Local Posts #21

2009-6-28 03:15:00

[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]

  

May 16, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

The Statesman editors must be getting tired of all the political talk and deicide to change the tone a bit for today. What I find encouraging is that they received enough letters showing appreciation to fill the day's quota.

What's interesting to contemplate about these examples of people helping others is that when doing so they didn't look at any differences but merely saw others as human beings like themselves who just needed help.

Let us suppose though that in each case the one with power to assist became aware that the person needing help had opposing political views. Maybe he listens to Rush Limbaugh on one hand or loves Obama's big spending on the other. Would such awareness make any difference?

Let us hope that it would not. Let us hope that when the rubber hits the road, and the time comes to offer real assistance, that we lend a helping hand even if he guy happens to be a right or left wing extremist.

  

May 16, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

"Broncoguy200" wrote:

"Hey Joseph 732, Dude, Im sorry your glass is only half full, but always looking at the bad side of things sure isn't going to fill that glass any."

JJ:

I'd say that between your post and mine -- if anyone was looking for the "bad side of things" it was you.

My post was designed with the positive end that we not let political differences interfere with lending a helping hand. It takes a strange directed imagination to construe that as negative.

There's only been three posts today because this is the type of subject that only draws short comments like - great letters! I think it is a positive thing to attempt to stimulate thought so we can have some interesting dialog here.

  

May 17, 2009 -- Post #1

(Note from JJ: This is in response to a critic of me saying we should be thankful we have only had 4200 deaths in Iraq.)

JJ:

Mr. Norsworthy has written one of the most mean spirited and mindless attack letters I have read in a long time. Letters like this should be below the Statesman's standards. He says, "there's no organized official Nazi party in Idaho; just the poor confederacy of dunces known as Republicans."

Not only is this mean spirited, but it is an inaccurate comparison. The Confederacy was composed of mostly Democrats and the Nazis were "National SOCIALISTS." Conservatives like Hoffman want nothing to do with additional socialism, but there are many today who do want national socialism and it is not the conservative Republicans or the Libertarians.

In addition to the N-word here is other words he used:

goony homunculusthe
wipe-rag
gassy
clueless
right-wing lunacy
self-righteous
sour-faced weasel
fundamentalist cretins

I checked for seven days and Hoffman was the only Republican column compared to seven written by Democrats. Will the Left only be happy with nothing but Democratic views expressed?

  

May 20, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Instead of creating more entanglements with the government which just makes prices go up and service quality go down we need to look at what we have done and undo it.

When I was in the hospital in 1958 my room rate was $8.00 a day. If we adjust that for inflation it amounts to $58 a day in today's money.

I was in the hospital for a month and my mom just got a divorce and we had no child support yet we paid it off by picking fruit, mowing lawns and working for minimum wage.

I recently had a friend who was in the hospital for a month and his bill was $80,000. He had a business that employed a dozen people and he died without making a dent in his bill.

Instead of rushing forward doing more of what we have done to sabotage the average person we need to retrace our steps and undo the damage so poor fruit pickers with no insurance can pay their medical bills again.

  

May 20, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

I give the fact that in 1958 my hospital room was $58 a day in today's money yet this means nothing to those who trust big government. They do not even consider the obvious question: Why cannot this happen again?

What we have done wrong we can undo. A hospital room today is around $1400 a day instead of starting at $58. Obviously something is terribly terribly wrong.

Instead of asking ourselves what went wrong bureaucrat lovers just want to do more of what created the problem in the first place.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country today again where you didn't even need insurance and could pay off a major hospital stay by working for minimum wage?

That's the country I grew up in and the sad thing is few believe we could have such a country again.

I do, but it will require a major effort in educating the public.

  

May 20, 2009 -- Post #3

"CD" says:

"The problem you correctly cite is caused by lack of government regulation and control. i.e., the out of control 'health care' industry is the result of too little and misguided government, not too little. Thank the 'conservatives' for i.e., the out of control 'health care' industry is the result of too little and misguided government, not too MUCH. Thank the 'conservatives' for out of control health care costs and poor health care results."

