...versus not so serious.
The distinction can be summed up by the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the National Enquirer.
Serious journalism is the gathering, organizing and reporting of information without all of the fru-fru. It is about communication; moving information from one source to another. Serious journalism can be dry, bland and boring. But it has a practical, functional purpose behind it.
There is a world of difference between the journalistic approaches of the nightly news casts and the morning shows that air on the alphabet networks; like the difference between an ice-cream cone and a hot-fudge sundae.
One is basic, and the other super sugar-coated. One is serious, and the other light-hearted. One is hard news, the other soft. One is structured, and the other laissez-faire. One is about delivering information, the other entertainment.
I don't mind so much the light-hearted nature of the morning shows. But I resent the hosts calling themselves journalists.
Bologne.
If they are at all journalists, they are overly fancied versions. They are entertainers on the level of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, and Jay Leno.
The difference between Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News and Matt Lauer of the NBC Today Show is like the distinction between a sales representative and a used car salesman. While both are salespeople, one is focused on profession while the other on showmanship.
Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders are good comparisons. Both were professional athletes; but Rice took his profession more seriously. The football field was his office. For Sanders, it was a stage upon which to show off. Rice was a worker; Sanders a showman.
The same can be said about Michael Jordan and Shaquille O'Neal. The former was a hard-working professional on the court, while the other was more of a showman.
Lauer is not a serious journalist. He's a showman. If he was, then he wouldn't be content to hosting a soft-news driven morning show, and would have ambitions of anchoring a nightly news broadcast. While I don't feel his former co-host, Katie Couric, was a particularly effective or serious journalist, either, she at least had the ambition to seek a more serious position in her profession; even though it didn't last.
Call me a morning show humbug, but I just am not impressed with these programs as premier journalistic venues. I really don't mind them being light-hearted and soft in their approaches. But I think it is a misnomer to really consider morning shows as serious journalism.
Of all of the hosts on the three networks in the morning, only Al Roker fits the bill of a morning show host. He's naturally funny and light-hearted; the way morning shows are designed to be. But he's also a meteorologist; a weather man. He doesn't fancy himself as a journalist.
Morning show hosts are entertainers above all. They are not journalists. Their job is to present information in an entertaining fashion; not to report it and pass it on.
If you want to see serious journalism in action, watch your local news broadcasts. If you want entertainment, then watch the morning shows. But don't think for a minute that these morning show hosts pass for serious journalists.
Serious journalists aren't content to write gossip columns for the rest of their career any more than broadcasters are content to host entertainment programs rather than news casts for the remainder of their careers.
You morning show people have traded serious journalism for entertainment. All fine and dandy.
Just do us all a favor and don't call yourselves serious journalists; because you're not.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
A tale of two charities
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... or so Charles Dickens' story begins.
Picture this: A lonely old widow places a five dollar bill into the red bucket of a Salvation Army bell ringer. That money she was going to use to buy a few small food items for herself. Instead, she donated all she had to others in need, and left herself deprived of the basic necessities of life. Rather than hoard the money out of fear, she gave out of a joyful heart; and out of faith that her God would provide for her needs.
Then picture this: Multi-million-dollar celebrities appear in a television commercial for St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Research Center of New York. As soon as the shoot is over with, the stars have their make-up removed and change out of their wardrobe. Their charitable work is done. They then are ushered away from the studio into their limousines and chauffeuered back to their mansions in Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Without further thought, they go on about their leisure while their personal assistants and accounting staff worry about the details of their employers' charitable donations, which, for many of them, is required by contract as part of maintaining a positive public image. A few thousand here; a couple hundred thousand there. Mere drops in the bucket for these philanthropists.
Now, I ask you: Which donation meant the most, and had the greatest impact on humanity? The five dollar bill given by the needy widow, or the two hundred thousand a celebrity drops into the bucket of need for St. Judes?
By man's standards, the St. Judes donation would have the farthest reaching impact.
But measuring the charity by God's standards, the widow's donation meant the most to meet the needs of others, because it came from the heart. It wasn't some formality like the paper charities supported by celebrities.
While paper philanthropists like media personalities and entertainers can appear to have the largest of hearts because their money is farthest reaching, their generosity is eclipsed by the average, inconspicuous donation of a humble human being who just wants to do the right thing for somebody else.
