Otter Limits

In his recent post Iraq Veterans Endorse Calvey for Congress, Mike tells about the announcement of Republican Kevin Calvey to run for the soon to be vacated Oklahoma Congressional seat now held by Mary Fallin.

Here is the part of the post that stuck out to me:

“He joined the Army National Guard AFTER the start of the Iraq War…when he was already a successful businessman and elected official.”

According to his campaign website, he served as the State Representative for District 94 (Del City) from 1998 to 2006.

So…up to this point, I have read nothing about where he stands on the issues. However, just based on the quote I posted, I already like the guy.

Everyone know that I am not a big fan of the war but the fact that this guy was already an elected official and decided to do something for his country is very admirable. He certainly seems like the type of politician (in my opinion) that has some honorable fiber in him.

So….I went on to read his stance on some of the issues on his website.

I started at his stance on Health Care. He says that:

“…a one size fits all government takeover of your health care is not the answer. ……Instead of a bureaucratic takeover of health care, we need a balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone. By using market-based reforms to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse of health care resources, we can bring health care costs down to a manageable level.”

Okay, I still like him. I agree with everything he says here.

Okay, on to the Abortion Issue. He is a former member of the Right to Life Committee and while serving in the state legislature authored numerous pro-life bills. He opposes making it legal to let a minor get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge and opposes the idea to punish doctors who refuse to give abortions.

Still like him.

Okay, now on to something that I will probably not agree with him with because he is a Republican. Gun Control.

He is the 2006 Oklahoma Rifle Association Legislator of the Year. Here is a quote from Kevin directly on this issue:

“Every adult law-abiding American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. Research consistently shows that law-abiding gun ownership reduces crime……..”

So here is where Kevin and I disagree. At least as far as I can tell. I am not opposed to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. While at the same time I am in favor of gun control legislation such as waiting periods and background checks at gun shows and that sort of thing. So I am not exactly the polar opposite of Mr. Calvey.

Finally, I decided to look at his stance on Energy. He supports investing in other practical forms of energy such as natural gas, nuclear, wind, etc… He also supports drilling in ANWR which are currently off limits. One of his goals is to make Oklahoma a leader in energy production due to its surplus of natural gas and wind power to further reduce our dependence on foreign terrorist oil.

Amen Kevin.

In short, I too support Kevin Calvey for Congress even though I don’t get to vote for him.

Or vice versa.

Like the title? I thought it was clever.

So this is sort of continuation of the posts “Lefty or Righty“ and “Lefty or Righty Part II” in addition to some of the conversations I have had with the self admitted “lefties” and “righties” on other posts recently.

I really just honestly can not claim allegiance to either side. Really.

There are some ideas the conservatives hold that I agree with. Take the pro-life stance for instance. I am pro-life. If you base my political ideology on that issue and that issue alone, you would consider me a conservative.

However, most conservatives favor the death penalty. I do not favor it. Again, I am pro-”life.” I think that killing anyone is wrong. So on that basis I can not be considered a true conservative.

There are some ideas that liberals hold that I agree with. Take the gun control issue for instance. I favor gun control as they do. I think there are people in the world that have no business owning a gun and we should do everything in our power to keep guns out of their hands. So if you base my political ideology on that issue and that issue alone, you might consider me a liberal.

However, most liberals favor government control in areas such as health care. I do not think that a government controlled and run health insurance company is going to fix any of the problems in our health care system in this country. So on that basis, I can not be considered a true liberal.

As I have stated before, both camps have some really good ideas. But both sides also have some I ideas I could do without.

Most “righties” are adamant about making it illegal to burn the American flag. I think making it illegal takes away a person’s right of free speech and free expression.

Most “lefties” lean toward an almost militant stance on protecting the environment. I think they sometimes take it too far and even sometimes use scare tactics to prove their side is right.

