Monday, December 28, 2009

Courage, Bought and Paid For

Baucus has responded to allegations that he was drunk on the Senate floor. Apparently, using someone's words as they are spoken by that person constitute
an "untrue, personal smear" designed to attack Democrats' health-care reform legislation.
Now, why would the senior Senator say that his words were an attack on the Democrat's "health-care reform legislation?" I was sure that he helped to create it. Maybe he is as disappointed in it as everyone else.
Oh, wait a minute, he is just using the standard "when you are screwed, attack the anyone else" method of mature political discourse. This has worked for years, and it is frustrating to the Democrats that those damned peasants of the electorate keep pointing out to them that they have been given the majority and it's their responsibility. The distraction method of the past doesn't seem to be working as well. Better fall back on the old tried and true: It's Bush's fault.
But the most amusing thing to me, was when Baucus was asking the question "Where's the courage?"
"I ask, where is the senator on that side of the aisle who has the courage to break from their leadership, break from the partisanship they are exercising on their side of the aisle, to work together to pass health-care reform?" Baucus said. "I ask, where is the courage?"
Doesn't Max understand that as expensive as this bill is, that Harry Reid couldn't afford to buy any more votes than he needed? The courage of the Democrats was to state intractable positions, then recant them upon a suitable doling of taxpayer largesse.
Me, I am just as happy that for once, Harry Reid exercised some fiscal responsibility.

Monday, December 21, 2009

This Explains Everything!

Pitiful, but at least he didn't call them Communists. That would smack too much of McCarthy tactics.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

It's For the Children

Bill Clinton is calling the Tea Party Protesters "Tea Baggers" a juvenile slur, that is sure to titillate his many followers. It diminishes the protesters in their minds, not realizing that it actually diminishes him and the followers. For those Democrats who want to use the slur, please feel free, in fact I encourage you to continue to slander the citizens of this country who for the first time feel compelled to protest. I know that they are not as accomplished as the Left is at protests, but that doesn't mean that they aren't as passionate.
If the Democrats are right, and the Tea Partiers are nothing but a fringe driven by Fox News, Rush, then they will not have an effect on the future. On the other hand, if these people are ordinary citizens who recognize that the usurpation of power and wealth for the betterment of the Democrat Party (and that is what this about, not the country) the Democrats are not going to be in power much longer.
In some ways, it is easy to feel sorry for the Democrats, because they haven't a clue. They only talk to those that they agree with, and yell and deride anyone who doesn't agree with them. They claim to be for "the people" but they are as far removed from them as Marie Antoinette was from her adopted countrymen.
But if there are any intelligent Democrats out there who are actually interested, here is an example of some of the people who are Tea Party protesters. When you read the article, you will notice a common theme: We are doing this for our children and grandchildren. That is because we (the Lamest Generation) are going to be the beneficiaries of the government largesse about to be doled out, but it comes at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
A young guy told me one day, that my generation had basically bankrupted the country, and that his generation was going to pay for it. And I agreed with him. Is it too much, not to add still more debt to my children and grandchildren for nothing more than a partisan program that is not designed to solve the uninsured problem, but is instead an attempt to cement a Democrat majority for the future?
The funny thing: It will do neither.

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Freedom of Speech?

Mark Toharski can always be counted on for hours of pseudo-intellectual babble, and is usually harmless, since even the Left seems to see him for a fool. But I think that he is onto something in his Orwellian world where "free markets" aren't free, but regulated ones are. At least he is as consistent as when he says that he is in favor of capitalism, so long as the government is controlling the markets.
The reason that I think that he is onto something, is that the Obama administration seems to be in agreement with him. Nothing like admiring that fine upstanding democrat Hugo Chavez when we are talking about political speech in this country.
Essentially, Mark and others' argument is that the public airways need to be controlled, not only for the prevention of interference of signals, but the interference of ideas. For that reason, so many are in favor of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to restrict Talk Radio, and its lack of support for the current Leftist administration. Those darned Right Wingers keep raising unpleasant questions and facts that are getting in the way of implementing the utopia for the workers that they seek. Of course, in this utopia, they would be the masters, but that would be okay, because they would be benevolent.
So, what exactly are we talking about here? What is being impacted by the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? How about the Constitution?
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The speech element of the Constitution has been litigated from the beginning of the Republic. While not all speech is protected, political speech is. And guess what Right Wing Talk Radio is all about? How about political speech?
The Left's willingness to sacrifice the Constitution for the sake of their agenda is frightening. Do they not realize that by controlling the airwaves, they open the door to the Right doing the same thing to them with the over the air broadcast news? I know that they claim it is already being done through the conservative owners who dictate what the reporters say, which is just plain delusional. As Obama himself said, "Most of you voted for me, and all of you supported me, apologies to the Fox table." It is not the ownership that drives their agenda, it is the agenda of the so called "journalists" who conflate punditry with news reporting.
The last argument that they use, is that the airwaves are public property, therefore the government has the right to regulate them. It is true that the government has the right to regulate who uses frequencies, and how they are used. But that is not the same as regulating what is being said. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Thank God, that the Left has hit their high water mark, and will soon be on the way out. The threats they pose to the Constitution are too dire to ignore.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Fool Me Once . . .