So, before you begin admiring a movie star for his or her charitable contributions, look more locally at the humble donors in your own community as people to honor for the good that they do.
Most of them are anonymous. They do not want to attract attention to themselves for the good works that they do; the way celebrities naturally tend to do. Rather, they give secretly, because their reward exists not in this life, but the next one.
Picture this: A lonely old widow places a five dollar bill into the red bucket of a Salvation Army bell ringer. That money she was going to use to buy a few small food items for herself. Instead, she donated all she had to others in need, and left herself deprived of the basic necessities of life. Rather than hoard the money out of fear, she gave out of a joyful heart; and out of faith that her God would provide for her needs.
Then picture this: Multi-million-dollar celebrities appear in a television commercial for St. Jude's Children's Hospital and Research Center of New York. As soon as the shoot is over with, the stars have their make-up removed and change out of their wardrobe. Their charitable work is done. They then are ushered away from the studio into their limousines and chauffeuered back to their mansions in Beverly Hills or Malibu.
Without further thought, they go on about their leisure while their personal assistants and accounting staff worry about the details of their employers' charitable donations, which, for many of them, is required by contract as part of maintaining a positive public image. A few thousand here; a couple hundred thousand there. Mere drops in the bucket for these philanthropists.
Now, I ask you: Which donation meant the most, and had the greatest impact on humanity? The five dollar bill given by the needy widow, or the two hundred thousand a celebrity drops into the bucket of need for St. Judes?
By man's standards, the St. Judes donation would have the farthest reaching impact.
But measuring the charity by God's standards, the widow's donation meant the most to meet the needs of others, because it came from the heart. It wasn't some formality like the paper charities supported by celebrities.
While paper philanthropists like media personalities and entertainers can appear to have the largest of hearts because their money is farthest reaching, their generosity is eclipsed by the average, inconspicuous donation of a humble human being who just wants to do the right thing for somebody else.
So, before you begin admiring a movie star for his or her charitable contributions, look more locally at the humble donors in your own community as people to honor for the good that they do.
Most of them are anonymous. They do not want to attract attention to themselves for the good works that they do; the way celebrities naturally tend to do. Rather, they give secretly, because their reward exists not in this life, but the next one.
This is news?
A story was posted today on Yahoo! News about how more employers are passing higher costs of health care on to their employees.
For me, personally, this story comes about two years too late.
Beginning in 2011 the insurance premium I paid through my employer rose by 100 percent.
That's right. Within months of the Affordable Care Act becoming law, my premium doubled.
And it has remained just as high ever since.
Frankly, I dislike the phrase "See, I told you so," but this is one of those moments. I wrote a couple of years back about the likely consequences of Obamacare, and increased costs to the consumer was one of them.
I said back then that I am waiting skeptically for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Now, it looks like "affordable" will be more oxymoronish of the law rather than an integral part of it.
Fundamental economics teaches us that when demand for a product or service increases, the cost of said product or service for sale on the market also increases. This is particularly true for more "affordable" health plans; the supply of which remains dismally small.
In fact, when shopping for "affordable" health plans on my state insurance exchange web site, I found no individual or family plan below $300 a month in premium. Even the most basic plans with high deductibles were well over $300 a month.
How is this affordable for the average American household already struggling to meet expenses?
My advice is not to wait with bated breath for health care coverage to become more "affordable," in spite of what the President's law says. You may otherwise pass out from asphyxiation.
Talk is cheap, after all. Until I see the "affordable" side of things, I remain skeptical that Obamacare is a real fix to the problem of rising health care costs, and more convinced than ever that it was snake oil sold by a travelling charlatan, who just happens to have hung his hat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017.
For me, personally, this story comes about two years too late.
Beginning in 2011 the insurance premium I paid through my employer rose by 100 percent.
That's right. Within months of the Affordable Care Act becoming law, my premium doubled.
And it has remained just as high ever since.
Frankly, I dislike the phrase "See, I told you so," but this is one of those moments. I wrote a couple of years back about the likely consequences of Obamacare, and increased costs to the consumer was one of them.
I said back then that I am waiting skeptically for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Now, it looks like "affordable" will be more oxymoronish of the law rather than an integral part of it.