JJ:

How you can come up with the conclusion that the difference between now and 1958 is that we need more government and regulations make healthcare more like it was back then.

I have news for you. Even the most rabid foaming at the mouth liberal does not believe we had more big government back in 1958 than we do now.

The difference between now and 1958 is that we had LESS government and fewer regulations, fewer frivolous lawsuits and private medicine was able to function as it should. This is that to which we need to return.

  

May 20, 2009 -- Post #4

JJ:

I have lived in England and used their healthcare system and believe me it is not better than ours. People with nothing better to do go to the doctor once a week whether they need to or not and there are do many patients in the waiting room they are herded through like cattle. Doctor visits are very short and the doctor writes you a prescription before you are done telling him the problem.

Anyone who has the money will pay extra and go to a private doctor.

  

May 20, 2009 -- Post #5

"Loner" wrote:

"In spite of wishes expressed here, it is never going to be 1958 again. (and in spite of our legislature, it is never going to be 1858 again either)."

JJ:

Now that makes a lot of sense in this argument. Let's apply this reasoning.

"Loner" wants to go to Mountain Home (a town 50 miles east of Boise) and at 1 PM he makes a wrong turn on the freeway. He does not realize his mistake until he gets to Nampa (a town 20 miles west of Boise). He throws his hands in the air and says, "It will never be 1 o'clock again so I guess I'll just have to continue until I get to Caldwell or maybe Ontario (a town 60 miles west of Boise)."

Sounds silly doesn't it?

Even so to admit we had a better more workable healthcare system in 1958, on one hand, and then say we cannot retrace our steps, borrow the best from the past, and make things affordable again because it will never again be 1958 is silly.

  

May 21, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

When the Left reads an opposing point of view it seems to effect them like water on a vampire. Instead of countering with logic they usually just want the other person's free speech or views curtailed.

They often begin their retort with "I'm a believer in free speech, but..." Then they explain why the other guy should not be allowed to express his opinion. In Parker's case he just wants Bolton shut up for 30 years.

I enjoyed Bolton's letter on global warming deceptions and encourage the Statesman to continue to publish him.

As far as Mallard goes this is one of the four comics I read. The duck makes some good points. Mallard is needed as a counterbalance to the dogmatic Doonsebury. Doonesbury used to be a good cartoon, even though it has always been one-sided, but has now became merely a medium to attack conservatives and has lost its edge.

  

May 21, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

This issue of illegal immigration is really an emotional issue and it is difficult for two people to discuss rationally.

Let's look at the opposing views.

  1. This side recognizes there is a problem and as a solution wants the current laws enforced. When this is achieved then adjust current law so employers can obtain the foreign help they need without breaking the law.
  2. This side wants us to not enforce current law even though those responsible for enforcing it have taken an oath to do so. In addition they want new legislation that virtually eliminates immigration law.

There are slight variations of these two views but these seem to sum up the stands of probably 90% or more.

I'd say view one makes the most sense. Why have laws and take an oath to enforce them and then just throw them out the widow? If we do not enforce laws we should cease requiring our officials to take an oath to enforce them.

  

May 21, 2009 -- Post #3

"Grandjester" (GJ) wrote:

"As usual, you make an argument that is patently false."

JJ:

You say this but then do not back up your argument (as usual) by pointing out anything I said that was false.

GJ:

"The REAL problem with immigration reform, is the complete inflexibility of those who are anti-immigration, the latent racism (I know, you're going to deny it but it is the simple truth.)"

JJ:

Inflexible how? Most of those who want the laws enforced are pretty flexible about helping those who want to work legally accomplish this within the system.

Your racism charge is from a mean spirited distorted mind. I've worked side-by-side with Mexicans for six years of my life picking fruit and understand them. How many years have you worked with them side-by-side?

