House Passes Health Care Bill

Many didn't think they would do it but the US House stayed in session all day and into the night Saturday to pass the long awaited National Health Care bill by a vote of 220 to 215, If three representatives had gone the other way there would be a different story today. Many republicans take comfort from the narrow victory pointing out that this bill will never make it past the senate. But it is a victory and sometimes victories can provide their own momentum. The debate yesterday was fast and furious as many speakers were only alloted one minute to say their piece. One might say that both positions are well dug in and entrenched with no hope of compromize. Only one republican voted for this bill whereas they say that forty blue dog democrats voted against it. This is not an encouraging sign. This bill contains the Public Option of course, and also makes reference to "unfunded mandates", which I personally feel uncomfortable with. And the bill will force employers to provide Health Insurance to their employees even when it might be disaventagious for them to do so. It levies heavy fines and even jail for those people who refuse to buy insurance. Clearly this is exercising the Thom Hartman option of "sharing the risk", or in other words, a redistribution of wealth, -not from the rich to the poor, but from the healthy to the sick. In this bill you are penalized if you're continually healthy. But with all that said they promise everything will opporate more efficiently than in the past and that in the long run expenses will be cut. The public option portion of the bill doesn't kick in till 2013, but other provisions kick in immediately.

Today is a key twentieth anniversary - and that is of the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. People have chunks of the Berlin wall in their personal collections all over the world, and there is a portion of the wall to look at at the Reagan Presidential library. People thought communism would end but Russia is still a threat. I don't understand why the world still even needs NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, if there is no longer a Soviet threat. Russia doesn't want nations like Ukrane to be a member because they feel encircled. I still consider it an outside possability that Russia will ally with Iran to start some kind of a third world war. People like Chuck Smith are holding on to this "hope" to save their eccliastical legacy. I don't know what Russia wants but they obviously want SOMETHING, and I find that unsetteling.

You know I haven't come out and said it but perhaps you computer people can understand the concept of "reformating time and space" in the creation of a new Universe. In other words we don't even know if anything was previously there AT ALL, but it doesn't MATTER because everything will be reformatted. Thus time and space will have their own inique identities with each new Universe formed. Some will protest that Black Holes can't be beyond a certain size and therefore my theory is nuts. But I say that since we have not and will never see a Black Hole in this universe with our time and space, it's a little pointless to say what would happen in al alltogether hypothetical Universe. Oh by the way I figured out something I heard in High School math about imaginary numbers. I was told imaginary numbers were in fact used in the real world in electronics when you square measurements. Some of you wondered about my math when I talked how "the math is the same for negative space" saying "How can it be since negative numbers go positive". Let me explain it to you in simple terms. If I give you two negative dollars today and in a week the intreat paid on the loan is one hundred percent, then who owes who what at the end of a wrrk? Well, the answer is that I owe you four dollars, or in other words, you give me four negtative dollars. The concept here is that negative space is not negative numbers. If you square two miles of negative space it makes four miles of negative space- - because the amounts are positive even though the space is negative. Now on a slightly different subject- - space folding- - obviously the Federation would do this for very large objects like perhaps whole asteroids, that would be too big for a "transporter converter" to hyper-mass. Does that make sense? Now when you fold space you go "above the surface" of the green golf grid. This provides the "space" to fold the surface. One might invision among that one mile of fog of ether into a TRUE vacuum that would be hyper-space. Now of course the atoms and matter would be mirrored in one dimension. Some may chime in again "Does that make the mass negative?" No. Mass goes negative with time and not necessarily space. The term "mirrored mass" rather than "negative mass" would apply here. In fact the Federation teaches that normally time is not effected at all but sometimes there is what they call "gravimetric distortion" where events can leap- - usually months either backward or forward. Some ask, "But you said time travel was impossible in a four-dimensional universe". What I think I said was "You can't Change anything that would have or has happened. I only go on what I am told. This was around 1987. Try this thought on for size. "We never said you couldn't be two different places at the same time". Only that if you ARE destined to have this happen to you, that it has happened from the dawn of eternity or "the foundation of the universe". It doesn't violate the four-dimensional rule. In terms of the distinction of telestial and "celestial" - - let me repeat that the Federation ephasizes that they do telestial and not "celestial" travel. To strike up another metaphore, they may venture off the surface of the bubble, but they don't venture very far. I would also say that the surface of the green golf grid represents sub-light space but you haven't necessarily escaped all "formatting" in the bubble. I say this is because Mal Evans has told me "All federation travel is confined to this Universe. (meditate on this now)

Here are the other five or so axioms we didn't get to. A religion or corporation too big to fail is too big to exist. This is because, as we said, these entities need to "justify" their existance, which means they have some Reason to exist. If they have no rational means where there legitimacy may be tested it may be said that there IS no way for them to either be counted as "worthy" or "unworthy". It's kind of a variation on the theme of "actions ought to have consequences" or-"Part of the definition of life is that there is a possability that it may die". In terms of the computer one. When I look at an old BASIC program and run it - virtually one hundred percent of the time, glitches in performance are due to "opperator error" meaning I've forgotten how to run my own Program. The way to refresh my memory on this is to look under the hood and see what the thing was Designed to do. You know, I think God should be the FIRST person to abide by this principle with human beings rather being the LAST person to subscribe to it- - which seems too often the case. And I'm not even talking about Changing the code, but merely understanding its proper function. If knowing the code is beyond God's apparent ability, then Changing the code would be even farther beyond God's capabilities. In terms of the one about a billion here and a billion there- - - . Dr. Levy says that true happiness can only come from grandiose accomplishments like marriage and family and creeier, or getting a degree. That things like food and sex and recreation don't count for "true happiness". There is this thought virus circulating that goes "If something doesn't last Forever - - then it's useless" These are short term sources of happiness, but after 365 days you have a whole year, and this can be sizable. If your life conversely is filled with lots and lots of continued short term misery (like from one exotic health diet after another), then the long term starts to be affected, too. Think about it. It's people like Chuck Smith who teach that ordenary pleasures don't bring happiness but only "Jesus" does this. Of course the Answer to everything is "Jesus". (ha ha) The Adam Smith one is simple. Dr. Levy says find some nitch in society to develope your tallent. But we all can't, for instance, be psychotherapists counceling people all day long, or have a "master passion" of being a spiritual model to be envied by others. But the free market must be satisfied. There is a truth that trying to be what you are inherently not can be frustrating. Some people's "efforts" or "deeds" are just WORTH more than the deeds or efforts of others. Not all of us have some seemingly aura of magnitism about us the way certain people seem to. This is cold, hard reality. By the way I also value the economics of Adam Smith on the national and world economies. I think if his principles were in true opperation, a lot of problems would solve themselves. There is a lot of "cheating" going on today, such as the manipulation of the values of foreign curriences from what they should be or by "cornering the market" so that the free market prices are unable to opperate at all. (Selah) And our final thought is "Somethings seem exactly the way they are - - particularly upon first impression". Often a "first impression" gives you insignt on an event you later lose, because you're around it so much you don't notice it, like working in a sewer. (sp?) You rationalize the things you didn't LIKE about the thing out of your mind- - and think you have dealt with the problem. One lie told by James Dobson is "Your feelings will lie to you". But it's Dobson who is the one lying to you. People need to trust themselves. If you met a stranger and sought advice you'd want to know his track record. Who's track record do you know better than your own??