Fundamental economics teaches us that when demand for a product or service increases, the cost of said product or service for sale on the market also increases. This is particularly true for more "affordable" health plans; the supply of which remains dismally small.
In fact, when shopping for "affordable" health plans on my state insurance exchange web site, I found no individual or family plan below $300 a month in premium. Even the most basic plans with high deductibles were well over $300 a month.
How is this affordable for the average American household already struggling to meet expenses?
My advice is not to wait with bated breath for health care coverage to become more "affordable," in spite of what the President's law says. You may otherwise pass out from asphyxiation.
Talk is cheap, after all. Until I see the "affordable" side of things, I remain skeptical that Obamacare is a real fix to the problem of rising health care costs, and more convinced than ever that it was snake oil sold by a travelling charlatan, who just happens to have hung his hat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
A little late for sorry
President Barack Obama has apologized to Americans who are losing their current health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act law of 2010.
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," the President told NBC News.
Yes, I'm sure you are, Mr. President. You don't have to worry about another election now. You are a lame-duck chief executive, sir, and it is a little late for sorries.
"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this," Obama continued.
Really, sir? Will you work as hard as you did to rush Obamacare through Congress before the next election? Will you work as hard as you did to avoid the tough questions from Americans who read your law and raised concerns about it? Will you work as hard as you did in 2008 selling your snake oil of hope and change? I sure hope so, because this is your legacy, Barack. If this program fails before you leave office, the legacy of your eight-year tenure will be one great, big mess.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said. "And, you know, that’s something I regret."
No kidding. You and your democratic buddies rushed this bill through Congress, ignored or downright silenced skeptics at townhall meetings, and insisted on getting this legislation passed into law before the next general election.
Mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, it came at substantial price. That being competency of the law, confusion over it, and the downward cascading effect it is now causing.
Obamacare is now circling the drain of irrelevance and is at risk of being flushed down the toilet of monumental, illegitimate failures.
According to NBC news, the Obama Administration knew since 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance coverage. Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services dating back to July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of the 14 million consumers in that marketplace could lose their policies due to turnover in the individual insurance market, NBC News found.
Let's recount the many ways in which the President promised that this would not happen:
• June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association: “That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
• March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law: “If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”
• October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney: “Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.
• September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland: “Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”
• October 30, 2013, during a Boston speech on the Affordable Care Act: “Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That's what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
Ah, yes, the power of political promises. It is a darned good thing that Obama is now in his second and final term, because if this had come out before the end of his first, he'd have been a one-term wonder instead of a two-term regret.
I am personally still waiting for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Since 2010 my family's health insurance premium has doubled in out-of-pocket cost, and there is no indication in sight that I will start seeing any savings any time soon. Some of my copays have increased, too, so this adds insult to injury of having to pay more for health care coverage since the the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The President's broken promise wouldn't be so tough to swallow had he not ended his apology this way:
“The majority of folks will end up being better off," he said of the changes caused by the ACA. "Of course, because the website not working right they may not know it."
Another promise from a guy who knows how to keep them.
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," the President told NBC News.
Yes, I'm sure you are, Mr. President. You don't have to worry about another election now. You are a lame-duck chief executive, sir, and it is a little late for sorries.
"We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this," Obama continued.
Really, sir? Will you work as hard as you did to rush Obamacare through Congress before the next election? Will you work as hard as you did to avoid the tough questions from Americans who read your law and raised concerns about it? Will you work as hard as you did in 2008 selling your snake oil of hope and change? I sure hope so, because this is your legacy, Barack. If this program fails before you leave office, the legacy of your eight-year tenure will be one great, big mess.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said. "And, you know, that’s something I regret."
No kidding. You and your democratic buddies rushed this bill through Congress, ignored or downright silenced skeptics at townhall meetings, and insisted on getting this legislation passed into law before the next general election.
Mission accomplished.
Unfortunately, it came at substantial price. That being competency of the law, confusion over it, and the downward cascading effect it is now causing.
Obamacare is now circling the drain of irrelevance and is at risk of being flushed down the toilet of monumental, illegitimate failures.
According to NBC news, the Obama Administration knew since 2010 that millions of Americans could lose their health insurance coverage. Information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services dating back to July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of the 14 million consumers in that marketplace could lose their policies due to turnover in the individual insurance market, NBC News found.
