Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

Charles Krauthammer & Truth ~ The Opinionated Krew

I suppose that Charles is honest in that he freely admits that he is a Conservative commentator.

But he has called out President Obama on being slippery with the truth when he himself is as well.

Here is Charles on Obamacare.

I have taken the quote from TomFernadez28′s blog, wherein he discusses Mr. Krauthammer’s appearance on Fox News.

“Well, everybody is getting a worse deal,” Krauthammer said. “If the providers are, that means the doctors aren’t getting their usual payments, which means they have to see much more patients which means they spend less time which means the care is inferior. That means hospitals are reimbursed at a lower rate, which means some of them will go out of business…”

“Look, it’s working in that it exists,” Krauthammer replied. “It breathes. But if it’s hurting the doctor, it’s hurting the hospital, it’s hurting the patient, it’s hurting the economy, it’s going to cost a fortune. I love the way the president says health care costs are reduced, as if there is any relationship between a reduction which occurred during a recession and a health care implementation which occurs today. So it couldn’t possibly have retroactively affected last year’s numbers. I mean, he makes this stuff up with the brazenness that is almost admirable.”


1.  I think that “everybody” does not include those people that now have insurance.

2.  His slippery slope argument that follows is a logical fallacy.

I am of course familiar with fee scheduling as California regulates fee scheduling by medical providers in the CA Labor Code.  Doctors can only charge so much per procedure, basically.

South Carolina has in fact raised fee payments to Medicaid providers in certain specialties as a result of the Affordable Care Act.  They have not reduced them.

So “everybody” is not getting a worse deal.  And Charles argument is nothing more than a pack of lies.

2.  Nothing compels a doctor to accept an insurance plan that they do not wish to accept.  There are news stories now that Doctors are not accepting the coverage.  That is their right.

More people with insurance seeking healthcare at greater frequency.  The suppliers can see more and thus charge less per individual procedure.  I do not know that all providers will have to spend less time per patient.  I know some doctors that make enough money and are only open 3 days a week now, for instance.  If there’s demand, will they open a fourth day?  I hope so.  I also hope that with increased demand, more people will go into the health care field for work.

Obamacare is spreading the risk.  Risk Pooling.  Just as Lloyd’s of London does to insure some pretty crazy stuff.

If Diamond Dave can insure his wee, certainly we can afford to insure people with illnesses that are present in our population.

I guess Charles’ answer would just be to declare someone uninsurable, and forget about them.  They have been Darwined!  Losers with illnesses!  Try to be not sick and safer, biatches!  Already sick and unsafe?  To bad, losers!

Charles has spoken!

Oops, Charles doesn’t speak for me.  Or seem to understand the insurance market (here’s a hint, Insurers love that people have to buy insurance, and love being able to pay Doctors and hospitals less per procedure as it helps their bottom line.)

That’s without even speaking about the moral and risk management hazard that leaving segments of your population represents when you refuse to provide health care for them.  I don’t want any untreated Typhoid Mary’s running around here..  Sheesh.

So no, not everybody is getting a worse deal.


Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

We Get By With A Little Help From Our Friends ~ Opinionated Krew

When the Russians wanted to send nuclear weapons to Cuba, President Kennedy said “No.”

And an embargo was placed on Cuba, and the Bear blinked and backed down.

I wonder if Putin still nurses a grudge for that?

I don’t know, but with his recent declararation that he may invade the Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians (akin to Mexico invading the US to protect ethnic Mexicans) I think it’s time to say “Nyet.”

I hope that President Obama will realize that.

Personally I would deploy the 82nd airborne and put them right there in the Ukraine and to say, “Nyet.”

I happen to know a Ukranian that blogs here who has told me of Russias treatment of Ukranians, and this verifies my own knowledge of the history of Russia’s subjugation of the Ukraine, including starving the “breadbasket” of the USSR, their pogroms and whatnot.

So I cannot happily tell Putin that yes, some of those areas were Russia’s at one time, and that they may just have them back.  Which Putin thinks he may do.  This is akin to a parent arguing that because they gave their child life, they may take it back.

