GermanWrench's Xanga

"We all are equal in"... whose sight?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:25:42 GMT

In light of the newest viral video, the question we should be asking is: Are parents wrong to worry about what their children are being taught in schools?

Is it really valid to accuse parents who home school of "child abuse" for not wanting them exposed to outside influences?

Is it unreasonable to state that teachers have a high potential of passing on their own ideologies to their students?

... DO PEOPLE REALLY THINK ALL'S WELL IN AMERICA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, that the problems with our public schools can be fixed merely with more funding? Why do Democrats oppose conservatives' expectations for teachers to teach only fundamental academics in public schools?

And why aren't we honest enough to admit the answers, even to ourselves?

I assure you, I am still alive

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:08:33 GMT

Sorry I've been gone, guys.

I'm working 12-hour shifts at work, at night. And it sucks.

Also, VA apparently suspended my license 5 years ago without telling me, so I've been battling with DMV regulations to try to get it reinstated before my CA license expires.

In other news, the nursery is coming together, the baby shower is in two weeks and Liam is quite happy about mom staying up with him all night. Also, the cats miss my lap and Addy thinks nursing bras are hilarious.

Aaaaaand.... that's all for now. Life is really boring but really busy, and, well, I can't talk about work so there it is.

I love you all!

Week from Hell

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:03:34 GMT

I thought my week from Hell was over LAST week, but apparently, since I had a long weekend, it decided to carry over into this one.

So, last week, I found out that the battery in my phone occasionally comes off the connection. How did I find this out? When my alarm failed to go off and I overslept, coming into work late on a VERY busy day.

Next day: throughout the morning, I'd had minor bleeding, ended up going to labor and delivery to make sure Liam was still okay. By the time I got there, not only had the bleeding stopped (it had been going on for over 5 hours by that point), but there wasn't even any EVIDENCE of it. So I looked like a total tool just trying to get out of work early, despite the fact that I hate medical and usually don't go unless I'm directly ordered to.

Then today, I headed out the door 15 minutes early... and my car wouldn't start. So I had to take our second car, which -- besides missing the knob on the gearshift, being badly out of alignment and having a broken gas gauge -- didn't have the proper tags to get on base. Then, since it was raining, the commute that normally takes 45 minutes took over 2 hours. Getting a temporary tag for the car took another half hour. I finally got to work three hours late only to realize... I WAS IN THE WRONG UNIFORM. Also, I'd left my PT gear in MY car, so I had to stay two hours late.

Seriously. Please just let me get through this week without any more trouble.

Public Safety Announcement for men

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:08:29 GMT

I'm not being hormonal if you really are being a dick.

Guys, I'm going to share with you a little secret that can literally save you collective years of trouble: If your wife, girlfriend, friend, sister, or any other significant woman in your life is pregnant, PMSing, or just generally in a foul mood, there is nothing that is more guaranteed to make her go from zero to bitch faster than to say something in any way analogous to:
"You're just saying that because you're hormonal."
Here's a news flash: If you actually are doing the thing we're angry at you for doing, we're not angry at you because we're hormonal. We're angry because you actually ARE being a jackass. Hormones don't make imaginary slights appear out of nowhere; they just make us want to feast on your flesh underneath the full moon light when, otherwise, we might have merely wanted to maim you. The things we get pissed off about, by and large, are no different if we're hormonal or just cranky.
If, upon review of her complaint, you find that she has a valid point, the CORRECT response is, "You are right and I will do better in the future." Then do it. And if she really doesn't have a point, the correct response is, "I understand that you're upset, but I think we both need time to cool off before we talk about it." Giving her a minute to relax (and, if she's fatso pregnant, bringing her a lovely, virgin beverage won't hurt your cause, either) might just make her realize she was overreacting (even if she's not entirely wrong about her complaint.).
Swallow your pride, suck it up, and stop trying to blame normal bodily functions you don't understand when you actually are being a jerk.

Obamacare: Part Five, My Brother's Keeper

Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:39:50 GMT

Well, Obama's speech to American church leaders couldn't have been at a more fortunate time for the purposes of this post.

In my last entry I hope I made a decent effort to outline some of the mandates Christians have over their practical lives. Some people may bristle at the idea that a relationship with God would include anything that might fit the language of a "mandate," but Jesus' words make it clear that God expects certain things of us -- He does not expect us to do them alone, but He does expect us to do them. And since I believe in a rational God, in One who does not ask of us or arbitrary demands, I believe He gives us the answer when we ask WHY we must do such things.