Let's recount the many ways in which the President promised that this would not happen:
• June 15, 2009, in a speech to the American Medical Association: “That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”
• March 19, 2010, in a speech at George Mason University four days before the ACA became law: “If you like your doctor, you’re going to be able to keep your doctor. If you like your plan, keep your plan. I don’t believe we should give government or the insurance companies more control over health care in America. I think it’s time to give you, the American people, more control over your health.”
• October 4, 2012, during the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney: “Number one, if you've got health insurance it doesn't mean a Government takeover. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can't jerk you around.
• September 25, 2013, during a speech in Prince George’s County, Maryland: “Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you – especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering. So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything.”
• October 30, 2013, during a Boston speech on the Affordable Care Act: “Now if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you were able to keep it. That's what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is, you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage because that too was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
Ah, yes, the power of political promises. It is a darned good thing that Obama is now in his second and final term, because if this had come out before the end of his first, he'd have been a one-term wonder instead of a two-term regret.
I am personally still waiting for the "affordable" part of the ACA to kick in. Since 2010 my family's health insurance premium has doubled in out-of-pocket cost, and there is no indication in sight that I will start seeing any savings any time soon. Some of my copays have increased, too, so this adds insult to injury of having to pay more for health care coverage since the the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The President's broken promise wouldn't be so tough to swallow had he not ended his apology this way:
“The majority of folks will end up being better off," he said of the changes caused by the ACA. "Of course, because the website not working right they may not know it."
Another promise from a guy who knows how to keep them.
Friday, October 4, 2013
The government has shut down...
...Now what?
I don't know about you, but I am so gripped with anxiety over the federal government shutdown that I just don't know what to do with myself. (read: sarcasm.)
The news makes it seem as though all life as we know it is endangered by the fed closing its doors to business until further notice.
Stories of personal suffering, of fear, of helplessness, and of hopelessness. This may happen, or that will. Germs will run rampant because the FDA is not on the job. Criminals will be turned loose or not caught. Children will starve. The elderly will be neglected. People will suffer and die, because Uncle Sam is unable to agree with himself and reopen his wallet.
As I recall, America got through the government shutdown we had in the nineties just fine. She will get through this one just fine, too.
Why?
Because the heartbeat of this country is not the federal government, but the people who support it and make it up. Despite all of the doom and gloom being talked about all over the media, life continues to go on. People are still working. They are still buying and spending. They are still raising their families, keeping and supporting their homes, and conducting business as usual; whether or not the government is.
But, having been a member of the news media for several years, I know that these doom-and-gloom reports are just that; stories meant to dramatize the impact, and sensationalize the severity. They are useful in boosting ratings, selling subscriptions, and otherwise filling the coffers of the news industry. The whole truth isn't often reported in the media; but rather the "facts" that sell its product.
There are greater concerns in this world than whether or not Congress and the POTUS can agree; like the moral health of our country; like the destruction of the nuclear family; like the financial viability of the government; like the degenerative culture that drives and influences peoples' lives; and like the absence of an internal compass that used to guide people and their decisions through the practice of self-control.
Our society today places such a premium on what is empirical and extrinsic that it is no wonder we suffer a hissy-fit whenever our "things" and "materiel" get threatened. We have become so co-dependent on government to provide for our needs that it is no wonder people panic when Uncle Sam reaches into his pants pockets and turns them inside out.
If anything can be gleaned from this shut down, I hope that people can recognize that their lives can and do go on when the government does not; and that the government is not the end-all, be-all of American existence. It is not the defining element of our culture. We are. And the end-all, be-all of the American experience is the individual resolve of the average citizen to continue pursuing.
Perhaps the longer the feds are shut down, the more obvious this truth will appear to more people. ...Or not. We shall see.
I don't know about you, but I am so gripped with anxiety over the federal government shutdown that I just don't know what to do with myself. (read: sarcasm.)
The news makes it seem as though all life as we know it is endangered by the fed closing its doors to business until further notice.
Stories of personal suffering, of fear, of helplessness, and of hopelessness. This may happen, or that will. Germs will run rampant because the FDA is not on the job. Criminals will be turned loose or not caught. Children will starve. The elderly will be neglected. People will suffer and die, because Uncle Sam is unable to agree with himself and reopen his wallet.