Russia’s history of anti-semitism is also startling, and “registration” of Jews is being forced in some of the occupied areas.

Sometimes you have to stand up for your friends.

And this is that time.

Yulia Timoshenko, former Prime Minister of Ukraine, and also current candidate for President (elections scheduled for May 25) has called on the Congress for assistance.

And I think that assistance should be rendered.

NATO has deployed troops in Eastern Europe in response, I  think they should be deployed in Ukraine itself.


I am with the Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt here.  “Speak Softly & Carry A Big Stick.”

Related Content:




Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

Virtual Hilarity ~ The Opinionated Krew

Truth Revolt has one of the most hilarious blogs I have read in a long time.

It’s so bad that I wonder if it’s a parody?  Is this Author serious?

It’s entitled, “Klavan:  Gay Radicals Should Thank Christ For Their Rights.”

I incorporate it herein for hilarity and dissection.

Hi, radical gay people who hate Christianity! You folks who sued an Arizona photographer because she wouldn’t take pictures at your wedding, who forced an Oregon bakery out of business because they wouldn’t bake your wedding cakes, who threatened an innkeeper when he wouldn’t host your wedding ceremony.

Here’s an interesting experiment you can perform when you’re not persecuting those who disagree with you.

Google the phrase “gay rights.” Click on the Wikipedia entry “LGBT rights by country or territory.” Take a look at the world map captioned, “LGBT rights at the United Nations,” with the countries that have signed a General Assembly Gay Rights Declaration marked in green.

Notice anything about the green area on the map? Of course you don’t. But I’ll help you out.

The green area — the area where gay rights are supported in the U.N. — is what once might have been called western Christendom, those countries where the culture developed out of either Roman Catholic or Protestant religion. A map of countries where homosexuality is legal would show all of Christendom, including Russia. That’s right. The places where the majority religion is or was Christianity, where the morals of the people are rooted in the morality of the Jewish Bible and the Christ who brought that morality to the gentiles — those are the places where people believe gays have rights. (Oh, and let’s not forget Israel, where they dial the Father direct!)

Ok.  So apparently using the courts to fight discrimination is bad, if it’s against the authors opinion on a matter.


Ok, so I suppose that can be loosely considered the Christian world, “Western Civilization.”  With the exception of Japan, Mongolia, and south-east asia.

From the same page.

Capture 234234

I suppose gay people should be condemned for pointing out that they don’t have all the rights that Christians in this country have, and be grateful for what nuggets the Christians allow them to have.

Thank you, Jesus!

Now you may find this strange, radical gay people who hate and persecute Christians. The Bible does not speak well of homosexuality and many defenders of traditional marriage are acting on their understanding of biblical principles. It’s natural for some gays to think that the Bible and Christianity are their enemies. The great actor Ian McKellan (a gay activist back in the days when that actually required courage) admitted that when he stays in a hotel room with a Bible, he tears out the page of Leviticus that condemns homosexuality. And, of course, foul-mouthed bully Dan Savage will boldly denounce absolutely any religion that contravenes his desires — as long as its adherents are committed to forgiveness and therefore unlikely to scimitar his cowardly head off.

While I have no respect for Savage, I do understand where the 74-year-old McKellan is coming from. I’m old enough to remember when a gay American could be arrested just for being gay; and Sir Ian is old enough to remember when the great British war hero Alan Turing was chemically castrated for the “crime.” It must‘ve been dreadful for gay people to live in such an atmosphere, and no current political debate should make us angry enough to lose our compassion for even the passive victims of that kind of injustice.

Hate the sin not the sinner!

Yes, it is strange that people that are condemned and denied rights by Christians would think that they have an enemy.

We come in peace!  You may not marry!  We will beat & bully you if you dare come out of the closet, but we come in peace!

That they are acting on their understanding is no defense.

Oh, you can’t get married…  No way, Jose.  But we love you, truly!

Just do as we say.  Don’t think about it, just do it.

