Rebellion?

It is enough to make one wonder, for a minute or two.  I find I brighten up when I see things like a picture of a Texas flag with the word SECEDE printed across it.  On my gig box, now my video stuff box I have a sticker with the Conch Republic's logo.   That is from the time when the Florida Keys were declaring themselves the Conch Republic and seceding from the union.  It was not entirely serious although a few may have wished it were.

Echoes of the days when I was labeled rebellious due to the content of my contributions in class discussions from elementary school on haunt me these days.  I find myself less and less on board with the sort of thinking and philosophy that governs anything I can do to make a living.   The big goal is to avoid letting the oppressive climate of the day prevent you from having dreams and having the nerve and faith to follow them.  

Under the present system I think it is best if your dream does not include hiring full time employees.  You get your ass kicked for that and you need to be prepared to pay for two or three if you hire one.  More and more you are responsible for the person's past history and compliance with laws you may not even like.  If the health care/slave state bill passes, it will be even more of a headache.  

I think the best things to be involved in are personal and home security, ammunition and firearms (lots of legal scrutiny and hoops there, though), and any technology that makes you independent of gas prices, municipal water supply, and utility companies.   I know there are plenty of marginally useful solar and wind systems for home power but it is the government rebate and subsidy that makes it affordable and worthwhile.  It would make me nauseous to buy a thing like that and take the money.  Maybe I'd do it and maybe not.  That is one area in which I think it would be OK to re-invent the wheel; another tag attributed to me when I wasn't being called rebellious. 

Actually, I don't think I am rebellious.  I just don't care to run the lives of others and I despise those who do.  

The most encouraging thing that has happened in years is the emergence of so many people who have reached the limit as far as being willing to be controlled and robbed.  I'm aware of the fact that I disagree with most of them on some of the finer points but the tone of rebellion and dissent under present conditions is not bad.   Some even openly suggest that the IRS be abolished.   That is my litmus test for any national candidate.  If the person does not suggest getting rid of this tyrannical agency then that candidate won't get my vote.

That agency is at the center of all the corruption in our government and its ever growing control over our lives.  It is at the core of what makes this health bill possible, and makes it possible to force participation.  Because it is the tool used for backhanded bribes and the "partnership with the private sector", no politician who depends on doing special favors to keep in office will broach the idea of the Fair Tax or anything else that kills this SS style agency.   

Ron Paul is the only one up there I've ever heard mention getting rid of it.   He's a bit liberal by my standards but he's close to the point.  It was his campaign that often used the slogan "Legalize Freedom".   Best slogan I've ever seen in politics.  

I've seen the ball rolling this direction all my life.  The pile of lies and criminal management is monumental.   The corruption and lies cost many lives in VietNam and elsewhere.  First we go in, then we tie the hands of our own soldiers.  It is criminal.   For awhile they use the term, "limited war", then it was "police action".  WTF?   I am not personally willing to risk my life for a vague police action, or a limited war.  The limited part means you are putting your own troops at higher risk for longer periods of time.  Do it or don't.  The mid ground is disaster. 

Anyway, I wonder what rebellion is in the 21st century.  We can't so easily claim the states and throw off our modern day King George.   For one thing, too many people are oblivious of any of it.  When it hits them they think only in terms of the item of the moment, not the principles being violated.  If they honestly believed in the divine rights of the individual they'd think differently.  People have no beliefs, on average.   Yet, on average, most people are not overly dishonest or mean or unkind.   They just sell out real cheap.

You Are OK, in my book

And you know I have a book or two.

I think you should know that I am almost out of that home made jelly.   Always a treat.  That is just one of the lingering benefits and treats that surround me because of you.   Not to mention the ideas that float around in my somewhat empty head. 

I may yet scale that cliff to retrieve the errant glider.  Now we know to draw in the missing eye on the pilot.  Otherwise he flies in a big circle and that leads him to crash.   Next time.  

OK.   Thanks

Unknown Bill Number, maybe 3290 or 420 plus acid

I tried like hell to filter through the new improved alleged affordable health care senate bill.   The mandatory part is tied to the IRS.  Any month that you don't have what they mandate you should have in the way of purchased coverage, they fine you.  being an IRS thing, I guess refusal is dealt with by putting you in insurance prison.  This is absolutely unacceptable. 

