Reflections From a Murky Pond

Remember back when Obama said that, if you like your doctor, you’ll be able to keep your doctor after ObamaCare became the law? Well, a big, total and utter lack of surprise – the boy lied just as he’s lied about everything.

If you’re of the millions who have been or will be forced onto the ObamaCare exchanges, you’ll more than likely not be able to keep your doctor. This is simply because the majority of doctors don’t seem to want anything to do with ObamaCare, or so a poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society indicates.

It appears that just approximately 94% of the doctors do not desire to be included in Obama’s signature and singular “achievement.”

This lack of adoption of ObamaCare by the medical community has its roots in simple, pragmatic economics.  Only 23% of the doctors polled had been given a fee schedule to show much they’ll get paid if they sign up. This, of course, makes perfect sense.

Funny coincidence that. The matching numbers between those who’ve agreed to ObamaCare and those who’ve seen the fee schedule. Do you have to join in it to see what’s in it? 😉

Nor are the problem of a shortage of doctors or ObamaCare’s exacerbation of that problem a surprise; both solid, professional analysts and Liberal pundits have reported upon America’s current shortage of physicians and how, for a variety of systemic reasons, ObamaCare will make this worse – far, far, far worse.

Voodoo Healthcare – The Result Of ObamaCare

Approximately 40% of the doctors in America are reported to be suffering burn-out already, in no small part due to the fact that it is currently estimated by the Association of American Medical Colleges that America needed nationwide 13,700 more doctors of all types were needed than were available in 2010 and, with ObamaCare, this gap is expended to widen into a gaping chasm of a shortfall of 130,600 physicians by 2025.

Current practices are driven by the tyranny of the urgent. Doctors are on hamster wheels, giving patients 15 minutes

— Assistannt Director Asaf Bitton
Brigham and Women’s Advanced Primary Care Associates

So you’ll have health insurance; you’ll have to do so or face: fines, levies, wage garnishments, confiscation of personal property, and incarceration. After a great deal of searching and waiting you’ll even manage to get a few minutes with the gatekeeper of you healthcare, your primary care physician. The prognosis of the overall quality of that care, however, is not overly favorable nor is the expectations of how that will affect your health, wellness, and life expectancy.

But, of course, you’ll have technically exactly what Obama and the Liberals promised you – health insurance. The fact that you stand a good chance of suffering from sub-standard and/or limited medical care is largely irrelevant to those that foisted this ill-thought, chimeric abomination onto the backs of the American people.

The Northampton, MA based band Shokazoba has been playing Afrobeat – a blend of Jazz and Funk with a West African undertone – music for the last seven years. They’ve won the Valley Advocate’s award for Best World Music in 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012, their Best Funk award in 2008, and Best Jazz in the My411 Source poll in 2009. They’ve even were recognized as “Artists of the Year” for the Big Bands category by the African Jazz review in 2011. In other words, they’re a very competent set of musicians who’ve earned the accolades within their genre of music.

It’s no real surprise that that Amherst, MA’s Hampshire College hired them to perform during the college’s Hampshire Halloween event on Friday, October 25, 2013. The surprise came later…

Shokazoba – Too White To Play Afrobeat

Apparently Shokazoba is just too White to be allowed to play Afrobeat music at Hampshire College. The college’s HYPE Committee, responsible for coordinating these school events, cancelled Shokazoba’s performance because nominally White musicians playing “Black Music” offended some members of the student body of the elite, liberal arts college.

Due to concerned students voicing their opinions about the band Shokazoba, we held community dialogue to hear what individuals had to say. As a result of the dialogue, and discomfort expressed by members of the community in person as well as by email, Facebook, and other means, we have removed Shokazoba from the lineup for Hampshire Halloween.

— HYPE Committee, October 24, 2013

One can blame Hampshire College’s HYPE Committee only for cowardice in caving into the small-mindedness, racism, and oikophobia of the young Liberals and Progressives who so vociferously vented their outrage at a White band playing music that they think should be totally reserved for Blacks. In within that limitation one to consider whether or not the battle should be waged, given that it could easy, and probably would, corrupt and suborn the whole intent of the festival, which was to have fun.

One should also keep in mind that, while Shokazoba was forbidden from performing, they were paid in full. They had, ironically as it turned out, a performance contract with the Hype Committee that stated it would not discriminate on the basis of: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, physical ability, or sexual orientation.

The racists within Hampshire College’s student body, on the other hand can be blamed for their pro-segregation ideology and, at a bare minimum, should be castigated and pilloried for it since they effectively violated the civil rights of the band members of Shokazoba. And let’s remember that these ethno-guiltism-ridden, oikophobic bigots are, for the most part, White, and have less business appropriating Black racial angst than any White does playing “Black Music.”

I bet this piece from 1976 would cause their heads to explodes:

No matter how these Leftist neo-hippies couch their opinions in politically correct rhetoric and hand-wringing “worry” about the fears and feelings of “marginalized peoples,” what they’re yelling loud and clear is, “Blacks Only, Crackers!”

In the wake of the abject failure of Obama’s signature and singular “achievement,” ObamaCare there have been many calls for the termination of the person most responsible for this abomination, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. After all, she was the one that was given authority over- and responsibility for the roll-out of ObamaCare’s insurance exchange web application’s deployment and it was on her watch that it utterly failed, leaving American legally bound to purchase health insurance but unable to do so through the federally mandated mechanism that was put in place to allow for that.

