Response to Pennock's Article Comments ...

Robert G. and Robert K.,

I don't find this commentary had anything to do with domestic wiretapping and the Patriot Act. Since you brought them up though, yes - I find them to be Orwellian also. But that's not what this was about.

This segment had absolutely no reference to party lines. There was no whining about how the other political party's morals are different - in fact, he never once said that health care didn't need to be reformed. On the contrary he offered a few very valid points that could be taken into consideration. The only context in which morals were spoken of was in the sense that these terms such as "moral obligations" are Orwellian because they equate to being nothing less than "newspeak". To wit, terms such as that are being used and presented to certain audiences in order to, it can be perceived, guilt persons into going along with the legislation.

Sarah Palin was never mentioned. I think regardless of your affiliation you can pretty much see that she's gone a bit overboard on a few too many things.

So, with that said, I will speak on what was actually said and your direct response to those words.

You are correct that ~1/6 of our American population is not medically insured(according to statistics) and that is an egregious oversight by us as people and as neighbors. I don't see, however, how that demands the government take control of it. If you can justify that for me, please do - I would love to hear your opinions on that.

When the author of this piece says "that “giving” coerced by the government is not giving at all, nor is it virtue. For virtue to be true virtue, it must be voluntary," he is completely right. And that returns us to the point of the POTUS' use of "moral obligation" being Orwellian newspeak. If it's a moral obligation then the person to whom that applies will do it without being guilted into it. And if someone does it just because they are told that it is their "moral obligation" then that null and voids the true nature of morality and the obligations held within. So the use of that term can only, to me at least, be construed as one that is being used to get people to do what they wouldn't normally do. I am all for getting people to step outside of their comfort zone but if you're going to ask them to do it, be upfront and honest in your assertions and, at the least, choose your words wisely.

Also mentioned was opposing sides of the political spectrum accusing one another of having different morals. I understand where you come from with this but I would like to comment on that as well. It is within my own view that the majority of those at any point within that spectrum don't necessarily have differing morals - we have different visions as to how to go about accomplishing what we all, as a collective, feel is right and just. I think if we can all step to the table with that in heart and mind, then a lot more will be accomplished than we might ever be able to imagine.

Thanks for listening,

aka sends ...

To the Point ...

Friends, I want to say first and foremost that I appreciate the dialogue we had today. I am disappointed that no one took me up on my offer to start a forum regarding this topic, but I will take your remarks into deep consideration when approaching the statehouse later this fall. I may not hold huge sway under the rotunda but I'm working on that ;) Regardless, I thank you for the insight that was given. I think Rich said it very well when he commented that "... sometimes the disgrace is on the individual who won't contribute ...". My sentiments exactly; with the key word being "individual". I believe as people united we should be there for each other in every way possible. Why are we okay with the fact that we have such stark economic polar opposites existing among us? Why is it alright that one man struggles to find a box to house himself in, while another has temperature regulated tiling throughout his multi-million dollar house? Why can't someone get top quality care for an illness that shouldn't be allowed to dig them into their grave, while others live through diseases and tragedies we've been told are terminal? Why? It's sad people. It most definitely is a disgrace. I believe in just compensation for your contributions and work, but I also believe in taking care of people. I agree with all of you actually. Yes! I believe in education and health care for everyone. People should be able to feed and clothe their children. For God's sake, they should have a roof over their head and a pillow to rest on. I believe in this! And what's more than that, I know we can institute change that will provide for this. The only schism that exists between my thoughts and all of yours - or at least how I am reading it to be yours - is that I don't believe we should be so subservient as to instinctively turn to our government to provide the answers for us. We're smarter than this people. I promise you, we are! We as a people can find a way together to provide and take care of each other in a manner which doesn't require regulation or mandates. Seriously ... is that what you all want? You want the POTUS and the Congress telling you what to do and how your life should be lived and taken care of? "We" have to act. Not the government. I don't care what your political leanings are, all I care about is whether you come to the table or not. Bring your ideas, your thoughts and values with you and have an open mind. But show up! In closing I will say this; I cannot understand how it would be satisfactory to post a few words on a thread about a topic that is of concern to you, and then move on with life. I'm sure all of you hold this same contention. Regardless, action does not rest in the arms of conversations. In fact, it does not rest at all. (Please know I say that with tongue-in-cheek) :) much love, aka sends ..