Health insurance reform

In the perfect, Utopian world full health care for everyone would be great. Here in the real world its impractical.

I don't think it should be too hard to figure that out. Total health care takes money and since we are already in a deficit we don't need to add to that.

If my understanding of Obamacare is correct the President would like to force all Americans to buy health insurance, whether they can afford it or not. How is that right in any way, shape or form?

I thought that this was a free country and we had right to make choices. Forcing people to buy health insurance goes totally against our countries principles,  I think once the courts gets through with Obamacare it will ruled unconstitutional on this point alone.

But that is not the only problem with this health care "reform". What about the people who will not be financially able to afford health care? I haven't heard what President Obama intends to do to people who don't buy insurance. What does he want to do; fine them or put them in jail? Whatever punishment there would be would not solve or help anything.

And how would enforcement of mandatory health insuance be done? Would the President make a health insurance version of the IRS? All that would accomplish is costing tax payers more and add on to the debt. And that would inevitability make it even harder for people to afford health insurance.

And maybe I'm wrong on this but if everyone had to buy health insurance wouldn't that mean insurance rates go up?  It makes sense  to me that health insurance would charge whatever they want knowing that everyone was required to have it.

Does our health care system need to be improved? Yes, I don't think anyone thinks it is perfect as is. But it has to be done in a financially responsible and pragmatic way. Try again Mr. President or it will be one term for you.

Adults?

Maybe I'm losing my sense of humor.

There was a time when I thought Joy Behar was funny. Where have those days gone?  Last night as I was flipping through channels and stopped when I saw Tim Gunn on her show. Mr Gunn is one of those rare people who I like even though I  have no idea why I like him. Maybe its because he reminds me a little bit my Dad.

Before last night I thought name calling and mocking people was beneath him. Apparently, I was wrong.

As I started listening to Ms. Behar and Mr Gunn I was quickly disturbed by the tone of the conversation. Maybe I imagined some of this but I could swear that they were actually giggling and tee-heeing about how much Michele Bachman (R Mn) reminded them of Sarah Palin.

Another question, why do liberals focus all their dislike on Ms  Palin? Technically right now she is just a lecturer with no real power; as far as I know. Shouldn't democratic dislike be focused on someone who is able to influence changes.

Back to the subject at hand; I don't get how Ms Palin and Ms Bachman could be linked other than political belief. Physically they are both attractive brunettes; but the similarities end there.  Ms Behar and Mr Gunn were also tickled that Ms Bachman used graphics in her rebuttal speech to the State of the Union speech as  Ms Palin has done in the past. How does that make them alike? Many politicians have used graphics to ake points. So I don't see the relevancy of that.

I get that Ms Bear and Mr Gunn don't like Ms Palin but is mocking really necessary? Is that how adults are supposed to behave? I don't think so.

Let's grow up America.

Stuff

One of the reasons  I started doing this blog was in the hopes of "meeting" new people and have discussions of different topics. I was hoping that through getting feedback I would essentially be getting ideas and topics to write about.

By the way, I just noticed  that there were limits on who could comment I think I fixed that.

On blogger.com I am able to see how many page views this blog is getting and from what I see I believe that more than just my family has been reading me. Please feel free to leave comments that are hopefully constructive. As you can tell I am not the best writer and  I need all the help I can get.

Is it just me or does it seem like the President is never called the President anymore? Seems like it's always Obama this or Obama that, rarely President Obama. I thought that was one of the perks to being President. When did that change? My guess is President Clinton had something to do with that.

I never did well at math and the only economics I understand is balancing the check book. I have heard the terms raising the debt ceiling and capping the debt, and freezing spending. If any of those things mean what I think it means I have a question. Why isn't the government run like we do in our lives? If I continually wrote  bad checks to cover my expenses I would get into a lot of trouble. If I borrowed money from a number from my neighbors and never paid them back that would also get me into trouble; maybe even the physical kind. From my limited knowledge of things that seems like what the government does. Maybe the difference is they can print there own money.

Life happens

Have you ever met people who appear to be happy all the time? People who no matter what happens are always smiling and positive? I wonder what they are like in the privacy of their own homes and minds?

I am happy and grateful I am not as moody as I was a kid. Actually, there are  number of differences between me at 17-20 and at age 45 that I am grateful for.