The bill takes up a couple of pages rationalizing in language straight out of old USSR double talk to justify why it is constitutional and better for the common good.  The basic argument is that insurance is interstate commerce and that by not opting in you are affecting the economy of the nation because it influences the risk pool of insurance companies, and insurance is economic and most carriers (they actually said most carriers) deal in more than one state so it is interstate commerce and a good idea for all. 

That sort of logic has no limit. It can be twisted to apply to almost anything.  No matter who you think ought to pay for medical services, this bill is not a good thing and won't make care better or more accessible.  It is a heavy cumbersome process for removing money and power from the people.  What they say, and what they are doing is built on a pack of lies, with many special interests being fed with the dollars taken from the public.  It may be hard to see but this is a measure which will further ensure that those locked in poverty and dependence will remain in that condition. 

How do you cast out tyrants in the modern world?  In the 1700's it may have been a little bit more straightforward.

Healthcare bill HR 3200 ????????

Often it is wise to search out the actual text of widely touted and discussed laws up for vote in Congress.  You absolutely can not go by the little snippets you hear regarding what the bill will do, what it includes, who is helped, etc. 

In attempting to find text of the bill as it now stands, the one passed to the senate, I am not sure I had luck.  I did find what was supposedly up for vote in the house, Nancy Pelosi's "Christmas present to the American people. 

If I were to flow chart the text it would look like a maze which tracks back on itself and loops through other mazes as well.  These things are not designed to be overly clear or straight forward.   

The most glaring aspect is that the actual parameters as far as co-pays and how competition is treated are vague and mostly at the discretion of "the secretary" or a particular commissioner.  Other aspects will be up to a board appointed by the president.   In short, it is more a bill which transfers power rather than actually specifying how things would work. 

Much of the oversight seems to involve other agencies, such as the IRS.  

Regardless how one feels healthcare and insurance should be changed, I think this particular effort is geared toward a very serious power play and intrusive invasion into private lives and industry, not toward actually providing one more access and freedom regarding how he maintains his health.   I see hints that even pre-existing conditions may not be as fully covered as it sounds.  

Perhaps some of the more catastrophic types may be, provided you aren't real old. I doubt things in the realm of an old sports injury would be given priority if you aren't all that young or in great need; just something you'd like fixed because you want to go hiking or whatever.   

Anyway, it would be nice to see in plain English the true content of this legislation.  It looks like a lock for certain companies to make money. and extension of executive branch power and a tremendous amount of authority put in the hands of officials who are not elected by the people whose lives they would influence.

Privileged

Just a pic from the movie site thejourneythemovie.com

There are lots of movies titled "The Journey".  This is not the one about the Indian lesbians, their trials, tribulations, and forbidden love.  Although that does sound like a must see. 

More on The Journey I'm reviewing a little later on the page.

===============

The term "under privileged" begins to take on new meaning when you think of all the licenses and permits there are for the various aspects of conducting a life.   If passing the test and getting a license to drive is a privilege, not a right, then I assume every licensable activity is a privilege, not a right.  

Did you know that you have to have a license to own a cat or dog in some towns?   Actually the cat or dog has to have the license, similar to the plates on your car, I think.  Owning a cat is a privilege, not a right.   And this is separate from being sure the animal has shots and all that.  At least one vet who performed all those tasks then reported the owner for not having a creature license.   

This probably makes sense to plenty of people, and they might lecture me about how that $70.00 fee goes toward animal control or maybe lawyers who sue humans on behalf of other living things.   Once again we disagree in principle.  

So, wanting to be even more privileged than I already am, I set out to get my library privileges here in the best of southern California.   I presented my case to the local library in the town northeast of me.   Very small town.  There is a school, a feed and saddle store, a sort of general store, and the pizza and other food diner.  And the library.  Very small but their computers were all being used.  They have about six of those.  I was impressed.  

It all went without a hitch so I checked the shelves and found a book and a movie.  The movie is an indie film which I highly recommend.  It claims to be in the tradition of Motorcycle diaries and Y Tu Mama Tambien.  I am no fan of Motorcycle Diaries, being a bit more sympathetic toward those Cubans who did not deserve Che's firing squads than I am toward Che, or Fidel.   