As I recall, America got through the government shutdown we had in the nineties just fine. She will get through this one just fine, too.
Why?
Because the heartbeat of this country is not the federal government, but the people who support it and make it up. Despite all of the doom and gloom being talked about all over the media, life continues to go on. People are still working. They are still buying and spending. They are still raising their families, keeping and supporting their homes, and conducting business as usual; whether or not the government is.
But, having been a member of the news media for several years, I know that these doom-and-gloom reports are just that; stories meant to dramatize the impact, and sensationalize the severity. They are useful in boosting ratings, selling subscriptions, and otherwise filling the coffers of the news industry. The whole truth isn't often reported in the media; but rather the "facts" that sell its product.
There are greater concerns in this world than whether or not Congress and the POTUS can agree; like the moral health of our country; like the destruction of the nuclear family; like the financial viability of the government; like the degenerative culture that drives and influences peoples' lives; and like the absence of an internal compass that used to guide people and their decisions through the practice of self-control.
Our society today places such a premium on what is empirical and extrinsic that it is no wonder we suffer a hissy-fit whenever our "things" and "materiel" get threatened. We have become so co-dependent on government to provide for our needs that it is no wonder people panic when Uncle Sam reaches into his pants pockets and turns them inside out.
If anything can be gleaned from this shut down, I hope that people can recognize that their lives can and do go on when the government does not; and that the government is not the end-all, be-all of American existence. It is not the defining element of our culture. We are. And the end-all, be-all of the American experience is the individual resolve of the average citizen to continue pursuing.
Perhaps the longer the feds are shut down, the more obvious this truth will appear to more people. ...Or not. We shall see.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Manhood endangered
A while back, I was vegging in front of the television, letting the minutes tick away toward bed time.
Then a commercial aired that caught my attention like a stray campfire ember settling on my clothes.
Now, I had probably seen this advertisement dozens of times, along with other commercials similar to it, but thought little of them until this moment. The ad depicted a husband and a wife; one a wise sage and the other a village idiot. If you guessed that the husband was portrayed as the idiot, then you've probably seen the ad or others like it before.
It suddenly struck me that the traditional concept of manhood was being redefined by forces in human society that seek to destroy what it means to be a man. Conventional wisdom about manhood is that men are leaders in their homes and in their communities. They are supposed to be strong, courageous, and self-sacrificing. They are supposed to be moral. They are supposed to have integrity and character. But that isn't the message I get when I watch the average television commercial these days.
Has anyone else noticed how stupid men are made to look in advertisements, especially when paired with a woman? Ten times out of ten, the man assumes the role of the buffoon, deferring intelligence to the woman.
The powerful feminist movement obviously has influence over the way women are portrayed in commercials; and in particular when paired with men. God forbid that the woman appear to be the simpleton of the two. That just would be sending the wrong message; one we cannot have delivered to the impressionable minds of society's young women.
I don't disagree. But I do resent that men are expected to thus assume the role of "Tweedle Dum" just to curb the ire of a vitriolic political lobby. What's more, there doesn't seem to be much of any defiance among the male population toward this trend. It's as though the concept of manhood has been deluded to the point where men don't even seem to know what it means to be a man.
Multiple generations of males have grown up in fatherless households. They've been surrounded by estrogen most, if not all, of their lives. Making matters worse, popular culture has been delivering messages to males that they are, more or less, irrelevant to the health of society. Fatherhood has been denigrated to little more than a monthly child support payment or alimony. It is a signature on a check.
Institutions that once promoted and supported the advancement of manhood in society have been infiltrated by an aggressive feminist movement insisting upon "equal access," only to tear down or make irrelevant those institutions that men could call their own.
The American male, in particular, has permitted himself to be led into the castration chamber. He appears content with being a sperm donor rather than an active part of children's lives. He'd rather just sleep with women than develop meaningful, intimate relationships with them and serve as a leader in the home.
The overriding message I glean from popular advertising is that manhood is no longer an important human value. Feminism is now behind its contemporary definition, and it serves at the disposal of female empowerment. Manhood is overrated, and largely unnecessary to an educated and enlightened society that sees greater value in feminism or gender neutrality.
