From the Tacoma News Tribune
**Begin Article**
"SMOKING: PUSH efforts on apartments appreciated"
"I support PUSH (People United for Smoke-free Housing) for bringing the issue of smoke-free apartments to the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Board, whose job it is to safeguard the health of our community.
The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report regarding secondhand smoke states:
• It causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke (50,000 deaths annually).
• Children have an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes breathing (respiratory) symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.• It immediately affects the heart and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over a longer time it also causes heart disease and lung cancer.• The scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.• The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilating buildings cannot keep nonsmokers from being exposed to secondhand smoke.
Research reviewed in this report indicates that smoke-free policies are the most economic and effective approach for providing protection from exposure to secondhand smoke. However separating smokers and nonsmokers in the same airspace is not effective, nor is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air.
Research indicates that the progressive restriction of smoking in the United States to protect nonsmokers has had the additional health impact of reducing active smoking.
(Henson is co-chair of the Tobacco-free Alliance of Pierce County.)
Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2010/08/30/secondhand-smoke-facts-speak-for-themselves/comment-page-1/#comment-15245#ixzz0yDTRwujx""
End Article
The Surgeon General has also proclaimed that obesity is a serious threat to American's and their children. After our glorious leaders pass this law, the next initiative shoudl be to ban fried foods in all apartment buildings. The smell of frying oil carries just as far and fast as cigarette smoke, and the effects of obesity are just as significant, especially when you realize that without comprehensive health care, we will have to pay for these poor overweight victims to receive adequate medical treatment.
Get out of here. If you want someone to take care of you, move back in with your mother (assuming she doesnt smoke). The rest of us are fully capable of taking care of ourselves.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
American Ismalaphobia
First - a phobia is defined as an extreme and irrational fear of simple things or societal events. So, I dont think that local opposition to a mosque would be a phobia. Maybe you could call it religious bigotry, but even thats a stretch.
Second - and maybe more importantly, local communities have the right to define what is built, and where it is built inside their community. HOA's define what is allowable inside their neighborhood. Cities decide what to allow through zoning and permits. Look at the recent uproar in Renton over the new strip club.
**No I am not comparing a mosque to a strip club. Dont follow a straw man argument**
The Imam has the right to practice his religion in America. He is guarenteed that right under the First Amendment. I and many others would die to protect that right, even though we find his religion and views abhorrent. But New York (and New York's citizens) have the right to say "we don't want it here". That is not just the Imam's city, it is everyones city. And if the Imam had any true desire to promote understanding and goodwill around his religion, he would respect those wishes, and build it somewhere else.This isn't about freedom of religion, or "islamaphobia", whatever that is. This is about a government ignoring the wishes of the citizens, and deciding on its own to define what the citizens need and want.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/personas/?insiteUserId=04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415&plckPostId=Blog%3a04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415Post%3a6171cb28-9a8d-4ce5-8fff-05c7c540c70d&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest#ixzz0xpWy9yat
Second - and maybe more importantly, local communities have the right to define what is built, and where it is built inside their community. HOA's define what is allowable inside their neighborhood. Cities decide what to allow through zoning and permits. Look at the recent uproar in Renton over the new strip club.
**No I am not comparing a mosque to a strip club. Dont follow a straw man argument**
The Imam has the right to practice his religion in America. He is guarenteed that right under the First Amendment. I and many others would die to protect that right, even though we find his religion and views abhorrent. But New York (and New York's citizens) have the right to say "we don't want it here". That is not just the Imam's city, it is everyones city. And if the Imam had any true desire to promote understanding and goodwill around his religion, he would respect those wishes, and build it somewhere else.This isn't about freedom of religion, or "islamaphobia", whatever that is. This is about a government ignoring the wishes of the citizens, and deciding on its own to define what the citizens need and want.
Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/personas/?insiteUserId=04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415&plckPostId=Blog%3a04e85b9285af92f88f20a7a8bc64719b-203415Post%3a6171cb28-9a8d-4ce5-8fff-05c7c540c70d&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest#ixzz0xpWy9yat
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Two thoughts.....
Two quick thoughts this morning. I am a little distracted since the President is about to sign the health care reform package.