This film, The Journey, is not supposed to be about any historical figure or T shirt icon.  It is simply a good story, with better directing, and much better acting than the Motorcycle Diaries.  Much more real without trying, even though some was anything but realistic. 

It was directed by Scott Marcano, who also co-wrote the story.  This film makes me want to see what else he has out there.   Andres Londono and Kazandra Santana do well in the lead roles as do the supporting players.  The soundtrack is not bad at all.   I'm a sucker for most films set in Mexico with a Latin soundtrack.  This one begins in Orange County, near Los Angeles, with the last 7/8 of the flick occurring in Mexico.  

I know that due to Motorcylce Diaries fame and misguided praise, they think it will pique interest by categorizing this independent flick as being in that tradition, but to me that is like marketing Renoir as being in the tradition of the guy who paints tigers on black velvet.

So, I got a license to read and watch movies for free.  Not owning a pet, I figure maybe they charge pet fees that pay for the library, who knows?  I am not sure they put license plates on animals yet in CA.  There is absolutely no way to keep up with the various rules and peculiarities.  The license to be a cat thing came to my attention when being told of a story set in a Wisconsin town.  

Strange how places settled by very independent people who did not to be told what to do eventually became insane "What if" nanny states.  What if you fall of your bike on your head?, etc.

Now that is appears I may not be overdrafted at the bank, I am able to notice the cool setting in which I live.  It was all new and somewhat out of my dreams.  I can hardly imagine living in a place with no mountains and hills and curvy roads which drop hundreds of feet on one side, while hugging the side of the hill on the other.   And no large body of water nearby.  

In this case, we have about the largest body of water found anywhere, the Pacific Ocean.  I'm still somewhat fonder of the Caribbean as far as oceanic locales, but ocean is ocean, so this serves the purpose.  It is big, and here we have sea lions, seals whales, and more surfers than you might guess. 

Company was here and now is not.  I don't have a host permit or license, but it was a privilege.   Like Muddy Waters said, according to something I heard, "You don't miss the water until the well is dry".  I miss having my company here, believe it or not.  I know.  That is so unlike me. 

Now I have great leftovers which might last a few days.  I actually had a healthy super dinner tonight.  Left to my own devices I rarely manage to do that. 

This ballistictour thing has been a long term healing journey.  It becomes quite clear to me at times just how much of me was whatever unhealed is.  In that context it makes sense not to get too impatient with progress in the various aspects of living my life.  I'm not quite sure what happened but it becomes amply clear that I am re-learning a lot.   Maybe I am learning what I never knew before, but should have by the time I was 20. 

This is going to be a slim Christmas.  No big Santa this year.  I do what I can, when I can, and I certainly don't expect or want others to offer anything beyond good cheer. 

I was beginning to get down and worried, but I think maybe I ought not do that.  Too much that I am happy about, and as always, too many people to be thankful for to be moping from concern that I don't rate it.

It Is Not Easy, being crazy

That is my experience.  Perhaps you are one who finds being a nutter a walk in the park.  Not me. It is rather frustrating and sometimes sad.  

Then again, I suppose the condition does have its moments.  Even so it leaves one continually self punishing over the stupid things done or not stupid things not done.   You look at it and wonder why you're such a stranger in your own mind, then you know; nutter.   

Don't worry, it doesn't encompass any psycho human tricks in my case, although  the quiet ones who mind their own business are the ones that you have to watch.  That is what they say, no?  At least a paraphrased version. 

Now that I think of it, that philosophy has swept the nation, especially since 9-11.   Unfortunately, it is another of those false truisms.   Sometimes the ones who look and act like killers and psycho-kooks really are the killers and terrorists.   Even now, for some reason, this concept, especially the out loud expression of this concept, is so distasteful to certain people that they would risk your life and their own rather than investigate the validity of the assertion.  Better to focus on the harmless, they aren't likely to do anything rash.

See how it works?  I start somewhat close in, and before you know it I've moved the conversation off to generalized comments on national affairs.   That's as close as it gets.  I'm not so sure that is a good thing.  Have I just made the case for my original premise?   I should be an abogado.   Spanish.  Lawyer.  

I just saw an advertisement in which a family is in a Mexican standoff pointing TV remotes at one another.  They all want to record a different show.   Along the way civilization must have taken a wrong turn.  It could be that I am less of a nutter than most, when you compute the final tally.