Yeah, some Christians give off conflicting messages.  Just sayin’.

I suppose the King of England was acting on his understanding of Christianity when England shipped the Pilgrims away and whatnot.  How many persecuted branches of Christianity landed upon our shores?

Heaven forbid that Christians not give the same courtesy they hoped for and not persecute those of dissimilar beliefs.


Still, I think you radical gay enemies of Christianity are making a terrible error. As the maps demonstrate, your rights — the very notion that you have rights — did not just fall upon you as the gentle rain from heaven. Rather, they grew up from their foundations in specific thoughts and beliefs, and they stand on those foundations still. Even the classical democracies were not built on the basis of natural human rights. That idea is derived from the conception of man as created in the image of God — a God who suffered unjustly when he made himself into the image of man.

In other words, you have the Bible and Jesus Christ to thank for the fact that you even conceive of yourself as creatures with rights.

When in doubt, rewrite history!  The “Classical Democracies” as I understand them are Greek.  Which of course didn’t have Christianity.

Since the Author refers to the Western Christian world I believe this to be true.

Umm, isn’t “Greek” rather famous as a saying for sodomy?  LoL.  Yeah, those Greeks, made in Gods image..

Hi Zeus, Apollo, Ares.  Had no idea you were God under there.

Our Republic springs forth (indirectly) from the Roman Republic, whose founders Romulus and Remus were birthed by a wolf as I recall.

And the Roman Republic had fallen and was an Empire at the time Christianity was spreading.  Remember Caesar?  Augustus?  Yeah, no “Classical Democracy” going on right then.

The Romans of course famously persecuted Christians, throwing them to Lions.  It’s just interesting that the Author starts at a particular time period to determine that “rights” spring forth from the image of Man as created in the image of God.

I see no “in Gods image” in “Classical Democracies” I’m afraid.  The Author needs to re-take Western Civilization 101 and realize there are other religions during the same time period and places he’s speaking of.

Such ideas take centuries to develop and the process isn’t smooth or easy. But over time, a culture comes more and more to resemble its core principles. To indict those principles for the sins of history is a crude and thoughtless mistake.

Of course not.  Just be grateful for what rights you have, gays!  In time the people that oppose you will uh… pass more laws, such as SB 2861 in Mississippi to discriminate.

What are your core principles again?  I suggest you should tolerate differences in public spaces.  Being in the same spot at the same time does not mean you support them, and you need not actively hate.  Just try to freaking co-exist at least.

Your cause is in the ascendant, gay radicals who hate Christianity.  And so you think you can safely abandon the Judaeo-Christian fundamentals that got you here: tolerance, freedom of conscience, forgiveness. You think you can pull out the bottom block of the tower of freedom in order to build onto the top. It’s a fool’s game.

It’s like the author doesn’t realize everyone isn’t Christian.

I always love people that think they can define what another persons cause is.  The struggle for equal rights has been long and hard, and ongoing.

At least the Author realizes that equality in the eyes of the law is ascending.

I bear no hostility towards you because you’re gay; none. It’s your small-minded bigotry I despise.

For goodness sake.  Didn’t the authors momma teach him not to hate?

That the author self identifies as Christian is kind of an embarrassment to me.  Can I excommunicate him?

Yes, yes I can.  So ordered.

Oh, I’m not gay and am Presbyterian.  I just don’t hate and realize other people might want to have the same rights I have.


Related Content:


Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

On Far Right Wing Paranoia ~ Opinionated Krew

One of the reasons I write about elements of the far right wing is the paranoid state they have entered.

It’s basically a bunker mentality, where in they take the worst possible outcome they can imagine and project that as the likely outcome whether it’s reasonable or not.

The latest “outrage” is about Michigan.  It’s the 34th state (maybe?) to call for a Constitutional Convention as allowed under Article 5.

And according to Newsmax, Speaker of the House John Boehner is reviewing to determine if in fact 34 states have called for a convention.  This occurred after Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) wrote him asking for clarification.

