Congressman Norm Dicks has scheduled two Town Hall meetings to discuss Health Care Reform and other issues of national and local concern to 6th Congressional District residents. The meetings will take place on Aug. 31, and offer an opportunity for constituents to express their opinions.
The first meeting will be held at Fort Worden State Park in the Commons, Building 210 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The second meeting will be held in the Puget Sound Ballroom of the Kitsap Conference Center in Bremerton from 7:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
These Town Hall Meetings are open to all residents of the 6th Congressional District.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Thoughts on the "Bailouts"
Back in 1990, the federal government seized the infamous Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for income tax evasion, and as required by law, took over the running of it.
They failed. What had been a highly profitable "institution" of sorts for more than a generation, closed.
So here we are, trusting the entire economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry — and if the president gets his way, our health care system — to the same bozo's who couldn't turn a profit selling overpriced whiskey in a whore house! Go figure...
They failed. What had been a highly profitable "institution" of sorts for more than a generation, closed.
So here we are, trusting the entire economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry — and if the president gets his way, our health care system — to the same bozo's who couldn't turn a profit selling overpriced whiskey in a whore house! Go figure...
Friday, August 07, 2009
Obama Administration Asking You To Snitch On Your Friends and Neighbors
A New Attack on Free Speech
A very troubling development in Washington — a new attack on our First Amendment right of free speech by the Obama Administration.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote to President Obama expressing his concerns about a recent post on the White House blog written by Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media.
In his post, Phillips notes “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there” both on the web and floating around in chain emails. Phillips states that “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
In a nutshell, the White House is asking you to report on your neighbors, family, and friends who disagree with the President’s policy choices on health care. The White House is also implying that you should think twice before sending an email disagreeing with the President, since it might end up being forwarded to them. The White House email address says it all — let’s “flag” those who disagree with us. For what purpose are these individuals being flagged?
In his letter, Senator Cornyn rightly seeks assurances from President Obama that this new reporting program will be “carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America’s tradition of free speech and public discourse.” He poses several questions, including, “How do you intend to use the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in ‘fishy’ speech” and “What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech.”
The First Amendment states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Our Founding Fathers fought and died for the right to speak openly and freely about the government.
President Obama campaigned on the promise of a more transparent and open government. His new White House reporting program seems aimed at stifling debate on his health care reform plan. While he knows that he cannot “ban” such speech, I imagine that he thinks that the fear of being reported to the authorities will discourage many naysayers from speaking out. I am concerned about what White House “program” will come next. Who else do we need to “flag?” Will it be those who attend town halls and speak in opposition to health care reform? What about those who write op-eds? Or perhaps those who speak out against mandated abortion coverage on the radio?
The American Center For Law And Justice is sending a letter to President Obama demanding that he withdraw and rescind this citizen reporting program. You can read the letter here.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Republican Health Care Alternative Isn't Real Reform
While Congressional Republicans have been railing against the Obama administration's proposed $634 billion national health care plan, the Democrats in Congress are working feverishly to pass this legislation before adjourning for their summer recess. The administration is pushing hard to get this done now, because they understand that once congressional members go home and face the wrath of their constituents, the chances of getting it done at all will be significantly reduced.
The Republicans understand this, and recently offered their own alternative proposal called The Patients’ Choice Act. Its proposed goals are, “...strengthening the relationship between the patient and doctor; using the forces of choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care of all Americans.”
Sounds great. But what would The Patients’ Choice Act actually do?
The aim of the bill is affordable health care for every American offered through a state Health Insurance Exchange, funded via a federal and state partnership. Insurance offered through the Exchange would be required to meet federal benefit standards, which in one instance are defined as the same “health benefits given to Members of Congress.” Every American would be auto-enrolled and participating insurers would be required to cover everyone regardless of age or health history. Premiums would be risk adjusted, and set by an “independent board.”