Oh, hell, they'll probably fool me again. But the Republicans have seemingly stumbled upon the magic formula of fiscal sanity, and limited government as the touchstones of their 2010 campaign. I have always said that I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, even if they don't.
For those social conservatives, I would say to not fear the change. Limited government is less likely to force government mandated abortions or gay marriage, because that is not the proper role of government. A Win-Win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Republicans always said that government doesn't work, and when elected proved it. The Democrats of today seem to believe that the government can solve all problems, and they promptly show that they are horribly wrong. Maybe we should stick with the ones who were right.
On the other hand, if the Republicans decide to revert back to the previous eight years, there will be a quick turnaround again. You get one more chance Republicans. Don't blow it.


Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Democrat's Civil War Begins!

Much has been made of the disarray of the Republican Party (the untimely reports of its demise being greatly exaggerated) but while not literally true, does show some serious problems: Lack of willingness to self identify as Republicans; The punjabs who would pick Scozzafava to represent their party in the NY-23 race, who withdrew and threw her support to the Democrat; and the last remnants of a PR campaign to demonize G. W. Bush. But if you think that they have it bad, consider the Democrats: Jay Stevens is disappointed in his Party's slight rightward tug, and is offering a solution:
In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.
One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....
Earlier, Yellowstone Kelly put voice (or is it pixels?) to the disappointment felt by the failure of the Democrats to deliver on their many promises. I hope the Kelly doesn't think that it will get better, because we are talking about politicians for crying out loud.
Will we soon be seeing articles about how the Democratic Party is going to have to become more conservative in order to stay viable? Don't hold your breath. But by default, it does seem as if the Grand Old Party is rising from the dead. Just in time for Halloween apparently.

As Maine Goes . . .

So goes the Nation is an old rubric that has a certain element of truth. I suppose that is because Maine is the first spot in America to see the sunrise of the new day (never mind that the westernmost islands of the Aleutian chain are technically across the 180 meridian). Another example is when the voters of Maine rejected same sex marriage at the ballot box yesterday. This means that everywhere the vote has been put to the public, the public has rejected it. The only places where same sex marriage is allowed were put into effect by either judicial, or legislative fiat.
I don't really understand the desire for gay marriage, mostly because it leads to gay divorce. The other thing is, that the institution of marriage (and we should all be institutionalized) holds a meaning beyond the normal understanding of the word. But to say that it provides for a stable relationship between a husband and wife for the rearing of children, would mean that I shouldn't be married, since I had that whole fertility problem solved before I married my wife. And what about the fertile octogenarian, which is a legal fiction to screw with law student's minds for no purpose other than the amusement of the law professors.
On the other side, the heavy handed approach that the proponents of gay marriage make, turns people off who might otherwise be agreeable to their cause. Sexual orientation is really nobody's business, and should not be flaunted for that very reason, whether straight or not. Throw in the lawsuits that seek to force churches to condone gay marriage, and people become very uncomfortable with the notion and its adherents.
If the gay community is going to accomplish their goals, they will need to change their tactics. This issue is never going to follow the pathway of the civil rights movement of the '60s. Then, the majority of the population supported equality, but the legislators, (especially Southern Democrats) rejected it. A sort of reverse of the present situation. But this is not to say that they don't have a certain segment of the general population who do support their cause. Mostly, it is made up of straight friends and family who realize the disparity of treatment given to their loved ones because of their sexual orientation. I myself, have a distant cousin who is living in San Francisco with his husband, and a step-grandson, who the women in my family all agree is probably gay. Me, I can't tell, so I don't bother. But I am worried about my step-grandson, because he is just a great kid. Kind, happy, intelligent, and just fun to be with. I wouldn't want him to suffer from what I saw happen to people who were "different" when I was growing up. He has done nothing to choose his orientation, it was thrust upon him.
No, the future of gay civil rights will have to come from us straights (or "breeders" in the vernacular) who love and care for our friends and relatives. Keep the flamboyance out of the picture, and there will be greater success. If on the other hand, it becomes an "in your face, you must accept me" thing, it will continue to fail at the hands of the voters.
The choice is clear: Feel good about moral vindication that accomplishes nothing, or agree to let others lead the way and get what you want.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Why I No Longer Fear Obama Care (as much)

