So, according to this article, The Rock is going to get into politics. The Rock (actor Dwayne Johnson) says, “Right now, the best way that I can impact the world is through entertainment. One day — and that day will come — I can impact the world through politics.” “Impact” as a verb is here to stay, isn’t it? The Rock adds, “The great news is that I am American: Therefore, I can become president.”
The article doesn’t say whether The Rock is a Democrat or a Republican. I know you can’t judge a book by its cover. But if The Rock is a Democrat — that will be all too disorienting.
Advertisement
Like you, I have read a hundred articles on Obamacare and birth control in the last couple of weeks. Evidently, the administration insists that birth control be part of any health-care plan, anywhere. Let me ask an elementary question, and pardon my naivety: Why is birth control health care?
A little language: We have a perfectly good English word, “naivety.” But we like to go French, naïveté — which is odd. (And if you’re going to go French, render it correctly, in writing: Put the two dots over the “i,” not just the accent over the final “e.” In for a penny, in for a pound.)
I see that Michelle Obama has turned her food activism on the military. The article says, “The Pentagon spends an estimated $4.5 billion a year on food services, and $1.1 billion a year on medical care related to excess weight and obesity.” Holy-moly. Aren’t these guys lean, mean fighting machines? The ones I ordinarily see are. There must be armies out of my sight.
Is our whole nation to sink under the weight of debt and . . . you know, bodies?
It has long been clear that a whole mess o’ Guantanamo releasees “return to the fight,” as George W. Bush used to say. One study has found that 27 percent of them do so. (See this article.) I don’t know, strikes me as low . . .
Hang on, wasn’t the Left jumping up and down for years and years about Guantanamo and the need for it to be closed? How come they’re not jumping up and down anymore?
Be sure of one thing: If a Republican is elected in November, they’ll jump again.
Can you imagine if a Republican had killed these multitudes by drone?
“The Afghan-Pakistan jihad is attracting fewer foreign fighters following the death of Osama bin Laden, the growing threat posed by US drones, and lack of funds, Western security officials say.” (Article here.)
Good.
In a column a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned Zhu Yufu, a Chinese democrat and dissident. He wrote a poem, which ends,
It’s time, people of China! It’s time. China belongs to everyone. Of your own will It’s time to choose what China shall be.
Zhu spent from 1999 to 2006 in prison. He has just been sentenced to another seven years. (See this report.) Zhu’s son said, “My father is nearly 60 years old and in poor health — putting him in jail for seven years is too inhumane, too cruel.” One of his lawyers said, “This is politics, not law.”
Bear in mind, prison in China is not prison. Not if you’re a democrat and dissident. Prison is torture.
Think of the likes of Zhu Yufu, as we go about our kissy-face with the rulers in Beijing.
This report tells of a Pentecostalist pastor in Cuba, Reutilio Columbie, who was beaten to a pulp and left for dead. Someone found him, and he was rushed to a V. I. Lenin Hospital.
Cuba is a place absolutely pulverized by political violence. You will find it in Orwell, Darkness at Noon, and elsewhere.
Well, yes, the Dems will pounce on Gitmo should we win this election. But don't worry. We won't.
Why shouldn't the Dems pounce? They will pay no political price for it, and have some gain. Have the Republicans pounded Gitmo, and forced Barack Hussien Obama to own it? Hell, this is the party that had an intelligent accomplished woman as a VP candidate last time, a woman who had STOOD UP to the oil companies, a woman who made more sense on Fox News Sunday than any candidate I've seen this year - and threw her to the dogs without even ATTEMPTING to save her.
The GOP deserves to lose in 2012, and they will. God help us.
Surely you're not referring to Sarah Palin - the woman who went on national television as a candidate for VPOTUS and could not even articulate the Bush Doctrine?
OK. Without first looking it up, you tell me, what is the Bush Doctrine? And when was it first articulated? And which liberal pundit/newsreader first declared it to be the "Bush Doctrine" (because President Bush never declared it so)? And where in the order of the several different "Bush Doctrines" does your selection fall?
This was just another 'gotcha' question from a DEM operative playing at journalism who knew there was no one, straightforward answer.
Yes, Palin is an intelligent woman and a very accomplished woman. She does not have the Ivy League credentials of the 'smartest man in the room' (ROFLOL), but then again, Hillary proves that all it takes to be a Senator is having been 'married' to a President. At least that's all it takes if you run for the office in a state populated with all the 'smart' people.
I don't profess to know your political philosophy, though by Modern Burkean I can guess. It's sad to see Eastern, academic elitism infecting the Right.
Krauthammer was the person who first used the term Bush Doctrine. But that hardly manners. Palin was woefully unprepared to be VP; the Bush Doctrine was hardly some esoteric piece of policy trivia. She should have known what it was.
I don't think there's any debate that the Bush Doctrine is the doctrine of pre-empttive war. The debate is over whether it's good military/foreign policy. And there is NO excuse for someone running for office - any office! - in 2008 not to know that.
Whether it was a "gotcha question" or not, she should have been ready for it. As a Republican, she was always going to face tougher questions (not that that was one), so she should have been doubly prepared.
And I'm sorry...is it academic elitism to believe that a candidate for Vice President of the United States should be able to articulate a well-known, controversial position taken by the administration she hoped to follow? Is it academic elitism to hope that our candidates understand the various schools of thought on economics and foreign affairs? Is it academic elitism to want candidates who can complete a grammatically correct sentence, people who don't butcher the English language every time their mouths open?