The model for the program is Massachusetts’ “Connector” plan. And while Massachusetts has been successful in providing health insurance for a large percentage of its state residents, the cost is exorbitant and is bankrupting the state. In fact, Massachusetts has asked the federal government for a $1 billion bail-out, with the shortfall expected to grow to at least $4 billion over the next ten years.
I'm not exactly sure why Republicans think a system bankrupting one state would somehow be financially viable for the entire country.
The Patients’ Choice Act also offers a tax rebate for individuals purchasing their own health insurance. and gives workers the same tax break employers now have for providing health benefits to their employees. This actually makes good sense and would give patients more control over their health care costs and personal medical decisions.
The bill also includes sorely needed reforms for Medicaid and Medicare — two of the largest drains on the federal budget. Low-income Medicaid families would receive direct assistance purchasing private plans that best fit their needs. Medicare would shift to a direct reimbursement model and allow seniors to choose a private plan on the open market, forcing plans to compete against each other based on cost and benefits.
The proposal also includes language to federally coordinate wellness programs, create financial incentives for health information technology, privatize the Veterans Administration System, encourage state-level tort reform, and allow Native Americans to participate in the private health care system.
While there's a lot that makes sense in The Patients’ Choice Act, the foundation of the bill remains centrally-planned, government-controlled health care — which doesn't work — because benefits and prices would be set by bureaucrats, not the marketplace. And although the goal of allowing every citizen the option of choosing health benefits matching those of members of Congress is admirable, let's be realistic, it's not fiscally possible.
In a true free market, insurance companies would compete openly, being allowed to offer a wide array of benefit plans, unencumbered by government benefit mandates — which is why health insurance is so costly in our state and why we basically only have four providers. Insurers would be free to price plans competitively to attract customers. For example, plans targeting seniors wouldn't include mandatory maternity coverage, as centrally planned, one-size-fits-all government mandated coverage undoubtedly will. Patients, and their particular health care needs should create the market, and determine the winners and losers in the insurance industry, not government bureaucrats.
As long as the government sets the benefit and price standards in a centrally-planned fashion, patients will lose their ability to control their own health care decisions, costs will continue to spiral out of control worse than they are now, and demand for health care will result in rationing of care — just as it has in every other country where that socialized medicine is practiced. We have better now. We deserve better in the future.
The Republicans understand this, and recently offered their own alternative proposal called The Patients’ Choice Act. Its proposed goals are, “...strengthening the relationship between the patient and doctor; using the forces of choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care of all Americans.”
Sounds great. But what would The Patients’ Choice Act actually do?
The aim of the bill is affordable health care for every American offered through a state Health Insurance Exchange, funded via a federal and state partnership. Insurance offered through the Exchange would be required to meet federal benefit standards, which in one instance are defined as the same “health benefits given to Members of Congress.” Every American would be auto-enrolled and participating insurers would be required to cover everyone regardless of age or health history. Premiums would be risk adjusted, and set by an “independent board.”
The model for the program is Massachusetts’ “Connector” plan. And while Massachusetts has been successful in providing health insurance for a large percentage of its state residents, the cost is exorbitant and is bankrupting the state. In fact, Massachusetts has asked the federal government for a $1 billion bail-out, with the shortfall expected to grow to at least $4 billion over the next ten years.
I'm not exactly sure why Republicans think a system bankrupting one state would somehow be financially viable for the entire country.
The Patients’ Choice Act also offers a tax rebate for individuals purchasing their own health insurance. and gives workers the same tax break employers now have for providing health benefits to their employees. This actually makes good sense and would give patients more control over their health care costs and personal medical decisions.
The bill also includes sorely needed reforms for Medicaid and Medicare — two of the largest drains on the federal budget. Low-income Medicaid families would receive direct assistance purchasing private plans that best fit their needs. Medicare would shift to a direct reimbursement model and allow seniors to choose a private plan on the open market, forcing plans to compete against each other based on cost and benefits.
The proposal also includes language to federally coordinate wellness programs, create financial incentives for health information technology, privatize the Veterans Administration System, encourage state-level tort reform, and allow Native Americans to participate in the private health care system.
