CRITICAL SUCCESS: The 2 Rules of 3: Recent Comments

Comment on WHY BLACK HISTORY MONTH

DS Brown — 2010-03-31T14:33:16Z

Very fair perspective, and thanks for commenting. You're right, I don't recall celebrating the other recognized cultures in school either. However, when I was in school we didn't celebrate any of them, including Black History Month. But your point is understood. In my opinion a better question would be why not? When choosing what to focus on, a really old-school classical education (like the kind they used to give nobles) would benefit everyone. A wholistic approach that introduces various cultural aspects of people around the world that impact the here and now and where would be very relavant and quite justified.

I agree, it would be nice to drop the hyphenations. I'm an American first and foremost. I think we should do that, as soon as we are able to move beyond tolerance and acceptance of cultural differences and really love our differences, seeing them clearly without the need for labels, or the education necessary to understand them. When it becomes innate, we can and should remove. Until then, we need the benefit of something that fosters that education, highlights learning, and seeks to promote it as a passionate journey towards enlightenment. Just my opinion of course.

Comment on WHY BLACK HISTORY MONTH

Ralph Wilson — 2010-03-31T00:06:08Z

March: Women’s History Month, Irish American Heritage Month,
May: Asian/Pacific Heritage Month
June: Gay and Lesbian Pride Month
September: Hispanic Heritage Month
October: German American Heritage Month, Polish American Heritage Month
November: Native American Heritage Month

Notice anything interesting? Well, how many of those are set aside for special studies in most public schools? I don't remember hearing about Irish-, German-, or Polish-American Heritage month being studied in schools.

However, I don't begrudge African-American Heritage Month being celebrated. I just wish that all the hypenations could be dropped and everyone just celebrate _American_ heritage month . . . or, at the verry least, put "American" first and hyphenate it with the others as trailing descriptors. But, then, I tend to think of myself as an American above all things. ;-)

Comment on FACEBOOK TALES - YOUR ORDERS ARE TO DEAL PIRATES. HOOYAH!

Steven Crouse — 2010-03-04T20:34:56Z

I wnder with althis fervor over health care WHY has no-one considered the fact that every American could have health care and we could balance our Debt IF we stopped beig the "bigshot" and giving away BILIoNS of dollars to the rest of the world?? Most of the countrys dont llke us anyway!!WHY do we have to be the ones to write the checks for the rest of the world at our peoples expense? Why do WE hve t give every country millions of dollars every time somthing happens? Are we really that stupid? Take two year "break" and let everyone else fend for themselves for a while,,,then see how we are and change a few atitudes toward us also. WHY are we in Chile..there neighbors to Brazil who holds us up for high oil prices AND hates us! Let South Amercans take care of South America and lets shut down our borders and concentrate on the "us" in U.S.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers His Own Personal Demands For American Health Care Reform

DS Brown — 2009-09-19T06:42:06Z

Ed, first let me say thank you for commenting. Your response is open and amicable, and represents a clear desire for sincere dialogue.

Considering rights, I have to honestly say that your basis for rights provided is singular in nature. You agree with Steve, who as I recall did not mention the bible. However, that is fine. I have a strong faith but tend to look askance at religion, since it represents government by another name. You have to understand that your basis for rights provided to human beings is powerfully informed by your beliefs, and your perspective. An atheist would vehemently disagree with you. As for the Constitution, just like Steve your statement shows a fundamental educational gap on that sacred national document. It was specifically, and expressly written to provide a workable framework OF government FOR the people BY the people. Yes, it provides protection. No, it was not written to protect us FROM government. It was specifically written to enumerate powers within a given framework that provide powers for and establishes government.

It seems that you looked at the 18 Demands and gave them sincere consideration. Thank you for truly taking the time to do so, Ed. That is really what I've asked people to do. Okay, to that end let me clarify two points. First, I can tell by your statements that you have an opinion on the so-called Public Option. Understand, the only Public Option I would advocate would require a corporate charter and be run in the same fashion as a competing private entity, and operate under the same constraints. The thing could even be listed on the NYSE for that matter. The point is that it would have operating costs. Costs that have to be funded from its own revenue, not tax dollars. Now, if the crap hit the fan, would the govt. bail it out? You know I don't have to answer that. Government Motors is a prime example. However, I hazard a guess that you and I fundamentally differ on how far we should let free market forces determine the fate of people who were not the investors or founders of GM, but plain old hard working Americans. I'm an avowed capitalist and innovative entrepreneur. Still, I don't believe in letting market forces reign to such a degree that we have to suffer the loss of 30,000 jobs in one fell swoop because we simply think it would be better to let an entity fail. Just fundamental differences. And here's a freebie. Government Motors will emerge from bankruptcy and be re-listed on the NYSE next year. My friend, INVEST! You won't be disappointed. My second point, Medicare is restructured under the Mayo model in DEMAND 11. This is your mandate for break-even. I'm pushing for profit! Take the additional revenue and route it to the deficit. In addition you clearly forgot Demand 18. This satisfies your requirement of no cost-overruns. I fully agree with you, which is why I put it in there. Now, let's be clear, and I've said this before, with the advent of WEB 2.0, how successful do you think subsequent Congresses would be at overturning the legal constraints of Demand 18? I don't know if you've noticed, but these days even a small minority can make it very difficult for a government official to do some things and keep them completely hidden.

