Obama Bends To Pragmetism on Insurance Issue

The second paragraph gives you the specifics but let's just say that a political manuver just took place today.  Randy Rhodes believes, and I am inclined to agree, that Bill Clinton the other day was kind of a stalking horse.  This is someone from the President not tied directly with the President who comes out and makes a statement to see whether it will fly.  "Run it up the flag pole and see is anyone salutes".   All of the Republicans lined up to agree with Bill Clinton's statement the other day.  Now these same Republicans are facing the fact that they just "agreed to something" that the President came along and endorsed with his news conference today.  Just this afternoon I was clicking a link that explained what the average family will encounter on January first of 2014, but I don't think I included that particular link in the paste.  Maybe I could get it.

The Health Law Rollout

 
 WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama said Thursday that insurers will be able to continue health-insurance coverage next year for current policyholders that otherwise would be canceled under the new health-care law.  The change marks a significant policy retreat by the president, one that he hopes will quell an intensifying protest over his faulty promise that Americans can keep their insurance plans under the new law.    Mr. Obama's announcement came on the eve of a House vote on a Republican bill to alter the law, which was gaining traction among Democrats, particularly after the administration's release Wednesday of low enrollment figures for the first month of the federal government's problem-prone online insurance marketplace.

With millions of Americans set to lose their current health insurance, Mr. Obama said he understands that getting a cancellation notice is upsetting, "particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked they could keep it." He added: "To those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I'm offering an idea that will help do it."  He said that while Americans who received cancellation letters can renew those insurance plans next year, they should examine other options available on state and federal insurance marketplaces since they may be cheaper and offer more coverage."This fix won't solve every problem for every person, but it will help a lot of people," Mr. Obama said.

Last night I was looking to see a “light show” so went to Media Player and came across the "Boomer Generation Rock” station, which has rarities from the Byrds and Stephen Stills and the like.  They featured a possibly post David Crosby "Byrds" song, and "Dark Star" by Stephen Stills, and "John Barleycorn Must Die" as well as "As You Said" by Cream and "Magical Mystery Tour".  The only commercial breaks were of the station plugging itself.  Bill had left the room before seven thirty and I turned it off after Jeopardy and hit Media Player.  Then I had one Blues on briefly.  Then it was “Arrow” and a grew drowsy and roused at the beginning of “Tomorrow People” and was more attentive to the plot.  I slept much better last night with the good bed spread from Paul.  I talked a while with Marsha last night.  Stephanie Miller had added yet another sexy liberal tour date and this one is May 10^th of next year, in Albequerky.  I went to the store seeking coffee at fading dusk and the store didn’t have any coffee so I went to Glen and made a deal for a spoon of that espresso for three cigarettes.  

I'd like to address this issue that I can't be a true blue conservative because "You Don't Believe In Absolutes" and you may not believe in God.  First of all out of respect for God I realize that God is the only one who can address issues of Our World in Absolute terms, because only He knows All of the facts.  We don't.  As I said in the last posting- - every one of us mortals has our own "Point of View".  This is not some admission of either Sin or bias; it's just the way things are.  People love to invoke the name of God to justify their own moral screw ups, or messing over another person's life.  (When the other person "trusted them against their better judgement to begin with)  They will say things to you like "You never know it's all part of God's plan" or "God must be trying to teach you some moral lesson".  They dare not state the Truth.  And that is it's incumbant on Christians -at Jesus' own commands to be "in the moment" for the other person and not play these stand-offish games and rationalizations.  Nobody said it was easy.  Of course- - in my conception of God - - I think I can save you people out there a lot of trouble "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak, by trying to petetion the Lord with Prayer.  (One of my favorite lines by the Doors)  Jim Morrison also said that we were "actors out alone".   God writes the master script and we are the players.  It not may be wrong to say that "God loves each and every one of his - - players - - characters, but he doesn't "Love" them the way one human loves another.  That would be "feela" or something, in the Greek.  Rather it is the love of an artist for his creation, and in some indirect way- - himself.  Few authors would interpose themselves in a play they were directing the action of, though Hitchcock used to do it in his movies.  Mainly the very presence of the Author in his own story would take the illusion of Realism out of the entire production.  Personally, I don't like to be reminded that it's actually "Actors" up there on stage.  No stage actor has some exestential crisis thinking 'I wonder if I am only a part of someone else's imagination".  It's just that absurd to think we can approach God.  I have said that God is four things - - Determinist is one.  The Script can't be changed, and has been playing itself out for four billion years since the created Universe.  God is anti dystensationalist.  That is- - God doesn't change or "get into a certain mood at a certain time" or abruptly change his Mind, like the woman in the song "She's always a woman to me".  God doesn't "Evolve".  Also you can't "wear God down" or mold him in your own Image.  Since one prayer is of zero value, can a hundred or a thousand be anything other than zero?   So I am a Deist, and Determanist, and Anti-Dyspensationalist, and one more thing for those who read my stuff- - I am an Objectivist.  That is I believe that Things have a certain Reality apart from what I think about them, and that had I never existed, these Things would have the same Reality. 