And most days I think I am fairly happy. And most of the time I deal with things not going my way pretty well. In my opinion over the course of my life that used to be one of, if not my biggest faults; I used to really let things get to me. I would rant and rave and just be a general pain in the rear. And things would stay with me for days.  And to be honest I still have moments. But they're mild and don't last.

But somewhere along the way it REALLY sank in that life happens. People are going to are going to do what they do. Situations aren't  going  to go the way I want. And for me as long as I can  remember the simple phrase "It is What It is." I deal with things pretty well.

What that phrase means to me is to look at a person or situation and ask myself "is there any way I can change that person or the situation?"  99% of the time the answer is NO then "it is what it is"; take whatever appropriate action is/isn't necessary and (in my case) roll on.

And sometimes there are days like today nothing is really wrong but I am not in a good mood. On those days venting normally  helps. I hope you don't mind that I did. Thank you.  I feel better. It is what it is.

Perception and reality

This what I saw. A quarterback who had a poor first half.  I did  not see a limp as Jay Cutler walked to the locker room a little bit before the end of the first half. I was thinking that he went in early because they didn't think the Bears would get the ball back.

This what I saw. A quarterback who had a poor opening drive to start the second half. I did not see Jay Cutler limp off the field after that drive and I could not tell that he was hurt.

This is what I saw.  Todd Collins coming on the field as Jay Cutler's replacement. For the rest of the game there were several times when Cutler was on camera. Once he was on a stationary and looked OK to me.  A number of times he was just standing on the side looking like his mind was somewhere else. A couple of times he was shown on the bench next to 3rd string QB Caleb Hanie. During one of those camera shots Hanie was trying to talk to Cutler and Jay was barely responding.

What I was thinking. Honestly, he didn't look to be in pain and the trainers didn't seem to reacting with urgency so I wondered whether he quit on the team; and his calm and nonchalant demeanor enforced that thinking. To me, if you're a starting  NFL QB in the NFC Championship game; you are going to do anything and everything you possibly can to get you team into the Superbowl. That is why they pay you the big bucks. And that means that if for some reason you can't play, you do whatever else it takes. When your on offense, if you can stand (he was); your place is standing next to whoever is calling plays and advising (he wasn't). If your team is on offense the injured QB should be right by the 3rd string QB talking the last possession and offering advice (he wasn't).

What I did. I came to the conclusion that Jay Cutler was being a wimp mentally and physically.  And I posted that I thought Cutler was a wimp on Twitter. I don't know why but I did.

What I did next. About an hour or two after the game I went to a couple of sports sites where I know stories  get responses. I noticed a number of people thought the same thing that  I did and I noticed Cutler had a lot of defenders also.  But there was one short two sentence response that caught my eyes, "Jay Cutler as Type 1 diabetes. Lay off him."

Today I saw on another web site  another commenter mention the same thing.  I went on Wikipedia (yes I know not the best source) and sure enough it says that he does have Type 1 diabetes and takes insulin shots everyday. I looked for what it was and did not understand what I read. I am hoping that if my favorite neurodork/goddess reads this that she can explain diabetes to me in plain English. This is only speculation; but I wonder, is it possible that  Jay wasn't taking proper care of himself?

What I learned. I believe there are lessons to be learned in most, if not all, that we go through in life. And I believe that I was at least reminded to not be so quick to jump to conclusions. And I should do all I can to really understand a situation before coming to a conclusion.

Personal perspectives

I am glad I am not exactly the same person I used to be.

Earlier today I caught myself thinking about how I don't like this time of  year and how negative things always seem to happen during the winter months. There was a time when I would have lingered on those thoughts and would have been depressed for a few days.

But somewhere along the way I have learned to see things from  different perspective. For one thing, I am trying to teach myself not to think of things in negative terms. That is not an easy thing for me, but when I do catch myself thinking of things in a negative way I make myself look at it differently.

There are three things that have happened to me that I thought of as negative.

In January of 1986 I was in a car accident in which my car was totally wrecked. With the perspective of time I can see that if I had not wrecked my car I probably would not have taken the chance to move to Florida when it came. And moving to Florida is one of the best things to happen to me.

In January 1990, I was pretty close to homeless because my roommate moved out of the trailer we were sharing and turned off the electricity because it was in his name. But that allowed me to meet someone who helped put me in a better place and a more stable environment.

