It's coming...
a post written by Patrick Ishmael
Friday, June 29 at 2:09 PM
Friday, June 29 at 2:09 PM
It's a report we've all been waiting for... click here for the story. And for those new to the site, welcome! Be sure to vote in our Newsvine Poll.
Labels: Al Gore, Campaign 2008, Humor, Music TV and Culture
Quote of the Day
a post written by Jeremy D Hagen
Thursday, June 28 at 10:46 PM
Thursday, June 28 at 10:46 PM
I'll see you at the bill-signing.
Said a few weeks ago by President Bush to Republican Senators and referring to the immigration bill.
Labels: George W. Bush, illegal immigration, Republican Senators, republicans
"The Conservative Cartoon All Stars"
a post written by Patrick Ishmael
at 1:42 PM
at 1:42 PM
"Take this sucka to the dumpsky, cause he's been listening to a Noam Chumpsky."
Too good not to post.
And an added bonus: "The Legend of Zelda's Relationships."
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.
Too good not to post.
And an added bonus: "The Legend of Zelda's Relationships."
Labels: cartoons, Humor, Music TV and Culture, Noam Chomsky
Immigration bill blocked
a post written by Patrick Ishmael
at 10:33 AM
at 10:33 AM
So says MSNBC, who's running it as breaking news. Will post up a link to a story as soon as I find one.
Update @ 10:35am: "Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat."
Update at 10:38am: Wow, they didn't even come close to cloture.
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.
Update @ 10:35am: "Senate immigration bill suffers crushing defeat."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's immigration bill suffered a crushing defeat Thursday in the Senate, when members voted against advancing the controversial legislation.Details on the vote shortly.
A final tally for the vote has not yet been announced.
The bill would provides a path to citizenship for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and toughens border security.
If the bill fails, supporters and opponents of the controversial legislation claim there is no way to bring it back before this Congress ends.
Senators voting against cutting off debate and referring the bill for a final vote. The cloture vote required a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes.
Update at 10:38am: Wow, they didn't even come close to cloture.
The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate.Crushing indeed.
Labels: illegal immigration
Michael Moore on The Daily Show
a post written by Jeremy D Hagen
Wednesday, June 27 at 10:30 PM
Wednesday, June 27 at 10:30 PM
Tonight, Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, was joined by documentary film-maker Michael Moore. I watched so I could see how ridiculous they could be together. I was not disappointed.
At one point Jon was concerned with, and couldn't understand (after doubtless hours of intense contemplation) why the people entrusted war to the government but not health care? (I know I dignify this silly and ignorant comment by replying to it, but I can't help myself) It would seem that war was entrusted to the government as a recognition that individuals cannot themselves coordinate a war. War in an immense complex undertaking with implications beyond that of only one individual and is done in the interest of a county full of individuals.
Health care in contrast was not entrusted to government by our founding fathers, by political philosophers, by politicians new and old; and by many Americans because access to health care is not as massive as immense and complex as process as fighting a war. Health care can be achieved by one individual (stay healthy) and in done for the benefit of only one individual. Simply put, what differentiates war from health care is the coordination requisite to achieve the stated goals of each derived from the complexity and scope of health care relative to war.
At another point in the interview, Michael Moore briefly lamented the fact that people think the federal government is bad, saying that it is the people who run the government that are bad. That may have been a cheap shot at President Bush, but immaturity aside, that point, pragmatically speaking is meaningless as people will presumably always run the federal government. The federal government is bad not because the wrong people are now running it, but because of the self interested aspect of human nature manifested through the political process. Republican or Democrat, the federal government will most always be bad.
The next two statements made by Moore, but brought up by Stewart, are more on point considering Moore was there to discuss his new documentary, Sicko, concerning the United States Health care system. From the interview, I gleaned two things Moore dislikes about our health care system
First, Moore pines that the health care industry is out to make a healthy profit and this gives incentive to health insurance companies to deny claims, as the denial of claims saves the company money it raises stock prices, can be reinvested and/or distributed as dividends.
Yet, the state run health care system that Moore's film either explicitly or strongly implicitly endorses would give the same incentive - only to a different provider. Do we honestly think, that in a society that values efficient, cost effective government that government, i.e. politicians, wouldn't have value in seeing that claims were denied if that is what the people wanted.
Additionally, within any health care organization there would have to be a framework for deciding which claims were to be accepted and which are not. The government does this as well - Medicare Part D does not pay for all prescription drugs, but pays for some and not others as a way to save money. The cost saving objective cuts across corporate and governmental lines, making Moore's explicit/implicit argument for state run health care impotent. Ask yourself, in this regard, how is state run health care any different then corporate when it comes to saving money? Money does not grow on trees and this proves true for corporations as well as governments.
