View 818 Saturday, April 05, 2014
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.
Nancy Pelosi. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives
Referring to the Affordable Health Care Act
“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
President Barack Obama, January 31, 2009
There are few solid facts about the Affordable Health Care Act, but some stand out. President Obama has referred to it as “ObamaCare” so I presume this term is no longer considered objectionable and insulting.
The chief argument in favor of ObamaCare was that tens of millions of Americans did not have healthcare insurance. In order for a man to love his country, his country ought to be lovable; and this is an unacceptable number of people to be without this vital necessity.
The number of people whose health care policies were cancelled because they did not offer one or more of the required features of ObamaCare is 6 million.
The number of people who have as of early April 2014 signed up for ObamaCare is 7.1 million. This is usually given as 7.1 million people!!!
These numbers do not lead me to the conclusion that ObamaCare is successful as of April 5, 2014.
Peggy Noonan has more to say on the subject:
Noonan: A Catastrophe Like No Other
The president tries to put a good face on ObamaCare.
As I say, put aside the argument, step back and view the thing at a distance. Support it or not, you cannot look at ObamaCare and call it anything but a huge, historic mess. It is also utterly unique in the annals of American lawmaking and government administration.
Its biggest proponent in Congress, the Democratic speaker of the House, literally said—blithely, mindlessly, but in a way forthcomingly—that we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. It is a cliché to note this. But really, Nancy Pelosi‘s statement was a historic admission that she was fighting hard for something she herself didn’t understand, but she had every confidence regulators and bureaucratic interpreters would tell her in time what she’d done. This is how we make laws now.
Of course there are rational arguments against what Ms. Noonan says.
Peggy Noonan Lifts Head From Bar, Slurs Out More Lies About Obamacare, Passes Back Out
Read more at http://wonkette.com/545768/peggy-noonan-lifts-head-from-bar-slurs-out-more-lies-about-obamacare-passes-back-out#GRFYD9oXZKoszLi4.99
But there remain the numbers. Six million policies cancelled because they failed to offer the minimum requirements guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act, and thus do not qualify to exempt you from being fined for not having a policy. 7.1 Million Signed Up!!! Tens of millions need health care insurance and do not have it. I do not see how this is a success; and yes, we have passed the bill, and now we can see what’s in it. Ms. Noonan says it is a mess. I say that so far it has reduced the number of uninsured by no more than two million, so that if the need for covering tens of millions of uninsured is great, it cannot have made much progress toward that; and the enrollment period is ending.
And polls show that now that the public knows what is in the Act, a lot of the American people don’t much care for it.
Writing this leads to another question: Why was “Add to Dictionary” greyed out when Word spell check decided that ObamaCare was not an acceptable word? Of course I could go to Office/word options/ proofing / custom dictionaries, choose the standard Custom dictionary, and manually add ObamaCare to the word list; that took care of it.
Did Everyone Miss This?
I saw this and it was on the news, but there was little discussion of it. I saw the point mentioned again today in WSJ and figured I’d email you since I never saw you explicitly mention it either. Perhaps, it seemed topical, but I’ll show you that it’s a pattern:
According to WSJ:
Its biggest proponent in Congress, the Democratic speaker of the House, literally said that we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. It is a cliché to note this. But really, Nancy Pelosi’s statement was a historic admission that she was fighting hard for something she herself didn’t understand, but she had every confidence regulators and bureaucratic interpreters would tell her in time what she’d done. This is how we make laws now.
This is how we make laws, now? No, excuse me, but this has been going on for some time. In fact, the only thing I ever learned from Michael Moore’s work is that fact. In his sensational film Fahrenheit 911, we note the following exchange between Moore and a Congressman:
[Question:] How could Congress pass this Patriot Act without even reading it?
[Answer:] Sit down, my son. We don’t read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail…if we were to read every bill that we passed? Well, the good thing, it would slow down the legislative process.
The congressman’s name escapes me, but it’s mentioned in the film.
We’ve been making laws this way and that means Congress is not doing its job and is allowing others to do its job for it. And they’re crying about being underpaid: http://goo.gl/pGKQXf
Joshua Jordan, KSC
We do know that several key provisions in the copyright act were inserted into the bill by a Congressional staffer who later left government employ to become an official of a publishing association; and no Congressman can be found who knowingly voted for those provision. Yet they remain law.