God forbid that men actually reclaim their manhood, and it's Biblical definition, which American culture once proudly embraced. Now, whenever I see a commercial depicting an inferior male and a superior female, I point it out rather verbosely. I don't think it should be a hidden truth, but rather a revealed one that needs to be exposed for what it really is: An obvious attempt to redefine who wears the pants.
Men are turning into cultural eunuchs, becoming passive spectators with an inferiority complex growing from the inside out. The goal, I believe, is to make the American male submissive to cultural changes meant ultimately to turn society against God and the truth of His Word. I feel it's time to take a stand, and take back what is the rightful place of men in American society.
Despite what popular culture is trying to sell us, men aren't prehistoric thugs, Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon knuckle-draggers whose extent of communication is "ugh" and "ugh."
We aren't impulsive morons or Gomer Pyle simpletons who need to be led around with rings in our snouts. We are men, men of God, who submit to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to make us the pillars of masculinity that appeals to the inner depths of our female counterparts, whether they care to admit it or not.
It's time we stop buying into the "men are pansies" message being delivered to our brains with the hope of rewiring us into useless subjects of society. It's time we stand up against the cultural trend of single women choosing to be single moms with no inclination to involve a man as a father. It's time we defy the gay agenda seeking to relegate "men" to effeminate status. It's time we tell the feminist lobby where to stick it.
.
..Oops. Did I just say that? LOL
Then a commercial aired that caught my attention like a stray campfire ember settling on my clothes.
Now, I had probably seen this advertisement dozens of times, along with other commercials similar to it, but thought little of them until this moment. The ad depicted a husband and a wife; one a wise sage and the other a village idiot. If you guessed that the husband was portrayed as the idiot, then you've probably seen the ad or others like it before.
It suddenly struck me that the traditional concept of manhood was being redefined by forces in human society that seek to destroy what it means to be a man. Conventional wisdom about manhood is that men are leaders in their homes and in their communities. They are supposed to be strong, courageous, and self-sacrificing. They are supposed to be moral. They are supposed to have integrity and character. But that isn't the message I get when I watch the average television commercial these days.
Has anyone else noticed how stupid men are made to look in advertisements, especially when paired with a woman? Ten times out of ten, the man assumes the role of the buffoon, deferring intelligence to the woman.
The powerful feminist movement obviously has influence over the way women are portrayed in commercials; and in particular when paired with men. God forbid that the woman appear to be the simpleton of the two. That just would be sending the wrong message; one we cannot have delivered to the impressionable minds of society's young women.
I don't disagree. But I do resent that men are expected to thus assume the role of "Tweedle Dum" just to curb the ire of a vitriolic political lobby. What's more, there doesn't seem to be much of any defiance among the male population toward this trend. It's as though the concept of manhood has been deluded to the point where men don't even seem to know what it means to be a man.
Multiple generations of males have grown up in fatherless households. They've been surrounded by estrogen most, if not all, of their lives. Making matters worse, popular culture has been delivering messages to males that they are, more or less, irrelevant to the health of society. Fatherhood has been denigrated to little more than a monthly child support payment or alimony. It is a signature on a check.
Institutions that once promoted and supported the advancement of manhood in society have been infiltrated by an aggressive feminist movement insisting upon "equal access," only to tear down or make irrelevant those institutions that men could call their own.
The American male, in particular, has permitted himself to be led into the castration chamber. He appears content with being a sperm donor rather than an active part of children's lives. He'd rather just sleep with women than develop meaningful, intimate relationships with them and serve as a leader in the home.
The overriding message I glean from popular advertising is that manhood is no longer an important human value. Feminism is now behind its contemporary definition, and it serves at the disposal of female empowerment. Manhood is overrated, and largely unnecessary to an educated and enlightened society that sees greater value in feminism or gender neutrality.
God forbid that men actually reclaim their manhood, and it's Biblical definition, which American culture once proudly embraced. Now, whenever I see a commercial depicting an inferior male and a superior female, I point it out rather verbosely. I don't think it should be a hidden truth, but rather a revealed one that needs to be exposed for what it really is: An obvious attempt to redefine who wears the pants.
Men are turning into cultural eunuchs, becoming passive spectators with an inferiority complex growing from the inside out. The goal, I believe, is to make the American male submissive to cultural changes meant ultimately to turn society against God and the truth of His Word. I feel it's time to take a stand, and take back what is the rightful place of men in American society.