I consider myself a Christian. One would think this alone makes me a conservative. I disagree. Most evangelical Christian conservatives are vehemently anti-gay. They want nothing to do with them and preach hatred against them. I believe it is not my place to judge a homosexual based on what may or may not be a sin in the eyes of God. So while I agree with some of the theology and ideology of the Christian conservatives, I do not agree with them 100%.

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. One would think that this alone makes me a liberal. I disagree. The ACLU stands for civil liberty and personal freedom. So do I. But I do not agree with 100% of their philosophy. I support them because I agree with that they stand for overall.

I did not vote for Obama. I did not and do not trust the man to run our country. That puts me out of the good graces of the Democratic party and with most liberals.

I did not vote for McCain. I’m not sure where this puts me with the Republicans, I’m sure out of their good graces.

I voted for Ralph Nader. I did so because I wanted to throw my support behind a person that is as opposed to the rule of the two-party system as I am.

So putting it all together…

Am I a lefty….sure, sometimes….but no.
Am I a righty…sure, sometimes….but no.

This is why I claim neither party (Democrat/Republican) nor political ideology (liberal/conservative) for my own. I have my own stance on the issues that fit neither sides mold completely.

So does this make me a moderate? Maybe. I’m not sure. Perhaps.

What are your thoughts?

Just for the record, I am just as outraged by the shooting death of the Army recruiters in Arkansas as I am at the shooting death of Dr George Tiller.

As I stated in my previous post, I do not approve of the abortions that Dr Tiller was involved in. But I also do not approve of the actions of a right wing wacko (I can only assume that he is a right winger, apologies if I am wrong) in killing him because they disagree with him and think the world would be better off without him.

But just the same, I do not approve of some left wing wacko (again, assuming they were left wingers) killing an Army recruiter because of their anti-war stance.

I too, do not approve of war. I don’t think it is as necessary as some think. However, I am not going to kill someone that is pro-war just to prove my point.

As Dave said in a recent post, two wrongs do not make a right.

Both murders were unnecessary and senseless.

Murder does not solve anything.

It should NEVER be used to justify a political means. You can not prove your point to the “other side” by killing one of them. It only makes you and your cause look bad and usually helps to further their cause instead of your own.

So you are a pro-life activist. You kill an abortion doctor. What does that prove? That you are not as pro-life as you think you are.

So you are an anti-war activist. You kill an army recruiter. What does that prove? I have nothing. What? To keep them from recruiting more people to join the military? That’s just stupid. It proves nothing.

Murder justifies nothing. It is ALWAYS wrong.

There, I have said my peace.

I just want to go on record as a pro-life individual that says that I do not condone nor approve of the actions that led to the shooting death of Dr Tiller.

I was curious about this so I decided to look up the actual definition of the word in several dictionaries.

According to Random House Dictionary 2009 :

“the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.”

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Dictionary 2009:

“the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife”

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1998:

“legal union of a man and woman for life, as husband and wife.”

Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law 1996:

This is sort of a sequel to my recent post “Lefty” or “Righty.”

In the comments on that post, Red asks me what my stance on the global warming debate was. I told him that an issue of this magnitude deserved more than just a little comment and would do up a post devoted entirely to it. So here it is.

In regards to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ or whatever it is it is called these days, I do think that the world’s weather patterns are changing for the worse. There are more earthquakes, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, etc…than there ever have been in history (and to be honest, that fact might even be up for debate).

I do not think, however, that these changing weather patterns are completely man made. In fact, I think the percentage of blame that falls on humankind is relatively small.

I do, however, think that mankind in general is not taking care of their environment.

People really do need to recycle more. We are eventually going to run out of our natural resources and we as a people need to be aware of that fact.

More cities around the country should institute car pool lanes on the freeway as an effort to promote carpooling and to help reduce carbon emissions at least a little bit.

As for Al Gore. Well, I have seen the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ It is quite compelling. And I do agree that some of what he has to say is true. But not everything. I think a lot of it is scare tactics based on what he says is scientific research.

However, that scientific research is not necessarily reliable. Remember back in the 60s when ’scientific research’ proved the magic bullet theory in the JFK assassination? I don’t buy that either.

I think we do need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Actually, I will go even further than that. We need to reduce (not eliminate, just reduce) our dependence on oil in general.

We need to find cheaper, alternate, more environmentally friendly, sources of energy. However, we need to perform the necessary research to guarantee that these alternate sources of energy are reliable. It is all well and good to invent some car that runs exclusively on solar energy but if the thing only goes 30 mph that isn’t efficient.

But we should research things like solar energy, wind energy and nuclear energy.

We should give generous incentives to automobile manufacturers that build cars like hybrid vehicles. Those have proven efficient and environmentally friendly.

Should we allow drilling in Alaska? Yes and no. Allow drilling but do not give the oil companies free rein. Don’t just turn them loose to drill whenever and wherever they want. It needs to be controlled so that the wildlife and other natural resources in the area are not affected. And I think that control should be left up to the STATE of Alaska. NOT the federal government.

I’m not what one would call an outright tree hugger but I do respect my environment and think it should be protected.

But at the same time I think that many liberals take the issue of global warming too far. They are trying to appeal to the less intelligence of our species and con them into thinking it is all our fault that the environment is screwed.

Sure we screwed up our environment. But certainly not to the extent the climate change wackos seem to think we have.

The interesting thing is that even with all the damage that has been done. The planet is fine. There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet isn’t going anywhere…..WE ARE!!! LoL!

But really. Some things just happen. Some things are just part of the natural order of things. Perhaps it is just the way God made the planet. Maybe it was designed from the beginning to eventually start to break down.

I dunno. It’s just a theory.

So on this particular political issue I think I would fall somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum but leaning slightly (very slightly) to the right.

Am I a “lefty” or a “righty“? Am I “liberal” or “conservative”? Amd I a “moonbat” or a “wingnut“?

I think that I am a little of both, depending on what issue we are discussing.

Below I have listed a few of the main issues that we political bloggers tend to talk about and what my specific stance is on each. Perhaps it will clear up this whole am I a lefty or righty debate. Perhaps not.

Abortion
I am pro-life.
In my opinion, abortion is murder. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This puts me clearly on the right.

Death Penalty
Again, I am pro-life.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Executing a criminal for murdering someone does not bring that person back. Is revenge really justification?
This would put me toward the left.

Gun Control
I am a firm believer in gun “control” but not gun “criminalization.”
I believe that it is the right of an American citizen to own a gun.
I also believe that things like background checks and waiting periods are acceptable means of controlling who does and does not purchase a gun but I am not so naive as to think that it keeps guns completely out of the hands of criminals.
This would put me on the left again.

Gay Rights
I believe that homosexuals are people and deserve the same rights as everyone else.
I do not believe in adding the term “sexual orientation” to the definition of hate crimes. I believe that all violent crime, regardless of race or sexual preference, is a hate crime.
I’m not sure where this puts me. Probably somewhere left of middle.

Flag Burning
I believe it is the right of an American citizen to desecrate an American flag is they so choose to. To criminalize the act takes away a person’s constitutional right to free speech and free expression.
I also believe that those people that do burn flags are idiots. It proves nothing. Nothing except that these people can’t find a better way to express themselves and show their distaste of their country in another way.
I think this puts me on the left.

Tax Reform
I am an advocate for a system much like the Fair Tax or some sort of national sales tax instead of the current progressive tax system.
I have no idea where this would put me.

Health Care Reform
On this ever changing my mind subject, I am current in favor of expanding both the employer-based system and eligibility requirements for the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
I do not favor a completely, government-controlled or “single payer” system. The government has proven ineffective in handling things so they need to keep their nose out of health care decisions.
I do not favor tax credits for individuals because I really just don’t understand how this would really help.
I’m not sure where this puts me either. Probably somewhere in the middle.

So just based on these few key issues, I would have to say that I am probably somewhere in the center but slightly left of center.

I dunno really. I guess this did not really clear anything up. LOL!

First off, I am just about done reading that book that I posted on a current reading recently. Some of it does make a lot of sense to me but in the grand scheme of things I really can’t get all that excited about the single payer system. In a lot of ways, it is, like Red has said in the past, a government health insurance plan and I’m just not sure I can jump on board that train.

That being said, I have done some other research about the health care debate. Some of which I posted on the previous post entitled The Uninsured. Here are some other thoughts I have come up with during the little bit of research I have done. Keep in mind that this research is ongoing and I may come up with some other ideas as time progresses.

As I see it, here are some of the “key elements” in getting everyone covered (everyone that wants to be that is):

1. Employer Mandates
I think we should make some sort of a requirement for all large companies to offer their employees some sort of health insurance. This would not be a big deal because at present time 62% of our people get their coverage through their employer (according to the EBRI Issue Brief No. 310 October 2007).

2. Subsidies to make coverage more affordable
This would cover the small to mid-size employers to assist them in giving them the option to offer coverage to their employees. According to the same previous study, 94% of companies with 50-199 employees offer coverage, 83% of firms with 25-49 employees offer coverage, of the firms with 10-24 employees, 76% offer coverage to their employees.

Point being, okay maybe a mandate or requirement might not be necessary but if coupled along with subsidies for the smaller companies, it would certainly be a step in the right direction (IMHO).

3. Medicare/Medicaid Expansion
Ok, this doesn’t sound all that great when you first hear it but hear me out first.
I think the eligibility requirements for Medicare and Medicaid could be less restrictive. I honestly think that by expanding these programs to cover more of those citizens that want coverage but can not afford it, we can reduce the number of the uninsured by a huge margin. (As stated in the previous post, over 50% of those that are uninsured are not eligible for these programs but too poor to pay for it themselves).

4. Regulation of the Insurance Industry / Insurance Reform
Yeah I know, regulation of industry is considered a bad thing. Sorry conservatives, I am okay with a little regulation of big business.
I think the industry should be regulated so that they don’t do things like deny coverage (or make the premiums astronomical) based on a previous illness or deny coverage (or, again, price the premiums so high nobody can afford them) based on a person’s credit rating.

These are my thoughts based on what I have read thus far but in keeping with the title of the post, keep in mind that I may come up with more thoughts on it at a later time as my research progresses.

Here are some interesting facts I dug up about our nation’s uninsured (that is, those without health insurance):

1. Over half of those that are uninsured are not eligible for public programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) but can’t afford to purchase their own coverage.
2. 1/4 of those that are uninsured are eligible for these programs but are not enrolled.
3. 1/5 of those that are uninsured earn high enough incomes to afford coverage but have chosen not to.

(these numbers by the way came from a study done by the Urban Institute in 2006)

Okay, so group #3, I could honestly care less about. Well, that isn’t what I meant. What I meant is if the people in group #3 have enough money to pay for insurance and don’t, that is their problem. They should know better.

The people in group #2, I almost…almost feel the same way. A lot of people don’t want to apply for help of any kind like welfare or food stamps or state medical because they are too proud to ask for help. That I can understand. However, in my opinion, this is being a bit irresponsible. If they qualify for a program like Medicaid, they should apply for it. There is no shame in having free medical care.

The problem with our health care system is with those in group #1. Half of the uninsured are poor but don’t qualify for Medicare. With this information, I would think that probably the best way to rectify this situation is change the eligibility requirements for these programs and get the people that can’t afford coverage on it. And you wouldn’t necessarily have to make it free for all. There are state medical insurance programs where the person plays a small premium. I mean, it is state medical so it isn’t the best thing to be on but it is better than nothing, isn’t it?

Any thoughts?