Meanwhile what is being blogged about here on WordPress by repeater blogs (I call blogs that don’t write their own content, they just reblog others work, repeater blogs.) is that the Constitution is going to be rewritten by a “runaway” Constitutional Convention.

So let’s just think about this for a minute.

Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, also as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. [2]

Part of the difficulty being picked up by Conservatives is that no one knows if 34 have requested a Constitutional Convention.  Some states have, then rescinded, some seem not to have requested that the Constitutional Convention be restricted to a “limited issue” of the balanced budget.

What I do know is that it’s not up to Congress to determine or interpret the Constitution.  It’s up to the Courts.  So I’d assume that Speaker Boehner would seek guidance, or if he refuses to call a Convention that the states requesting same would file a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court as that court has original jurisdiction as per Article III, Section I and II.

This seems sensible, rather than just fear monger about a “runaway” convention.

After a Constitutional Convention the proposed new Amendments must be ratified by 38 states.

Now at last count, 26 states have Republican controlled Legislatures, 18 Democrat, and 6 split or non-partisan.

I don’t know why anything “runaway” would come out, as you’d think the Republican states would send Republican delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Accepting the paranoid delusionals contention that anything coming out of the Constitutional Convention would be the result of a “runaway” convention, do you see any possibility of 38 states ratifying?

I do not.

Yet even using the Constitutional provisions provided to request a Constitutional Convention on an issue near and dear to their heart (balanced budget) is seen as a potential threat.

Can they not also propose something they like?  Like a balanced budget?  Apparently not.

Fear and panic mongering has replaced logic and reason for much of the Republican base.

And this is why I do not identify as a Republican anymore.  Being labelled a RHINO was bad enough, but y’all are just crazy now for goodness sake.


Related Content:



Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

“Are you ready for $500-$1500 monthly electric bills?” I have that now…

TomFernandez28 has blogged about a potential increase in electricity prices with a blog entitled, “Are you read for $500-$1500 monthly electric bills?”

And for me, the answer is, yes.  That’s because I am in the PG&E service area and my bill can hit $500 a month with air conditioning in the summer.

Life can be expensive here in California.

Interestingly, when I lived in Sacramento I was in the SMUD area.  That’s the Sacramento Municipal Utility District which was formed in 1946 after fighting PG&E for the right to exist.

My bill there was $30.00 or so a month.

Admittedly not apples to apples as I was in a 2 bedroom apartment and not a 2500 SF house.

An added benefit of SMUD is that they are an entity of the State of California and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Feds.

You’d think that would be a strength for a party dedicated to “State’s Rights.”

But I guess not.

Here in California the huge prices aren’t related to coal regulation.

PG&E relies primarily on natural gas, nuclear hydroelectric, nuclear and some wind.  We don’t have the coal to burn in large quantity, like in Ohio or elsewhere.

Source of graphic:  http://www.pge.com/en/about/environment/pge/cleanenergy/index.page


And if we did, I’d not want it as we already have enough smog, and smog has been linked to birth defects in children here in the Central Valley.

So tell me again how the private market is delivering me cheap energy?

It’s not.

And entirely privatizing is no answer as PG&E has a history  of doing dirty deeds

PG&E full rates are available here.
SMUD here.

Smud’s own comparison to various providers in CA is here.


The following analysis is from a Conservative viewpoint:

Pros for SMUD:

1.  Cheap energy.
2.  Not subject to Federal jurisdiction. “State’s Rights.”


1.  Socialized electricity.  (Those wildly socialist Sacramento voters voted in 1923 to establish SMUD.  They then had to fight until 1946 in court with PG&E for the very right to exist.)

I suppose that the utility district is “socialized” rules out a public owned utility district if you are a strict Conservative/laissez faire capitalist.

Related Content:




Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

Dear Dickhead (LoL) ~ Opinionated Krew


Apparently Cross Pollinator takes issue with George Will’s explanation of the argument between Conservatives and Progressives.

And Cross Pollinator is indicative of a basic failure in communication.  That is, the ability to listen to someone who may disagree with you and find common ground.