First, 30 states have already come forward and stated they will file lawsuits to block the health care package in their states, including WA State AG Rob McKenna. Gregiore is having fits, and has promised to file an opposing suit. McKenna's stance is beautiful though. He ignores the pro and con arguments of health care reform, and focuses on the fact that Federal mandates regarding insurance coverage are unconstitutional. "One of the Obama administration's talking points has been that any opposition is an attempt to deny benefits to people," he said. "We can't waive off the constitutional defects because the state gets enough benefits." (From the Tacoma News Tribune) (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/23/1120174/attorney-general-to-join-multistate.html#ixzz0j0oXjXK7)
Second, the White House is reporting that Secret Service agents are investigating two Twitter users who reportedly used the word "Obama" and "assassinate" in the same sentence. (This from a short piece on Fox News, http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/22/secret-service-investigating-twitter-accounts-calling-for-assassination/). I remember though, a long time ago, at least four years, that protesters, comedians and talking heads across America were united under the slogan, "Kill Bush". This begs the question, where is the difference?
First, 30 states have already come forward and stated they will file lawsuits to block the health care package in their states, including WA State AG Rob McKenna. Gregiore is having fits, and has promised to file an opposing suit. McKenna's stance is beautiful though. He ignores the pro and con arguments of health care reform, and focuses on the fact that Federal mandates regarding insurance coverage are unconstitutional. "One of the Obama administration's talking points has been that any opposition is an attempt to deny benefits to people," he said. "We can't waive off the constitutional defects because the state gets enough benefits." (From the Tacoma News Tribune) (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/23/1120174/attorney-general-to-join-multistate.html#ixzz0j0oXjXK7)
Second, the White House is reporting that Secret Service agents are investigating two Twitter users who reportedly used the word "Obama" and "assassinate" in the same sentence. (This from a short piece on Fox News, http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/22/secret-service-investigating-twitter-accounts-calling-for-assassination/). I remember though, a long time ago, at least four years, that protesters, comedians and talking heads across America were united under the slogan, "Kill Bush". This begs the question, where is the difference?
Monday, March 22, 2010
From a conversation with someone else, on health care reform. His position was that "this "reform" isnt the best solution, but do we have a better one?"
Yes I have a better solution. America has a better solution too, but politicians (lawyers) are not listening.
First, there are only two ways to lower prices in an economic market. You either lower demand or you increase supply. (And by the way, the health care "reform" increases demand while not increasing supply - a guarantee to raise prices). The best (and only) way to increase supply in this market is to deregulate health insurance so that you are not limited to a geographically designated supplier. Allow insurance companies to compete nation-wide, with less restriction, and prices will come down.
Second, significant, comprehensive reforms (limitations) on health care litigation. Large amounts of medical costs go to malpractice insurance. If there were caps on punitive damages, and deterrents to frivolous medical law suits, then that would also lower prices.
Third, do you really think that an insurance CEO who makes 35 million (or 350 million) is 'that' affected by one person's "sick aunt"? Please - he is affected on a macro scale, and you are using micro anecdotes to plead your case. If the insurance company was shafting people, and those people had the option to go to a different insurance carrier (see point 1), then Keynesian financial laws would enact the strictest punishment on that CEO and his company - people would leave his company for a competitor, and that company would go under.
Finally - what you are saying is that "This isn’t a great solution, but since we don’t have a better one, we will use it." That’s a limiting statement, saying there are no other alternatives. We do have alternatives; we are just choosing not to explore them.
This is populist politics. Us versus them. Rich versus poor. Main Street versus Wall Street. All of that rhetoric has only one point, and that is to secure votes for the next election for the politician saying it. Populist politics should be scary stuff! People can be stirred into a frenzy easily, and then what? Populist propaganda has led to so many terrible things.
How about a few more quotes? Five cents to the person who can identify who stated these familiar sounding lines...
"All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. "
"It is not truth that matters, but victory."
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”
"The day of individual happiness has passed."
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
As a hint - they’re all the same person. Except for this last one.
"The tree of liberty must oft time be water with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike."
Yes I have a better solution. America has a better solution too, but politicians (lawyers) are not listening.
First, there are only two ways to lower prices in an economic market. You either lower demand or you increase supply. (And by the way, the health care "reform" increases demand while not increasing supply - a guarantee to raise prices). The best (and only) way to increase supply in this market is to deregulate health insurance so that you are not limited to a geographically designated supplier. Allow insurance companies to compete nation-wide, with less restriction, and prices will come down.
Second, significant, comprehensive reforms (limitations) on health care litigation. Large amounts of medical costs go to malpractice insurance. If there were caps on punitive damages, and deterrents to frivolous medical law suits, then that would also lower prices.