My wife (The Good Democrat) is disappointed in me that I am not that happy with the coming Health Care "Reform." Part of it is that it was originally supposed to insure the 47 then 30 million people who are without health insurance. Sure, the numbers were problematic, but there was at least 10 million people who desired health insurance but were unable to obtain it. Somehow, we have turned the problem around, and it has become greedy insurance companies that make 2% profit, and greedy doctors who are pulling tonsils or amputating feet just so that they can pay for their country club dues. The net result is that we will still have around 17 million people without health insurance, and most of us will lose ours as employers figure out that it is cheaper to pay an 8% payroll tax than to maintain employer based health insurance. Using the government to implement the new Democrat mantra of choice and competition, (which will result in neither) made me fearful that eventually we are going to have the equivalent of medical sick call for the military, but without the benefit of an abnormally healthy population that will be calling for services.
When I mentioned to my wife, that I had less trust that the government could perform these functions well, she accused me of having "no faith" that Obama would solve the problem. And she is right. I pointed out to her the government's failure to provide the H1N1 flu vaccinations, and that her experience working for a lawyer in getting workers social security disability claims. She always is complaining about the arbitrary and ridiculous rules that the government puts in the way of obtaining what is legally theirs. My wife just dismisses my complaints because this time, it will be different.
Definition of insanity anyone?
But the more I thought about it, maybe it won't be such a bad thing if Obamacare is passed. Think about it, We will have employers dumping employees onto the public option as soon as they can. More people will be showing up starting on the day of passage demanding their "free" healthcare, only to be told that it won't be available until 2013. Then, once 2013 hits, people will find that there are a whole bunch of doctors who will refuse to see them under the public option, because the reimbursement rates will be too low to make practicing medicine anything but a losing proposition. Sure there will be those doctors who can't make a living because they are terrible, and they will gladly accept the government checks, and with some careful padding, they will probably make a fairly decent living.
But honest and ethical doctors are going to drop out of the system.
So, you are asking, how is this a good thing? Easy. Assume for a minute that the conservatives take control of both houses of Congress by 2012, never mind the Presidency. If they do, the first legislation that they should pass would be to remove state by state restrictions on the purchase of health care. Second, they should also institute a law that says punitive damages go into the state coffers, not to the individual or his/her lawyer. Punitives are not necessarily bad, since they make it inefficient to do wrong. But it is in society's interest that the money go to the state rather than just the innocent wronged. Since the lawyer will no longer have a one third to one half interest in the amount of punitives, there will be less of them requested, and thus lower malpractice rates. By removing the restrictions on sales across state lines, I will be able to buy whatever policies fit my needs, and not those that are determined by some agency that knows nothing about me.
By enacting these changes, you will now be creating two classes of medical coverage: One that is substandard and free but riddled with ignorant and useless bureaucrats and rules and run by the government; and the other which would be a free enterprise driven system without the non-payers and the uninsurable, who will now be on the government dole.
While it seems selfish, rational self interest certainly would recognize that it is in no one's interest to participate in a government run system that is doomed to the level of quality of the IRS when they can pick another plan that suits their needs.
I realize that this is the "So long, Suckas" philosophy, but since so few people seem to be willing to look at the long term, it's every person for themselves.
So Long, . . . Oops.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Well Informed Voting Public

The Pew Research Center has published a poll showing the awareness of issues in the public realm. Here is a breakout by Republicans, Independents and Democrats:

What I find really interesting (discounting the fact that Republicans scored higher on all but one issue) is the knowledge base of Independents is higher in all areas than Democrats except for Party in Power, Public Option and the spending on health care issues. And all this time, my Democratic friends like to remind me of how smart their friends are (since they can't seem to answer basic questions, they always refer to someone else who is smarter than they are) and that they have superior information.
Seems to be the culmination of the self-esteem generation.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

20 Years Now, Where'd They Go?

I was reading this excellent article about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 20th anniversary is set for next month, and felt amazed that it has been so long since it happened. The article reminded me of Germany before it became reunited. How Germany was essentially an armed camp that had people living between all of the kasernes. West Germany which was the size of Oregon had two US Corps two British Corps, a Belgian Corps and a Dutch Corps, and God knows how many German Corps. (A Corp is a military formation consisting of 2-5 divisions). In East Germany a country the size of Ohio, there were 215 Soviet divisions armed with the latest equipment, and ready to roll to the English Channel as soon as the order was given. It was the greatest place in the world to be stationed if you were a young officer wanting to do something important.
But I returned to Montana in 1987 to teach ROTC at the University of Montana, so my observations of the fall of the Berlin Wall were confined to watching it on television. You have to remember, that this was right after the massacre at Tianemen Squate, where the Army of the PRC had fired on the student demonstrators. I don't know why we accepted it, but I guess it was because we really couldn't do anything about it in any event. But it was also, that we recognized the inherent evil of the totalitarian socialist regimes that the survival of the state was the most important factor in any action.
When I watched the fall of the Wall, I was afraid that the East German government would revert to form and massacre their own people, just like the Chinese had. The other fear that I had was that the Soviet Union would regard the destruction of their client state as unacceptable, and roll their own forces as a diversion from the popular discontent. Luckily, neither happened.
Twenty years on seems to be pretty quick at my age. But there are somethings that are timeless. One of the things from the article come to mind in particular:
The hollowness of the communist ideology, its false promise of an omniscient state, was laid bare. Far from being omnipotent, its impotence was manifest in that moment of truth.
For those who believe in the omnipotence of any government, I would ask them to review the history of those states that tried to infiltrate all aspects of life, and note their abject failure.
Read the Whole Thing.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Another Reason to be Afraid

Cook County Illinois prosecutors are tired of being embarrassed because they keep wrongfully convicting innocent people. Rather than take up the issue internally, in order to prevent future miscarriages of justice, they have decided to go after the people who keep showing them up: The students of Northwestern University's Journalism School.
Seems the prosecutors are asking for subpoenas for the students' grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages of the journalism students. Now, what crime is it that the prosecutors are investigating with the subpoenas? Embarrassment of a public official seems to be the leading cause that comes to mind.
But what I want to know is, what judge in their right mind would ever sign the subpoena? For most who read this blog, they will probably never come into contact with the law, and will never have to face the painful and permanent proctology exam otherwise known as being charged with a crime. But when prosecutors can decide on their own to harass and annoy innocent people who are just seeking justice (which is supposed to be the first duty of a prosecutor) don't believe for a moment, that you are immune. And don't turn to judges for help either, obviously.
I hope that this reminds all citizens to be suspicious of the work of our public servants.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

A Cross on Government Property

The ACLU is suing to remove a war memorial from WW I. A photo of what it looked like before the suit is here:

Here is what it looks like now:

Apparently, there is no problem with crosses on foreign ground, even though it is technically American soil.

James Earl Obama

I realize for many in the blogosphere, the reference here may be somewhat obscure, but the reference is to James Earl Carter, otherwise known as Jimmy, or Jimmah. The reason that I use this connection was an article by Victor David Hansen where he bemoaned:
I am not a fan of the Obama agenda. But I am (sic) don’t want an impotent Commander in Chief abroad for three very dangerous years to come. So I am worried that the U.S. will be crippled with a weak, unpopular executive, as happened to Bush (35% approvals) in 2007-8. Our currency is tanking. Our debts are climbing. Our energy needs are breaking us. Our borrowing is out of control. The country is divided in a 1859/1968 mode. And the world is smiling as Obama, now hesitant and without the old messianic confidence, presides over our accepted inevitable decline. The country needs to buck up and meet these challenges head on, since the world smells blood, whether in Iran, Russia, the Mideast, North Korea, or South America, and in a mere 9 months of the reset button.

