A Poor Abortive Excuse

I was reading the comments of a blog post titled, "Barack Obama: The Audacity of Murder", when I came across a comment that read:

"If abortion was made illegal then women would go and have unsafe abortions by someone that doesn't have the credentials to perform the procedure."

This is an absolutely stupid and absurdly selfish argument. That would be as dumb as justifying the legalization of rape by claiming that rapists may become injured when seeking to abuse small farm animals instead. So, when is rape ever o.k.? Obviously, never, and there would never be an excuse to make that act acceptable. Likewise, aborting a child IS the rape of a child. Thus, why would we ever sympathize with an abortionist? -It's a rhetorical question so don't answer.

The bible says that if a man looks upon a woman in lust he has committed adultery even if they have not committed the physical act. The bible states that anger against a brother is the same as killing him even if they haven't committed the actual physical act. Thus, I would deduce that any pro-choice person who o.k.'s the murder of one of God's innocents is the same as a murderer without committing the physical act themselves.

How can Obama tout Hope if he offers none for the unborn or even the partially birthed?

California Bill Assists Their Impending Financial Doom

In a previous post, I wrote about the many disadvantages of a universal health care system. A universal health care system is one that is funded and provided by the government. Well, it looks like the Democrats in California may get there wish because they have recently passed a bill that will provide just that.

In an article published by the San Francisco Chronicle, the California bill, passed in the Assembly on a 43-30 vote, will eliminate the private health care system in California altogether if Governor Schwarzenegger signs it.

It goes without saying that eliminating privatized insurance in California will either force health insurance companies to shut their doors, or force them to terminate those services once offered to the public. That is a major tax base that will disappear not to mention the amount of newly unemployed individuals that will accrue. It does not take a rocket scientist or economics professor to see that there will be less tax money paid into the California governmental system while more money will be needed to fund the universal care system. Where are they going to get the funds to create this new system?

In the past few years California has been struggling to 'boost' it's economy. First, the state houses more illegal immigrants than any other in the U.S. at a frightening cost of $10.5 Billion annually. Second, they have passed clean air laws that have not faired well with companies looking to move to California. In fact, these laws have encouraged some manufacturers to "take a hike". Besides this and more, California already has a health care program for those not able to easily receive health care services. The program is called Medi-Cal and its costing California billions.

An article written in the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal states that in 2005, Medi-Cal costs taxpayers $12 billion annually from its general fund. In 2003, five percent of free enrollees incurred 60% of all Medi-Cal's expenses. It is estimated that in 2015, the program's annual costs will rise to $29 billion annually. It is appalling to consider the effects that publicly funding all Californians will have on their economy.

At least California, being the "progressive" state that they are, may be the first to lead the way for either disaster or success. I predict they'll fail.

Governmental Health Care = Democrat Bowel Movement

Throughout the blogosphere, especially amongst lefty and Democratic sites alike, there has been a strong movement advocating government sponsored health care programs. The main idea is to implement a state ran health care system much like what exists in Canada today. I call this drive the Democrat bowel movement because thinking about how it would be implemented makes me queasy.

Democrats strongly believe that all United States citizens should be afforded the opportunity to receive health care services. That statement in itself is a noble cause. The problem is that they want the government to administer/run the program which doesn't make any sense.

First, here is a party that has consistently bashed the government from how it handled the war in Iraq to how it handled the Katrina disaster. Yet, they conveniently would like the very same government to handle the entire United State's health care system. Remember, the Katrina hurricane affected Lousiana, Mississippi, and a couple of other surrounding regions. According to the Democratic party, our government wasn't equipped enough to handle these few states. Yet, it is inconceivable how they think the government could handle medical services in all 50 states.

One may argue that the blame belongs to the fact that the Bush administration and Republicans, not the Democrats, mishandled Katrina and the Iraq war; and that if it would've been a Democratically lead administration, those missions would've been handled properly. That's an invalid argument on many levels. The least that can be said to that is: the Democrats currently hold 44% of the senate seats so they are almost 50% responsible for Katrina and the Iraq war (That's if you believe the Iraq war is a failure which it is not) and would therefore be 50% irresponsible handling health care.

The second consideration in regards to the lefty view is that Canada's health care system is ran by the government and it sucks! What makes the dems think that America could do any better? Canada has been running its health care system for years and it does just the opposite of what the dems would desire. In Canada, people aren't explicitly left without care, they're implicitly left without care because the system is so bad, many people who need care don't visit with health care professionals as they should.