Lots of people love to speak of "other dimensions' or "Higher dimensions".   Perhaps you have thought I was advocating this in my "geometry of space" commentary.  Actually I wasn't speaking of "higher dimensions" at all but truely understanding the full properties of three dimensional space.  SEE NEXT PARAGRAPH FOR LATEST THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC For purposes of argument, we're leaving parrellel universes out of this- - which is an added dimension of TIME and not Space anyhow.  You could say "the teaching I received" is just as you have no way of "proving" under Newtonian laws, what a "stationary object" is.  Here is a case where you can throw Absolutes out the window anyhow, because when it comes to movement, everything is indeed relative.  (Selah)  But in the same way we are are ignorant about Speed, we are ignorant about the Space that movement takes place In.   I have spoken for example of distance being no factor, and people from far away stars being able to tune in Earth radio stations with as much clarity as those near the transmitter.   As you know, not to borrow from Sketch again - - but the program has no concept of "space" untill you define it as one object being positioned relative to another.  Other than that it's a total free-for all.   You can't color 'space' in the same manner that you "color" an actual creation or Object.  (Selah)   It is a fair question to ask what a Dimension IS to begin with.  Actually the word "Dynamic" is not a bad synanom.  Aspect- - as a word, alludes to the presence of another dimension that may not be expressly stated.  We have spoken of Dimensions of Space.  Anything more than three dimensions would be poly-dimensional Space.   I have a non patented formula that states that a ninety degree cube in four dimensions has 18 sides, and for five dimensions it's 40 sides and for six dimensions it's 75 sides.  We told you Space was a dimension.  We told you Time was a dimension.  In the past we have spoken of Objects- - as we think of that word as having four "Aspects" or dimensions.  We won't deal with those today, except to say you can have Awareness of - - Objects.  We "perceive" them and each one has a whole set of mental associations concerning it in our brains.  Here's the Kicker!   Religious people allude to a self referencial phallocy in speaking that somehow AWARENESS is a dimension.  But think about it.  They want it all for themselves.  They -as they do with claims of God - - claim God speaks only to them and not to others, and God always is giving you "messages" to "pass on to others".   They claim Awareness or Experiance is a good thing- - yet when anyone other than themselves claims to have such "dimension of Awareness" or Experiance, the Christians, more than the secular man, will be the first to get Apaplectic over it and say "You can't do that".  What them mean (secret translator) is "You can't do That- - because I Made the Whole Thing Up Myself just to elevate me in the last argument we had and the only way I could do it was to fight dirty".  But of course they won't say that.  They claim knowledge and yet they disclaim knowledge.  They claim to have been imparted an "Unshakable Faith" or conviction- - - but say that their "knowledge' can't be investigated, and in fact - - will say that it's a Sin for you or anybody to "Investigate" such "other dimensions". and may even say "We can't know such things" after they have JUST SAID that THEY "Know It All" (Selah) 