And in March 2008 a semi truck crashed into and almost went totally through my apartment. Luckily I sleep in late and was not in the living room when it happened. This resulted in my apartment being remodeled and is now the nicest apartment I have ever lived in. And somehow through that I have become a much cleaner person.

But I think that I and the rest of this country would be much better off if we stopped thinking and talking of things in a negative ways.

For instance, I spent a little time reading peoples responses to Keith Olbermann's leaving MSNBC. And in the vast majority of the responses that I read had some version of Olbermann, Rachael Maddow and liberals are all liars; or Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and conservatives are all liars. There was no in between. And in a lot of the responses people were wishing very bad things would happen to these people. And that is sad.

Now I have made it known I m not a fan of Olbermann but I have't called him a liar and I don't wish bad things on him. In fact I hope  he gets an on air job again, I just wish he would air his views in a more responsible way.

I think part the problem is that people have a habit of  looking at opposing viewpoints as good or bad or just out and out lies. When the reality is that a different opinion is just that-- a different opinion.

I think we would be better off realizing that a situation or an opinion is just is what it is.

Roger Goodell and the NFL

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has been doing a pretty good job up until this season. In the past few years I like that he has made player conduct a major emphasis. Whether you agree that athlete's are role models or not; does not alter the fact that as long as there are kids who look up to  athlete's and want to emulate them-- athlete's are role models. And as role models their behavior away from whatever sport they play should be held to a higher standards.

I personally like how Mr Goodell has handled the Plaxico Burress, Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick situations. All three deserved suspensions and that is what they got.  By the way, Vick has literally done his time and is probably still paying for what he did financially; so I think its time for people to stop piling on him.

And I personally think it's a great thing to try to lessen the amount of major injuries as long as the way the game is played is not altered too drastically. Leading with the head and helmet to helmet collisions have got to go. But I have seen some clean hits (which to me is anything below the neck and above the knees) that have been flagged and that is taking things too far.  As for QB'S I think it's getting to the point where they might as well put flags on them like its flag football.  And are there any intentional grounding rules anymore? I think it was Tom Brady last weekend who was obviously just trying to throw the ball away to avoid the sack and there was no flag  AND I could see there referee looking right at the play!

But if the NFL's major focus is to lessen major injuries why do they want to add games? That just does not make sense to me. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that more games means more chances for major injuries. I don't think the NFL needs more money that badly.

If I had a chance talk to Roger Goodell there are a couple of things I would say.
So which is really more important  Mr Goodell  the money or player's health? I don't think you can have it both ways. And by the way Mr Goodell,  until you can figure out which one, you might want to say off TV you did a terrible job on Rome is Burning.

Just various thoughts

I really can't think of one particular subject to write about this evening. But I really want to get into the habit of writing most days of the week, so I am just going to throw some thoughts out and see were I go.

Even though it appears that my attempt to kind of bring someone new into my life did not work I do not regret what I did. Sometimes in life you have to take chances and even though you fail you should be happy you took a chance.

And now for a completely different train of thought... I have no real problems with people who own guns. I don't agree with them but to each his/her own. Personally, I think hope those own guns are asking for trouble; I equate it with walking  in the  hood late at night, nothing good can come of it.

But I don't get why there are people who don't  any gun control at all. I understand not wanting to outlaw rifles and pistols. But is there any legitimate reason for someone to have uzi's, and AK-47?  I highly doubt it.

I don't remember when it was but sometime in the last week I saw part of an interview on CNN  that I think was with the president of the NRA (sorry I didn't catch the name). He was asked if the government should make it harder for the mentally ill to purchase guns. I don't know why it surprised me when he said no. He also said that the government had no right to make laws against anyone owning guns. Really? And here I was thinking that the government had the right to make laws to help ensure our safety.

I wonder if most members of the NRA are OK with mentally disturbed people having guns. If so maybe their the ones who shouldn't have the guns.

I will probably have more random thoughts tomorrow ....

Maybe MSNBC just needs better "experts"

I didn't even know that Sarah Palin was going to be on Sean Hannity's show on  Monday night. But as I was surfing the channels during Raw's first commercial  I happened to see Ms Palin and decide to see what she had to say.  I believe that when I tuned in it was at the beginning of the interview and I watched it until  the end.

Overall, I thought it was a good interview and I believe she said what she needed to say. The only part I did not like was that she was to evasive about knowing whether or not the target sights had been removed from the web site. It seems to me that since that was part of what got her unfairly linked with the Tuscon shootings she would make sure whether or not the sights were removed.