Third, do you really think that an insurance CEO who makes 35 million (or 350 million) is 'that' affected by one person's "sick aunt"? Please - he is affected on a macro scale, and you are using micro anecdotes to plead your case. If the insurance company was shafting people, and those people had the option to go to a different insurance carrier (see point 1), then Keynesian financial laws would enact the strictest punishment on that CEO and his company - people would leave his company for a competitor, and that company would go under.
Finally - what you are saying is that "This isn’t a great solution, but since we don’t have a better one, we will use it." That’s a limiting statement, saying there are no other alternatives. We do have alternatives; we are just choosing not to explore them.
This is populist politics. Us versus them. Rich versus poor. Main Street versus Wall Street. All of that rhetoric has only one point, and that is to secure votes for the next election for the politician saying it. Populist politics should be scary stuff! People can be stirred into a frenzy easily, and then what? Populist propaganda has led to so many terrible things.
How about a few more quotes? Five cents to the person who can identify who stated these familiar sounding lines...
"All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. "
"It is not truth that matters, but victory."
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”
"The day of individual happiness has passed."
"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
As a hint - they’re all the same person. Except for this last one.
"The tree of liberty must oft time be water with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike."
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Email to Senator Becker
Senator Becker I have watched the legislative process in our country take some amazing steps over the last five years. Some have been huge leaps forward, others back. One common thing I have seen though is many persons in our government taking a stance that they, as elected representatives, know better then the people they represent. We have seen many examples in the previous years of voters in other states sending a clear message to their elected officials, by passing a referendum or initiative, and the Legislature invalidating or modifying the peoples will after the vote is complete. This is a terrifying step.
America is founded on the basis of a representative Republic. We, the voters, elect our representatives to go before the legislature and represent us, and our wishes. This is designed to be a governmental system "Of the People, By the People, and For the People". Our intent in sending legislators to Olympia is not to elect someone to make decisions for us, but instead to respect our decisions, as the citizens of this state. Our State Constitution validates this premise. Article 1, Section 1 states "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."
SB 6843 is an effort to ignore the wishes of the people of Washington State. We made clear our intent to limit the growth of government by regulating taxes and increase in spending by passing I960. This new bill, 6843, is a travesty and an insult to the citizens of this state.
I have a few specific questions in regards to the bill. First, is there any reason to change every instance of the word "raises" to " increases". We, the voters, understand that a raise is an increase is a new tax is a larger government, so why the change? Second, in Sec. 2(1)(c)(i), the Bill speaks of a "unprecedented economic crisis" necessitating a "temporary means to stabilize revenue correction". When has any tax, fee, excise, etc in Washington state ever been temporary? Third, Sec. 2(7)(a) clearly defined a tax increase as "any action or combination of actions by the legislature that increases state tax revenue deposited in any fund, budget or account". This was a clear message that any new tax is a new tax, so why does the legislature need to qualify it? Fourth, Sec. 2(6)(a) states that "The legislature finds that an optimal tax policy promotes fairness and spurs economic development or other public benefits. It is therefore the legislature's intent to maintain fairness and to advance economic prosperity and serve the public interest by enabling current and future legislatures to modify tax preferences with a simple majority vote." This is a terrifying statement when taken at its face. Why is it the legislatures intent to "maintain fairness and to advance economic prosperity"? Fifth, the subject of the bill "declares an emergency". What is this emergency, and what other measures can and will be enacted in its wake?
Life is not fair, neither is it equal. We are not guaranteed equality by either our State or Federal Constitution. We are guaranteed Life, Liberty and Property, and an Equal Opportunity. Equal opportunity for all people was, and is the intent of our Constitution, and the framework on which America was built. Equal Opportunity is a Representative Republic that preserves the rights of the individuals from a tyrannical and overpowering government. Equal Opportunity is America and Washington State. Equality is Socialism.
Washington State is running in a deficit. This means that the Legislature is spending more then it brings in. Increasing taxes is not the solution to this problem. Decreasing spending is the only answer. I know that this might hurt in the short-term, but controlling spending is the only legitimate answer to this problem.
Bryan Diesch
America is founded on the basis of a representative Republic. We, the voters, elect our representatives to go before the legislature and represent us, and our wishes. This is designed to be a governmental system "Of the People, By the People, and For the People". Our intent in sending legislators to Olympia is not to elect someone to make decisions for us, but instead to respect our decisions, as the citizens of this state. Our State Constitution validates this premise. Article 1, Section 1 states "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights."
SB 6843 is an effort to ignore the wishes of the people of Washington State. We made clear our intent to limit the growth of government by regulating taxes and increase in spending by passing I960. This new bill, 6843, is a travesty and an insult to the citizens of this state.