SPACE FOLDING WOULD BE A NEAT THEORY TO EXPLAIN TRAVEL OVER GREAT DISTANCES, IF ONLY IT WERE EVEN THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.  HOWEVER - -  picture a three dimensional chess game.  In my version I'd have four playing boards and two complete sets of chess pieces.  I would have the men decked out on levels one and four as usual, with the stipulation that you could not capture a player until the piece had been moved.  We have spoken of Space as a metaphor in karmic space.  We didn't even mention the three dimensions of Karma.  My only point is that in that arena- - just as in Chess we speak of "space you control" or what one might say "space in your Reach".  Different chess players on the board have different reaches.  In conformance to Mal Evans' "congruancy" doctrine- - we would know the "reach" of a bishop, so to speak.  Normally one chooses to capture a player of a "different reach" from his own.  Two "congruant' pieces such as two bishops in "each others space" would see paril for whoever's move it was unless one or both pieces were protected- - or a more pragmatic word is "insured".  Now picture two pieces of paper- - with the same Universe drawn on them.  It needn't be a limited universe in fact both pieces of paper go on out to Infinity.  Space folding won't work.  But picture each sheet of paper with the ink images facing each other- - the physical paper could be seen as the "ether" or "aether" however you choose to spell it.  Question.  Is there Ether between the sheets of paper?  No.  Hypothetically is there "space" between the two sheets of paper?  No.  Picture three dimensions.  Now picture three more.  Now let's clarify this a little.  It would be AS THOUGH there were the SAME object, but "Occupying" two different sheets of paper, or in this case ONE object on Two different "Universes" of Ether.  Keep in mind out model is based on the notion of a stationary point in time.  (You Ether theorists will know why I am stipulating that.  It's like in Word you have an auxiliary file and you want to paste or "plop" some block of text down in the middle of another block of text.  One could liken the ether as "three dimensional".  Hypothetically you could have "six dimensional ether" kind of like High Def TV - - where you can experiance all six dimensions at once.  The point is that - - like an object "moved" into the space of another Object in sketch - - the default used to be that each object "had its own space' and was unaware of the other.  The thing is that since there is no ether you need to "traverse" between any object on the second sheet and the first- - since distance is reckoned in terms of Ether (we aren't talking Speed now but distance - and that distinction is relevent) therefore since there "is no way to define distance" even though one could argue, for instance that ink from one sheet bled onto the other - - that you don't have to sweat all of that gravity and acceleration problems hassle.  (Selah)  Now when you play three dimensional chess and your Rook is taken by the others Queen, but the Queen was on some other level you can't claim "You rooked me out of my rook!"  Those are the rules in three dimensional chess.  Someone can swoop down from Another Level and capture your piece is you are In the others Space.  One could (I considered this) slide the sheets of paper to get two objects on each facing sheet of paper to "line up" in proximity.  However a better theory is the "piece capture" theory.  If someone is "in your space" you can capture them and if they are in Your space, you can capture them.  Length of move in a chess piece does not "weaken" the chessman's power.  A piece's power is not contingent on how far it has to travel to capture an opposing piece.  We know that since there is no SPACE as we know it between the sheets- - or / and - - there is no "Aether" then space as we know it is not a factor.  All we know here is that pieces on different levels have a "reach".  Since there is neither Space nor Distance between the sheets- - - the area a piece traverses - unlike in three dimensional chess - - is not defined in terms of Space, but it is defined in terms of Reach, or Karmic space.  As such travel over great distances instantaniously would be possible.