While there's a lot that makes sense in The Patients’ Choice Act, the foundation of the bill remains centrally-planned, government-controlled health care — which doesn't work — because benefits and prices would be set by bureaucrats, not the marketplace. And although the goal of allowing every citizen the option of choosing health benefits matching those of members of Congress is admirable, let's be realistic, it's not fiscally possible.
In a true free market, insurance companies would compete openly, being allowed to offer a wide array of benefit plans, unencumbered by government benefit mandates — which is why health insurance is so costly in our state and why we basically only have four providers. Insurers would be free to price plans competitively to attract customers. For example, plans targeting seniors wouldn't include mandatory maternity coverage, as centrally planned, one-size-fits-all government mandated coverage undoubtedly will. Patients, and their particular health care needs should create the market, and determine the winners and losers in the insurance industry, not government bureaucrats.
As long as the government sets the benefit and price standards in a centrally-planned fashion, patients will lose their ability to control their own health care decisions, costs will continue to spiral out of control worse than they are now, and demand for health care will result in rationing of care — just as it has in every other country where that socialized medicine is practiced. We have better now. We deserve better in the future.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Arnold's Is Taking Orders!
In spite of the massive fire earlier this week, Arnold's Home Furnishings is taking orders.
Find what you like online, call (360) 377-5582, and Arnold's will order it, and deliver. They are taking orders over a cell phone and are opening up shop in the old roller rink on Marine Drive. Support a local business that has supported our community for almost 75 years, and go buy some furniture!
A big "Thank You" is in order for Guy Stitt who provided this great info!
Find what you like online, call (360) 377-5582, and Arnold's will order it, and deliver. They are taking orders over a cell phone and are opening up shop in the old roller rink on Marine Drive. Support a local business that has supported our community for almost 75 years, and go buy some furniture!
A big "Thank You" is in order for Guy Stitt who provided this great info!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Is Obama's Health Care Overhaul In Trouble
Considering all the buzz around the news that President Obama wants to sock businesses with a payroll in excess of $200,000 a year with a 14 percent tax to bankroll healthcare for everyone, this blurb from the July 10 Kiplinger Letter is especially timely...
Is health care reform in trouble? Could be. With fissures appearing in the Democratic Party and pro-reform coalitions starting to fray, a vote before the August recess is now unlikely, and odds of any reform are lengthening.
Employer groups are growing disillusioned as details of proposals leak out. The number of worrisome provisions… a mandate for employer sponsored plans, a public plan option, taxation of some employer provided benefits and so on… keeps growing, threatening to undermine their support for a major overhaul.
The absence of ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is hurting. No one else is as capable of bringing opponents together, forging the compromises needed. And rounding up the Senate votes required for passage is looking iffier. Moderate Democrats are balking at the cost and proposals for raising the funds. Kennedy’s ill health and Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) may keep them from voting.
The cause is far from lost. The president is committed to an overhaul, though crafting a workable compromise and jawboning enough members to vote for it will surely test Obama’s mettle, as well as his leadership abilities. Look for him to take his case to the public, using the bully pulpit.
But there’s also growing unease among voters. Only a few months ago, employers, consumers, insurers and much of the health care industry felt that the status quo was disastrous and were willing to risk considerable change. There’s a gnawing worry that the cure may be worse than the disease.
Is health care reform in trouble? Could be. With fissures appearing in the Democratic Party and pro-reform coalitions starting to fray, a vote before the August recess is now unlikely, and odds of any reform are lengthening.
Employer groups are growing disillusioned as details of proposals leak out. The number of worrisome provisions… a mandate for employer sponsored plans, a public plan option, taxation of some employer provided benefits and so on… keeps growing, threatening to undermine their support for a major overhaul.
The absence of ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is hurting. No one else is as capable of bringing opponents together, forging the compromises needed. And rounding up the Senate votes required for passage is looking iffier. Moderate Democrats are balking at the cost and proposals for raising the funds. Kennedy’s ill health and Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) may keep them from voting.
