Rep Lynn Woolsey sent me this canned carefully crafted & thoughtful response to my email re: her positions on national health care (emphasis added)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on improving healthcare. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective with me on this important matter.

Like you, I am frustrated with the escalating cost and complications of healthcare in this country. We must find ways to make our healthcare system as high quality and affordable as possible for everyone. Also, we must reform the system so that the forty-eight million Americans who lack health insurance receive high quality coverage, which will bring down the overall costs of medical care.

Congress has begun holding hearings and listening to the suggestions of stakeholders, including doctors, patients, employers, and health insurance companies. These viewpoints and the suggestions of many others will be important voices as we consider health reform. I have supported various federal initiatives, such as H.R. 676, the U.S. National Health Insurance Act, which calls for a single payer national health insurance system. H.R. 676 will help control skyrocketing health costs while restoring choice of physician and the doctor-patient relationship. Many individuals prefer a single payer plan, but that may not be possible at this time. That’s why I have joined with other Members of Congress to advocate for a robust public plan option that can compete with private plans and will give patients the option to choose a public plan or a private plan. You can count on me to continue to be an outspoken voice for universal healthcare and for measures to improve healthcare for everyone.

Again, it’s good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Feel so good to be listened to! Now I know I’m making a difference! My voice has been heard!

Oh wait, the opposite of all of that.

You have to love that in response to me writing this:

As long as the government competes with private companies in a given industry, that industry will suffer and appear “inefficient.”

she reassured me with the fact that she will try harder to “compete with private plans.”

I don’t want to diminish the loss of three beloved public figures this week by any means, but I’d be lying if I said I thought there was any chance the majority of the American public knows what their government is up to right now.  And that is, according to reports, preparing to vote on what could be a disastrous Cap and Trade bill, and could do so as early as tomorrow.  I’m no alarmist, but this bill combined with the seemingly inevitable “Obamacare” bill coming down the pike will have serious economic implications for many, many years.  I know everyone is sad about the celebrity deaths of the last few days, but in between newscasts, I would highly recommend the following news articles from today’s Wall Street Journal about the Cap and Trade bill:

The Cap and Trade Fiction

Cap and Trade Doesn’t Work

In response to Rep Lynn Woolsey’s  We Need a Real and Robust Public Option:

I do not support the idea of nationalized health care. It is an impossible undertaking and is an irresponsible pursuit in the midst of the current financial climate.

We need to decentralize and decrease the size of the Federal Government, not increase. We need to move more services to the private sector and stop providing services to illegal aliens.

As long as the government competes with private companies in a given industry, that industry will suffer and appear “inefficient.”

Please lower taxes, lower government spending, and put money back in the pockets of individual citizens who can identify and work on their local community’s problems instead of trying to make a one size fits all solution and push the square peg into a round whole.

Please stop wasting your time and taxpayer money.

A recent post of mine entitled “Why Wouldn’t Iran Want Nukes?” received the following comment from “Hass” that should be addressed at length:

Ummm….Iran’s nuclear program started under the Shah, with the encouragement and support of the United States, because it makes economic sense for them to be able to continue exporting their oil and gas instead of consuming it at home. Stop the meaningless scaremongering.

I have no interest in scaremongering, so let’s discuss it.  A brief synopsis of the history of Iran’s nuclear program from the Council on Foreign Relations (hardly an outfit known for scaremongering) confirms that Hass’s facts are correct (emphasis mine):

Iran’s leaders have worked to pursue nuclear energy technology since the 1950s, spurred by the launch of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. It made steady progress, with Western help, through the early 1970s.

So, does that end the conversation as Hass implies that it should?  Hardly, for two reasons:

1. “Outside assistance” slowed in 1974 when “a U.S. special national intelligence estimate (PDF) declared that while ‘Iran’s much publicized nuclear power intentions are entirely in the planning stage,’ the ambitions of the shah could lead Iran to pursue nuclear weapons…”
2. The shah, whose nuclear program the U.S. had assisted in the 1950s, was violently overthrown in 1979 by Islamic radicals, “effectively ending outside assistance.”

So, there’s a clear breaking point between the era of U.S. assistance and today’s Islamic regime, whom the U.S. has not aided in its pursuit of nuclear energy.

So, did the Islamic regime immediately pursue a nuclear weapon?  No:

The withdrawal of Western support after the Islamic Revolution slowed Iran’s nuclear progress. And a confluence of factors—opposition to nuclear technology by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the exodus of nuclear scientists, and the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear facility by Israel in 1981, which removed an immediate threat—sent Iran’s nuclear program into a tailspin.

Then when did it restart its nuclear program?  :

Iran was known to be reviving its civilian nuclear programs during the 1990s…

Then how are you sure Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon?  In short, I am not sure, but I am not the only one with suspicions:

…revelations in 2002 and 2003 of clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion raised international concern that Iran’s ambitions had metastasized beyond peaceful intent.