One question to ask is, do people want to go to a doctor that gets:
a.) Paid by the government at $60,000 per year
or
b.) Paid by insurance/Medicaid/out-of-pocket at $150,000 per year?

Canada's system, because it pays its doctors, doesn't attract the most qualified professionals either. People who have the intellectual ability and talent to be a doctor don't always seek that profession because the pay isn't as gratifying as it is in other fields. Do people want a doctor with a 2.5 GPA who could save 70% of his/her patients' lives or a doctor that gets a 3.0 or better that can save 85% of their patients?

If criticizing another's view, I always try to aim at finding a solution to be fair (unlike my counterparts). So it should be fair for me to name a solution at getting available health care in our country. It's called getting a freaking job! All kidding aside, assisting people who don't have health care to acquire a job would eliminate some but not all of the problem. If anything, there could be a moderate system in place where the needy get grants to help them receive the health care they need but many states already have something like that in place.

Ultimately, there is no perfect solution. Either solution will deny an individual the opportunity to receive health care. The best solution however, is the one that provides the best service to the most people. You decide!

UAE Ports: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?

This week President Bush not only stirred the pot with the Democrats as usual, but he has also left his own party in an uproar announcing that the United Arab Emirates has been approved to run shipping operations in several U.S. ports. Allowing foreign owned companies to manage shipping in our ports is not a new thing. In fact, a Great Britain company--the company selling these rights, has already been managing these ports for years. Likewise, the a company from People's Republic of China is managing ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. The current deal will initially cost the UAE 6.8 billion dollars which is a good deal for Great Britain. The U.S. will also earn profits from leasing these ports to the UAE but, considering all of the implications, do the benefits of this deal outweigh the costs? President Bush and his administration seem to think so.

If anything can be taken from this decision thus far, it is the fact that Bush has finally created a primarily bipartisan government. The only problem is that almost everyone seems to be against him. In the past I have supported President Bush on many of his decisions. I believe that liberating the people in Iraq from a senseless dictatorship and its terrorists is a worthy cause. Therefore, I was spellbound when the Bush administration initially announced that a country from the Middle East, a country geographically close to Iraq, would manage some of our ports. However, my initial reaction was an emotional reaction without all of the facts.

Ultimately, no foreign countries should be able to manage our ports. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to keep our homeland safe from terrorists and as Americans; we have a greater vested interest in regards to port security. However, that is not the current state of reality and that wouldn’t guarantee 100% safety anyway. The reality is that the U.S. has been working its way into a Global economy for several years and now we’re seeing the affects of such “climate” changes. This means that today, some of our ports, airports, product manufacturers, and many other entities are managed or owned by foreign organizations. In all fairness, if we’re opening our borders to one country, I do not think it’s right to close them to another unless that other country specifically participates in acts of terrorism. After reviewing the facts that are currently available to me, I've concluded that the UAE poses no threats to our shoreline.

Some have argued that a portion of the 9/11 highjackers were residents of the UAE. That in itself is a poor argument because we allowed British companies to manage these ports; a country that was itself bombed by three of its own Islamic citizens. Besides, whoever manages the operations of these ports will not be the entity responsible for security anyway. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs Officials will still be in charge of security. If one argues that we need to beef up security at the ports regardless of which country manages it, then I would agree with that idea since 85% of incoming cargo are unchecked.

Other than security, here are some important benefits of having the UAE as allies:

1. In 2003, the US and UAE together participated in $4.6 billion in trade while the U.S.'s portion of that amount was $3.5 billion.

2. The UAE gave the U.S. $100 million for hurricane Katrina efforts.

3. The UAE's country in itself lies to the south of Iran which would give our military good strategic position in the event that Iran attacks Israel.

4. The UAE has a bustling economy. Helping UAE grow its economy would inherently help other countries in the Middle East as well.

5. UAE, although having terrorists residing in their country, have assisted the U.S. in outing the terrorists that live there.

The benefits of allowing the UAE to manage our ports outweigh the costs.

What I find most compelling with this whole situation is that Democrats are caught in a catch-22 with this situation. Here's a party that has positioned itself against every Bush decision since his re-election in 2004. In a sense, they must tread lightly because of their past positions. For example, the Democrats are well known for being weak in the war on terror and have continually stated that Iraq and other Arab nations pose no threat to the U.S. They systematically claim that Hussein has no WMD's and that we're entering Iraq in vein. We apparently have nothing to fear, and all noted fear is Republican propaganda. Because of this, they cannot possibly state that they are concerned with port safety. It would be too hypocritical. However, if they don't acknowledge port safety, then they're still weak on national security.