The Demands do include government action on the private sector. I'm assuming because you wanted to clarify a given point, which I do understand, you stepped away from the mandates on private insurance I provide in the Demands. However, this by no means is the only way to get it done. In fact, the most expeditious and aggressive way to get it done is a combination of both public and private, as I've provided in the Demands.

You final statement is absolutely on point. I fully agree. I think once again in a desire to clarify and state your thoughts on the issue you've stepped away from what I've provided in the Demands. They state that coverage shall be provided for those that can't take of themselves. However, if you so choose, you can completely opt out. No one should force you to get coverage. However, just like what happens when you drive without a license, or insurance, there are repercussions stated in the Demands. This gives you the power to be free in your choices. For those of us in a given program, we will have to manage how we control what is dictated to us. I'm assuming you have no health insurance since you don't let private insurance dictate to you. Again, your choice. My doctor basically does whatever I ask. However, my insurance company over the last two years has taken to doing whatever it likes as well in regard to profit generation, which is not following the prevailing macro-economy, which in turn is taking additional funds out of my pocket each year. I want to see this trend reversed. I have the best insurance money can buy, yet it behaves far differently than my auto or life policies, both of which leverage risks. Should it costs more? Sure, it does more. However, offer an appropriate product and practice efficiencies in your business model that control costs. Remember, we were discussing costs? Private Insurance needs some forced assistance in this area. Hence, the Demands. Competition will spur reductions, and give me back my money. I think that's something we citizens can all agree on.

I truly thank you for engaging Ed.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers His Own Personal Demands For American Health Care Reform

Ed F Bias — 2009-09-18T13:17:54Z

Derrick I appreciate what I perceive as an honest and well thought out vision for health care. I am impressed that you avoided the blame game (mostly) and but forth specific points that create a basis for discussion.

I happen to fall in line with Steve, however. Our rights are God given and last I checked the bible did not mention insurance policies. At least not the paper kind. The constitution of this country was written to protect us from the government and insure our personal (civil) rights. We have gotten too far from that and allowed Washington to gain too much power (both parties).

I agree with most of your demands in general terms; if not their implementation. Let me speak to a major point of contention. You state that a government program will help break the Insurance monopoly and contain costs. You use the same, overheated, argument about Medicare and it's lower costs. The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no requirement for them to break even. Sure they avoid the "evil profit" side of the equation. They do so by running billions of dollars in the red. Let me run a company that can lose billions a year and I could contain costs as well. The government option in any form (allowed to run in the red and/or tax to balance it's budget) is unacceptable to me.

Do not fool yourself that, "it will be budget neutral." You fall into a very simple trap that I used to believe. You ever wonder why, if this is so important and must be done now, it does not go into effect until 2013? There is a simple fact in Washington. Each Congress is independent. This Congress will pass a law, say it must be budget neutral and pass the implementation to the next Congress. The next Congress; being independent; is not subject to the restriction of "budget neutrality". It would be "unfair" for one Congress to set forth rules and limitations on another. Therefore, like all other deficits, they will decline to take up the provision and just let the law run.

The only way to force budget neutrality and price control is by government action upon the private sector where costs must be balanced. With this known, many of your demands (though valid concerns) must take on a different focus.

Final comment. Why do the elderly struggle so to give up their driver's license? Freedom. A car and driver's license is freedom. When you give someone else control you give up your freedom. Sure some live their lives and use public transportation, defendant on others. But the vast majority only do so when it is convenient and maintain the option (through the ownership of a car and a valid driver's license) to be able to go as they please. In the end, this is all about freedom and I am not willing to hand my future health decisions to anyone. That includes Insurance. It is the same reason many with Medicare have supplemental Insurance. There is no monopoly.

