!!
GREAT post (and not just because you agreed with me, LOL!) I hope your husband has much success finding a terrific job -- despite the mess that the previous administration managed to make of our economy (sorry, couldn't resist!)
This is the first time my thinking has even been pigeonholed in any way as communist. And here I just thought that I was a typical compassionate person.
Oy.
(p.s. - Thx for complementing my screen nick. It was, until recently, "45 is the new 30" - but a particular impending b'day has encouraged me to re-think it to the current version!)
"50"- I just turned 30, so I hope that doesn't mean I'm the new "15"... but I plan on staying 30 for a number of years. ;) And I have an "orthodox" affiliation, so I'm not sure that it matters much. Though, I do chuckle when I hear orthodox folks complaining about this when there are entire communities that have no problem taking food stamps or benefiting from Section 8 housing. And finally, I've always considered myself pretty "middle of the road"- even voting for Bush the first time around (though, my vote was returned uncounted because I was living in Israel at the time and didn't mail in my ballot in time), but I feel like a bleeding heart liberal when I read these comments.
mlevin- Here's where the conversation ends. You see, I believe that the government has a responsibility beyond the job of "ensure(ing) law and order and protect(ing) from foreign invasion."
I believe that our society benefits when we have things like universal healthcare, public education, public libraries, safe roads.... heck, even those pesky agencies that police places like food manufacturing plants and restaurants to ensure that the food source we have is one of the safest in the world.
I'm a parent of young children and I've not tested my laboratory skills since I was an undergrad- so I prefer that the government do (a better job of) things like testing my kids toys to make sure there's no lead in them (and I'll do my part and prevent them from chewing on one for too long).
I think it beneficial that government does silly things like build museums and collect artifacts from yesteryear, supports institutions of higher education (and, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a well-paying job at one of those "institutions"), and spends money for research on aimless causes like the color of the water on the moon- or a cure for cancer.
So we disagree. *shrug*
"I was honestly beginning to get very depressed, wondering if I was the only one out in cyber-space who is not stuck on the 'if i am not for me, who will be??' portion of that particular quote. NEVER have I come across a more self-serving and less empathetic or socially-aware bunch!!!"
Seriously? If that is how you see me then you have missed the whole point of everything I have said.
I have no problem giving to other people or helping others in their time of need.
I do, however, have a problem with someone else *forcing* me to give money to other people.
After all, how can it be charity if the philanthropist is being forced to give it? Not only is it extortion, but it also ruins the whole purpose of selflessness, empathy and compassion.
Someone giving money to others in response to a threat of being locked up in a cage is not giving out of empathy or compassion. They are giving out of fear of being locked up in a cage.
Forcing other people to give charity is hardly compassionate. Both for the enforcer and the enforced.
@Avi - Sorry, but your stance does come across in my opinion as selfish and largely self-serving. Even if you do contribute to other causes (which I've no doubt you do), the fact that you seem to begrudge a large portion of our population the healthcare coverage to help ensure their medical well-being because it wasn't YOUR decision to allocate YOUR money to that cause ... yeah, I do think that's selfish.
You wrote:
"I have no problem giving to other people or helping others in their time of need.
I do, however, have a problem with someone else *forcing* me to give money to other people."
Aren't you "forced" to give money to support police, fire, emergency services, libraries, parks, schools ... etc through your taxes?? What about the tax monies you pay toward things like our armed forces, research into alternative energy sources, curtailing global warming, or finding cures for Parkinson's Disease or AIDS? Or is that kind of "forcing" okay because you happen to use/support the existence of those factions?
Or do you happen to live in a magical place that allows you to cherry pick ALL of the local, state, and federal programs of which you approve and ONLY allocate tax dollars to those programs? If so, enjoy your insular little world! But, if not, April 15th must be "aneurism time" for you every year!
You wrote:
"After all, how can it be charity if the philanthropist is being forced to give it? Not only is it extortion, but it also ruins the whole purpose of selflessness, empathy and compassion."
As a member of a complex, presumably inter-dependent society, what you call "extortion" I call "responsibility to my fellow citizens". I don't tend to define how "empathetic" or "compassionate" I am by how much money I happen to donate or otherwise contribute to a cause. I believe my desire to see everyone have access to good, affordable healthcare - and my willingness to have a portion of my taxes support this initiative - speaks more to how compassionate and empathetic I am than how large a check I write.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
I don't agree with the war in which our country is currently enmeshed, but I do pay taxes to support the troops we have over there - does my not refusing to pay those taxes make me a hypocrite according to your rules? Because, while I don't support the war, I *do* want our service people to be paid, and for their weapons to adequately protect them.