I have a few specific questions in regards to the bill. First, is there any reason to change every instance of the word "raises" to " increases". We, the voters, understand that a raise is an increase is a new tax is a larger government, so why the change? Second, in Sec. 2(1)(c)(i), the Bill speaks of a "unprecedented economic crisis" necessitating a "temporary means to stabilize revenue correction". When has any tax, fee, excise, etc in Washington state ever been temporary? Third, Sec. 2(7)(a) clearly defined a tax increase as "any action or combination of actions by the legislature that increases state tax revenue deposited in any fund, budget or account". This was a clear message that any new tax is a new tax, so why does the legislature need to qualify it? Fourth, Sec. 2(6)(a) states that "The legislature finds that an optimal tax policy promotes fairness and spurs economic development or other public benefits. It is therefore the legislature's intent to maintain fairness and to advance economic prosperity and serve the public interest by enabling current and future legislatures to modify tax preferences with a simple majority vote." This is a terrifying statement when taken at its face. Why is it the legislatures intent to "maintain fairness and to advance economic prosperity"? Fifth, the subject of the bill "declares an emergency". What is this emergency, and what other measures can and will be enacted in its wake?
Life is not fair, neither is it equal. We are not guaranteed equality by either our State or Federal Constitution. We are guaranteed Life, Liberty and Property, and an Equal Opportunity. Equal opportunity for all people was, and is the intent of our Constitution, and the framework on which America was built. Equal Opportunity is a Representative Republic that preserves the rights of the individuals from a tyrannical and overpowering government. Equal Opportunity is America and Washington State. Equality is Socialism.
Washington State is running in a deficit. This means that the Legislature is spending more then it brings in. Increasing taxes is not the solution to this problem. Decreasing spending is the only answer. I know that this might hurt in the short-term, but controlling spending is the only legitimate answer to this problem.
Bryan Diesch
Thursday, January 7, 2010
It's Been A While
Yes Yes it's been a while since I was on here. I know - I'm a procrastinator. I'm working on it.
I have lots I want to say, and I am going to focus on making smaller posts, more often. Not everything needs to be a masterpiece, it all needs to be written though.
So here is my first rant for the new year.
I spent the money for a 52" hi-def LCD. And a nice up-scaling DVD player. And I spend the money to get movies in widescreen.
So why when I watch a wide-screen movie on my wide-screen TV do I still have the black bars on the top and bottom of the movie, the letterbox I think it's called. Its no different then watching a wide-screen movie on a regular TV, its just expanded. Its still not formatted to fit my TV. Why? Is it a conspiracy?
I have lots I want to say, and I am going to focus on making smaller posts, more often. Not everything needs to be a masterpiece, it all needs to be written though.
So here is my first rant for the new year.
I spent the money for a 52" hi-def LCD. And a nice up-scaling DVD player. And I spend the money to get movies in widescreen.
So why when I watch a wide-screen movie on my wide-screen TV do I still have the black bars on the top and bottom of the movie, the letterbox I think it's called. Its no different then watching a wide-screen movie on a regular TV, its just expanded. Its still not formatted to fit my TV. Why? Is it a conspiracy?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Lie! You Lie!
During the president's address to Congress regarding health care, Rep. Wilson (R-SC) responded to the President by shouting "Lie! You Lie". This was in response to the President's reassurances that his proposed health care reform bill would not include coverage for illegal aliens.
VP Biden said the outburst was embarrassing. The New York Post said that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have condemned the action. House Democrats are considering censuring Wilson.
Under pressure from GOP leaders, Wilson contacted the White House Thursday morning to offer somewhat of an apology. He refused to make a public apology.
Good for him. A lie is a lie.
**Edit** I have thought about this more - slept on it. I also went and researched the rules for the House of Representatives. The Rules do call for decorum at all times. Wilson's outburst stretched that rule. He should apologize for his outburst, but make it clear that he is apologizing the the method and the timing and not the message itself. **Edit**
VP Biden said the outburst was embarrassing. The New York Post said that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have condemned the action. House Democrats are considering censuring Wilson.
Under pressure from GOP leaders, Wilson contacted the White House Thursday morning to offer somewhat of an apology. He refused to make a public apology.
Good for him. A lie is a lie.
**Edit** I have thought about this more - slept on it. I also went and researched the rules for the House of Representatives. The Rules do call for decorum at all times. Wilson's outburst stretched that rule. He should apologize for his outburst, but make it clear that he is apologizing the the method and the timing and not the message itself. **Edit**
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)