It stands to reason that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon based on the following facts:

1. Iran has a clear enemy in Israel
2. Iran has stated its desire to eliminate Israel
3. Iran is pursuing a nuclear program

Back to my original question:  Why wouldn’t Iran want nukes?   Based on the evidence, one really has to want to believe that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon in order to believe that its nuclear program is peaceful.  Quite simply, Iran has no right to the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Over at the Weekly Standard, “Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) unloads on President Obama” (emphasis mine):

 “President Obama’s recent comment in support of Iranian nuclear power is both shocking and reckless. Supporting Iran’s “legitimate [nuclear] aspirations” ignores all recent history and smacks of the same naive and misguided approach that allowed for North Korea to gain nuclear power – and now possess nuclear weapons. In a bow to our worst enemies, the President is showing a striking ability to imitate former President Jimmy Carter.

“In just recent memory, Iran has funded terrorist activities against U.S. troops and our allies, called for the destruction of both the U.S. and our strong ally Israel, and sought to systematically destabilize the Middle East and world. Does the President believe Iran wants nuclear power to do their part in combating climate change? Iran has made it abundantly clear what sinister plans they have with nuclear power – and both the U.S. and our allies have great reason to worry.

“There are few scenarios worse than Iran gaining nuclear power – and subsequently nuclear weapons – to threaten and potentially attack the U.S. and our closest allies. The President should immediately recant his support for Iranian nuclear power and consider better options to protect our nation, not endanger it.”

Why don’t we ever believe that our enemies will do exactly what they say they will do when they threaten us or our allies?  Is it that we simply cannot fully comprehend evil?  Hitler outlined his final solution to the “Jewish problem” in Mein Kampf yet all were shocked by the Holocaust.  He wrote out what he wanted to do.  Why wouldn’t he attempt to make good on that mission statement?

Iran has stated many times its desire to wipe Israel off the map and yet some peaceniks (apparently our President) believe that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.  Why wouldn’t it want a nuclear weapon when it would help them achieve its stated goals?  Considering its stated goals, it’d be foolish of Iran not to want a nuclear weapon.  It’d be pretty tough to ”wipe Israel off the map” with conventional weapons and suicide bombers.  But with a nuclear weapon?  Problem solved.  As they’d say in the legal/law enforcement profession:  there’s a motive! 

If a friend keeps mentioning casually that he wants to lose twenty pounds, yet continues to eat bad foods and never works out, you casually brush off his comments as wishful thinking.  As his actions do not reflect his desires, his desire to pursue stated goals is not credible.  But if your friend tells you that he wants to lose twenty pounds, then eliminates sweets, fast food and beer from his diet, eats smaller portions and more fruit, begins running and lifting weights three times a week, hires a trainer, and remains disciplined for months, you’d have to conclude that he is serious about losing twenty pounds.

Why don’t we believe Iran is serious about wiping Israel off the map?  Is it too much for us to comprehend?

At least North Korea doesn’t really have any natural, sworn enemies and isn’t driven by an apocalyptic, fully-developed ideology with millions of devout followers (and millions more fellow travelers).  Kim Jong-Il is certainly a loon on some levels, but he’s pretty good at trotting out his nukes every two years to get things - respect, money, concessions - from the West.  Iran has all of the above and a specific, stated reason for nuclear weapons: the elimination of Israel.  How can some still believe that he doesn’t want nuclear weapons?

A new Weekly Standard article discusses the growing number of agnostics in the United States and their general political affiliations:

… data shows the two areas of the country where the percent of “Nones” [those with no religious affiliation] has topped 20%–New England and the West Coast–are also regions where Democrats have made substantial political gains in the past two decades.

This is not surprising to me at all.  When you eliminate God,  naturally, the state becomes the number one candidate to fill the vacancy.  To borrow from a hymn:  the state becomes your help in ages past, your hope for years to come, your shelter in the thorny blast and your eternal home.  What is surprising and even more troubling to me are those “believers” (about 25% nationwide) who, despite claiming faith in God, look to the state first for all of the above.

For the non-religious, faith in the state also acts like a moral compass, allowing them to act like a good person burdened by the plight of the poor, the horrors of war, the tragedy of human injustice and the travesty of wasting our earthly resources, without requiring them to accept a worldview that would “burden” other, less socially en vogue, areas of their life (such as submission to God in all things, sexual purity before and during marriage and tithing).  In some cases, it also shields one from having to put their faith into action by causing a sort of ”I gave at the office” mentality where voting for the Democratic Party (the party for the “oppressed”) becomes one’s good works.  (In fairness, this is true for some conservative Christians with respect to Republicans as well).

But do not be fooled:  agnosticism and atheism are still very much their own versions of faith complete with dotrines, creeds and saints, albeit unofficial in most cases.  Put simply:  choosing not to choose is still choosing.  And that choice directs one’s life.  In short:  It becomes one’s religion.