I’ve been chewing on some things the past few days. One of those is Glenn Beck and his recent run in with the liberal left and their smear campaign over the fact that he called Obama a “racist” but this is just one piece of a much larger problem. I think the main issue people have with people like Glenn Beck, myself, and others is that we question our government. With the government wanting to start socialized health care, people like me ask “why do we need that, there’s such a small percentage of people without insurance?” People like Glenn Beck wonder why our president, who is in control of deomocratic republic has people who are communists, radicals, and people of questionable pasts in charge of things. People like me wonder why we have “czars” (synonomous with “emperors”).
There is a reason why the first amendment of the United States Constitution gives the right of freedom of speech and press (also religion but that’s not part of today’s discussion). It is so that we as citizens can stand up in public and question our government, our leaders, and those spending our tax dollars. It is the press’s job to poke, prod, and question our leaders decisions, pasts, and acquantinces. However, the media, especially outlets like the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and other television and newspaper outlets have become little more than mouth pieces of the liberal left. This isn’t just my opinion but the opinions of others I know, several who would be decidedly liberal left. It’s no secret that the media has a liberal slant. It’s no secret the right wingers hate it. It’s no secret that people like Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly give in to sensationalism. But they aren’t the only ones.
What I want to see more of is informed debate. We have so many people yelling and arguing from both sides and they have zero clue what they’re talking about. The left say the right’s uninformed, and the right says the same of the left. Problem is, they’re both right and neither side wants to admit it, become educated, and have intelligent conversation that is helpful and informative. When I go political on this blog, I really try to be informative and not just in attack mode. I’m not saying I’m always successful at it, but I know that I make a concentrated effort to inform, debate, and listen to the other side. People who know me, know this to be true.
But it all comes back to basic point. How much do you trust your leaders, especially politicans. We all know politicans are stereotypically double speakers, yet people who question the president (any president mind you) are looked at as crazy right-wingers, or leftist nutballs. It is our job as the citizenery to question our government about everything, it is our right to protest publically against that which we don’t agree with. We’re all different and not everyone is going to agree on everything. I don’t agree with socialized healthcare, but you might not agree with teaching abstitence in public schools. We all have different things we’re passionate about, but it’s those difference that lead us to compromise. Problem is, we can’t compromise if everyone is name calling and yelling at each other. So instead of yelling at each other as citizens, why don’t we target our energies at our politicians and leaders and make them understand what’s important to us. Question your government, your leaders, make them scared of us (the citizens), we have control. If you don’t like what your senators and representatives are doing, vote them out. Speak with your vote, your petitions, your public assemblies, and your letters. Call them on their double speak, call them on their indiscrestions, call them on their past affiliations, this stuff needs to take place on both sides. A democracy in which the leaders do not fear their constituants (the citizenry) is not a democracy.
Michael Koby 
Great piece here
Pingback: Demand Truth
Beck is a nut job no doubt, O'Reilly is not as bad. That being said you are right, you have the Michael Moores & Glen Becks of the world sensationalizing this issue.Sad truth is that if you ask any Republican why they oppose it they will say because of death panels (typical Palin idiocracy). My mom was in the hospital this year and she told me that it was good that she was in before Obama-care passed. The reality is that there are short and long term implications of this bill.For the most part, the 55 and up crowd may be better off and people with prexisting conditions or even small business owners who have to buy their own healthcare. For the rest of us, nothing may change in the short term.Long term people are scared about the government run option overtaking private healthcare, however this is not part of this bill. The other argument is that this means we'll pay for abortions, which I would be against personally. However the problem with this arguement is that we already pay for abortions as part of our insurance premiums. Last I checked United Healthcare & the like didn't offer a Catholic or pro-life version of their healthcare .This goes back to the idea about having a Republic, when Democrats won election last year including 60% of the senate- this was the implications. I pretty much assumed some variety of nationalized healthcare would pass. This variety of it is not nearly as bad as the Hillary-care or as bad is it could of been so .
Well said sir. While this post is about more than just the healthcare debate, you make some very valid points.My issue with the healthcare issue is not necessarily socialized healthcare because I think we'll get there no matter what (I'm still against it because it increases the size of government), but its more that the terms “socialized healthcare” and “health insurance industry reform” have become almost synonymous. Our president has sold a large percentage of this nation that we can't get reform without the socialized healthcare, and that just isn't true.Granted I don't have the answer, though my proposal is to regulate the industry into having to find ways to ensure everyone can get health care regardless of pre-exisiting conditions, age, and wage. There are other solutions than to bring socialized healthcare and by forcing compliance on the citizens by MAKING it a law that they have to have health coverage (what happened to personal choice?).I think that everyone should be looking at all the issues and questioning their leaders. Bringing the issues to the front of the media. Making it known where we as the voters stand and what we will/won't tolerate.
agreed, Planet Money podcast (NPR) has had a great series on the cost of medicine and why it's so complicated. BTW I was wrong they passed a provision in the bill baring it from paying for abortions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/0…
Beck is a nut job no doubt, O'Reilly is not as bad. That being said you are right, you have the Michael Moores & Glen Becks of the world sensationalizing this issue.Sad truth is that if you ask any Republican why they oppose it they will say because of death panels (typical Palin idiocracy). My mom was in the hospital this year and she told me that it was good that she was in before Obama-care passed. The reality is that there are short and long term implications of this bill.For the most part, the 55 and up crowd may be better off and people with prexisting conditions or even small business owners who have to buy their own healthcare. For the rest of us, nothing may change in the short term.Long term people are scared about the government run option overtaking private healthcare, however this is not part of this bill. The other argument is that this means we'll pay for abortions, which I would be against personally. However the problem with this arguement is that we already pay for abortions as part of our insurance premiums. Last I checked United Healthcare & the like didn't offer a Catholic or pro-life version of their healthcare .This goes back to the idea about having a Republic, when Democrats won election last year including 60% of the senate- this was the implications. I pretty much assumed some variety of nationalized healthcare would pass. This variety of it is not nearly as bad as the Hillary-care or as bad is it could of been so .
Well said sir. While this post is about more than just the healthcare debate, you make some very valid points.My issue with the healthcare issue is not necessarily socialized healthcare because I think we'll get there no matter what (I'm still against it because it increases the size of government), but its more that the terms “socialized healthcare” and “health insurance industry reform” have become almost synonymous. Our president has sold a large percentage of this nation that we can't get reform without the socialized healthcare, and that just isn't true.Granted I don't have the answer, though my proposal is to regulate the industry into having to find ways to ensure everyone can get health care regardless of pre-exisiting conditions, age, and wage. There are other solutions than to bring socialized healthcare and by forcing compliance on the citizens by MAKING it a law that they have to have health coverage (what happened to personal choice?).I think that everyone should be looking at all the issues and questioning their leaders. Bringing the issues to the front of the media. Making it known where we as the voters stand and what we will/won't tolerate.
agreed, Planet Money podcast (NPR) has had a great series on the cost of medicine and why it's so complicated. BTW I was wrong they passed a provision in the bill baring it from paying for abortions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/0…