Despite what popular culture is trying to sell us, men aren't prehistoric thugs, Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon knuckle-draggers whose extent of communication is "ugh" and "ugh."
We aren't impulsive morons or Gomer Pyle simpletons who need to be led around with rings in our snouts. We are men, men of God, who submit to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to make us the pillars of masculinity that appeals to the inner depths of our female counterparts, whether they care to admit it or not.
It's time we stop buying into the "men are pansies" message being delivered to our brains with the hope of rewiring us into useless subjects of society. It's time we stand up against the cultural trend of single women choosing to be single moms with no inclination to involve a man as a father. It's time we defy the gay agenda seeking to relegate "men" to effeminate status. It's time we tell the feminist lobby where to stick it.
.
..Oops. Did I just say that? LOL
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Can you afford Obamacare?
This is a question everybody ought to be asking themselves.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (also known as “Obamacare”) is already three years old, and we still know very little about its real impact on the health care industry, the marketplace, or on individuals and families.
What we do know is that, over the past three years, one complication after another has been surfacing. Details that were overlooked then are now beginning to come to light, and the policymakers are wrangling to head the problems off at the pass.
Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to fix things until the law takes full effect and we actually see its impact. Until then, all we can do is sit back and wait…with bated breath.
Therein lay the real travesty about the “Obamacare” law: There was little foresight to begin with in crafting the legislation. Problems were likely not identified, because the policymakers didn’t want to see them. That would have set the legislation back a lot farther than 2010, and with a mid-term election looming that year and a general election in two more years, it was just a lot easier to slap a bill together like a “hero” sandwich and worry about the heartburn it causes later.
So, now we are stuck with a law that raises more questions than it provides answers. Isn’t that usually the way? Our esteemed lawmakers, always vigilantly looking out for our best interests, are so hyper-focused on their re-election that they fail to address the pitfalls. Getting legislation passed is the bottom line, after all; not doing right by the American people. They worry about the details later, when the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room has become somebody else’s problem.
For instance, there’s the problem of supply and demand on this new law. For the sake of argument, let’s say everyone who is mandated to complies with the law and buys health care coverage. Is that really going to keep premiums from rising?
What it does is cause a run on the market, an increase in demand for a product or service. And what, dear Mr. Adam Smith, is the consequence of higher demand? Yup. Higher prices.
In spite of the health insurance reform that Obamacare addresses, there is also the looming problem of a shortage of health care providers and an unprecedented increase in demand for care. How does the law address this?
The “baby boom” generation (born between 1946-64) has already started to reach retirement age. In the next decade, millions more will. As the “boomers” age, their need for care will increase, and the more of them there are that are demanding care, the greater the strain on services there will be.
Further complicating matters is the reality that fewer young people are choosing medicine as a profession. Medical schools are hurting for enrollment. When facing a half-million dollars in student loan debt, and the prospect of very expensive malpractice and liability insurance premiums to carry once licensed to practice, who can blame students for shying away from the medical profession?
This begs the question: Who is going to provide the professional care that the next generation of senior and geriatric patients will demand?
We can talk all we want about how increasing the pool of policyholders will keep individual premiums in check; but this theory says nothing about how the costs of rising demand and the wavering supply of services and care will be dealt with. I think we can realistically count on health care to continue to become more expensive in the near future because of supply and demand demographics.
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t think there were problems with our current health care system, and who didn’t have an opinion about how to fix it. I agree that there has been a lot of hot air spewed forth about the problems with health care, and little or nothing of substance addressing the issues. However, passing a law simply because that would be a better alternative to passing nothing at all is equally irresponsible. It is a dangerous game to be playing, but one a lot of people have found acceptable. Let’s just pass a law, any law, to fix the problems. And if the problems aren’t fixed with that law, then we will pass another to amend it until the problem gets solved.
Such was the mentality of a lot of Obamacare’s supporters during its transition from bill to law. How about we pass the right law the first time, so we don’t have to keep revisiting, revising and amending the law ad nauseum? How about we do our homework and get it right, no matter how long it takes, before we slap a brand on it and start selling it on the shelves?
My dad used to tell me, “Work smarter; do it right the first time.” Because then I wouldn’t have to do things over again. Sage advice, and no doubt, many people adhere to this principle in their daily lives. Why the heck can’t politicians?