Theory of Finite Effectiveness of Centralized System Control

***The measure of desirable results in social systems is predicated upon the idea that it is not desirable to consider the individual components arbitrarily expendable in serving the goals of the whole system or ensuring the authority of the central controlling unit [modeling human social structure after ants or bees requires the assumption that the individual is of least value and expendable.  Ants do not possess a great deal of individual autonomy or self reliance. They system is designed to protect the queen. The power unit is not in business to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the lowly ant]***

The theory is that there is a point within multi part systems at which centralization yields negative results, and as the degree of centralization increases the integrity of the system breaks down.

This holds true in mechanical systems, and social systems.  

Prior to that point centralized control is effective and beneficial to the survival and sustainability of the whole.

An example would be in the realm of education.  Particularly in formative years in which the individual units (students) are less equipped for prudent autonomy. Large institutions, large classrooms tend to lose effective positive effect on individual units.   There is a point at which size of institution and size of individual classes are most effective in achieving the goal of positive guidance and education to prepare students to be autonomous, productive and capable of reasonable self governance.

Most school systems consist of institutions which are far past the point of diminishing returns and in possibly the majority of cases are below the break even point; negative results.   The oversight and guidelines for the system have also entered that realm as their function has moved from stated purpose of educating to indoctrinating, and care taking, assuming much of the authority which might work best left to family.

Obviously many other factors interact with this.  Systems overlap and influence one another.  The same principle applies to all such that the only effective means of bringing one system into the positive results range, in which each component is left its most effective level of autonomy, is to also bring the other dependent or interactive systems' level of centralization back into that range.

The principle applies to utilities such as power production as well.  To some degree it depends on the method used to produce and transport the power.  The problem with one unit serving too many user points is that any problem with the main unit affects a huge number of delivery points.  It is vulnerable.  

There are also factors of efficiency over large distances, loss through resistance, etc.  Additionally it places the users vulnerable to potential tyranny as any evil doer who gains control of the central point can then in essence extort and exert undesirable control over the users dependent up the product.  

This is where emerging technologies and even long existing technology which makes possible production at the site of the user, or more production points serving fewer users is desirable.  If one of those goes out, fewer parts of the overall system are hurt.  As it is with all these systems of society, achieving the best level of centralization of a utility requires other systems to also move toward that point.

The tendency to rationalize control in the name of morality can result in pushing control past the optimal point.  There is a point at which removing autonomy from the individual, the family, the community, etc., may detrimentally affect the system as a whole, even if it means some of those components do not adhere to that which other components on equal level would choose.  By usurping authority in matters which do not increase a particular unit's ability to exercise self determination, all components can find themselves reducing their own ability to thrive. 

Any of the matters which involve humans have to be predicated upon certain common principles.  Some of these follow the idea that systems all have a point of diminishing positive result when the balance of authority over function moves from the individual components to one controlling unit.  

In military terms, this concept is one of the keys to the success of the US armed services back when wars were defined endeavors with a clear goal.  Our system of chain of command allowed for each unit to have one governing member, whose command was broken into smaller units each with a command.  If any controlling unit, commanding officer was not present or taken out, the next in command was defined and prepared to continue.  Not all forces had this system and once their leader was knocked out, they were thrown into chaos and got their asses kicked.

So, that's the initial idea of my theory.  I think it can probably be refined to a formula, which would definitely contain many variables.  

I believe the problems faced today are largely due to a lack of recognition of the idea that there is an optimal level of centralized control in systems, especially those which are more complex and contain a wide diversity of subsystems.  

Additionally the lack of recognition that there is a point at which subsystems are best served in terms of their ability to be self determinant, even when equal entities may not choose the same path in response to the same stimulus.  As long as their choice does not impede the ability of the other components to operate then the need for higher authority does not exist.  It is only at that point in which control must be moved up in the hierarchy of centralization. 

Often levels are jumped in response to controls which are in place being ignored.  That's primarily in human systems.  An example would be when fraud, and violation of property are not dealt with according to basic laws which have been in place for some time, but instead are regulated from more centralized entities through very specific edicts which do not cover broad principle but very narrow specificities which then leave pathways for further abuse.