For one thing, He asks us to help others because it humbles us. Anyone who has ever washed the feet of a stranger, offered Communion at church, fed dinner to the homeless, or visited the sick or imprisoned, knows what a humbling experience it is. It reminds us in a very immediate, visceral way that our blessings come by no action of our own.

Secondly, He asks us to do them because they remind us of His nature. We were poor, and He made us rich; hungry, and He fed us; naked, and were clothed; sick, and were healed. God is ever seeking for the very best for His children, even when we have done much to deserve the worst, just as He asks us to bring about the best in a fallen world, to show others in some small way how He loves them.

Thirdly, He asks us to do them to strengthen His church. There are few relationships as strong, as enduring, as equal as that between two missionaries who have together attended those in need. I have the very great pleasure of knowing a woman called to lifelong missionary work in Papua New Guinea; the love she has for the Guinnean people is matched only by the love she has for her compatriots. They labor together, get sick together, go hungry together, rejoice together, as a model for others to see of the mutual and perfect love of Christ.

The very last, and most minor thing God asks of us is to better society. Why do I say the last? Because God knows who the wealthy and the poor are, that they are made by Him, and that their needs are neither better nor worse than the other; merely different. In fact, if Jesus' teachings are to be followed, we are to conclude that the rich are often worse off than the poor in the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells us, "The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." He knew that poverty is the permanent state of the fallen world which we occupy; that the poor will always exist, regardless of our attempts to eradicate poverty.

And things brings me to my point. Obama and Christian Democrats would like us to believe that our responsibility to the poor begins and ends with making them no longer poor; that our mandate to be "our brother's keeper" extends only insofar as keeping his bank accounts. This is simply not the case. And while it is true that we are mandated to meet our brothers' physical needs when we can, we must do so in ways that address him as a whole person -- a spirit, a soul and a body, each with needs particular to who he is as an individual. In this is the love of Christ.

Tell me, what government program is going to do that?

We miss the point when we simply shuffle off our responsibilities onto the government -- and disaster is often the result. We missed the point on poverty and welfare came about; we now have more impoverished among us than before. We missed the point on helping the elderly; now, social security is leaving them bankrupt and death taxes are leaving their families in even greater mourning. We missed the point on the orphans and social services leave thousands of children in spiritually impoverished families where they are left hopeless. Will we miss the point on the sick, too? What will become of Christian ministry to the sick if we simply say, "Let the government do it"? What will become of Catholic and Christian hospitals, many of which operate on charity? What will become of physicians offering services for free as part of their Christian duties?

Is government going to offer ministry at a bedside table to a terminal patient -- or will his "end-of-life" counselor be there? Is government going to be a personal face to the ill to say, "I am here for you"? Or is this simply another excuse for Christians to say, "I gave at the office" and slip further and further from Christ's example in our lives?

Obamacare: Part Four, Playing with our heartstrings

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:49:08 GMT

To preface, I know I said I would continue this series until the White House took down their snitchline, which they have -- but there's enough rotten fish that it still stinks in here, and just because our four-day work-week reps are on a month-long vacation doesn't mean things are cooling off; it is August, after all. Things are just warming up.

But to take a break from the politics, it's interesting to me that many of the proponents I've seen on Xanga for government health insurance / universal health care are self-proclaimed Christians; even more interesting is just how many make the claim that one must support universal health care in order to be like Christ. These are, by and large, the kind of "progressive" Christians who also oppose war, take a neutral stance on abortion, and see taxing the wealthy as an effective means of both profiting the "poor" while helping the "rich" through the needle's eye.

Now, I don't fault these peoples' desire to help those whom they see as having the greatest need. I certainly don't fault their compassion. And I have no doubt that they truly feel that they are living as Christ would want them to. What I do doubt is the foundation of their basic premise: That God supports a government take-over of health care.

Jesus was among us only 32(ish) years, but during that time He taught us a few things we are to live by. He issued us certain mandates and assured us that these mandates are from His Daddy. Most of them are so simple and self-explanatory that we try to dress them up, make them seem a little more fancy than the words of a carpenter's kid. But in the end, they're still just simple precepts, intended to be followed by simple people.