The cause is far from lost. The president is committed to an overhaul, though crafting a workable compromise and jawboning enough members to vote for it will surely test Obama’s mettle, as well as his leadership abilities. Look for him to take his case to the public, using the bully pulpit.
But there’s also growing unease among voters. Only a few months ago, employers, consumers, insurers and much of the health care industry felt that the status quo was disastrous and were willing to risk considerable change. There’s a gnawing worry that the cure may be worse than the disease.
Monday, July 06, 2009
GOP Running Out of Options
This came from "Governing," as part of a daily e-mailer for government officials. I thought perhaps members of the local GOP might find it interesting as it applies to them on a local level as well as the national perspective this summarizes. Although, as I've stated numerous times before, there isn't a way for the local Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot they haven't already thought of, I have great confidence in their ability to invent new ones.
By Alan Greenblat
Remember the main dynamic of the GOP presidential primary season in 2007-08? It was like musical chairs. One candidate after another would emerge as the new frontrunner -- McCain, Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Romney, Huckabee -- before being rejected as not conservative enough or not willing to work hard enough.
Eventually, the party settled on McCain -- someone that more than half the GOP electorate thought was a party apostate or at least too moderate on a variety of issues. When he lost, party faithful were able to blame Obama's victory on their candidate not being conservative enough -- the same mantra they adopted in the wake of losing Congress in 2006.
Ever since, there's been this continuing comedy in which the party expends more energy chasing away people who are not conservative enough, rather than reaching out to new voters.
Anyway, long before the 2012 election gets underway, the party's prospects are quickly imploding, one by one:
Bobby Jindal — can't hit the big league pitching
John Ensign — adultery
Mark Sanford — adultery/bizarre behavior
Sarah Palin — quitter, with of course rumors that more scandals are about to break
The other hopefuls are starting too look like retreads. Mitt Romney is still Mormon (that's the conventional wisdom on why Iowa and New Hampshire turned against him) and Mike Huckabee is still too limited in his appeal. And then you get to people like Newt Gingrich.
In a sense, none of this may matter. 2008 was the Republicans' year to lose, because of the economy and Iraq and all the rest of George Bush's troubled legacy. I expect that 2012 will be equally troublesome, even if Obama's glow fades considerably. He bought into the politico-economic market so low, people are bound to feel "better off than they were four years ago."
All that could change, obviously. And Republicans need a champion they can embrace, to take advantage of Obama faltering. But they may need one even more if they are bound to lose. Perhaps especially if they are bound to lose.
I had hoped in 2008 that Republicans would go with Romney, who was saying all the right things to all the main GOP wings. They were going to lose, I assumed, and therefore they needed to get beaten with their best stuff. Picking McCain, as I already suggested, made it too easy to make excuses.
They need someone in 2012 who, if he or she gets beaten, goes down pledging fealty to the whole familiar GOP anti-tax, pro-defense, anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, shrink-government platform.
Only when the contemporary GOP recognizes that their core arguments have grown shopworn and are being rejected by every growing section of the electorate will they start to change. Only then will the dialogue begin about how they can reform and rebuild.
This always takes time. It took 20 years for the Democrats to go from George McGovern to Bill Clinton. It's taken a dozen years, since Tony Blair's first election as prime minister, for the British Tories to look ready to win whenever Gordon Brown calls the next election.
But Republicans need to start. They're still in deep denial. Being able to place the blame on character and personality flaws is only going to extend their time in the wilderness.
The Case Against Eyman's Latest Initative
While I have not researched all of the impacts of Initiative I-1033, and have not taken any position on it — yet — I found it curious that it took less than 15 minutes for the anti-Eyman forces to begin driving their anti- I-1033 measure home to the media.
Literally within minutes of Eyman's filing, the Business Journal received two press releases — one from the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, and another from the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI). Both were a supposed "analysis" of the damage the initiative would do, and could have seemingly been written by the same individual, since they are viturally identical.