It works like electricity; if there is any corruption in the process at the highly centralized level then larger numbers of component parts are affected.  There is a point at which more, smaller, manageable parts can be more effective because the authority and control is closer to the source of the problem, and defects or corruption of a component pose less threat to the whole, and can be more easily traced to the source.

Another example in which over centralization of control has been a disaster is the use of social security number for so many things which have nothing to do with the social security account.  It has become a window for theft and fraud which is very difficult for the victim to correct due to the far reaching web each social security number encompasses.  In the effort to number everyone for the convenience of  control, the security of the individual has actually been compromised.  A case where centralization exceeded the point of positive optimization.

One day maybe this can be more simply stated and formulated.   I believe it to be a principle which holds for any system which requires controlling units, and as the function, size and complexity increase the tendency to exceed the critical point and dip into negative affect on the entire system increases at an accelerated rate.

See, I'm not really an anarchist, although, if one considers the present day system moderate control, or even not enough, then I am anarchist by comparison.

I do think the kernel of this theory is valid.

Hooked on Anarchy Show

Hulu is a pretty good place for shows and movies, sometimes.   I recently got hooked on a show called Sons of Anarchy, about a motorcycle gang.  Lots of the guys look almost as old as me, and they still wear their colors everywhere they go.  It's kind of strange to think plenty of grown men actually do that.  No different than the current trend in which Republicans and Democrats in DC all wear red and blue ties, respectively.   What a bunch of garbage.  Just like the Crips and Bloods, except with the repubs and dems gangs I know which color goes with which gang.

So, if I were to wear a tie and it happened to be red or blue I guess some people would draw a political significance from the color.  First the rainbow gets highjacked, now red and blue ties.  Now that I think of it, I like the motorcycle gang colors better, because even though they call it wearing their colors, it is really a logo, so they aren't highjacking some normal facet of aesthetic life like rainbows or an entire color.   I never did like all the red state blue state crap.   Logos take a bit more creativity and originality.   

Back to Sons of Anarchy.  First off, the show is pretty good.  They seem to mess up almost everything they touch, and they regularly have the wrong picture in their internal battles.  I want to tell the younger guy that the older guy did not burn down his porn studio.   No way to do it so I guess hijinx will ensue.  Many of the people in this show are very much like people I've known who were loosely connected or otherwise to the wilder side of the biker world. 

Generally I hate motorcycle gangs because of some of the harassment, rape and torture committed by Hells Angels and Outlaws in Florida and the Carolinas many years ago.  What they did was inexcusable, and I plotted ways to wipe out large portions of them but never did. 

Any group with a cool name like Sons of Anarchy gets my attention.  I wish I'd thought of that name for a band.  Fits me well.  Since it has been done I could not now use the name for a group.   No originality in that.  

The SOA don't harass innocent bystanders from what I've seen.  They mostly battle with other gangs and government agencies.  They also have tenuous alliances with other gangs and government agencies.  Maybe that is what I like; they portray the various government players as the gangsters they are.   

It's a great show.  I think it is on FX if you have cable or other modern media access, which I don't.  I'd watch far too much if I did.  

What drives me crazy is now I have to wait about a week for the next episode to show up on hulu.

 That's my review.  

Mr Hospitality

It has come to my attention just how crazy I either am or have been.   For years I could not manage having company, regardless of the hovel in which I dwelled.  It is hard to escape the thought that it had crossed a line into the realm of mental disorder.  I'm not quite sure what I was thinking, but I never felt quite ready to be a host, even in the most minimal of ways.  There were a few times when someone may have actually come in and sat down, but not for long and it was not something I enjoyed.

Since I packed up and moved west, I've had more than one person actually enter my dwelling and maybe even spend and hour or two, and I did not freak out, develop a nervous rash, or otherwise melt down.

Company is coming and I'm looking forward to it.  That is amazing.  I still have little vague concerns, but that is OK.  At the very least it does demonstrate a change in my psyche which I count as a measure of positive improvement.  One of my goals was to quit being so anti social, especially in circumstances where it made no sense.  

This is going to be a fun time.  I've been careful to leave my car and house dirty so that my guest will have something productive to do.  I'm generous like that.  Maybe I'll stock up on cleaning supplies for a welcome to my cottage gift.   I bet that will go over well.

Yep, the way to a woman's heart is a mess to clean up.  Good thing I know this secret.    

