Складається враження, що пан Ющенко трохи забув у якій саме країні він живе. Тож ми йому стисло нагадаємо.
а) У країні, що є унітарною й, судячи з усього, залишатиметься такою всупереч здоровому глузду аж доки сама не розвалиться від власної унітарности.
б) У країні, де місцевого самоврядування не було, немає й не знати коли буде. Кого саме тоді репрезентуватиме горішня палата - невідомо.
в) У країні, що не має грошей на першочергові потреби, не кажучи вже про утримання ще одного прошарку бюрократії. Чи не краще було б - з метою економії також - скасувати інститут президентства?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Republican Party simply can't be trusted on Health Care
Just for the record: I am an Independent. I have voted across the isle last November and plan to do so in the future because, to me, what matters is the person, not necessarily his or her political party affiliation.
And yet during the last week's GOP Presidential candidates' debate, I couldn't help but notice (and, hopefully, so did millions of viewers) that more than an hour of that 2-hour event had passed before we heard the word "health care" for the first time.
You guessed right: what those older white men had mostly talked before was war in Iraq (turns out, more than 3,000 American lives wasted in vain is not enough!). In between, they had a chance to talk about immigration (and very few of them had a clue what to do about it) and (sic!) the fact that "any human life is sacred" by denouncing abortions and the "pro-choice" position.
If CNN's Wolf Blitzer's brain were processing things a bit faster, he might have asked them all how their passion for preserving human life coexists with their fanatical support for the death penalty. But who cares, really?
That night, the moment of truth came when, after some 1+ hours, the word "health care" popped up. And none of the GOP candidates was able to spell out a clear plan for the health care reform. Instead, there was the usual mixture of old ideological cliches (like "no socialized medicine" etc.) and clearly incompetent bullshit ("I will have a plan...").
Are Democrats better on Health Care? To be honest, I'm not sure. They've screwed up on it more than once in the past. To this very moment, there is no single clear party position on what Health Care in the U.S. should be - universal or something else.
But these days Democrats show something Republicans don't: willingness to step over the ideology in the search of the truth. The are ready to admit that the answer to the the question "What kind of Health Care system does America really need?" may lie ANYWHERE. It may be Universal Health Insurance provided by the Government, it may still be the coverage provided by for-profit companies, or it may be something in-between. The Democrats, at least, are willing to explore it.
And the Republicans aren't. They continue to sit on their "anything but socialized medicine" stance and not because they truly believe so (many of them sure don't) but because it's one of their party's ideological foundation pillars. And it is the party bosses who don't want (and probably can't) recognize the fact that this pillar may be functionally obsolete.
The Republican Party is interested in bipartisan cooperation on Health Care issues only on the basis that their position is right. Such cooperation becomes fruitless the moment it begins for "arrogance is so much closer to the truth than prejudice".
And this is precisely why GOP can not and should not be trusted on Health Care.
And yet during the last week's GOP Presidential candidates' debate, I couldn't help but notice (and, hopefully, so did millions of viewers) that more than an hour of that 2-hour event had passed before we heard the word "health care" for the first time.
You guessed right: what those older white men had mostly talked before was war in Iraq (turns out, more than 3,000 American lives wasted in vain is not enough!). In between, they had a chance to talk about immigration (and very few of them had a clue what to do about it) and (sic!) the fact that "any human life is sacred" by denouncing abortions and the "pro-choice" position.
If CNN's Wolf Blitzer's brain were processing things a bit faster, he might have asked them all how their passion for preserving human life coexists with their fanatical support for the death penalty. But who cares, really?
That night, the moment of truth came when, after some 1+ hours, the word "health care" popped up. And none of the GOP candidates was able to spell out a clear plan for the health care reform. Instead, there was the usual mixture of old ideological cliches (like "no socialized medicine" etc.) and clearly incompetent bullshit ("I will have a plan...").
Are Democrats better on Health Care? To be honest, I'm not sure. They've screwed up on it more than once in the past. To this very moment, there is no single clear party position on what Health Care in the U.S. should be - universal or something else.
But these days Democrats show something Republicans don't: willingness to step over the ideology in the search of the truth. The are ready to admit that the answer to the the question "What kind of Health Care system does America really need?" may lie ANYWHERE. It may be Universal Health Insurance provided by the Government, it may still be the coverage provided by for-profit companies, or it may be something in-between. The Democrats, at least, are willing to explore it.
