so you need to be educated.

The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.

*

are best made by the individual affected. *

A decent place to start…

Cost and control, pre-existing conditions and covering the uninsured, those are the problems with our current system. The care part of our healthcare is very good. Eliminating or minimizing government’s role in your healthcare (or your life in general) is even better.

In pretty much all things, I fall back to the belief that decisions affecting an individual, are best made by the individual affected. The arrogance of making those decisions for someone else because they might make the wrong one just doesn’t sit well. Of course poor decisions are sometimes difficult to live with, but there is something extra maddening when those decisions most affecting you are made by someone else.

When it’s your life, you should have control over it. I do believe that was the intent behind the life part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

via Ace…

I prefer my government to be small and out of the way and fairly unobtrusive in the manner it interacts with my life. I understand the need for some taxes to fund some of the essentials (defense, law enforcement, the building and maintenance of some highways maybe) but otherwise I’d like to not be overly reminded of its existence. But now it looks like there’s a movement to insert a little bit more of the government’s view of things into the art world.

This is a perfect example of why I want the government to be small and unobtrusive. People always have an agenda, everyone does, and they will always find a way to try to further it. That is human nature. So from where I sit the problem isn’t so much that the NEA might be trying to do this, I think that is pretty much to be expected, the problem is that they have been provided with the tools to do this at all.

via Ace

Is it Just?

Their conception of justice is based on the idea that certain goods like health (and education? and food? where do you stop?) should be made available to all through coercive redistribution by the state. If, on the contrary, we define justice in terms of liberty, then justice forbids coercing some (taxpayers, doctors, and nurses) into providing health services to others. Providing voluntarily for your neighbor in need may be morally good. Forcing your neighbor to help you is morally wrong.

Because it’s an emergency and we don’t have time to wait…

the fact that I am not familiar with that particular provision…just a minor detail, one you really shouldn’t concern yourself with.

35%

If this doesn’t work (and I don’t think it can) what happens next. Deficit spending combined with significantly lower tax revenues because 35% of the GDP has been redesigned might lead to some really significant deficit spending.

Yikes.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

It’s not that I disagree with the position. It’s that somehow I feel like I’m in one of those Bugs Bunny cartoons where Bugs and Daffy are going back and forth and
Bugs suddenly changes the sides everyone is on and I’m the only that noticed…

What’s really going on there? Check out what Fausta has to say…just keep scrolling…