Thanks again for the open discussion.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers The Response to President Obama’s Speech To America’s Students

DS Brown — 2009-09-18T12:57:04Z

Thanks for the clarification, Nick. However, I am already aware of the information you provided. Note that I spoke to the spectrum of modern libertarianism. The example I provided was simply a facet. I did not mean to confuse you, but rather to emphasize the fact that in any given ideology there are extremes to the left and right, and all throughout the in-between. But again, thanks for providing some clarifying info for readers.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers His Own Personal Demands For American Health Care Reform

DS Brown — 2009-09-18T12:52:47Z

Steve,

Thank you for commenting. Allow me to respond to your specific points. In my personal opinion I think you are absolutely wrong about where we are, and that your statement is more about perspective and the application or lack thereof of mental filters.

Your first statement regarding the Constitution if one that many seem to hold dear, but have no critical education regarding the Constitution or how it is effectively utilized in terms of maintaing, growing, or shrinking government. Two sections of the Constitution specifically allow the United States Government the power to create laws as required to prosecute the powers as defined, one of which is promoting the general welfare of the United States. Many strict constructionist may dispute this. However, time and time again they have fallen to the side, their perspective viewed as the wrong perspective in regard to creating national prosperity. You are free to hold on to your view, one of those wonderful liberties provided to American citizens, our freedoms allow you to choose. However, all I would ask, is imagine what our nation might be like if we flipped the federal government on its ear, and demanded today that it only prosecute the powers as stated in the Constitution, and ignored the phrasing that implied the necessary power to pass laws for the general welfare. It's a good exercise. Consider it.

Regarding my analysis of the TEA citizens. You're reading my article and shaking your head. I would ask you to stop and let down your mental filter. Ask yourself critical questions as to why I would hold such a perspective? Simply stop and think about it. I'm working from certain observations. I'm not making assumptions about individuals. I'm talking about the GOP supporters who are in the TEA movement in my district. I'm talking about Dick Armey. I'm talking about Michael Steele. I'm clearly not talking about you. However, have a wider view of the situation and truly consider my perspective, and you may see things differently ... or maybe you won't.

Regarding what governments have and have not done. Wow. Steve, you really should lower your mental filters, let go of some the heated passion, and apply a little cold logic. My friend, if you would, just get online and take a look at the history of modern governments. Nothing since the standing Army of Rome? What happened in WWII? Honestly, so many people have gotten on this horse about bad government that it is starting to get heavy and completely out of hand. I hate taxes, and abhor bloated bureaucracy and corruption. A rational minds knows there are very few if any absolutes. Recognize that your statement is an absolute, and I challenge you to find some things at which governments have been successful. I'll toss one out, Tennessee Valley Authority. Now, and I've done this with others, as you go through this exercise, eschewing rhetoric and holding on to critical cognition, compare govt. programs to Enron, WorldComm, and then Microsoft, Exxon. We get so excited that we miss critical points. Both are bad. Both are good. One can excel far more efficiently on a thing. The other can do the same given certain prevailing factors. I challenge you to find out which.

I'm making demands of the government because like or not, a bill is about to be passed. I want the bill to be passed with my demands included. To do otherwise is to stand up and step away from the table, denying the facts on the ground. Instead, be thinking, be critical, be engaged.

The government can pass a law demanding that you get healthcare, just as there are laws demanding that you get car insurance if you want to drive a car (albeit an extreme comparison). Still, did you read the demand I stated? I don't support demanding that you sign up for healthcare either. Doesn't feel right.

Now, I won't act up too much on this next point. I felt myself getting upset, as I often do whenever people have the sheer temerity to question my love or passion for this great nation. It is the only place in all of history on this world that a man like me could be the man I am today. In no other country could my story have come true, could I have prospered in such a fashion, could I have sought and achieved critical success, an activity on which I am still building. I know, recognize, intimately understand, and thoroughly enjoy my freedom. Then, I calmed down and realized the way you structured your sentence was how we love our country. Steve, really, it's almost laughable. What my country has done for me? Are you kidding? Okay, in my life I have taken nothing for granted. Nothing has been given to me save for the love of my parents and the basis they provided on which I would build my life. The rest? I earned it my friend. I'm still earning it. I have been given nothing, and ask for nothing. My demands, as stated before, are me being active within the confines of our state, demanding that I have a seat at the table, leveraging the freedom my beloved country provides so that I too can be heard, and have input. Steve, I AM EXERCISING AMERICAN FREEDOM.