1: We are to stop worrying.
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?"
God wants us to trust Him to know what is best, not only for us, but for the world. It's His creation; He can handle it. That's not to say we need only give up and stop being responsible with our means, trusting that God will get us out of any situation we find ourselves in. But it does mean He is bigger than our circumstances and He can get us out of them according to His will.
2: We are to be responsible with what we are given.
"The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'"
Nothing we have is really ours; not even the breath in our lungs. Our clothes, our homes, our health, our bodies, our income -- everything is God's, entrusted to us for a time, to test us and to be used as tools to make us ready for His kingdom. God does not give us our money to squander it needlessly; nor does he expect us to be foolish about its investment in His kingdom on Earth. Rather, we are to do with it what will effect the greatest benefit with least waste.
3: We are to help those in need.
"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
Jesus tells us the investment of treasure in Heaven: Giving away treasure on Earth, not for our benefit (not publicly, for others to see), but in order that they may be blessed.
4: We are to give what we have.
"But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
No matter what our income, our station in life or our blessings, we are to follow the example of the woman and the mite -- we are to give, not only what we can, but what we have.
5: We are to love others.
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."
God doesn't play favorites with His creation; He makes it clear we're not allowed to, either.
6: We are to be trustworthy.
"So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?"
It is easy to see how we can fail at being trustworthy according to God's standards. Do you really need a candy bar? A dinner out? A new movie? TV? None of these things are bad; but when they usurp our responsibility and duty to God, they violate His trust in us.
7: We are to be wise.
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as wise as snakes and as innocent as doves."
We aren't to simply take things on face value, but to test all things and see whether they be of God or of man.
8: We are to keep our priorities straight.
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me."
God makes the rich, the same as the poor; and He has told us that the poor will always be with us. Every government or plan which has ever been set up around eradicating poverty has inevitably led to greater injustices than the poverty itself, because only God has control over who will come, who will go, and what their station in life will be
9: We are to obey God.
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
God's mandates over our lives, His final authority, and His sovereignty, are not absolved by the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ; on the contrary, Christ came in order to point us to obey His Father, not partially, not once a week, not only with those sins we never really took much pleasure in to begin with... but completely.
10: We are to obey the laws of the land (render unto Caesar).
"Then he said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'"
Many Christians don't like this verse. But the bottom line is that, for better or worse, governments are put in place by God for His will to be done. Even the most tyrannical of leaders plays a part in God's plan for our lives, deaths, and redemption. As such we are to obey their just authority unless and until it conflicts with God's mandates for our lives.

What does this have to do with health care? I'll tell you in the next installation.

What was that again, Doc?

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:15:41 GMT

This is just another example of the double-speak coming from the White House: "What health reform opponents say is wrong, because the President says they are."

Dr. Patel, where is the reference to this assurance in the body of the text of HR3200 itself?
"Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner."

Dr. Patel, you are simply wrong. Patients WILL lose their health coverage if the government determines that their coverage does not mean federal standards -- whether they "like" it or not. And those patients who do NOT currently have private health insurance will lose the option of obtaining it in the future. The grandfather clause only applies to those who ALREADY have private health coverage, and only so long as their coverage does not change and complies with federal standards -- which can change at any time. How can you tell us you are going to dispel the "myths" of HR3200 without actually making any reference to the document itself? Are you ignorant of its contents, or do you simply rely on us to be?

Obamacare: Part Three, A Fundamental Right

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:40:34 GMT

Americans, by and large, are pretty big on our rights. We cherish our right to speak, to be religious, to live, to protect ourselves, to own property. We cherish these rights so much so that we were one of the first nations to write a Constitution acknowledging that the government may only recognize those rights already inherent to us as people, and that government cannot grant or revoke those rights. This is an extremely unique concept in modern society. Our nation is literally constructed around the idea that we have rights simply because we are people, and that it is the responsibility of the government to acknowledge and protect those rights. It cannot grant them or add to them, because it has no power to revoke them.

Keeping this in mind, then, it is important to note the difficulties in adding or lifting Constitutional amendments. The founders' objective was to keep the Constitution from becoming a political favor-granting document which politicians could use to buy constituents' votes and power. The act of making a thing a federally-recognized right is no small matter and was never intended to be. This is why many politicians, rather than attempting to add to the Constitution, now merely "interpret" one particular clause or another in such a way as to imply that their particular point of view is already embedded in the text -- for instance, in the case of Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton.

This is how liberals now attempt to justify their health care schemes in a Constitutional Republic -- not by attempting to make health care a federal right, but by explaining that health care is already embedded in the "general welfare" clause (already discussed). Although many have discussed making an actual Constitutional amendment, such an amendment would violate the very nature of rights themselves -- thus making any "right" to health care completely meaningless because all human rights would then be reduced to mere platitudes.