GJ:

"If somehow, magically, with zero cost, cont. ...13 million immigrants were whisked away, do you understand what would happen?"

JJ:

Find me one Republican Congressperson who has suggested this. I can't find one. Instead of fabricating conservative views you must realize they first want to just stop the flow across the border and then humanely deal with the problem and no one in the Republican party is suggesting we round up all the illegal aliens on a wholesale basis and ship them back.

Perhaps you should change your handle to "GrandDistorter" or "Grand-Everybody-is-a-racist-but-me"?

  

May 21, 2009 -- Post #4

"Ducaticr" wrote:

"You have so many members of your Party being outed as homosexuals, and usually they are the ones who preach hellfire and damnation against anyone who might be afflictewd with teh gay."

JJ:

Can you give me a quote from one gay Republican congressman who preached "hellfire and damnation against anyone who might be afflictewd with teh gay?"

What's that I hear?

Silence.

Then your pen should also be silent on the subject.

  

May 22, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

In most cases there's a big difference between a 14-year-old boy having sex with an older woman and a 14-year-old girl. If the lady is attractive most boys would consider themselves lucky and brag about their conquest to their friends. If the sex was not forced few would consider themselves damaged unless it produced guilt through moral upbringing.

On the other hand, most 14-year-old females who have sex with an older man are not that willing of accomplices. If they were not raped they were often pressured into it and may suffer psychological damage.

I think therefore the severity of the crime should be considered much less for the older female who perhaps gave the young kid the thrill of his life. The crime against a young female who feels psychologically crushed is much worse.

Now if a young boy were raped or pressured into a relationship that would be a different matter.

  

May 22, 2009 -- Post #2

Nicola is one of the few offended people who have a point. A drink called "The Irish Car Bomb" here would be like the Irish naming a drink the "19 Hijacker Special."

Other titles that cause offense such as "Redskins," "Braves," "Warriors" and the like I think are not offensive at all but should be viewed as a compliment.

I can think of one more title that created justifiable offense. Back in my college days Orofino, Idaho was famous for its mental institution and I remember reading in the paper that the local school wanted to call themselves "The Orofino Maniacs."

That might just have been over the line and I doubt if it was ever implemented.

  

May 22, 2009 -- Post #3

"Grandjester" wrote:

"Joseph, Just YESTERDAY you were arguing that the law is the law on the immigration thread, so which is it?"

JJ:

I don't know why you would think my position has changed. There are many laws that I do not agree with, but if we have them and officials have taken an oath to uphold them then they need to be enforced until they are changed.

We just cannot be subject to only the laws that we like or society will be in chaos, similar to the immigration system.

I am glad though that I am allowed to go 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone.

  

May 22, 2009 -- Post #4

"Nukeworker" wrote:

"One more thing....what if it is an older male teacher with a male student? Would this also just be a 'thrill' for the boy?"

JJ:

In most cases that would not be a thrill and prosecutors need to take that into consideration.

My point was that there is a huge difference in the damage if one youth thinks he has had a great experience and another feels raped. The law should treat two such widely divergent cases differently. The punishment must fit the crime.

No I am not in favor of abuse but in true abuse one feels abused. I'm not saying that the foxy older woman should get away free of charges for sex with a willing teen, but this situation should be looked upon as a different category than when coercion is used by either sex.

I agree that there is a lack of fairness in dealing with crimes of the sexes but sometimes the female gets the short end of the stick such as crimes in reaction to spousal abuse.

  

May 22, 2009 -- Post #5

"TWall" wrote:

"They are the 'Orofino Maniacs.' Probably the best nickname around. As for the 'Irish Car Bomb,' I can see why the name is offensive but it's not going to change. Plus it's a great drink."

JJ:

Wow, I can't believe the name Orofino Maniacs was used and is still around! Even though I can understand sensitive people being offended by this and the car bomb drink, I am also glad we still have enough free speech available to be mildly offensive now and then.

I'll bet that if you and I had a couple of "Irish Car Bombs" together we'd start agreeing on a lot of things.