After watching the interview I was actually thing there was nothing for anyone to complain about.  Silly Rob, just a wee bit naive are ya?

Shortly after 10, a commercial break and my fingers start channel surfing. I see Ms Palin, but wait, its MSNBC; oh  oh, this can't be good. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell (with the way he looks he can't be related to Rosie and that's a good thing)  starts out OK; they had the same complaint  as I did about the target sights.

At some point during the show David Frum, former Bush speech writer, acknowledges that she was unfairly accused of having a part of the Tuscon shootings but doesn't understand why she doesn't "just let that go".  Now maybe it's just me but if I was unfairly accused of being art of a shooting it would take me longer than eight days to get over it.

But its the final thing they talked about that got me .In her America's Enduring Strength speech  released on her Facebook page she used the term "blood libel". To be honest, before Monday I have never heard the term blood libel. I have seen the video and I have read the transcript of what she said. From what I know she used the term properly, apparently others disagree and that's fine.

I don't think the word blood libel should be the problem but apparently Ms Palin felt the need to say something about it in her interview with Sean Hannity. I am going to write the relevant  part of here quote, give a little of my take and the quote from MSNBC which gave me the reason for this post.

Ms Palin said, " I don't know how I would or wouldn't know the term blood libel. No one ever asked me.   Blood libel means being falsely accused of having blood on my hands and that is what I have been accused of." She then tells a little about her knowledge of the history of the word.

And then Ms. Palin goes on to say, "The criticism of or even the timing of this statement {Americas Enduring  Strength} is being used as a diversion because there are many on the left; critics who don't want Congress to buckle down and get to work."

My take on the first couple sentences was that she meant to say she doesn't know when she first heard the term blood libel. But the rest of her statement seemed really clear to me.

On MSNC Lawrence O'Donnell asked Howard Fineman, of Huffiningtonpost.com, what he thought of her statement. And Mr Fineman said "we went from blood libel and middle ages Jews to the budget deficit at the end. It made no sense." For the record, if she said anything  about the budget deficit in the whole interview I missed it. But in the statement I was referring to I gave the whole quote without the historical context she gave.

Maybe Mr Fineman should listen for what was actually being said and not what he wanted to hear.

This is specifically for Michele Noonan

Michele,

I wish I could say what I want to say to you in a more private way, but I don't know how to do that. So if I am in any way overly embarrassing or humiliating you in any way please except my apology. If I knew of a better way to do this I would have done it.

I watched you almost every day for three months while you were in the BB house. I found you to be very intelligent, thoughtful and funny.  I don't cry easily but when you had your little breakdown in the have not  room you had me in tears.

In the time you were there I knew that if we had ever met in person that we would be friends. And that is why I am writing this.

I remember my Mom once telling me that if you could count your true friends on one hand that you would be lucky.  And she is right I can only count three people as true friends. So I place a value on friendship.

And friendship is all I want from you. I am not in love or even in lust with you.  I do find you physically attractive but I am much more interested in your mind. I want to get to now what is is like for you as your career grows.


First of all, I would like to find away to show you that I am not just some crazy obsessed fan or a stalker.  Can you think of some way that I can do that?  Then I would like to get to the point of exchanging emails on a regular basis.  And I hope eventually we will be able to talk on the phone.

But none of that can begin without your OK.  The next step is yours please email me at ocalarob@gmail.com or ocaladodger@yahoo.com and tell me how I can prove to you I am not crazy and that it would be OK to get to know each other.  Please give me a chance.

Thank you

Political correctness and civility

After I posted last week about the media and its behavior; I began to think about the relationship between civility and political correctness.

Before I go on I should point out that I do not and never have liked political correctness. I think it sugar coats things too much. For twenty plus years I was  disabled or physically disabled or to some crippled. I personally don't like the word crippled because of the image I had that came with it, but I could understand the usage of the word. I don't understand how or why but somewhere along the line I began to hear the word "physically challenged." Doing a puzzle is a challenge, balancing the checkbook is a challenge, at times dealing with people is a huge challenge. Dealing with a disability on a day to day basis is more than a "challenge"; especially while getting older, but I digress.