And the Republicans aren't. They continue to sit on their "anything but socialized medicine" stance and not because they truly believe so (many of them sure don't) but because it's one of their party's ideological foundation pillars. And it is the party bosses who don't want (and probably can't) recognize the fact that this pillar may be functionally obsolete.
The Republican Party is interested in bipartisan cooperation on Health Care issues only on the basis that their position is right. Such cooperation becomes fruitless the moment it begins for "arrogance is so much closer to the truth than prejudice".
And this is precisely why GOP can not and should not be trusted on Health Care.
U.S. must stop acting stupid on planned missile bases in Europe. Russia must be included.
I have never been a fan of Russia's policies or Russian politics. And yet I can't help but think that when it comes to discussion about the U.S. plans to build 2 new missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, America is acting ridiculously stupid.
Don't get me wrong: Russia is not and, perhaps, will never be our "friend" like Britain. Russia is our competitor on the global stage. An ally? Maybe, some time in the future. But Moscow sure is NOT our enemy like Iran, North Korea and, highly probably in the future, China.
Therefore, playing this senseless Cold War thing - "keeping Russians out whatever it takes" - simply isn't working anymore.
Yes, Russian President Putin may have scored an "in your face, stupid!" victory when he suggested that, instead of deepening the existing division trenches, Russia and the U.S. partner up in using the existing Russian station in Azerbayjan. Yes, he certainly intends to gain some political capital on it - so what?! As long as it serves our true, not imaginable, national interests, why not go for it?
Unless, of course, our President Bush - an intellectual misery, to put it mildly - decides to use his usual "I'm gonna do it my own way and if you ain't happy 'bout it, then fuck ya!" appoach.
If he does, the history will be given another fine argument why he should go down as "the worst U.S. President ever".
Don't get me wrong: Russia is not and, perhaps, will never be our "friend" like Britain. Russia is our competitor on the global stage. An ally? Maybe, some time in the future. But Moscow sure is NOT our enemy like Iran, North Korea and, highly probably in the future, China.
Therefore, playing this senseless Cold War thing - "keeping Russians out whatever it takes" - simply isn't working anymore.
Yes, Russian President Putin may have scored an "in your face, stupid!" victory when he suggested that, instead of deepening the existing division trenches, Russia and the U.S. partner up in using the existing Russian station in Azerbayjan. Yes, he certainly intends to gain some political capital on it - so what?! As long as it serves our true, not imaginable, national interests, why not go for it?
Unless, of course, our President Bush - an intellectual misery, to put it mildly - decides to use his usual "I'm gonna do it my own way and if you ain't happy 'bout it, then fuck ya!" appoach.
If he does, the history will be given another fine argument why he should go down as "the worst U.S. President ever".
Коли вже нарешті помре СНД???
Доцільність від перебування у СНД бачать лише хворі на голову. Якщо Ющенко каже, що у СНД Україні слід залишатися будь-що, він так само хворий на голову. Більше мені просто нічого додати.
І це є Позиція.
І це є Позиція.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
"Євразіст" Алєксандр Дугін у фотопробі на роль Фрідріха Енгельса?
Фото Алєксандра Котоміна, Лента.РУ
Ні, не хвилюйтеся, це не Фрідріх Енгельс, якого багато хто вважає - будете сміятися - братом Карла Маркса. Енгельс двинув коні ще 1895-го. На світлині увічнено затятого російського "євразіста" Алєксандра Дугіна. Так, саме того (перепрошую за мою вкрай недосконалу російську) мудака, що у 1990-х написав "учєбнік по гєополітікє", у якому заявив, що існування Украіни з геополітичної точки зору - повна бздура.
На відміну від Затуліна, Дугіна до України не впустили, а депортували нах...й. Висновок: якщо ти - мудак, немає чого косити під титанів думки.
Чому свиня Затулін знову в Україні?!
Чому червонопика свиня Затулін знову в Україні?! Це - запитання не лише до СБУ, що торік заборонила цій свині пхати свою пику до нашої країни. Це - запитання до усіх інституцій держави, що, здається, вже остаточно розтринькала залишки самоповаги.
Ну що ж, мабуть треба перейменовуватися: з України - на Малоросію.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)