Because Obamacare was written in haste, we now face the likelihood of having to do things over again. Because the politicians refused to address the problems already foreseen with the legislation when they had the chance, and before the bill became law, now we will have to do this over again.
Redundancy isn’t just a waste of resources; it also fits in with Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.
Yup. That’s the American politician to a tee. I’m further convinced now that Obamacare was an exercise in insanity. Thanks for reminding me, Albert.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (also known as “Obamacare”) is already three years old, and we still know very little about its real impact on the health care industry, the marketplace, or on individuals and families.
What we do know is that, over the past three years, one complication after another has been surfacing. Details that were overlooked then are now beginning to come to light, and the policymakers are wrangling to head the problems off at the pass.
Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done to fix things until the law takes full effect and we actually see its impact. Until then, all we can do is sit back and wait…with bated breath.
Therein lay the real travesty about the “Obamacare” law: There was little foresight to begin with in crafting the legislation. Problems were likely not identified, because the policymakers didn’t want to see them. That would have set the legislation back a lot farther than 2010, and with a mid-term election looming that year and a general election in two more years, it was just a lot easier to slap a bill together like a “hero” sandwich and worry about the heartburn it causes later.
So, now we are stuck with a law that raises more questions than it provides answers. Isn’t that usually the way? Our esteemed lawmakers, always vigilantly looking out for our best interests, are so hyper-focused on their re-election that they fail to address the pitfalls. Getting legislation passed is the bottom line, after all; not doing right by the American people. They worry about the details later, when the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room has become somebody else’s problem.
For instance, there’s the problem of supply and demand on this new law. For the sake of argument, let’s say everyone who is mandated to complies with the law and buys health care coverage. Is that really going to keep premiums from rising?
What it does is cause a run on the market, an increase in demand for a product or service. And what, dear Mr. Adam Smith, is the consequence of higher demand? Yup. Higher prices.
In spite of the health insurance reform that Obamacare addresses, there is also the looming problem of a shortage of health care providers and an unprecedented increase in demand for care. How does the law address this?
The “baby boom” generation (born between 1946-64) has already started to reach retirement age. In the next decade, millions more will. As the “boomers” age, their need for care will increase, and the more of them there are that are demanding care, the greater the strain on services there will be.
Further complicating matters is the reality that fewer young people are choosing medicine as a profession. Medical schools are hurting for enrollment. When facing a half-million dollars in student loan debt, and the prospect of very expensive malpractice and liability insurance premiums to carry once licensed to practice, who can blame students for shying away from the medical profession?
This begs the question: Who is going to provide the professional care that the next generation of senior and geriatric patients will demand?
We can talk all we want about how increasing the pool of policyholders will keep individual premiums in check; but this theory says nothing about how the costs of rising demand and the wavering supply of services and care will be dealt with. I think we can realistically count on health care to continue to become more expensive in the near future because of supply and demand demographics.
You would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t think there were problems with our current health care system, and who didn’t have an opinion about how to fix it. I agree that there has been a lot of hot air spewed forth about the problems with health care, and little or nothing of substance addressing the issues. However, passing a law simply because that would be a better alternative to passing nothing at all is equally irresponsible. It is a dangerous game to be playing, but one a lot of people have found acceptable. Let’s just pass a law, any law, to fix the problems. And if the problems aren’t fixed with that law, then we will pass another to amend it until the problem gets solved.
Such was the mentality of a lot of Obamacare’s supporters during its transition from bill to law. How about we pass the right law the first time, so we don’t have to keep revisiting, revising and amending the law ad nauseum? How about we do our homework and get it right, no matter how long it takes, before we slap a brand on it and start selling it on the shelves?
My dad used to tell me, “Work smarter; do it right the first time.” Because then I wouldn’t have to do things over again. Sage advice, and no doubt, many people adhere to this principle in their daily lives. Why the heck can’t politicians?
Because Obamacare was written in haste, we now face the likelihood of having to do things over again. Because the politicians refused to address the problems already foreseen with the legislation when they had the chance, and before the bill became law, now we will have to do this over again.
Redundancy isn’t just a waste of resources; it also fits in with Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.
Yup. That’s the American politician to a tee. I’m further convinced now that Obamacare was an exercise in insanity. Thanks for reminding me, Albert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