His rant, combined with his proposed solutions brought on a sudden feeling of deja vu. Ah yes, days of disco returned to the forefront of my memories, from whence they had been carefully tamped down, locked in a box and hidden in the back corner of the attic, never to be retrieved again. Just like my leisure suit.
As to our Commander in Chief, let's face it, everybody likes him, but no one is afraid of him. His perpetual apology tour is refreshing to the Left in this country for all wrongs real or imagined. But it is confusing to the rest of the world who understand that power is only power if you are willing to use it. Obama's reticence to pressure anyone but allies will result in less allies as they see their rational self interest is to oppose the President.
Jimmy Carter was much the same way, with his mantra that we should no longer fear the Soviets. Just because the Third Soviet Mongol Warrior Horde with 212 divisions in East Germany alone and more farther east were poised for an invasion, it's not like they meant it. And getting rid of the Shah was atonement for all that we had done before. Surely, Jimmy believed, the Iranian people would recognize our contrition and all would be fine again. And then came the Ayatollah, which you might notice has been the start of most our present "troubles" with the Islamic world. Throw in our support for the Marxist Sandinistas, who willingly took our support, until they came into power, and promptly rebuffed the "Imperialist Yankee." Never mind that if we were imperial, their cute little revolution would have been destroyed in about ten minutes. But Jimmy took strong steps, like the fiasco of Desert One, and our abstention from the Moscow Olympic Games. Yes Sir! We showed them that we were serious by gosh.
Carter did have to face the hangover from the guns and butter aspect of the Viet Nam war, but his economic choices like those now, seem totally ineffectual. By the end of his term, interest rates were through the roof. Inflation was running at double digits, the dollar sucked, and unemployment was sky high, hence, the coinage of the term "stagflation." Pretty much a harbinger of our own economic problems in the next few years.
Energy is and was still a problem even after the nearly thirty years that Jimmy came around. Back then, of course, oil was predicted to be depleted in the 1990s. Jimmy installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, wore a sweater and told us all to turn down our thermostats, all in recognition of the fact that we were no longer a "Great Power" and had to assume our position in the ranks of lesser countries. Now, we have the President telling us how to sneeze and wash our hands. The most powerful man on the planet, is acting like a nanny (or is it ninny?). Our current President is not just installing panels, no, instead he is creating millions of "green jobs" to save our economy. Imagine how bad our economy would be without the addition of all of these millions of green jobs to offset the ones we have lost already. Just like Jimmy, Obama has Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. In fact he has even more power than Carter, and as a result could do anything that he wants. Which apparently ends at giving soaring rhetoric, leaving the dirty details of the work to be done to others.
Hansen had fear that we are entering the twilight of our country under Obama's stewardship. His concerns are well taken, and it is possible that this may be the end.
On the other hand, for those of us who lived through it, I remember the period of 1978-1980 as being the same as today. Of course, then we had a Ronald Reagan to remind us of our better angels. I am still American enough to believe that there will be another who will reinvigorate the image of a shining city on the hill.
Besides, I hate disco.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: There is one significant difference between the two though. Carter was trained by Adm. Hyman Rickover, and as such was a nut for control and attention to detail. He even personally controlled who got to use the White House tennis courts and when. Just think, there was so much to do, and that was on the list of jobs for the President. Obama on the other hand seems to have no interest in any details, preferring his peroration to getting down and dirty.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Damned If You Do . . .

Damned if you don't. It seems that Michael Moore has announced that any Democrats who don't support Public Option financing of health care reform are going to be campaigned against by he and his ilk. So, if you are a Democrat officeholder, and you don't support public option you will be run out of office. And if you do support public option, you will be run out of office by everyone else.
Times are hard for the ruling party.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Dennis McDonald's Last Deperate Ploy