The "analysis" claims Initiative I-1033 would restrict the ability to protect vital services provided by the city, county and state, leaving no room for unanticipated expenses such as natural disasters, unfunded mandates and emerging public priorities like health care for all children. It claims the state would be unable to keep pace with its aging population, educating students and providing public safety.
This warrants at least some cursory response:
1) Unanticipated natural disaster expenses can be budgeted for in a contingency fund dedicated to such events. The trick is for local governments to not spend this money on other things — like Unfunded Mandates." Upon the Governor declaring an "Emergency," the state and federal government money machinery cranks up and local governments begin to see financial relief.
2) As for "Unfunded Mandates," perhaps I-1033 will begin hammering the message home to our blockheaded state legislators that they need to either provide money for the moronic regulations they continue to heap upon local government and the citizens, for no reason other reason than furthering their own political agendas, or stop regulating local government into the poorhouse.
3) "Emerging Public Priorities" such as health care for all childen is a red herring. This isn't an "Emerging Public Priority," but a statewide liberal political priority driven by our Governor and Legislature — one being fueled by the Obama administration's health care initiative.
4) As for educating students, the state already spends more than 57 percent of the entire state budget on education. Yet the state demands absolutely NO accountability for our children actually learning anything. I'll be happy to support increased funding for education when honest accountability comes with it.
5) While supporting our aging population is a nice sentiment and sounds like an urgent priority, the truth is, it too is another red herring. The state isn't in the business of elder care because it's a federal government responsibility, not a state issue.
The NPI and Budget and Policy Center also claim I-1033 will exacerbate the effects of economic and fiscal downturns, saying that during a recession, the amount of revenue that can be spent goes down and adjusts to the lower level. Well, DUH!!!
They also claim cities, counties, and the state would lose spending capacity, making it difficult to respond to economic downturns like the one we’re experiencing. Another, DUH!!!
Opponents claim I-1033 will increase the state deficit by half a billion dollars, saying that in 2011, the state revenue is expected to grow by $1 billion. Initiative 1033 would restrict the amount that the state could "invest" (read spend) to an additional $471 million. They also claim that if I-1033 had been instituted in 1995, the current state deficit would have been $6 billion larger.
What they fail to point out here is their conclusions assume state spending would have remained at current levels — both now and as far back as 1995. All that needs to happen for this to not become a problem is for the state to seriously reduce what it spends. And you have to ask what would have happened had the Legislature not suspended I-601?
If our legislators actually paid attention to the needs of the people who elect them, not the special interests who finance their elections, and acted in their best interests, Tim Eyman wouldn't be a fact of their lives. He has only been able to become a public figure because of the blatant disdain of our legislators for the people they supposedly "serve."
Literally within minutes of Eyman's filing, the Business Journal received two press releases — one from the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, and another from the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI). Both were a supposed "analysis" of the damage the initiative would do, and could have seemingly been written by the same individual, since they are viturally identical.
The "analysis" claims Initiative I-1033 would restrict the ability to protect vital services provided by the city, county and state, leaving no room for unanticipated expenses such as natural disasters, unfunded mandates and emerging public priorities like health care for all children. It claims the state would be unable to keep pace with its aging population, educating students and providing public safety.
This warrants at least some cursory response:
1) Unanticipated natural disaster expenses can be budgeted for in a contingency fund dedicated to such events. The trick is for local governments to not spend this money on other things — like Unfunded Mandates." Upon the Governor declaring an "Emergency," the state and federal government money machinery cranks up and local governments begin to see financial relief.
2) As for "Unfunded Mandates," perhaps I-1033 will begin hammering the message home to our blockheaded state legislators that they need to either provide money for the moronic regulations they continue to heap upon local government and the citizens, for no reason other reason than furthering their own political agendas, or stop regulating local government into the poorhouse.
3) "Emerging Public Priorities" such as health care for all childen is a red herring. This isn't an "Emerging Public Priority," but a statewide liberal political priority driven by our Governor and Legislature — one being fueled by the Obama administration's health care initiative.