Regarding government in healthcare? Well, they're already in it to such a high degree that it might boggle your mind. Clearly, you're unaware. It's a lot more than state lines. By the way, did you read my demands? I demand that we remove state restrictions. Also, I demand a specific reform of Medicare, which makes several people age 65 and over very, very happy. You also don't understand the fundamental nature of business, innovation, and the drive for profit. My friend, you would be surprised. Let me make it clear, there is nothing being considered that will drive a company making over 12.5 billion dollars on healthy 3.5 percent profit margins to simply walk away, not when they still have customers, and can still make money. You're woefully misguided by rhetoric and yes mainstream media if you believe everyone's simply going to walk away and join the government plan. I hazard a guess you won't be doing it. So there, sale number one is Steve, still providing healthy profit for Private Insurance companies. Next please? Steve, they are going nowhere.

Again, thanks for commenting.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers His Own Personal Demands For American Health Care Reform

Steve Young — 2009-09-16T15:27:09Z

Derrick-

I am in such a different place than you are regarding what I know about my country and where I expect my freedoms to exist. There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates any 'rights' regarding healthcare.

The Constitution does not discuss the government's ability to intrude into the life of private citizens, rather it discusses how government should be limited into the intrusion of people's lives.

Also, your analysis of the Tea folks is misguided. Most Tea's are not in agreement with the GOP, so your premise is false, and therefore invalid. The Tea's have mostly voted for GOP'ers in the past, but exist only because of their dissatisfaction with the GOP. I suggest you get educated about a movement that just put over a million people in DC last weekend. It is an interesting movement, and at least deserves more coverage than the denial mainstream media has put forth.

This country is built on making choices, taking chances and living with the consequences of those actions. Government has never successfully built anything that is efficient in this country or any other country throughout history, other than a standing army in ancient Rome. With that track record, how can you expect for our government to successfully pay for services and create a better healthcare, when the government has historically never created a better anything?

You are in a different place than I, because you are making "demands" from our government and want rights given to you by a government that does not have the authority to give those rights.

On another point, the government does not have the authority to make anyone get healthcare coverage. It is a part of a citizen's rights to choose, and therefore live with, or suffer the consequences.

Specifically, where I am in a different place than you is that I love my country, not because of what it does for me, but by what freedom's it gives me.

Healthcare is in need of reform, but the reform needed is getting big government out of healthcare. Why do you think there are states that allow no competitors in the health insurance industry? That comes exclusively from big government.

What happens if you don't allow insurance companies to drop patients with pre-existing conditions? Then the insurers will leave the industry because they can make money invested in things other than healthcare. That leaves only a government option left in the industry.

If we adopt national healthcare at any level, watch what happens to all of the clinics just across from the Canadian border. They will all close, because their customers won't be allowed to get the greatest healthcare available anymore.

We need reform, not nationalized healthcare. The HR 3200 bill in it's current form is a disaster on the level of Katrina, only on a national basis, and will forever change the face of this country as it continues toward bankruptcy.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers The Response to President Obama’s Speech To America’s Students

Nick M — 2009-09-16T02:47:52Z

Mr. Brown, I think you are confused regarding libertarianism. Essentially, it means freedom from all government influence for individuals. You understand already that on the financial side, we oppose excessive taxation and overregulation. On the social side, we oppose things such as government dictating who can and cannot get married, any sort of discrimination (while opposing affirmative action, a form of legalized discrimination), gun control, free speech restrictions, states rights restrictions, abortion restrictions, smoking restrictions, essentially anytime the government tries to interfere in your personal life, we oppose that. Contrary to some who view this as "on the right" and "standing with racists, etc." a libertarian philosophy is actually the opposite of tyranny, or if you prefer, statism. Modern liberals favor government controlling money of individuals, while allowing personal freedom. Modern conservatives favor freedom with your money, while restricting personal freedoms. Statists favor government control of your money and your personal freedom. Libertarians favor freedom from the government taking your money and freedom from the government interfering in your personal lives. That's why its not a 1-dimensional left-right thing...you have to go out to at least 2 dimensions to understand our process. Something like 15% of the population have libertarian beliefs, but many of them aren't aware that there is a category for them.

Comment on The Critical Thinker Considers The Response to President Obama’s Speech To America’s Students

DS Brown — 2009-09-15T21:07:03Z

Thanks, Jim. I do apologize for the rants. As I said in another reply, my wife was all over me with this exact same criticism. She is a critical thinker and is quiet displeased when I allow my emotions to seep into my writing. What can I say, I'll always be a work in progress, an aspiring critical thinker, quite prone to mistakes. Still, the dialogue is worthwhile at any level. We have to express our thoughts and ideas. As you say, we have to endeavor to think critically about the policies we put in place.