My first immediate thought was "does there have to be political correctness in order for civility to move forward within the media"? And my thought stalled there until I saw New Jersey (R) Governor Chris Christie on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Governor Christie has a better vocabulary than I do but I think he expressed thought that I agree with when he said; that politicians going forward need to be "straight and candid" with what they say. He continues on and clarifies, "now that does not mean they need to be nasty and vitriolic, and  I think that the two can be divided... be straight an honest." http://video.foxnews.com/v/4499139/gov-chris-christie-on-fox-news-sunday

I think that is good advice for everyone; not just politicians. But I think it would be even better advice for the media. It is more than OK to talk about whatever you think about any subject but it should be done respectfully and not in an attacking manner. Discussing differences is an integral part of our country but it should be done in ways that unite, not divide.

And in specific situations like the Tuscon shooting Americans should be looking for answers and solutions for whatever the problems are instead of pointing fingers and placing blame.

College football: Get rid of the BcS

One of my longest running pet peeves is that division 1 (or whatever they are calling it now) college football does not have a playoff. Games and seasons are meant to have winners and losers. And I  can't think of another team sport that does not have a playoff.

My main problem with the system we have now is that teams lie TCU and Boise State do no thave a chance to win the championship.  And I believe that every season there are teams  who should have a chance. And even more specific to this season Boise AND TCU could have beat Auburn or Oregon for the championship. And as long as we have the current system teams like them will never have a chance. And that is just wrong.

There are two reasons I have heard of for why there are no playoffs. The first being that the kids would miss too much school. Which makes sense, except for one thing,: all of the smaller divisions in college football has playoffs.  That has never made sense to me. Are they trying to say that class attendance is more important at the bigger schools?

The second excuse I have heard is that having a playoffs would make the season too long.  And I have also heard that the University Presidents don't want change the current  bowl system because it makes too much money.

I think that I have a solution that would make most everyone who follows college football happy.

 First of all, I don't think that just adding playoff games to the end of the season is the answer.  I think you should start by shortening the regular season.  It seems  to me that the out of conference games that teams are usually paying against are very inferior teams.  Getting rid of those games would not only shorten the season (by about  3 games) but would make more competitive balance.

At the end of the season the top eight teams should go into the playoffs.  All other bowl eligible teams can still go to lesser bowl games as a reward for a good season.  The big four bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta) could host the first round of the playoffs. Since all four of those games are affiliated with conferences those tie ins should, and I think can, be maintained.  As a way to show how this can be done I seeded what this years playoffs could have looked like.

 For the seedings I looked at the last week of rankings for the BcS and AP. They both agreed on Auburn,Oregon and TCU as the top three teams. The main difference 4-9 was that the AP had Oklahoma ranked 6 and BcS had Standford at 4, but neither team were both top 8's.  I took Oklahoma out of the top 8 and inserted Boise St in just because its the only revenge I can get against the BcS.

Since this is my seedings I made Oregon #1 because at the time I thought they would beat Auburn. In my playoff seedings I put them in the Rose Bowl. For the most part I like to keep the Rose Bowl tradition as Pac 10 vs Big 10. In my playoff system I would look to see whether the Big 10 or the Pac 10 had the higher ranked team. So my Rose Bowl would have been #1 Oregon vs # Arkansas.

The Sugar Bowl's only has an affiliation with the SEC. Under my plan #2Auburn would play #7 Arkansas.

The Fiesta Bowl's tie in is with the Big 12. Since I took Oklahoma out of the equation; I put #3 TCU vs (guess who) #6 Boise St. into the Fiesta Bowl.

The Orange Bowl is usually an ACC  game. I don't think the ACC even had a team in the top 10 so I put #4 Standford vs #5 Wisconsin.

I did not predict how those games would go. I have heard that Jerry Jones would be interested in having an NCAA football game in his stadium and I say put  rounds 2-3 in Arlington. And continue to rotate the NCAA Championship game between the four major bowl stadiums.

I think my idea is a lot better than what we have now and I hope others will agree.

Correction and clarification

Within the hour of  posting my blog yesterday I found out that it was specifically sarahpalin.com that MSNBC was taking about. Sorry about that.

I still do not think that she has any culpability for the Arizona shootings.

And in my suggestion of a media commissioner I know that there maybe someone who thinks I am in favor of censorship. That is something I thought about after my posting.

I am not against someone freely giving an opinion I disagree with. In fact, I prefer they do so that I know to stay away from them.  But it seems as though people can't disagree now without making personal attacks.