Submit The Candy to Me!

I've been commenting about biblical wifely submission at the Happy Feminist blog the last couple of days. It is a touchy topic but I've been enjoying the dialogue between Christians and Non-Christians. As I was submitting one of my comments, my beautiful wife sat down on our couch across from me with a candy bar in her hand.

I didn’t know that we had any candy in the house and wanted some for myself so I asked her, “Where did you get that?”

She replied, “From the conference.”

“Do you have anymore?”

“No.”

Quite convincingly I commanded, “Submit to me”

She giggled and proceeded to eat the candy bar. Bummer. It was worth a try.

This Won't Hurt

Today I was introduced to the works and life of a journalist named Hunter S. Thompson via a nationally syndicated radio show. The short segment interviewed the late journalist's wife who spoke candidly about her husband's death by suicide. Not knowing anything about this individual I did some research that raised thoughts about the person and suicide in general.

Hunter's last known words, titled "Football Season is over", are as follows:

"No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun-for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax-This won't hurt."

Thompson is known for being an author of novels, short stories, web publications, and news stories. He was the creator of gonzo journalism and was an outspoken political voice embracing views of Democrats, Libertarians, and Anarchists. He was an avid drug user and was commonly quoted as saying, "it never got weird enough for me". He attained many accomplishments for someone who came from a widowed family and who was raised by an alcoholic mother--A broken home. To sum up the final days of an author who represented the beliefs of many in the 60's and 70's, he committed suicide.

It's hard to explain, and it may be rather rash to express his final days in that manner; but, that was the feeling that resonated in me after researching Hunter S. Thompson. What? He killed himself? In one point of view, I was not a resident of the 60's or early 70's, I am more of a product of such an era and in some ways, a victim to it. I also don't subscribe to many of his beliefs. Therefore, I do not feel the brotherhood that the hippy generation might feel within this person. In any manner however, I can understand the affect of one's legacy ending in forcible self termination. The affect of such an act raises questions about the validity of a person's existence and what they represented because they gave it all up with one shotgun blast to the head. Just because life wasn't fun anymore. Wasn't the beliefs of this person worth living for?

Hunter's wife and children, according to his wife's comments on this morning's radio show segment, disagreed with his decision. And why wouldn't she? The loss of a loved one hurts. Suicide can't only be defined as the easy way out. That's too simple of a description and it's not deep enough. There's always a cost to every decision and Hunter's family, friend's, and generation lost something when he committed suicide. I'm not shallow enough to believe that all of Thompson's accomplishments were negated with his death, but one has to ponder the cost of such actions.

One should not give up on life because it itself is a gift. Our creator, knowing us before we were born, designed each individual for a purpose and we must not make his work be in vein. If you are contemplating your existence, ask the one who created you for answers. Jesus, the son of God, will shine his light upon you and you will gain wisdom about his everlasting to everlasting. Your life, although it may be tough or boring, has a purpose. If you think about it, your life is a small percentage to that of an eternity.

Growing up, a neighbor kid committed suicide over the loss of a girlfriend. Like Hunter S. Thompson, my neighbor was missed. I don't proceed to know the current state of their souls but I don't think suicide has a good outcome. It is indeed a murder. The best that we can do for those who have taken their own lives is to pray for them.

Introduction

This is the Twilight Troll's first blog post and I welcome readers to my abode by the bridge. The water and air is clean, the night is clear, and the stars twinkle from the sky. Life is good. Take off your shoes and stay a while. I am here to find and offer truth and I am new to blogging.

I chose the troll allegory because I visited a lib's site where a user politely challenged their post. The respondents' messages toward the comment were nothing better than cynical diatribes backed by childish name-calling. The original commenter was even dubbed a troll and the comment was threatened to be removed. I liked the name. I took it. I decided to add twilight because TheTroll id was already taken at this blog service.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican but I am conservative. If asked, I am definitely more of a Republican than a Democrat. Most importantly, Christ is my center.

Here at the Twilight Troll blog, I believe in the Freedom of Opinion but not necessarily the Freedom of Speech! What I mean by that is this: I will delete any content that contains, cuss words, vulgar language, name calling, or the slandering of others. If I delete a comment, if I am able to, I will explain the reason. Otherwise, everything else is free game, and I will delete no other types of opinions. However, if a comment violates my rules, but it accurately portrays the mentality of the person who left the message, I may leave it as poetic justice.

--God Bless!