 

The No Spin Zone

Johnny Wendell had a conniption fit but it wasn’t over anything important.  Keep in mind he had been talking about that Friss senator- - who was a doctor and libertarian.  I think he was the one who diagnosed Terry Shivo, that brain dead lady from a TV monitor.  But his father was the one who organized some “Hospital” business group in 1968.  It used to be that hospitals were either own by cities or else some community organization, or a church group.  And they were forbidden from making profits in the medical insurance business.  And then there is Rick Scott who was guilty of Medic Air fraud, but still got elected.  Now he has a program to track down “Welfare Fraud” by drug testing each and every recipient.  They saved 78 thousand dollars and the program cost a hundred million to run.  So much for tea party frugality with taxpayer funds.  But Johnny wasn’t upset about this.  He was upset about trans facts.  He went on some raving rant about how people who eat their jelly donuts from Winchells are driving up his health care costs.  Perhaps he should blame Obama Care for that, if you must.  Personally I haven’t gotten past the idea that my behavior will be criminalized if I don’t jump through their P C hoops such as seat belts and motor cycle helmets, or for that matter- - ingesting trans facts.  I’ll if you are going to say that MY actions - - me right here- - have driven up YOUR insurance costs, that’s a case you can’t make.  Even my blood pressure medication was necessary because of alcohol and not diet.  I even quit smoking for two years and that did nothing to lower my blood pressure.  I looked up trans fats because Johnny Wendell said there were an artificial “poison” that is not a normal part of the diet.  Then you have to say that margarine and Bisquick and shortening are not a part of our diets.  Shortening has been around since the early 1900s, over a hundred years.  They were working on a way of processing unsaturated fats for increased shelf life as far back as the 1890s and there was a Patten in 1902.  Everybody agrees these fats make food taste better, and for long time margarine was considered a healthy substitute for butter.  One of Elvis’ chefs at Graceland always prepared his food with margarine, to keep him relatively thin during the sixties when he shot his movies.  You can’t, for example, put trans fats in the same category as artificial sweeteners which ARE bad for you and are definitely NOT a food product.  I’m puzzled by this glairing inconsistency of- - how we can’t even be TOLD whether our food is genetically modified, but they are banning foods that have been around for a hundred and ten years.  Someone spoke of the Didacticism of the tea party right.  You only flatter people by imitating them.  In fact – someone said that if you can just get these tea party addicts away from their FOX news and their britebart web sites- - then they slowly “sober up” and many of them actually become liberals.  There was one survey of the American people that said that seventy percent of us are “operational liberals”.  If I knew what that was I’d comment on it.

Sarah Palin has been putting in her two cents about Christmas.  I heard her say that only the Christmas spirit can make people generous during a certain time of year.  I guess the words “generous” and “tea party” don’t mix, any more than “Love’ and “Christianity appear to mix at all these days.    No sane person could vote for Mitt Romney and yet say they believe in compassion for their fellow man, after Romney drove those businesses into the ground and robed the pension funds and threw workers into the street.  Romney and the tea party are WORSE than Ebonezer Scrooge.  Scrooge did not have an active hatred of poor people.  He just didn’t care to be associated with them.  People like Rush Limbaugh and Mitt Romney and I suspect, Sarah P:alin herself, have an abiding hatred of the poor and the down and out.  Sarah Palin even criticized Pope Francis for “making statements that sound kind of Liberal”.  Believe me if you’re in a car wreck and are hemeraging blood with a half a dozen broken bones, you are going to want the emergency workers to have a “liberal” supply of the blood you need.  But Rush Limbaugh says moderate is a tainted word.  “A moderate is just a liberal that doesn’t have the guts to come out and say it”.  You know how quickly Governor Christie backed away when someone hinted he might be a “Moderate” himself.  The liberals are right.  Jesus was a healer, and he didn’t do it by making drug companies rich.  Jesus also cured the mental ill by driving demons out of them.  And you know that the thing Christian groups today attack vehemently are “Deliverance ministries”.   John Mac Arthur also hates “Seeker friendly churches” when Jesus was all about seeking and finding.  Now theologians are saying that “Jesus really didn’t mean to literally SEEK the truth.   This verse is “out of context” in their eyes.   /The idea of being “Open” to anything- - new people or new ideas, is anathema to these people.  Jesus also said to do your praying in public.  Instead the Supreme Court and Congress open their sessions with public prayers, before they do their dastardly acts.  They make a mockery of Christianity.  Jesus also said when you pray you should pray as if you mean it and not just for show like the hypocrites do.  But Neil of KFI says “Well- - everybody is a hypocrite these days- - so you might as well join the party”.  Neil of KFI says a lot of things.   Pastors say “I don’t do counciling” but would rather send their troubled sheep off to some secular therapist - - where said patient via medication or whatever will suddenly get a revelation that Christianity is a bunch of crap.