  

May 23, 2009

Note:  On this day the Statesman published about a half dozen letters from people expressing gratitude for a number of things.

JJ:

I'd like to chime in here and add my thanks.

I am so grateful to the liberals here who have held my hand and gently led me to true enlightenment.

They have been so patient with me and call me such wonderful names as I seek to get my mind right.

And how right it is.

I used to think the government should stay on a budget like the unwashed citizens are forced to do.

Now I see that the government, and those who run it are special and we should support them in spending to their heart's desire.

I used to think laws need to be enforced but now see that only laws that make me feel special need enforced.

I used to believe in personal responsibility, but now I see that Obama will be responsible for me.

I used to believe in a free market, but now accept one that is not free to do anything but pay more taxes and be engulfed in restrictions.

My cup runneth over with gratitude.

  

May 24, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

People are always talking about the cheaper drugs from Canada with the theme that because they are more expensive here it means the greedy drug companies are just mindlessly ripping us off.

Actually in many cases it is Canada who is ripping us off. Just why do you think that a drug that is developed here in the U.S. is cheaper there? In many cases it is because the government blackmails the drug companies by threatening to revoke their patent rights in Canada if they do not sell cheap. This forces them to sell to Canada below market value and to make up for the lost money the cost is passed on to us.

Therefore U.S. citizens wind up paying for some of Canada's health care.

Most of the world's new medicines are created in the United States, thanks to profits in the free market system. Take that away and many lives will be lost because of research that will not be done.

I have the best alternative to expensive drugs. I use cheap natural alternatives instead.

  

May 24, 2009 -- Post #2

"Badnana":

"When drug companies can afford to pay salesmen 6 figures to push doctors to recommend their Viagra, Valium or whatever they are trying to sell, it becomes clear the patient is not the focus, the dollar is."

JJ:

I have news for you. Making dollars is the focus of every independent business in existence. Yes, it seems to the unthinking that it would be wonderful if this greed were put to an end by the government and the quest for the dollar replaced with the ideal of equality and just helping people.

But wait!

That's already been done.

And where was this done asks the Lefty so he can move there?

Presently in Cuba and North Korea and previously in the old Soviet Union. We know what happened to them don't we?

Private enterprise is not perfect as humans are not perfect, but we keep business in line by deciding whether or not to support them. I personally cast my vote by just not buying drugs. If everyone were like me all drug companies would be out of business.

  

May 24, 2009 -- Post #3

"Irishgal" wrote:

"Eliminating the ads would definitely lower their costs. Passing on those savings to consumers is another question, but it would take away some of the arguments of how much it costs them to produce a drug."

JJ:

Obviously you have never ran a business. If you do not advertize then nothing much happens and product is not moved. If product does not move then money does not come in. If money does not come in then there is no savings to pass on. If profits go down then the only alternative is to raise prices.

Then a vicious cycle is created where raising prices produces fewer customers and fewer customers causes the raising of prices until the company goes under.

  

May 24, 2009 -- Post #4

"Prophet" wrote:

"Joseph732: You are the most consistantly misinformed individual who has ever taken the time to comment on this site. Congratulations!"

JJ:

I hear this time and time again from Lefties with absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing but outrageous imagination to back them up.

So far, as long as I have been here, no Leftie has proven any of my facts to be incorrect so unless you can supply some proof you should cease embarrassing yourself.

"Loki" wrote:

"I'm surprised the Statesman keeps allowing a paid NewsCorp agent to constantly post on their pages. I mean, Murdoch must be paying joseph732. I just can't believe he would memorize and post all their talking points for free. Or is he that much of a dupe?"

JJ:

I have quoted once from Fox News since I have been here but many times from the New York Times. Maybe you should say I am a dupe of the left wing media.

If I am paid by NewsCorp then I should be getting a check in the mail shouldn't I? You do have an imagination, don't you?

  

"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food."
  -- Hippocrates