Lastly, Moore complains that the current health care insurance provider set-up creates too much of a disconnect between the patient and the doctor; and implies that such would not exist under a state run system.
I don't know how Moore says this with a straight face. Does anybody believe that the federal government will solve the disconnect between people and their doctor. Since when did the federal government do anything but create disconnects between people and their objectives through regulations and bureaucratic red tape?
Plus, I thought the reason you should vote Democrat was because there was too much of a disconnect between the people and the federal government - created by.....the federal government
So let me get this straight: Vote Democrat because there's a disconnect, but support state run health care because it will solve that disconnect.
Puzzling I know. But we are talking about Michael Moore.
At one point Jon was concerned with, and couldn't understand (after doubtless hours of intense contemplation) why the people entrusted war to the government but not health care? (I know I dignify this silly and ignorant comment by replying to it, but I can't help myself) It would seem that war was entrusted to the government as a recognition that individuals cannot themselves coordinate a war. War in an immense complex undertaking with implications beyond that of only one individual and is done in the interest of a county full of individuals.
Health care in contrast was not entrusted to government by our founding fathers, by political philosophers, by politicians new and old; and by many Americans because access to health care is not as massive as immense and complex as process as fighting a war. Health care can be achieved by one individual (stay healthy) and in done for the benefit of only one individual. Simply put, what differentiates war from health care is the coordination requisite to achieve the stated goals of each derived from the complexity and scope of health care relative to war.
At another point in the interview, Michael Moore briefly lamented the fact that people think the federal government is bad, saying that it is the people who run the government that are bad. That may have been a cheap shot at President Bush, but immaturity aside, that point, pragmatically speaking is meaningless as people will presumably always run the federal government. The federal government is bad not because the wrong people are now running it, but because of the self interested aspect of human nature manifested through the political process. Republican or Democrat, the federal government will most always be bad.
The next two statements made by Moore, but brought up by Stewart, are more on point considering Moore was there to discuss his new documentary, Sicko, concerning the United States Health care system. From the interview, I gleaned two things Moore dislikes about our health care system
First, Moore pines that the health care industry is out to make a healthy profit and this gives incentive to health insurance companies to deny claims, as the denial of claims saves the company money it raises stock prices, can be reinvested and/or distributed as dividends.
Yet, the state run health care system that Moore's film either explicitly or strongly implicitly endorses would give the same incentive - only to a different provider. Do we honestly think, that in a society that values efficient, cost effective government that government, i.e. politicians, wouldn't have value in seeing that claims were denied if that is what the people wanted.
Additionally, within any health care organization there would have to be a framework for deciding which claims were to be accepted and which are not. The government does this as well - Medicare Part D does not pay for all prescription drugs, but pays for some and not others as a way to save money. The cost saving objective cuts across corporate and governmental lines, making Moore's explicit/implicit argument for state run health care impotent. Ask yourself, in this regard, how is state run health care any different then corporate when it comes to saving money? Money does not grow on trees and this proves true for corporations as well as governments.
Lastly, Moore complains that the current health care insurance provider set-up creates too much of a disconnect between the patient and the doctor; and implies that such would not exist under a state run system.
I don't know how Moore says this with a straight face. Does anybody believe that the federal government will solve the disconnect between people and their doctor. Since when did the federal government do anything but create disconnects between people and their objectives through regulations and bureaucratic red tape?
Plus, I thought the reason you should vote Democrat was because there was too much of a disconnect between the people and the federal government - created by.....the federal government
So let me get this straight: Vote Democrat because there's a disconnect, but support state run health care because it will solve that disconnect.
Puzzling I know. But we are talking about Michael Moore.
P.S. I wonder if Michael Moore has a health insurance policy similar to those he holds in contempt?
Labels: Healthcare Policy, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, socialism, The Daily Show
Quote of the Day
a post written by Justin D. Smith
at 2:36 PM
at 2:36 PM
Tony Blair’s final words to Parliament:
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.
Some may belittle politics but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know that it has many harsh contentions, it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is, on occasions, the place of low skulduggery, it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes. I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. That is that. The end.
Labels: Tony Blair
Free to Give: A Modern Story of Talents
a post written by Victoria Potz
Wednesday, June 20 at 8:23 PM
Wednesday, June 20 at 8:23 PM
Instead of giving tithes and offerings one Sunday morning, members of Northway Church in Malta, New York, received $50 each. Like the master in the parable of the talents from Matthew 25:14-30, the church’s pastor instructed members to multiply and return the entrusted money. Rather than hold $40,000 of new building funds in a money market account, the church placed its capital in its members.
