The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.
The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.
Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”
Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Source: Washington Post
“’First, I didn’t say ‘government run health care’. I said ‘single payer universal health care insurance’. It can be government run (like Medicare for all) or a government owned company with a monopoly. Either way, it makes more economic sense than paying several companies to do the same job for profit and still not have every one covered.’
Either way it is government run, do you not see that? Honestly.”
Apparently you can’t distinguish health care provision and health care insurance provision. They are not the same thing. Then again, you have a marked proclivity for false equivalences, so I shouldn’t expect anything like an accurate definition from you.
“At least with private sector inefficiencies, the majority of the people are not on the hook and forced to pay for them.”
That may be the most delusional thing you’ve said yet. The people paying for private sector insurance are paying more due to systemic inefficiencies, profit skimming for bonuses and perks and fractionated risk pools right now in addition to the higher costs of treatment being passed on to them by providers who have to pay for treating the uninsured right now anyway.
“First, I didn’t say “government run health care”. I said “single payer universal health care insurance”. It can be government run (like Medicare for all) or a government owned company with a monopoly. Either way, it makes more economic sense than paying several companies to do the same job for profit and still not have every one covered.”
Either way it is government run, do you not see that? Honestly.
At least with private sector inefficiencies, the majority of the people are not on the hook and forced to pay for them.
You’re going to have to pick up your game though.
But nobody in Canada is going bankrupt from surgery bills, are they? And everyone is still covered.
Flail away, Bron.
“Then why dont they? I thought you said they did not charge them more. They get funding from government so there is no incentive to raise fees. The public is subsidizing junk mail.”
Actually, they can’t raise fees without approval from Congress and guess who lobbies Congress to keep them from raising bulk mail rate? Groups like the Direct Marketing Association.
“Why didnt they adapt? They had no reason to, what with the tax payer paying for the inefficiency.”
They are slowly adapting. If they were properly responsive, they’d have adapted faster.
“They dont make money because they are a government program and so there are no incentives to improve. The employees have their jobs for life as long as they dont screw up too badly.”
They still have to justify their budget.
“You admit the problems with the Post Office and you think government run health care is going to be better. How do you hold contradicting thoughts with such ease? This is what I mean when I say you dont or cant think in terms of principles.”
And this is what I say when I say you make shit up.
First, I didn’t say “government run health care”. I said “single payer universal health care insurance”. It can be government run (like Medicare for all) or a government owned company with a monopoly. Either way, it makes more economic sense than paying several companies to do the same job for profit and still not have every one covered.
Second, what part of the word “responsive” don’t you understand? Efficiency of operation can be driven by operational mandate just as well as it can be driven by profit motives. Responsiveness to a problem is an HPT issue. Poor responsiveness in an organization is a managerial failure and it happens in for-profit enterprises just as often as in not-for-profit enterprises.
“Privately-funded health care: Private health expenditures (payments through private insurance and out-of-pocket payments) represent approximately 30 percent of total health expenditures. Roughly two-thirds of Canadians have supplementary
private insurance coverage, many through employment-based group plans, which cover services such as vision and dental care, prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, home care, and private rooms in hospitals. Duplicative private insurance for publicly funded physician and hospital services is not available. About 80 percent of insurers that sell private health care insurance are for-profit health and life insurance companies, and about 20 percent not-for-profit insurance organizations that specialize in health coverage. Federal and provincial governments regulate life and health insurance to ensure that contractual commitments to policyholders are met. Insurance companies and their representatives
are subject to guidelines on consumer disclosure and insurance practices. Health insurance was provided by 95 life insurance companies to 23 million Canadians, which accounts for approximately 12 percent of total health spending in Canada. The plans typically pay for extra charges for semi-private or private hospital rooms, prescription drugs, special duty nursing and other paramedical services, ambulance services, crutches, psychological services, artificial limbs, prostheses
and medical appliances, wheelchair rental, and vision care. Contributions to employer-sponsored voluntary health insurance are deductible from income for federal tax purposes, and are also deductible from income for provincial
tax purposes in all provinces but Quebec. Premiums paid to any private health insurance plan are considered eligible
expenses for the federal Medical Expense Tax Credit.”
Seems like a little more than just optical and dental. They also cant buy insurance to pay for actual produres, I wonder why that is? Probably because they would lose 2/3’s of the insureds overnight as they left for private plans. Government force applied to give people what the government thinks they need.
Gene H:
“they have every reason to charge bulk mailers more considering that’s their primary non-urgent mail customer right now”
Then why dont they? I thought you said they did not charge them more. They get funding from government so there is no incentive to raise fees. The public is subsidizing junk mail.
Why didnt they adapt? They had no reason to, what with the tax payer paying for the inefficiency.
They dont make money because they are a government program and so there are no incentives to improve. The employees have their jobs for life as long as they dont screw up too badly.
You admit the problems with the Post Office and you think government run health care is going to be better. How do you hold contradicting thoughts with such ease? This is what I mean when I say you dont or cant think in terms of principles.
In Canada and the UK? Private insurance for primary health coverage is illegal. You can only get primary health coverage from the government and unlike here, everyone is covered. The only private insurance there is for optical/dental coverage and elective procedures.
You’re really grasping at straws, Bron.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2011/Nov/1562_Squires_Intl_Profiles_2011_11_10.pdf
It would seem that national health care isnt much better than our system and that the countries covered under this study also have private insurance upon which people rely.