He is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics.

Dear dickhead:  the discussion, if you can call it that, is whether the liberty of rich ruling class Americans is more important than the liberty of normal Americans.

I suggest that the liberty of both “rich” or “normal” Americans is equally important in the eyes of the law.

And that the merits for or against a specific policy must be weighed without regard to who is rich or who is poor.

In other words, it’s not right to restrict someone’s rights simply because they are rich, or poor.

Related Content:



Purple The Kadoh Institute With Text

On Property Rights ~ Opinionated Crew

With the recent news of Clive Bundy and his standoff with the Feds I am reminded of the important nature of property rights.

And let me tell you, losing your land to squatter’s through application of “squatter’s rights” ain’t no fun.

This happened to my Grandpa in Idaho.  He had over an acre that stretched in a L.  The short end of the l was in an area that another person used to drive into their property from the back, rather than drive into their own driveway, in the front of their house, one street over.

Grandpa let them use it, then the people went to court, claimed “squatter’s rights” and that it should be an easement and wrested title away from Grandpa.  Whereupon they stopped using it as an easement and started gardening.

An entirely unjust result.

So, Grandpa being grandpa started using the land as an easement and driving into the back of his property.  LoL.

Then other neighbors started using the land as an easement also, and it pretty much became common property, an alley way.

My family has a long history of failing to turn the other cheek.

So, old Clive claims that because his family used the land prior to the Feds claiming that area of Nevada that he has rights to use it, apparently in perpetuity.

I am unaware of any title to the land in Clive’s name, so he seems to be claiming some common law application of “squatter’s rights.”

Nevada recognizes a claim of possession under “adverse possession” if you have “color of title” and have paid the property taxes for 5 years.  Mr. Bundy hasn’t done this.

So I am unaware of a legal claim to the land through a “state’s rights” theory if you haven’t even satisfied your own state’s laws to make a claim.

Does Clive have rights?  Certainly.  And I am sympathetic, as his family has used the land for quite a long time.

But Clive, the Indians called, and they want their land back.  And you off it.  They have used the land for far longer than you and your family.

See what happens when you don’t recognize the rights of property owners?  You open up cans of worms that can be bottomless.

I suggest we are all better off recognizing legal title to land.  Rather than just winging it with a “common law” approach.

I’m happy for Clive to continue to ranch on the lands.  I think he should pay his grazing fees, which he has refused to pay since 1993.  Get off the land, ya freeloader!

I think he’d have a better leg to stand on had he put the fees he has not been paying since 1993 into an escrow account, in the event that he loses his legal claim.

Rather than break the law, as he is now.

I pretty well agree with Tucker Carlson, and don’t think Clive has a legal leg to stand on.

Oh, I also think the BLM is crazy for trying to set up “First Amendment Areas” in Bunkerville.  The whole country is a “First Amendment Area” ya numbnuts.




And lastly, I think Harry Reid is amazingly unethical and his involvement in this deal with his son brokering a potential sale of this land stinks beyond reason and bears investigation.

That Nevada could have defeated Harry last cycle, but put up Sharon Angle to run is a travesty.  You nuts handed the election right back to Dirty Harry for goodness sake.

Related Content:





Top 10 Songs That I Think Vic Briggs Will Like

I have no rhyme or reason to select these songs other than I think Vic will like them.

Since I don’t know what all she has listened to, or how old she is I shall wing it!

10.  Wings ~ Band On The Run

So Paul is British and the cute one.  If you squint just right he might look like Cumberbuns.  Probably not.  But I will go with it!


9.  Steppenwolf ~ Magic Carpet Ride!

Who wouldn’t like a magic carpet ride?  The intro reminds me of liftoff at Cape Canevaral!  Shoot the moon!


8.  The Kinks ~ Lola

The Kinks are underrated next to The Beatles, Stones, etc.  Great band!




7.  Fleetwood Mac ~ Go Your Own Way

Boldly going!