I guess I tend to be more "liberal" in listening to callers that may not agree with me.  Stephanie Miller encountered a caller yesterday morning who stated that "Stephanie spins issues on her show". We know where the expression comes from.  It's like "putting English on the ball" in either pool or tennis, or putting a top spin on a pitched fast ball. "Spin" affects the game, without changing the substance of the ball itself.  He went on to say that "What President Obama failed to realize in rolling out his Health Care plan is that insurance companies are free enterprise - and you tinker with that at your peril.  I am a believer that all other things being equal that the Free Market should have its way, short of some dire emergency.  The whole gang on the Stephanie show were insulted at this assertion and talked over the caller for the whole rest of the time he was on.  I know sometimes tea party callers call and "pretend to be something they are not", but I'd at least give them a fighting chance to say something civil.   The best argument against the "five percent theory" is that practically in every case I've heard about, people are losing their insurance right and left, or their rates are being jacked up sky high.  Clearly it's a case of "How much does President Obama believe in his ideas?  As to the topic of "spinning issues" some people like Christine Di Mira "spin" to the point of utter insanity.  Sociopaths are masters at "spinning issues", which only goes to prove the adage "Never argue with a mad man".   We'd all love to see the tea party just "go away" but Time Will Tell.  You and I may believe furvently that the Tea Party is pulling a massive con job on all Americans- - but the media supports what they do.  If the President's theories are sound- - then, there should be no problem.  The facts will vindicate him.  But I have trust issues with this President.  Sometimes I really don't know what he stands for.  It's hard to enthusiastically support someone like that.  If the President could not anticipate the deboccle of the 2010 elections - - then I question his mental fitness to serve, because someone of true leadership calabre would have taken action to have prevented the 2010 election results from happening.

We have used the adage of "He who is incapable of three dimensional thinking is not worthy to have "both sides of the issue" looked at.  So what do we mean.  In any two dimensional surface image, everybody sees pretty much the same image.  They can tell you what is happening in that picture- be it moving or still.  But in Star Trek it was Spock who said "Obviously the man suffers from the weakness of being incapable of three dimensional thinking".  For instance- - there are two bright stars at the end of the tail of the Scorpio constelation.  And yet these two stars are two hundred light years apart.  That's why we spoke of absolute verses relative magnitude.  Vast distances may be the reality of objects we perceive as next to each other. There is "a whole dimension of perception" hence "reality" that you are missing with just a two dimensional shot.  In three dimensions "point of view" matters.  The adage is even true that "any pancake no matter how thin has two sides to it".  We should respect the "point of view" of others.  I have spoken of three dimensions as a dimension of "Substance" or Materiality.  Two dimensions don't have materiality.  Many religions make two dimensional theological sylligisms that just won't hold up under the scruteny of Logic.  They fall apart.  They are deathly afraid of the thing they claim to want most, to "Just give religion a chance and investigate its claims".  Investigation is the last thing they want.  (Selah)  Just as in Math - - where in essence there is no "other side of truth" in certain situations or rhetoric- - statements devoid of Substance- - needn't be viewed from "some other point of view" to know the Truth.   Few people in the media really care to portray the Tea Party for what they really Are.  Now some people such as those religiously minded will indeed themselves speak of "other dimensions' such as some Spiritual dimension.  But they offer no proof.  Nobody has ever "been there" to explore it and see if there be some kind of "point of view" of events we hadn't taken account of.  I would remind such people that the third command is still opperative which states "Do not take the Lord your God in vain".  (Selah)