The Back and Forth of Infidelia

Infidel (according to dictionary.com)

–noun

1.	Religion.           a. a person who does not accept a particular faith, esp. Christianity. b. (in Christian use) an unbeliever, esp. a Muslim. c. (in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.

2.	a person who has no religious faith; unbeliever.

3.	(loosely) a person who disbelieves or doubts a particular theory, belief, creed, etc.; skeptic.

Generally, I use definition number three, often jokingly, in addressing my doubting and befuddled friends.  Due to the current social climate of the world and particularly this country, people attach the word to what we believe Muslims call non-muslims.  pbuh.  I think they call us "whores", "thugs" "crackers" and "milquetoasts" in private conversation.  I can't prove it, but that's what I think.  

.

Then again, some of them don't call those not of the faith anything.  I've been told, and tend to believe it possible, that some mind their own business and do not seek world or community domination.   Like many subsets of society, organizations and self proclaimed leaders who suggest they speak for all of that subset cause others to believe the whole bunch are of one mind.  I've not seen as much evidence to counter the tone of the apparent leaders, but I don't get out much.

.

It's another word which has been hijacked.  This time it is a case of hijacking based upon religion rather than sexual proclivity.  Rainbows, the words, "queer", "gay", etc., have been restricted to meanings that have nothing to do with their original intent.  

.

Mostly I'm upset that rainbows are now a flag relating to sexual politics rather than the old deal in which they were just considered pretty and, to many, a symbol of hope.  If I paint a rainbow on my mailbox it would be interpreted as a statement to the effect that women need not apply.   I won't be painting my mailbox any time soon.

.

Considering case #3 in the definition, I'd apply it to most of those who have power over our lives and money these days.  They do not believe in the ideas of personal freedom, private property, right to free speech and dissent, or choice in too many categories to list.  Infidels!!!

.

. 

What leads to that word being most fitting is the fact that they are sworn to protect the laws which were designed to limit their ability to interfere with the peaceful conduct of free people.   The fact that slavery ever co-existed with this document is probably a greater factor in modern day reluctance to consider and adhere to the principles it represented than any other single thing.  

It is the number one mistake ever made in the USA.  That resulted in a large segment of the population believing it was entirely about class domination and that the law meant nothing, means nothing. 

.

That is truly a tragedy.  The very groups who stand to benefit the most should these principles ever be enforced are used to keep those in power whose goal is apparently nothing but more power--no matter who suffers.   The result of this bizarre game has been to isolate and destroy the stability of large groups within the country.  All in the name of doing just the opposite.  The insanity on both sides of the debates along the way is sickening.  

.

Now we have a country whose citizens are, in the main, completely ignorant of the structure of their government, and the reasons for that structure.  This allows gross abuse of power, distribution of tax money to specific private concerns in almost every industry, and subtle punishment of those who seek to build enterprises which are outside of the tax supported world which would employ people and provide support for themselves and others.

. 

We live in a country in which anonymous acts of charity and goodwill are discouraged because, unless you report your contributions to the government, and those contributions fit their approval, you do not receive the reward of a tax break.  I don't think you get a break for taking an addict into your home, helping him straighten out and get on his feet.  

.

Not that it is their business to begin with,  It is because the tax system is an oppressive, tyrannical mistake.  An aberration.  There are less intrusive ways, and that is precisely the reason you do not hear republicans or democrats insisting on changing that system.  It is a threat to both groups.  Few elected officials of either party are really willing to let go of that kind of public control.  

.

That is the second biggest mistake in our history; the income tax.  They had to wrangle a change to the constitution to pull it off.  There is no way we were to settle into freedom for all after that.  Just a matter of time to get where we now are.  A bill actually passed the house which would fine and possibly jail a person who does not buy a product specified by government?  

.

Of course if you can't afford it, according to their assessment of whether you can or not, you can surrender yourself to their care and get it done for you.  That means you then must seek their approval for your financial choices, and approach your health care as specified by Big Brother.  Some of us do not welcome this sort of oversight.

. 

I'd rather just keep a signed form on my person stating that if I can't pay for whatever care I need then go ahead and leave me to die.  People are suckered into thinking that those who now get free treatment from hospitals would somehow cease to be a burden if they sign up for government assistance in this matter.  The only difference I see is that several more middlemen and agencies wil get paid from the taxpaying private citizen world than is now happening.