I didn't say Palin is stupid because she didn't go to an elite college or obtain an advanced degree. (That, to me, would smack of academic elitism). But I can't help but think of something my mother used to say: It doesn't matter how smart you are or how good your ideas might be if you cannot articulate them properly. If you can't speak intelligently, people, who often have little else to go on, will assume you are dumb.
When Jay Nordlinger throws in the towel on one of the most irritating cases of "overspeak" (using a word that sounds more impressive than is necessary), then I fear the battle is lost.
My wife and I roll our eyes every time we hear "impact" used as a verb. It used to be mostly from news anchors trying to sound smarter than they really are. Now, it's everywhere.
Soon it will become an adjective: impactful. (Ouch)
Then an adverb: impactfully. (Yikes.)
I'm waiting for impactionation to come around. No doubt, it will happen on the evening news broadcast.
The adjective is already here. I cringe every time the president of my college says it (and that's often). Example: "How can we make the changes that will be most impactful?" ARGH!
I don't know how I could have gotten so old without knowing the word "naivety." So thanks for that, though my friends will sniff at its lack of Frenchness. By the way, my old Webster's Collegiate 1981 (before the English language got so shredded and internetted) tells me that it's acceptable to spell naïveté either without the umlaut alone (naiveté) or stripped of both accents. The other question is whether to italicize or not to italicize.
Hate to tell you, but said dictionary also tells me that "impact" has been a verb for a long time. Its nounness or verbness is determined by which syllable is stressed. (Hey, I just coined a couple of words!) But I, too, am always on the alert for nouns that magically become verbs overnight, such as "friending." Yuk.
"Impact" is a verb, when you're a tooth. Not when you don't know the difference between "effect" and "affect" and choose "impact" so you don't have to learn.
Fred,
I read a certain amount of military history, and even (though I blush to say it) play a certain number of military-history-related (or quasi-history-related) computer games. What's been driving me crazy for the past few months, analogous to your "friending" comment, is "sieging". Not, mind you, "besieging." I've come across it in relatively new books, magazine articles, and relatively serious, relatively "scholarly" computer programs. When did *THAT* happen, anybody know?
Why is birth control health care? Because everything is health care, or will be.
Thought on Guantanamo: President Obama can order all U.S. troops out and then bomb and kill all the remaining prisoners using drone aircraft, then all the anti-war duds will be cool with it.
I was a guest at the Republican National Convention, 2000 in Philly on the night the celebrities were paraded on stage, I suppose to show how hip the GOP is. "The Rock" was one of them, Bo Derek was another.
" Let me ask an elementary question, and pardon my naivety: Why is birth control health care?"
First, a question in response: why is Viagra healthcare?
Sexual/reproductive health is just as important to humans as other types of health. Insurance companies cover acne treatments, braces, and often even hair loss. Why on earth should something that prevents a major change in a woman's body not be covered? Indeed, for some women pregnancy is truly a dangerous prospect - women with blood clotting disorders, cancer, or a history of ectopic pregnancy, to name just a few. For those women, birth control literally protects their health/lives by preventing pregnancy.
But even for women with no underlying health conditions, birth control is an important part of a woman's overall health. The ability to prevent pregnancy until one is ready means women are able to prepare their bodies for a healthy gestation - something that benefits both mother and child.
Your argument that things like Viagra and hair loss are covered does not counter the original question. I don't think Rogaine or Viagra should be covered, either. And, of course, if I could negotiate for health coverage with a like-minded group of folks, I might even be able to avoid paying for it.
As far as birth control preventing all those problems - no, it doesn't. It merely reduces the risk of pregnancy. If they want to eliminate the possiblity of pregnancy, there are two routes: abstinence and sterilization. If they want to engage in procreative behavior, and expect to not have any risk of procreative results, then they had best look into that second option.
Do you seriously believe that all insurance plans should cover a drug regime to cure scurvy just because some women don't want to drink a glass of OJ every day?
To be clear, I don't have a problem with birth control in general. I just question why it should ever be mandated for coverage in a health care program. Of course, I also question why *anything* should be mandated by government in a health care program (or health insurance). (And, I always take exception to bad arguments, regardless of the side of the political spectrum on which they abide.)
Oh, believe me, I don't want the government involved in my healthcare. But neither do I want people arguing that birth control isn't a part of that healthcare.
Women of child bearing age have to pay substantially higher premiums even if they utilize a form of birth control that carries an effective pregnancy risk of zero. There is NO policy that allows women of child bearing age to receive lower rates, even if there's no risk that they'll get pregnant (I.e. Even if they are sterile). Since those women are obviosly subsidizing pregnancy for the rest, shouldn't they at least get some birth control out of it?
Government interference in the health care market has completely skewed the market itself. In my original post, I wasn't arguing for government control over healthcare but rather answering the definitional question as to why birth control is part of "healthcare." And, I admit, I have said elsewhere that IF the government is going to pay for anything via Medicaid, birth control should be at the top of the list. While I stand by that position, the IF in the sentence should not be overlooked.
OK, a better question--why is birth control (or Viagra) insurable health care?
Why is health the only field where "insurance" means "flat price for all services," rather than "protection against large expenses?" Are your oil changes covered by car insurance? Are routine landscaping services covered by home insurance?
Viagra at least is a drug designed to restore normal function, needed only by a smallish subset of those insured. Birth control is used by the vast majority of pre-menopausal women, and is a regular, known expense. All including it in insurance does is move the cost from the user's pocket to the user's premium.
Like you, I have read a hundred articles on Obamacare and birth control in the last couple of weeks. Evidently, the administration insists that birth control be part of any health-care plan, anywhere. Let me ask an elementary question, and pardon my naivety: Why is birth control health care?