And I think that is the main problem with our news now, look at me now, Facebook, Twitter society.

While I overall like having more news and information networks; so that I can find out more about what is going on in the world, and hear more differencing opinions. I don't like the network vs network sniping.  Nor do I like Bill O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots; Keith Olberrmann's Worse, Worser, Worst Person in America; or Glenn Becks daily conspiracy theories.

I really like Facebook and Twitter because they have given me a chance  to reconnect with family and friends; and opens up the chance of getting to know  and make friends with whom I wouldn't normally  get that chance. (Are you reading this Michelle Noonan?)

There is also the downside to Facebook and Twitter.  It also gives people a chance to respond inappropriately.  A while back I posted (sorry I don't like to say tweet) about a specific subject (probably not the right word).  And received a specific response to "go kill yaself". I don't think that is an appropriate response in any way, shape or form.

And it is because of all the things that I have said in my last two posting are why I think there needs to be a solution. And a media commissioner is the idea I came up with. Is is the best idea?  Probably not. But maybe I can get some kind of discussion going so a solution can be found.

A couple of things I don't understand...

For today's post I was going to write about the changes in America since the 80's but that changed while I was flipping through channels during halftime of the BcS championship game  last night (more on that later).

I knew that the Arizona  shooting's  would be turned into some political debate. I expected rhetoric from the left and right about gun control and  about  mental health care. And I was somewhat hopeful that since a death of a young girl was involved that something positive could occur.

I was literally shocked that MSNBC was using this incident as a way to attack Sarah Palin.  Now, maybe I missed something, but from what I saw Keith Olbermann was essentially saying that because a website (I didn't not see which one) that is affiliated with Palin had target sights covering different congressional districts; that Sarah Palin was responsible for the shooting.   HUH???

Like I wrote, maybe I missed something (I tried to watch the repeat but it was to much); but there is way too much assuming in that logic.  First of all, even if for some reason the mentally unstable kid saw that website the odds don't seem favorable that would cause him to kill. Secondly, even if he did see the sight how does that make Sarah Palin responsible for his action. Just because there is, in my opinion, an unhealthy hate for Sarah Palin does not make her responsible for everything that goes wrong in this country.

 But part of what is important to me in this situation is that it shows a real problem that I think exists. To me there is no real way to hold the media accountable for their actions.  Yes I know that ratings are supposed to help with that. And I have seen the shows read unfavorable email on the air.

But where is the real checks and balance system or the media?  I know about the FCC; but my understanding is that the FCC can only fine objectionable material.

What I think we need is a "media commissioner". Someone who can fine a reporter or anchor or commentator when they give wrong facts, act inappropriately or are just to over  the line of common sense or decency. Do I think it will happen? No. But I do think something is needed.

The wussification of America

Finally, someone has said some thing that I have been thinking for awhile.

Pennsylvania (R) Governor Ed Rendall   said, while talking about the delayed NFL game  between Minnesota and Philadelphia,  "My biggest beef is that this is part of what's happened in this country," Rendell told the Philly radio station. "I think we've become wussies. ... We've become a nation of wusses." (cbssports.com) And then he went on to make an analogy about the Chinese that didn't make sense and didn't need to be said.


But my point is that he basically said something I have been thinking about for awhile now. I believe at there as been a wussification for a while. I believe that  if Christopher Columbus had been an American who wanted to explore to see if there were new  unknown lands today he would have been told by  the  "decision makers" he wasn't allowed to. He would have been told that it was too risky  and that he couldn't risk his life or anyone else's.


I believe that if today's thinking and attitudes had been prevalent during the time of our founding fathers the American Revolution never would have happened. Because it seems that even one loss of life is just to much to stand up for our principles now. And besides sticking up for principle might offend someone and who wants to do that.


I am all for speeding laws, drunk driving laws and any laws that protect us from the stupidity of others. But I am against laws that take away from personal freedoms and personal choices. If you want to wear a seat belt or a helmet while on a motorcycle or a bike that should be your right not a governmental laws.


I wrote the proceeding part of my post almost two weeks ago. I stopped because I wasn't sure where to go from there, and I still am not totally  sure.  But...


What happened to America? I miss the '80's and President Reagan. I don't  think we have had a really strong President since him.  And I don't think the world respect us like it did. Why? What happened? I think I will try to answer that in my  next few posts.