I also want to make it clear that I don't support endless "free rides" for ANYONE, in terms of things like public assistance programs that go on endlessly supporting those who are well-able to work but choose not to do so. But NO ONE should ever have to choose between feeding their family and going to the doctor. Or between paying their electric bill and filling a prescription. And NO ONE should be told that they cannot qualify for healthcare coverage because they have a condition that exists through no fault of their own. NO ONE.
Bottom line: I accept taxes as a fact of life. They're basically the "dues" I pay every year to live in the US. I don't exactly do a happy dance when I pay them (!), but I do pay them. NOT because I might "wind up in a cage", but because I do believe that most of the time my taxes go toward the greater good. I will never delude myself into thinking that my taxes will ONLY be put toward services and causes that I deem worthy or preferable. That's just not realistic. But, if I feel that my tax dollars are growing excessive versus the benefits they accrue, or if I don't approve of the programs they support - then I make darn sure I vote for folks who share my own perspectives when election time rolls around.
Having *everyone* contribute *something* to the services that are important ones for the care and feeding of a healthy, well-functioning society is important; it isn't something that I, for one, would be comfortable leaving up to the whims of individuals in terms of allowing everyone to decide whether and how much to contribute. I want to know that if my neighbor dials "9-1-1", there will be a well-trained and well-armed police officer showing up quickly at his door. And, I want to know that if the same neighbor is ill, he is able to receive the quality medical care he deserves. And that if my own son - who has what would be considered a pre-existing condition he did nothing to cause - needs to purchase his own health insurance someday, he'll be able to do so without taking out a second mortgage to pay for it. It's really that simple.
I LIKE knowing that I have a fire department and a police force in my town, and an excellent public school system. I like that some of my federal taxes go toward the arts, and toward scientific research and, yes, even toward helping those in other countries who aren't as fortunate as we are. Knowing that these programs - and I'm happy to be able to include healthcare on that list now - are all on a baseline course that allows for their survival, because we are all *compelled* to provide financial support ... well, I think that's a very good thing on which to hang my metaphorical hat!
Similar to what AML said in her comment, this is likely where you and I will part ways as well. I've devoted a lot of time today to explaining my stance, and to talking about why I don't agree with yours. But I doubt that anything I've written will change how you feel. So, it's time for me to sign off. Thanks for keeping the dialogue largely respectful and above-board.
50, I am a leaning-anarchist. I apologize if I hadn't made that clear or if that caused confusion.
"Sorry, but your stance does come across in my opinion as selfish and largely self-serving. Even if you do contribute to other causes (which I've no doubt you do), the fact that you seem to begrudge a large portion of our population the healthcare coverage to help ensure their medical well-being because it wasn't YOUR decision to allocate YOUR money to that cause ... yeah, I do think that's selfish."
I see. So because I don't want my money to be forcibly taken from me and given to other people I am selfish, even if I have no problem giving it in the form of charity. I'm not sure how you define selfish...
"Aren't you "forced" to give money to support police, fire, emergency services, libraries, parks, schools ... etc through your taxes??"
Yup. And that's extortion. If someone wanted to forfeit all benefits from those services, I don't think they should have to pay for them.
"What about the tax monies you pay toward things like our armed forces, research into alternative energy sources, curtailing global warming, or finding cures for Parkinson's Disease or AIDS?"
Again. Same answer as before. So long as the benefits are forfeited, he should not have to pay. As far as global warming is concerned, it depends on the extent said person is contributing to global warming. After all, if someone is environmentally clean, why should he/she have to pay to fix up the mess that other people made?
"Or do you happen to live in a magical place that allows you to cherry pick ALL of the local, state, and federal programs of which you approve and ONLY allocate tax dollars to those programs?"
Oh no, I happen to live in a place where we have a silly popularity contest, in which people "vote" on which causes we should cherry pick to make everyone pay taxes for under the threat of being locked up in a cage. The majority of voters get to then impose their will on the minority of votes and take their money and use it for whatever they want. We call this process "Democracy"
"but I do pay them. NOT because I might "wind up in a cage", but because I do believe that most of the time my taxes go toward the greater good"
Ha! So if nothing would happen to anyone if they didn't pay their taxes, and this was a public fact, how many people do you think would pay taxes? Be honest.
"As a member of a complex, presumably inter-dependent society, what you call "extortion" I call "responsibility to my fellow citizens"."
I see. So you think it is our responsibility to our fellow citizens to threaten them to pay a centralized system money under the threat of locking them up in a cage, so the distribution of healthcare is spread even.