4) As for educating students, the state already spends more than 57 percent of the entire state budget on education. Yet the state demands absolutely NO accountability for our children actually learning anything. I'll be happy to support increased funding for education when honest accountability comes with it.
5) While supporting our aging population is a nice sentiment and sounds like an urgent priority, the truth is, it too is another red herring. The state isn't in the business of elder care because it's a federal government responsibility, not a state issue.
The NPI and Budget and Policy Center also claim I-1033 will exacerbate the effects of economic and fiscal downturns, saying that during a recession, the amount of revenue that can be spent goes down and adjusts to the lower level. Well, DUH!!!
They also claim cities, counties, and the state would lose spending capacity, making it difficult to respond to economic downturns like the one we’re experiencing. Another, DUH!!!
Opponents claim I-1033 will increase the state deficit by half a billion dollars, saying that in 2011, the state revenue is expected to grow by $1 billion. Initiative 1033 would restrict the amount that the state could "invest" (read spend) to an additional $471 million. They also claim that if I-1033 had been instituted in 1995, the current state deficit would have been $6 billion larger.
What they fail to point out here is their conclusions assume state spending would have remained at current levels — both now and as far back as 1995. All that needs to happen for this to not become a problem is for the state to seriously reduce what it spends. And you have to ask what would have happened had the Legislature not suspended I-601?
If our legislators actually paid attention to the needs of the people who elect them, not the special interests who finance their elections, and acted in their best interests, Tim Eyman wouldn't be a fact of their lives. He has only been able to become a public figure because of the blatant disdain of our legislators for the people they supposedly "serve."
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The AMA and Obama's Stimulus Package
Apparently members of the American Medical Association has weighed in on the new economic stimulus package.....
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists we re pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington .
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.
The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists we re pissed off at the whole idea.
The Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington .
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Shocking Revelation: Politicians Share Same Personality Traits As Serial Killers!!!
This was sent to me by Mary Swoboda of Crazy Politics. All things considered, I'm not exactly sure what to think about it, but thought it was worth sharing.
Violent homicide aside, politicians often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal psychopaths, according to Jim Kouri in a recent Seattle Examiner article.
Criminals are psychologically capable of committing their crimes without any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse. "This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," Kouri wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders."
THIS IS PRICELESS! We vote for 'em, pay their salaries and perks and trust them to spend our money wisely... Who are the fools?
Politicians exhibit traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others. These traits, according to Kouri, are common to psychopathic serial killers. "While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
This causes me to wonder... Will Janet Napolitano show the same exuberance profiling and marginalizing career serial politicians as she did radical "right-wingers?" Her job will be made easier if this report on mind reading is true. Within the next 3-5 years the ability to know what we common folk are thinking will be in hands of our "big brother" government. Then the Homeland Security czar will just have our minds scanned to determine if we are a threat to the "Obama Nation," then administer the appropriate "treatment."
You know what? I think I'll pop some popcorn, grab a beer and watch Minority Report, followed by Conspiracy Theory.
Violent homicide aside, politicians often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal psychopaths, according to Jim Kouri in a recent Seattle Examiner article.
Criminals are psychologically capable of committing their crimes without any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse. "This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," Kouri wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders."
THIS IS PRICELESS! We vote for 'em, pay their salaries and perks and trust them to spend our money wisely... Who are the fools?
Politicians exhibit traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others. These traits, according to Kouri, are common to psychopathic serial killers. "While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
This causes me to wonder... Will Janet Napolitano show the same exuberance profiling and marginalizing career serial politicians as she did radical "right-wingers?" Her job will be made easier if this report on mind reading is true. Within the next 3-5 years the ability to know what we common folk are thinking will be in hands of our "big brother" government. Then the Homeland Security czar will just have our minds scanned to determine if we are a threat to the "Obama Nation," then administer the appropriate "treatment."
You know what? I think I'll pop some popcorn, grab a beer and watch Minority Report, followed by Conspiracy Theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)