6.  Don Henley ~ Boys of Summer



5.  Pet Shop Boys ~ West End Girls



4.  REM ~ IT’s The End of the World As We Know It



3.  Espen Lind, Askil Holm, Alejandro Fuentes, Kurt Nilsen ~ Hallelujah



2.  Charlotte & Johnathan ~ The Prayer




1.  AC/DC ~  It’s A Long Way to the Top



Vic had an opinion in her blog post that I’d like to discuss a little bit.

In time I learnt that good writing is never self-indulgent and always aims to serve the reader rather than yours truly (the writer).

I am entirely self-indulgent in having fun talking to my friends!  Actually, I reject the construct.  it’s not an either/or situation.  It’s more win/win.

 I am searching for a formula that will accommodate both without damaging the quality of either. When I discover it, I will be sure to let you know. Then again, you may be “in the know” already. If so… Care to share?

Much to rigid!  Write when you need.  Blog when you want to.  If you don’t want to, then watch some Cumberbuns, or do something else you find enjoyable until your desire to blog has returned.  There is no “formula” that I can teach you as what works for me may not work for you due to your own lifestyle, needs, wants and desires.

If you are literally so busy that you cannot blog, then so be it.

Who are you?  You are Vic Briggs!  Express yourself, Vic!

0.  NWA ~ Express Yourself

Related Content:


Freedom Riders

On Religion in Mississippi Vis A Vis Malaysia ~ Kivil Rights Krew

Hornbill Unleashed is a Malaysian who blogs on the intersection between Islam and Christianity and other faiths in his country, Malaysia.

Today I read a blog where the Police Inspector General said he did not have the jurisdiction to investigate a kidnapping of a Hindu womans son by her ex-husband due to the court system.

Apparently Malaysia has a jurisdictional problem, with a Civil and Criminal court system and a Sharia Court system.

The woman won custody in the Civil case, but a Sharia Court has awarded the father custody.

One can sympathize with the police officer who has 2 courts telling him 2 different things.  And honestly, it’s up to the government (including the courts) in Malaysia to resolve their jurisdictional issues.

This case highlights for me a reason why I do not want Sharia law here in the United States.  Confounding jurisdictional issues.  And of course the vast majority of us are not muslim and do not wish to be under a religious court.

I have no issues with Muslims here in the United States bargaining between themselves and reaching a contract, as long as the contract doesn’t abrogate civil & Constitutional rights.

But, and this is big, if the contract does violate US law, or is contested don’t expect Sharia Law to be utilized to resolve the dispute.

In another matter, a Malaysian NGO (funded by the Malaysian government, how is this a NGO?) is trying to make it illegal for Christian organizations to utilize their national language.

Can you imagine abrogating Freedom of Speech to the point that putting up billboards or flyers in the national language would be banned?

This is persecution that is taking place in Malaysia.  Naked, absolute persecution.

And with the recent passage of SB 2681 in Mississippi I will draw some parallels.

Y’all are saying “you ain’t our kind” with your bill.  Do you understand that at all?

To fellow citizens of the same state and nation that may be Christian.  You are doing the same thing in the name of your religion that those Muslims are doing in Malaysia.

Stop it.  Stop it now for goodness sakes.

You look like some small minded xenophobes fearful of your own neighbor.  Where’s your southern hospitality for goodness sake?

Giving the power to people to deny a person the right to buy essential goods and services they need to survive is akin to a Muslim denying the Christian in Malaysia a Bible.

If you want people that aren’t Christian not to shop in your stores just smile at them and proselytize them while they shop.  Then maybe they won’t come back, lol.

Give em some sugared tea and invite em on the porch to sit a spell.  And talk and talk about the Lord and being saved.

At least practice your religion at work instead of claiming actually selling paying customers goods and services violates your religion in some manner.

And that’s that on that.  For now.  I expect federal lawsuits to hit the books fairly soon.

Bless your hearts.

Hopefully y’all will see Reason first though and no one has to spend the money on such ridiculous small matters.

There’s enough real problems to deal with without such foolishness.



Related Content: