Hey Stranger!

Yes, it's been a while.

What's up with that? For one, work has been really busy. Two, I've gotten into MotoVlogging, and you can see my handiwork here:

Spacep0d MotoVlog

MotoVlogging, as the name implies, is Video-Blogging on a Motorcycle. It's a great thing, and is a different way to voice one's opinions in a totally different format, and with some interesting video. Of course, writing doesn't need video, but it's a different way to consume thoughts. It's not that I am replacing blogging with vlogging, just that it's been new for me and working out the bugs and kinks has taken some of my free time I'd normally spend blogging.

In other news, the election has hotted-up and on the Republican side, has dumbed-down. A lot. The stupid things that Republicans say about rape and their god(s) is mind-blowing. Mourdock just recently said, 

'"And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."- Richard Mourdock , U.S. Senate candidate from IndianaHoly shit. First, this means that god, the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of worlds, approves, endorses and PLANS rape. This is the only conclusion, because a god which controls ALL THINGS simply cannot escape blame for anything, including rape.

Second, why the Hell would someone WORSHIP a god who goes around making women through rape? If god could stop it and doesn't, he's not good. If he can't stop it, he's not much of a god, is he?

Richard Mourdock is a fucking idiot. Not only that, he's too stupid to realize that saying this stuff in public is even more idiotic. At least Romney has the sense to pretend to be moderate, which makes him even more vile in a sense.

I've watched the debates (all of them) and the pundits, and voting for Romney would be unconscionable. Not only is he a flip-flopper, he's wrong on just about every social-issue that matters, especially with respect to marriage-equality and reproductive rights. Marriage-equality isn't even just a mere social-issue but a matter of basic human rights. If government is going to continue to recognize sexual relationships between consenting adults, they need to recognize ALL consenting adults and their marriages equally. Otherwise, they need to get out of the marriage business ASAP (an option I am also happy with).

As you know, I reject marriage for myself. I think it's a bad idea for me (and anyone), but I support the rights of others to live their conscience and get married if government recognizes any marriages.

My girlfriend and I are still fighting the good fight with respect to trying to get me (a freelancer) covered under her company health-insurance group-plan, with little success as yet—and we've been trying since 2004 (with years where I did have my own coverage). Unfortunately, her company (CBS) doesn't see fit to cover opposite-sex domestic partners because I suppose they are trying to save a tiny amount of money. It's not like there are hordes of unmarried iconoclasts in opposite-sex partnerships waiting to jump on the +1 bandwagon, but there are at least 4-5 couples we know about *personally* at that company would would benefit if CBS could stop discriminating.

See, gay couples have a mandate which covers them. Companies have to provide their partners with +1 coverage. Married people of course get favoritism because marriage is still a preferred legal status, discriminatory as that is. Unmarried opposite-sex couples are basically punished for not being married and they don't have the protections that unmarried gay-couples have. If the system were logical, both unmarried couples and married couples would be able to add any +1 to their employer-based healthplan, whether that was a sister, mother, uncle, friend, etc. Why does it matter that we're involved in a sexual relationship? Talk about big government.

An even more logical system is one where we can get our OWN insurance, without relying on employers and their peculiar ideologies, spouses in government-recognized marriages or the awful, stockholder-controlled, profit-driven private-insurance sector.

What I want is access to fair, reasonably-priced, individual healthcare coverage, and that is why I am voting to uphold the ACA and to allow our president to continue his landmark progress with healthcare reform. That is why I am voting Obama on November 6th.

It's good to be back. Check out my vlog if you like and please, VOTE!!

--

Obamacare Upheld!

This is a historic moment, and people have been trying to do what Obama has done for nearly a century. It's access for all, but if we don't pay in, we can't all expect coverage. This is actually something Romney touted as a 'conservative' idea when he enacted Romneycare in Massachusetts, and yet Romney wants to flip and say that the entire country can't benefit from this philosophy?

Insurance companies are being reformed, which has been sorely needed. Just ask anyone who got sick and was denied or had coverage-rescinded due to a 'pre-existing condition'. Just ask people who went broke or are broke due to medical bills from a catastrophic event, or because they could not get coverage. Reform is a GOOD thing, and insurance companies in America may end up like those in Germany, where the government guarantees individuals coverage and they can go to whatever insurance company that offers the best value. Germany, by the way, spends about 11% of its GDP on healthcare (while covering everyone) where America spent 17% of its GDP on healthcare while doing it badly and letting insurance companies line their pockets by covering only the healthy and wealthy. Reform is all about correcting this type of corruption, and SCOTUS has allowed it to happen as-intended.

Those of you who don't get it yet or think this is 'socialism', you will understand in time. Medicare was called 'socialism' by Ronald Reagan back in 1961, before it was signed into law by Democrat president Lyndon Baines Johnson, where former Democratic president and Medicare campaigner Harry Truman was the first recipient.

Medicare was put in-place because insurance companies didn't want to cover higher-risk seniors, and it's a form of socialized medicine that works well, has wide-support from seniors who are happy with it. However, it was the brainchild of Canadian socialist, Tommy Douglas and a lot of people don't know that. Yet, Medicare operates with a 3% admin overhead (very efficient), has been a great success and for many, is the safety net they need if they can make it to age 65.

In 2014, individuals will be able to get their own government healthcare plans, and insurance companies will be unable to refuse someone for a pre-existing condition. This is exactly what we need, because what is the point of a health-insurance company who only sells insurance to healthy people? It's the sick people who need it, but if we don't have a mandate, insurance-buyers will be mostly sick people (adverse selection). We just have to get used to having healthcare (whether we pay-in or provide our own), so everyone can get access. As it is now, we all pay for employer-based coverage, people who use the E.R. as primary care, etc. so we already have lots of 'socialized' pools of money built into a bad system, and the ACA is reforming that system after insurance companies have had a long, profitable run playing the for-profit insurance game with our lives.

We need to re-elect Obama in November so he can complete what he started, or Mitt Romney will flush a century of work toward healthcare for all down the drain.

--

President Obama Was Raised by an Atheist

Despite the claims that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he claims to be a Christian and we should take him at his word, unless Christians around the world want to be called 'radical Muslims' too even if they insist on being Christians. By definition, a Christian merely needs to accept the divinity of Christ to qualify, but we know how difficult it is to get two Christians to agree on anything, right?

The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.

Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.

I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.

Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."

Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.

This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.

In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.

By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.

An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.

Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.

Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.