.

It occurred to me that if the insurance companies wanted this new system, it behooves them to pretend they don't and to play the fall guy.  How can they loose if everyone is required to buy their product and if competition is still limited to a set number which varies from state to state?   I believe this is a multi-faceted scam.  Unfortunately I do not know where, if anywhere, I can go to obtain a copy of this bill in order to catalog all the irrelevant earmarks which are merely bribes to various entities.

. 

The entire thing, I suspect, is a big money making and power grabbing venture which has little to do with compassion or any of the hooks they have put up as justification.   We are like the rabbit entering the box, which is propped up by a stick, to get the juicy carrot.   That string is about to be pulled and the box come down to trap us big time.  It will be safe and secure, and less hazardous than ranging out in the field according to our whims.   

.

It would not bother me as much if that buy or die part was not in there.  People make calculated choices which often involve a degree of risk.  Turn left on a busy street.  Life is that way.  It may be that one's priorities compel him to do X before he feels good about doing Y.   For the alleged aggregate to so closely dictate the conduct of the individual's life is totally at odds with any idea of all being equal under the law and free to choose their own path.  It is no improvement over the dreaded feudal system or class preference/slave states of ancient history.

. 

We have a strange mix of purely government generated feudal tactics, and corporations who pretend to be private companies, but due to the partnership with government and the bastardization of the union concept, are mini fiefdoms.  Infidels, all.  It is borne of a lack of belief in the sanctity of life, the birthright of every person to be his own director; to have the right to do as he can to build his life as he/she chooses. 

In the name of these ideals we've seen more regulation, yet the ideals have been lost in the process as the opposite is the result.  

.

Still, people demand more of the same thinking this time it will be better.  It is complicated, for sure, and few things can be done overnight without bad result.  First move, go to a fair tax, or just abolish the IRS and worry about it later.  Second, limit terms for the House and senate to three for the house and two for the senate.  Require sitting out another three terms before they can hold a seat in either branch of the legislature again.

. 

These family dynasties and the existence of career politicians has robbed us of our civilization and our freedom.  Not to mention our wealth.  Absolutely strip those positions of the perks like health insurance, pensions, personal cars and other transportation not germane to the conduct of the job  paid by citizens.  Let them fund their own transportation for the most part.  

.

Infidels when it comes to the belief that the natural, best condition of mankind is to be free.  Obviously that doesn't mean free to curb the rights of his neighbors.  People seem to have trouble understanding how that can be done, and don't want it.  It is more fun to support laws and measures which interfere in the business and conduct of others.  Isn't it great to make that smoker's habit your business, even if it is not actually affecting you?  Or to cast judgement on the possible gas milage your neighbor's car achieves?  Or to feel it best to require restaurants to be responsible for how fat people are, rather than leave it to the choice of the customer to eat their food or not?   

.

No way to give up that fun, because we are infidels when it comes to the principles which led millions of people who believed in unalienable rights to spill their blood throughout history.  That's the spelling in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

.

Personally, I think the writers if the Constitution compromised too much with big government proponents, but compared to where it went by the onset of the 20th century, they were damned near anarchists.  

. 

It is interesting that no continent has ever housed a significant and sizable, truly free state.   Cuba was the last place in our neck of the woods to abolish slavery.  Now they are all slaves to "The Revolution", much to the delight of Fidel, Sean Penn, and many misguided souls.  Fidel was supposed to bring fidelity to the disregarded constitution that island had adopted in the 1940's.  Fidel, the infidel. Clever. Parts of Africa and Asia have yet to stamp out involuntary servitude.  Why is that not a high priority of such illustrious bodies as the UN?  Infidels--they believe in no principle except power and theft.   Nowhere has fully cast off subjugation which places monarchs or other authorities above other individuals in worth and attendant rights.

.  

Citing mistaken behavior and conduct as argument against the authors of documents which contain universal principles which ensure that one can be his own master and move from the most meager of circumstance to the most abundant, according to his/her will and ability, is a self defeating mistake.   The concept I urge here is known as placing principles above personalities.

.

I may despise the weaselly neighbor who informs me that the house is on fire, but that won't change the truth.  ignoring that would result in a rather toasty demise.  It doesn't matter what he's done or even if he's a famous arsonist.  Either the house is burning or not