Dennis McDonald, the former Montana Democratic Party chairman is getting desperate. In today's Missoulian, McDonald has decided that Denny Rehberg was drunk, when he was the victim of a boating accident. Now, what does Mr. McDonald use as a basis for this accusation? Clairvoyance? Rank speculation? Or how about pure political flop sweat trying to get some attention for his doomed chances to unseat our Congressman.
First Mr. McDonald uses the pseudos-cientific analysis of an approximate .015% elimination rate of alcohol in the human body. This rate is known as the Beta-Widmark Factor and is useful only in a theoretical sense. Assuming a constant rate of blood alcohol at some period in time, that once you stop drinking the average person will eliminate alcohol at the rate mentioned. But first, some of the problems: Was there a steady level of alcohol at the time drinking stopped? It's not unusual for someone to quickly down their drink right before they leave. Because alcohol doesn't instantly enter the blood stream upon consumption, their BAC would not rise immediately. Sure, some alcohol is added to the blood stream through the mucal linings of the mouth, but this is nearly undetectable. Second, once the alcohol hits the stomach, enzymes in the stomach of a man (sorry ladies, you lack that enzyme) begin to break down the alcohol. After a period of time, the alcohol enters the small intestine where it begins to more effectively enter the blood stream. Depending on stomach contents, this can be anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour or even longer.
At this point, the BAC starts to rise in accordance with the alcohol being processed by the small intestine. This increase follows an arc which is variable between people depending on too many factors to mention here, but suffice to say, that it is a rising arc. This is known as rising alcohol syndrome. You could only effectively measure the rate if you could take accurate readings every five minutes or so, in order to determine the rate of absorption.
At some time after the last drink, the blood alcohol will hit a peak, it's at this time that the Beta-Widmark factor starts to come into play. But again, this is only a rough average for people. It can depend on so many other factors, again to numerous to list that it is impossible to do retrograde extrapolation of what Rehberg's BAC was at the time of the accident.
But even if he was the highest level I have ever seen, which was a .412 BAC (and believe it or not, she seemed only mildly drunk) he was a passenger, otherwise known as A VICTIM! Denny did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact we encourage people who drink not to operate cars or boats, even though it is perfectly legal to drink and drive or boat, so long as their ability to safely operate the vehicle is not impaired. Denny was not operating anything.
But McDonald says that Denny erred in not knowing that Barcus was impaired, and therefore should not have gotten into the boat. Again, the basis for this is pure speculation. First we don't know what the driver's BAC was even now. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was over the legal level (an arbitrary number driven by MADD more than science) there were four other people getting into that boat that night. Are they any less culpable in not determining that the driver might be impaired? According to Mr. McDonald's theory, all of the victims should have recognized the driver was impaired, and yet none did. What does that suggest? One theory is that somehow, the people were coerced into getting into the boat against their will. How preposterous, not to mention an insult added to the injuries of the passengers. Another may be that no one had any concerns about the driver's ability, which seems to be far more plausible.
But how can that be, you say, if it is true that the driver was over the legal limit? In my 12 years of reviewing DUI videos, I have watched over a thousand, and probably closer to two thousand videos of people who were arrested for DUI. Some people seemed inebriated at a very low level (especially young women) and some seemed to be rock steady and perform well on all of the tests except the Intoxilyzer. Determining someone's level of intoxication through visual cues is almost impossible for even trained police officers, which is why they require a breath test verify suspicions. Notice the magic word "suspicions." And that is with people who are trained to detect impaired driving. Ordinary people will never be likely to say that someone is impaired unless they are falling down drunk. Is there any mention of such a "fact?"
This is the desperate ploy of a desperate man running what he knows is a desperate campaign. Take it for what it's worth.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