We probably pay less if they dont account for private insurance from the other countries. They dont say if the out of pocket if for the main policy or not.
“Gene H:
‘But the struggles of the post office weren’t created by their monopoly. They were created by technological change.’
They had no reason to change, they have no reason to charge bulk mailers more.”
Uh, do you even realize how stupid that statement is?
The USPS starting costing money instead of paying for itself precisely because they didn’t adapt to the technological change and with mail volumes down they have every reason to charge bulk mailers more considering that’s their primary non-urgent mail customer right now (ergo, the primary creator of cost for delivery services). None of which changes the fact that their problems are not created by their monopoly.
“Now that is the problem, the entire 20th century has been about the rise of the progressives and it is no surprise that along with that has come the rise of corporations. The 2 feed off of each other, progressives expand government and corporations fund the political machinery to buy protection. There is no coincidence, you dont see the correlation because of your blinders.”
No, I don’t see the correlation because it doesn’t exist except in your mind. Progressives – again – are not for expansive government, but rather functional, responsive democratic government.
The rise of corporations? That has nothing to do with progressivism and everything to do with globalization and the constant attacks by corporations on the legislative and electoral processes resulting in deregulation and expanding corporate personality. The blinders here are entirely yours. You see the effect, but not the cause, because to recognize the cause (corporate manipulations) falls squarely at the feet of the businessmen you worship because they make money. To recognize the cause would be to realize that your pseudo-philosophical and fantasy economic underpinnings are wrong.
A progressive? Would have let every one of those assholes on Wall Street go out of business. There are no actual progressives in government, you dumbass. The last 30 years (and before) the government has been dominated by conservative and neo-conservative Republicans and centrist Democrats. There is no alliance between progressive and corporations. Progressives are a threat to the corporate status quo of both parties. Progressivism is what the people want, and what the pols occasionally try to sell them, but it’s not what their corporate masters want. But you sure did swallow the propaganda, money lover.
And you still are making up meanings to words and creating false equivalences. Socialism and fascism are not the same thing no matter how many times you repeat that lie to yourself and others.
There is no unholy alliance here other than the graft system. And that’s not run by progressives. That’s run by the monied corporations you think shouldn’t have to be subject to laws and regulations.
“The Patriot Act is largely passive yet it robs you of your liberties.”
The Patriot Act is an example of active government.
Gene H:
“But the struggles of the post office weren’t created by their monopoly. They were created by technological change.”
They had no reason to change, they have no reason to charge bulk mailers more.
Gene H:
“Because your ideas play into corporate oligarchy and eventually into fascism while doing so under the guise of liberty.”
Now that is the problem, the entire 20th century has been about the rise of the progressives and it is no surprise that along with that has come the rise of corporations. The 2 feed off of each other, progressives expand government and corporations fund the political machinery to buy protection. There is no coincidence, you dont see the correlation because of your blinders.
But I do agree that corporations should not be able to lobby congress. Government has grown because of that alliance between progressives and business. There is no controlling mechanism on progressive’s will to power so they do not restrict business as it should be restricted they restrict entry into markets to protect favored corporations. That is what socialism/fascism and communism do, they restrict market entry for favors from corporations/business. It is an unholy alliance.
“the USPS typically operates at a loss.”
Only within the last 15 years – since the advent of email and the economic crisis (which also negatively impacted mail volumes).
Through most of its history, it has not. But then again, it’s a service, not a for-profit business. It’s a quasi-governmental agency under the Executive branch. It’s mandate is service, not profitability.
the USPS typically operates at a loss. It is mandated by the Constitution. And I accept that although I dont agree with it, but I see why the founders did it that way. Back then the US government was probably the only entity large enough to support the Post Office. Which was a necessity for a nascent nation.
I don’t care if that’s your opinion, Bron, but quite simply that’s not the fact of how government operates under the social compact. The protection you enjoy comes from you being a citizen and that means you are subject to the laws of your country.
As to what I want? Active, passive, irrelevant. Active and passive operations are just different tools for different jobs. Their effects on liberty are not defined by their state of action, but by their net outcome. The Patriot Act is largely passive yet it robs you of your liberties. Some jobs are better handled by active government, others by passive government. I don’t let that define what constitutes effective governance any more than I do size. What I want is functional government that does its Constitutionally defined functions and is answerable to We the People, not the biggest campaign contributors (democracy v. oligarchy).
Gene H:
if there are regulatory powers they are only to protect individual rights. The general welfare from what I can gather is meant to promote the environment in which rational people can thrive. It is by no means, at least in my mind, a justification for welfare or national health care or any of a number of things the government does which it shouldnt do.
It facilitates the prosperity of the people, it does not hand it to them. Like raising children, you provide an environment in which they can grow and become themselves and reach their highest potential. Although we are not children so government promotes an environment in which we are all able but not guaranteed to achieve our potential whatever level that may be.
Egalitarian in opportunity and before the law, nothing more.
“The government has power over you by nature of you being a citizen.”
No, properly constituted the citizen by being a citizen enjoys the protection of life, liberty and property. Government should be passive, you want active government which is a detriment or impediment to liberty.
“How so? What is there beyond those 3 things to protect? All of the Constitution is about protecting peoples rights, oh and the general rules like coining money. But those are side issues to the main agenda which is the protection of individual rights.”
I’m not going to cite the Preamble again. You haven’t grasped that pursuing justice and promoting the general welfare are valid functions of government along with the regulatory and enforcement powers created by the rest of the document yet, so I don’t expect you to now.