And here's why: Each and every right we have as people incurs a specific, negative obligation. I have the right to live; therefore, you have the negative obligation not to kill me. I have the right to property; therefore, you have the negative obligation not to steal from me. I have the right to speak; therefore you have the negative obligation not to censure me. I have the right to a fair trial by jury; therefore, you have the negative obligation not to obstruct justice. And on and on it goes.

Now, each of these negative obligations is accepted because it's understood that we each get something back when we comply. Failure to comply may result in loss of freedom (prison) or loss of life (killing in self-defense). Furthermore, each is equal; a senator might have certain perks in life, but he still has the same obligations as a garbage man when it comes to not killing, stealing, raping, and justice. Such obligations are neutral, universal and the minimal exercise of government necessary to maintain freedom and order.

The reason health care cannot be a fundamental human right should now be obvious to you: Because if you have the right to health care, the negative obligation is that physicians must treat you, with or without your consent, with or without your reimbursement for their time, expertise, and expenses. Such an obligation is not neutral, because no one else has the "right" to make similar demands on you in return; it is not universal, since only physicians may practice medicine; and is not minimal, because it forces both the patient and the government to make demands on the physician's life, time, and property.

Some will respond by saying that, if physicians do not want to take on this responsibility, they should not have become doctors; to which I respond, that's kind of the point. Canada has experienced a drastic drop in the number of physicians per capita, with illegal private clinics operating more and more frequently in secluded areas where many public practice doctors no longer work. The Wait Time Alliance has repeatedly reported a lack of medical care among the poorest, most secluded Canadians. Same for England, France and Holland. When health care is made into a "right" with inescapable demands, fewer physicians want to practice.

And that brings us to alternative care.

Obamacare: Part two, The General Welfare

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:10:17 GMT

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and promote the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So prefaces the US Constitution, the founding document of our federal government and the guarantor of recognition for human rights in this country (in theory, anyway). There are a few unique characteristics of the Preamble: One, is that it is merely an introduction to the purpose of the body of the document. Each point is upheld by a specific article enumerating how the federal government may reach each specific objective. For instance, amendments 4-8 deal expressly with establishing justice; article 1 authorizes the federal government to collect taxes for the purposes of national defense; the first amendment was written to ensure domestic tranquility. So which part of the Constitution deals with the general welfare?

The term "general welfare" appears only twice in the entire body of the Constitution; in the Preamble, and in Article 1, section 8, which details the entire scope of legislative power:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
I see "general welfare," but where are "the people" in this article? Nowhere to be found. Article one deals only with the welfare of the states as a united entity, not with the individual states or with the individuals within those states. The person responsible for the welfare of the individual states is THEIR "president," the governor. The federal government may provide monies collected by taxes for three purposes and three only: To promote the welfare of the states; to provide for national defense; and to pay off debts incurred by those obligations. That's it.

James Madison once said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one …' Madison also said, "With respect to the two words ’general welfare,‘ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

Some people now want to say that the founders actually would approve of a state-run health care act. If this is the case, I'm forced to ask two questions: One, if such an action was appealing to them, why did they not provide the government with the authority to pay for such an act?

Two, let's say you wanted to know about the mindset of a historical character -- we'll say the Apostle Paul. Would you read only the opinions of modern scholars? Or would you read Paul's writings and the commentary of those known to be close to him -- Barnabas, Timothy and Jude? If the latter, why would you disregard the words and opinions of the Constitution's own authors about the document itself? The "General Welfare" clause is not a blank check. It is a limitation of government authority, not an extenuation of it.

Next post: Free Speech, Fair Choices and Fun Facts

Update: Rose is doing a lot better. I made her an appointment anyway, just to be safe, but she's not sneezing anymore, her eye gunk has dried up and she's not snoring when she sleeps. I'm thinking it was an allergy or she ate a bug that disagreed with her -- either way, thank you for your prayers :)

Sick cat

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:28:22 GMT

Quick digression: My cat has been sick for the past few days, sneezing and running a slight fever. She was ill when she originally came to us but has been in good health ever since till now. If she's still sick by Monday I'll be taking her to the vet on base as soon as they can get her in. I was exposed to FIV last weekend and I'm very much praying that she didn't somehow contract it through secondhand exposure.

Please pray for her recovery, that this is just allergies or a cold and not something more serious.