Sebelius’ response to these calls for her termination are, in concept, just what any American would expect from a key member of the Obama Regime. They are, however, far more arrogant and honest than is the rule for those people.

The majority of people calling for me to resign I would say are people who I don’t work for and who do not want this program to work in the first place.

— HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius

That’s right! According to Sebelius she doesn’t work for the American people if they’re Republicans and, despite the plethora of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, it’s mostly, if not solely, the Republicans who are calling for her removal.

To all you various Liberals who’ve called for the removal of Sebelius over her failure to manage the implementation of Obama’s signature piece of legislation – welcome to the GOP! 😆

Of course this is coming from the worthless, irresponsible, arrogant, and autocratic bitch that told Congress that she’d testify before them about her failure only when and if she could fit them into her schedule, so allowances have to be apparently be made for her attitude and behavior.

Personally, I think that creatures like Sebelius are beyond salvaging and can’t learn proper behavior. You just can’t convince them that being a public servant means serving we, the People. Hence, her termination is the only proper course of action. In the case of Sebelius, however, it may become right and necessary to terminate her with extreme prejudice.

Are You Ready For Obamaween?

Are you ready for 2013’s Obamaween? October 31st is, after all, the night when the hordes of Obama cultists will take to the streets – no! those aren’t costumes, you bigot! – and go door to door to extort “treats” from you. And remember that they’re entitled to them and you’re a racist if you don’t give them anything and everything that they want. 😉

“You can’t legislate morality” is one of the common refrains from Liberals and Progressives whenever they are faced with actual or proposed laws that would govern and place limits upon people’s behavior. Any time that Americans try to enforce and/or reinforce normative societal values the Leftists start screaming and raving about the separation of Church and State and that America’s de facto Christian ethos must not be enforced.

This demand of the Liberals and Progressives is beyond ridiculous and is patently false. Not only can you legislate morality but you must if you’re to have even a vestige of a hope for a functioning, civilized society. This means that whenever the Liberals and Progressives rant about legislating morality they’re actually admitting their own immorality since they cannot abide by these moral strictures.

Moral Law

Frankly, the vast majority of civil laws, and all the truly important ones, in America are based largely or solely on moral law and, as well, upon Jude-Christian religious law.

• Slavery – The prohibition against chattel slavery is solely based upon morality.  It has no component that isn’t a legislation of morality.
• Murder – The prohibition against killing another person is largely, though not wholly, based upon morality. It is also a core tenet of Christianity.
• Rape – Treating rape as a crime largely, though not wholly, based upon morality. Treating it as as serious of a crime as we do is solely based upon morality.
• Civil Rights Laws – The whole of civil rights legislation is almost entirely composed of the legislation of morality and has little or no basis for existence beyond that of what is Right and Wrong.

The list could go on, and on, and on ad infinitum et nauseam, with each consecutive point further illuminating rank stupidity of ever claiming that one can’t and shouldn’t legislate morality.

Consensus Morality

One of the arguments that the Leftist apologists will use when faced with incontrovertible fact that the majority of laws are either wholly moral law or, at the very least, carry an implicit moral component is that America must only legislate morality within the context of an irreligious consensus morality. By that, of course, they mean that only those moral laws that can be agreed to by non-Christians can ever be considered valid and that anything that coincides with- or abides by the Judeo-Christian morality is inherently suspect and must be subject to strict scrutiny.

Leaving aside the anti-Theist in general and anti-Christian in specific bigotry and bias in this viewpoint, it’s also factually as ridiculous and patently false as their base claim that you can’t legislate morality. There is, by and large, no consensus morality, especially if one includes the views of non-Theists.

• Slavery – This is as close as we come to a true consensus morality enacted into law. Still there are a significant, and I’ll hazard growing, number of people who do not find explicit chattel slavery to be morally repugnant. There’s an even larger number that have no problems whatsoever with “softer” and more implicit forms of slavery as the dependence upon illegal immigrant labor clearly shows.
• Murder – There’s no moral consensus whatsoever on what even constitutes murder as opposed to a justified killing or it being a killing that isn’t quite wrong enough to be called murder.
• Rape – In no way, shape, or form is there consensus morality concerning rape as a crime.  We can’t even decide what the borderline is between consensual and non-consensual sex. Nor can we reach consensus on who can rape and who can be raped. Lastly, we’re nowhere near reaching a consensus upon grievousness of the crime.
• Civil Rights Laws – There’s little or no consensus on the plethora of civil rights laws in the US and what consensus there was is rapidly falling apart as more and more Americans find the various laws to be both out-dated and morally repugnant.

The above are just a very small sample set of the significant laws in America that Liberals and Progressives falsely or wrongly claim that are supported by- and serve an objective, non-religious moral consensus.

Their Morality, Not Ours

Of course these same Liberals and Progressives have no qualms about legislating their own brand of morality. That’s all that there various calls for “fairness” and equality of personal results are after all – calls to legislate their morality.

This is why these Liberals and Progressives are immoral instead of amoral. They have a moral compass; it just points towards a completely different “North” than that of normative Americans.