Northway Church’s high-stakes, unorthodox venture paid off three weeks later when the congregation returned the offering. Members had become entrepreneurs by putting on yard sales and creating and marketing products, such as “Dare to Dream” bracelets. Some members were exceptionally generous—one family used the $50 to advertise for and donate profits from selling a car. By involving the community, members raised more than they could alone—a local Mexican restaurant owner was inspired to donate 50% of a day’s sales to the offering. Northway Church raised $315,000 to open a sister church that, six months later, has nearly 1,000 members.
The audience for Jesus’ first-century parable would have been accustomed to expectations for return and personal accountability. Their modern counterparts in Malta also demonstrated an understanding of return on investment. However, Americans are entrusted with increasingly less. Our nation’s network of mutual-help organizations at state and local levels that once managed programs for the disabled and the sick has been replaced by government welfare. We have given the responsibility of saving for retirement to social security, the honor of caring for the elderly to Medicaid and nursing homes, and perhaps worst of all, we have relinquished the privilege of caring for those in need to our national welfare system. Rather than willfully investing in society, citizens allow their contributions to be automatically deducted from their paychecks.
By greatly increasing taxes and instituting numerous government programs, the social welfare system established in the early 20th century crippled private charities that helped the poor. Today, social security and other payments to individuals constitute over 59% of the annual U.S. budget. Unfortunately, for every $1.00 spent on the poor, government welfare programs allocate $0.75 for overhead expenses and bureaucracy (private charities use $0.25). Just as damaging as wasted funds, most national programs cannot offer the personal support and involvement in which aid organizations specialize.
Despite heavy taxation, more than 85% of American adults contribute to charity annually and over 50% volunteer. The $300 billion that American citizens invest in time and money to charities does not include unaccounted-for assets privately and gladly awarded to their friends, family, and neighbors. Americans continue to support those in need, yet with thousands of dollars taken from their salaries each year, their contributions of money and time to those in need could be much greater. A tremendous example for both our personal lives and government system, the story of Northway Church demonstrates the immense possibilities for success when citizens are empowered to be actively involved in their objectives.
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.
Northway Church’s high-stakes, unorthodox venture paid off three weeks later when the congregation returned the offering. Members had become entrepreneurs by putting on yard sales and creating and marketing products, such as “Dare to Dream” bracelets. Some members were exceptionally generous—one family used the $50 to advertise for and donate profits from selling a car. By involving the community, members raised more than they could alone—a local Mexican restaurant owner was inspired to donate 50% of a day’s sales to the offering. Northway Church raised $315,000 to open a sister church that, six months later, has nearly 1,000 members.
The audience for Jesus’ first-century parable would have been accustomed to expectations for return and personal accountability. Their modern counterparts in Malta also demonstrated an understanding of return on investment. However, Americans are entrusted with increasingly less. Our nation’s network of mutual-help organizations at state and local levels that once managed programs for the disabled and the sick has been replaced by government welfare. We have given the responsibility of saving for retirement to social security, the honor of caring for the elderly to Medicaid and nursing homes, and perhaps worst of all, we have relinquished the privilege of caring for those in need to our national welfare system. Rather than willfully investing in society, citizens allow their contributions to be automatically deducted from their paychecks.
By greatly increasing taxes and instituting numerous government programs, the social welfare system established in the early 20th century crippled private charities that helped the poor. Today, social security and other payments to individuals constitute over 59% of the annual U.S. budget. Unfortunately, for every $1.00 spent on the poor, government welfare programs allocate $0.75 for overhead expenses and bureaucracy (private charities use $0.25). Just as damaging as wasted funds, most national programs cannot offer the personal support and involvement in which aid organizations specialize.
Despite heavy taxation, more than 85% of American adults contribute to charity annually and over 50% volunteer. The $300 billion that American citizens invest in time and money to charities does not include unaccounted-for assets privately and gladly awarded to their friends, family, and neighbors. Americans continue to support those in need, yet with thousands of dollars taken from their salaries each year, their contributions of money and time to those in need could be much greater. A tremendous example for both our personal lives and government system, the story of Northway Church demonstrates the immense possibilities for success when citizens are empowered to be actively involved in their objectives.
When academics go wild,
a post written by Patrick Ishmael
Friday, June 1 at 12:38 PM
Friday, June 1 at 12:38 PM
they seem to miss the most obviously protestable causes. Blame America-Israel first, ya know.
Opinions expressed by News Buckit writers are expressly their own and may not represent the opinions of The News Buckit, its staff members, or its editors.
Labels: academia, Israel, United States