Yesterday’s Kelly Freas Cover
I had to look this up. That Kelly Freas cover was used again on News of the World, an album by Queen. I used to play that pretty often; it was one of my father’s only decent pieces of vinyl. They redid the piece, slightly, so the people the robot killed were members of the band.
Joshua Jordan, KSC
Really neat video technology for seeing the unseeable
MIT has developed a neat technology for analyzing video and enhancing the otherwise undetectable changes. For example, blood flow changing the color of skin, pulsing of small veins, a sleeping baby breathing, the hot air rising from a candle flame, the tiny position shift that occurs in the camera body when the camera’s shutter snaps.
Worth watching both videos. There is very little duplication. The first video is a more public-friendly discussion and demonstration. The second video was a presentation at SIGGraph 2012, so it is slightly more technical (but not boringly so) and has more details.
The algorithm is patent-pending but they have released code under the MIT technology has been released under an open-source license for non-commercial purposes. The license provides information on how to request a license for commercial purposes.
Besides the medical monitoring they demo, I can see uses in factories or power plants where a camera could watch, say, a motor or turbine shaft, or other equipment, and monitor for changes in vibration over time. Also for other mechanical processes where it would be useful to see what subtle vibration or position shifting is happening. For example, during prototyping it would be useful to see the subtle motions and flexing that happen during use before they manifest over time in the field as worn parts or metal fatigue. Makes it easier to know where to beef up or take steps to reduce friction.
This seems interesting and probably worth discussion. I am, as you have probably surmised, deep in the heart of Taxes…
I fear this is one of those times where people would say "he goes off sometimes". But, I assure you I wrote this in the best of spirits and I mean well. =)
You asked if we’re surprised with the lack of cooperation in space because of Ukraine. We cannot respond, appropriately; so we’ll respond inappropriately? The need to respond demonstrates a lack of confidence, which in the left means a lack of power. They always pretend to be what they’re not; when they’re scared to pretend you know they’re in trouble. And, since they’re in power, that means we’re in trouble.
Basic, populist presentments on Game Theory: http://goo.gl/ttWnlG
This article offers some practical reasons why this behavior — that of "the judge" — leads to death. The "judge" kills deals because he’s an idealist and cannot accept what is unfair. That’s what this administration is doing. Ukraine is not fair; we must kill the space deal.
Eventually, "the judge" can’t work with anyone because nobody does things his way and he cuts himself off from everyone. Even the "laid back" person cannot stay in symbiosis with "the judge". Only the spiteful person and the laid back person can maintain a relationship; all other types split — according to this article about this experiment. So we’ll have a society of mean people and victims, I suppose. It’s not a great thought, but it’s not new and it’s expressed in the Norse paradigm through the Icelandic and Norwegian rune poems on the rider; the Anglo-Saxon poems are more Christianized than even the Norwegian; therefore, contaminated. My point is that this has been observed for some time.
However, in 2014 we’re being ruled by judges and homo economicuses in 2014. Both of these types die because they can’t cooperate or force the cooperation of others effectively. Do you want to follow the dead people? I never have. But, take heart, these homo economicus and judge losers are going to die! And by die, I mean they will no longer be part of the human species as we evolve. We just need to keep our heads until this sociobiological crisis abates. I always thought Nietzsche’s superman was a natural process that would occur as the species aged; I always thought people like Hitler were, erroneously, attempting to speed up that process for their own, self aggrandizing, purposes. You were right, despair is a sin!
Joshua Jordan, KSC
An interesting thesis.
Google Is Having Trouble Trying to Trademark the Word ‘Glass’
* Jacob Gershman
Google <http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GOOG> GOOG +0.60% <http://blogs.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=GOOG?mod=inlineTicker> is trying to register the word “Glass” as a trademark for its computer-powered glasses <http://www.google.com/glass/start/> . But so far, the company and the U.S. trademark office aren’t seeing eye to eye.
Google, which has successfully trademarked the term “Google Glass,” submitted an application last year for a trademark on just the single word “Glass,” displayed with the same futuristic font <http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/0403glass.pdf> used in its marketing campaign. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is holding up the company’s bid.
In a letter to the company <http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/googleglassuspto.pdf> last fall, a trademark examiner raised two main objections. One concern was that the trademark was too similar to other existing or pending computer software trademarks that contain the word “glass,” creating a risk of consumer confusion.
And now I am back to work.
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.