Extortion n.
A criminal offense, extortion occurs when one party blackmails another or takes property or money through threats or intimidation.
By definition this is extortion.
You have preferences. I have preferences. I don't think you should be forced to pay for the preferences you don't support. Yet you seem to think I should be forced to pay for preferences I don't support.
At the end of the day, you will win. And I will be forced to pay for your preferences, least I be thrown into a cage.
This, is the problem with Democracy.
AML and 50 you touched on a few things that government does and you imply that I have no problem with these services just like I shouldn't have any problem with health care. Here are some of the government services you described:
Armed forces - part of a definition of government. We need Armed forces to defend our country against foreign invaders. Therefor I see no problem in paying taxes for it or benefiting from it.
Police - is part of government because they are protecting people from internal enemies, just like armed forces only on a smaller scale.
Firemen - same as police are need for protecting us, because it is often that one fire can spread and destroy an entire city.
Research into alternative energy source - why is that a government's function? We have enough energy in our land (if stupid liberals allowed us to drill for it) for our armed forces to be completely independent from foreign energy. Anything else is no one's business.
Global Warming - recently many reports came out in England and Europe showing that the whole thing is a hoax where so called scientists doctored their findings to look like there is a global warming and then they destroyed the raw data that they supposedly based their findings on, so no one could prove their lie. Why are we (United States) still wasting money on this hoax?
Finding cures for various diseases - again unless this disease could be used as a weapon our government has no right funding money for cures of aides or cancers or diabetes or Parkinson's or any other disease that strikes people randomly or because of their own lifestyle.
Library - yes, government should be supporting libraries as long as people are not forced to go to the libraries, because access to the library is part of an educational process that is guaranteed under the constitution to all Americans.
Public Education - is also same as the library. The reason our public schools in such bad shape is because again, government forces people to go to school. Instead of it being a privilege to get an education, we have a system where we force our youth to attend regardless of their own wishes. That is why we have drugs and rapes and gang fights in schools.
Space Exploration - is part of government's responsibility because we need have an ability to escape if there is a collision with a comet or a meteor, we need to have places to expand due to our population growth, we need to have a forewarning if there are alien forces...
50 - you said it yourself that medicaid does not cover everything, yet you think that under the universal health care (another name for a bigger medicaid) everyone will be able to get anything they want without any one denying them anything.
You also said that Medicaid is not accepted by all providers, yet you seem to think that all providers will be willingly accepting the new plan. Or are you hoping that government will force doctors to take patients covered by the universal plan against their own will?
mlevin wrote: "Space Exploration - is part of government's responsibility because we need have an ability to escape if there is a collision with a comet or a meteor, we need to have places to expand due to our population growth, we need to have a forewarning if there are alien forces..."
I cannot stop laughing. I'm sorry, but this just pushed you over into crazyland. Maybe it was late where ever you are when you wrote this but until NASA can figure out how to get 380 million people into space incase alien forces attack, I ain't drinking your koolaid (wo)man.
Hag Aviv Samayh!
aml - are you having a problem with reading comprehension? I did not say we need NASA to escape in case of an Alien attack. The escape was mentioned in case of a comet/meteor strike. And no I do not expect NASA to save ALL people of the United States, but every life is valuable and if space exploration could aide in saving any life then it did its job.
Just like we have armed forces whose job is to defend/safe American lives. It doesn't mean that we expect our armed forces to save ALL American lives when we are attacked.
From your attack on my opinion on space exploration, I take it that you agree with everything else that I had written.
mlevin- assumptions are never good... but I did get a nice laugh. Thanks!
Oy.
@AML - as you can see, I've finally decided to stop engaging this crew; it's like trying to calmly reason with a bunch of cranky toddlers who sorely need naps. I haven't allowed myself to get sucked into the vortex-of-crazy that is the newest post and its comments. Just wanted to wish you much luck, and thank you for being the lone voice of sanity and reason in this dialogue. If you happen to have a blog, pls post the link; I'd love to read more of what you have to say, and I'll likely be leaving this site to the province of the anarchists and rabid conservatives who gather here. Too much toxicity in life already without voluntarily letting myself get sucked into more. Meanwhile, maybe I'll see you on your own site (if you have one) or
- who knows- maybe we'll bump into one another on that spaceship to Mars (assuming we're "worthy" of being included on the exclusive list of passengers approved to escape Earth, of course!) Take care.
Considering the sorry state of our space program and your advanced age of 50, you will not be on that space ship. The most you could hope for is either your sperm sample or a frozen embryo fertilized with your genes.
Post a Comment