The REAL War on the Poor

Many of my Democratic friends tell me that they are Democrats "because they care." This is both amusing and frustrating for its simplistic attitude. Do they think that conservatives don't care about the poor? But the other thing about them is how they view the solution to the problem of poverty. While most of them provide direct cash assistance to many worthwhile programs, and some even contribute personal time and effort, the same can be said for my conservative friends. Democrats as a whole see the best solution to all problems as using the government to remedy poverty.
Never mind that in the almost forty-five years since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, we haven't budged the percentage of people who are considered to be poor. Of course the problems of poverty when the Great Society program was enacted are completely different than they are now. Then, the problem was the lack of electricity and running water in the poorest regions of the country. Now, it's people who have color TVs, XBox or other such time wasting devices. Then, the poor actually suffered from malnutrition and faced starvation. Now, the biggest problem related to food for the poor is the level of obesity.
It may be that the greatest problem for the poor though, are the ones who claim to help them. And I am sure that it will be interesting to Mark T. that the problems stem from corporations. Just not the usual corporations that he rails against. In fact these corporations are working to destroy the poor.
I realize that this is a serious charge, and I come to it regrettably. It started with the allegations of voter fraud last year, and hit the high (or is it low) point with the videos of ACORN representatives giving advice on how to avoid taxes on a child sex slavery operation. The founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke is where I started. That connection led me to George Wiley and his National Welfare Reform Organization, which employed the Cloward-Piven Stategy.
From the article:
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. . . .
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. . . .
Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Rathke implemented the Cloward-Piven model and then franchised it. Selling licenses to other community organizers, he extracts franchise fees and dues from the members to the tune of arougn $64 million each year. This is separate from any charitable donations or tax payer monies. But Rathke is expanding the model from just breaking the system through welfare reform. He is also trying to drive businesses into bankruptcy through the use of so called "living wage" laws that artificially inflate the rate of compensation. In the 1990s, Rathke led the charge for subprime lending and then sued the banks for predatory lending practices, a sort of win-win for him and lose-lose for everyone else. Currently, Rathke's many organizations which spun off from ACORN are engaged in promoting ObamaCare as well.
Looking at the big picture, ACORN is a corrupt organization which claims to represent the poor, but is only interested in destroying the American economic system, the poor be damned. The cynicism that would take the weakest members of our society and use them as cannon fodder in Wade Rathke's desire to destroy this country is appalling.
Now, I am not saying that those who support the causes that Rathke is championing are necessarily part of a nefarious plot. Instead, it is the cynicism of Rathke that he would use people's good intentions to destroy the very ones that they want to help.
God Save Us All.

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Obama Song

Kids in a Maryland school are being manipulated into singing a paean to Obama in the finest form of the Dear Leader adulation.

At first, I was upset that children who could not really appreciate the full impact of what they were being forced to do, were being so cynically manipulated by people in power in an educational setting.
Then I realized, it's a college prep course.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Don't Throw Me Into That Briarpatch

It seems that the ACORN subsidiary in Maryland is suing the intrepid makers of the ACORN videos. Boy is that dumb.
When you sue someone, you open up the door for discovery. Civil discovery can be a very painful thing, since you have to produce everything that is requested even if it might not be relevant or material. So now, the two filmmakers and Andrew Breitbart have a hunting license to rummage through everything, possibly even up to the national level.
Boy are they dumb.

UPDATE: You can see a copy of the complaint here.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Who Are These Racists?

The charge du jour to stifle dissent has become "Racists" when it comes to disagreeing with the President and his policies. But the inanity of it all, had to be summed up by the Peanut Farmer Jimmah Carter who said:
JIMMY CARTER: I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the south, but around the country that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.
Holy Cow, do you mean to tell me that we elected a "BLACK MAN?!!!" This is obviously further evidence of media bias, in that so many people didn't learn his heritage. That would explain his fall in popularity from over 65% (more of a percentage than voted for him) to just over 45% from his inauguration to the present as more and more people discovered this cleverly hidden secret. It wouldn't have anything to do with his job performance, it has to be racism. And President Epic Failure is not alone in this regard. Commentators in our nation's capital discerned that Rep. Joe Wilson is actually a member of the KKK, (or is it Sons of the Confederacy? Not that it matters) and that is the only reason he shouted at the President. It has nothing to do with the lack of enforcement provisions at the time of Obama's speech.
But the funnier ones, are like MooDoo who subliminally project her own deepest racism onto others by putting words in the mouths of others. "You lie Boy!"
The obvious question has to be, why this sudden outpouring of racist allegations, when we as a nation have elected our first authentic black president? My answer is that it has nothing to do with race. This is the stuff straight out of the Alinsky playbook, in that you use the opponent's rules against him. Racism was and is a serious problem in this country, and good people don't want to be associated with those who are racists. By calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist, the Left has effectively reversed the argument from one of a factual dispute to one of trying to prove a negative. But it is starting to wear out. For the most part, people realize that opposition to policies is not the same as opposition to the person. Except for the Left.
They have internalized their hopes and dreams in the color of Obama's skin, so much so that they ignore his other failures to achieve their policy goals. So, rather than blame the tool of policy instrumentation, they blame others. After all, if they blame Obama, they would fall prey to their own racist ideology. And that would never do.
The protesters who are called racist are more the inheritors of Dr. King's exhortation measure a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin. And they don't like his character. The Left only sees the color of his skin. And as proof, remember this little exchange:

Sen. Barbara Boxer accused of racism by head of Black Chamber o - Watch more Funny Videos
Barbara Boxer may not be the smartest Senator, but she is absolutely astounded that the black guy didn't notice how she was praising him for being black.
Color of skin again.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

A Proposed Joe Wilson Concession Speech

I am not authorized, but if I could, I would write the following for Mr. Wilson in his sanctioning hearing that the Democrats are preparing to hold.
Madam Speaker, fellow members, I stand before you today to gladly accept the admonishment that this House has decided to bestow on me. Yes, I did call out during the President's address that he was a liar. I have apologized to the President for breaking decorum, that is not me. But I do not apologize for the sentiment. The President did lie, and he did it with the connivance of many in this august assembly. Yes, it's true, that nowhere did HR3200 actually say that illegal immigrants would reap the benefits of the hardworking families in getting free health care. But what people forget is, that this side of the aisle had proposed an amendment to HR3200 which would have specifically barred them from receiving taxpayer funded health care. But the majority rejected this amendment. Now, I would never call into question the motives of the majority, but it does seem curious that they would so specifically reject the amendment. Perhaps there is more to this story that needs to come out, but we will not know under this Congressional leadership. In some small measure, I wish that my actions would have been referred to the House ethics committee, because I am sure that with the appropriate donations to the right members of that committee, I would of course be exonerated. But this is not about you Madame Speaker, it is about me.
And while it would be easy to point out other instances of breach of decorum by the now majority, that would be pointless and not worthy of this body. If my censure for a breach of decorum is the start of a return to civility no matter which party controls the White House, I will be extremely gratified to accept your admonition.
On the other hand, if this admonition is because I spoke the truth, then I stand here not ashamed, but instead very proud. We need to show the American people that we are willing to speak the truth, because we have misled them for far too long. Censor me for speaking the truth Madame Speaker, but I invite any member of this House who also is willing to speak the truth to join me, here in the well of this house, and let the word go out, that yes, there are people who are willing to speak the truth to those who disrespect it.
Thank you Madame Speaker.

What are You Rebelling Against Johnny?

Asks the girl in the movie "The Wild One" starring Marlon Brando. "What do you got?" is the reply. In much the same vein, I am sure that the Left is wondering why there are protests against the policies of the Obama administration. After all, the Democrats just want what is best (in their minds) for the country. They want universal health care for all, and an equalization of wealth distribution as a way to make everyone happier. How can anyone be against these things?
I think that the biggest problems that Democrats and the Left have, is their lack of imagination as to what can go wrong. They seem to have an unthinking belief in the efficacy of government, even as they railed against it during the Bush administration. Haliburton, Katrina, Bernie Madoff, Enron, the sub-prime crash, the War on Terror, would all have been efficiently accomplished if only Democrats would have been in control. Their willingness to put on blinders to the current situation demonstrates their basic ideology that government can only function when supervised by those of their similar belief system.
Never mind that the first actions of the solidly Democratic Congress was to pass the Omnibus spending bill that was rife with pork. Nor the "Emergency" Stimulus bill that was nothing more than a spoils system for Democrat Party supporters, and was supposed to prevent unemployment from running over 8%. It was passed without anyone having even read the bill, nor was it alone in that a 300 page addendum was added to the Cap and Tax bill at 3 a.m.on the day of its vote. The fact that the stimulus bill is being touted as successful when only about 12% has spent is further proof that they don't have a clue. Evidence that Germany and France are recovering without outrageous deficit spending is quietly ignored, as Joe Biden (the Gift that keeps on Giving) is claiming "Saving or Creating X amount of jobs" without any basis in reality. Throw in Rep. Conyers asking why he should read the bill when it takes two lawyers and more time and interest than he has along with the arrogance of Democratic officeholders toward anyone who disagreed with their beneficence, and you quickly had a separation from the people that they are supposed to represent.
The Auto bailouts provided about $80 billion dollars that disappeared into bankruptcy court and the unions that supported Democrats. Obama "firing" the head of GM further shows that there are no limits on the power that this administration is willing to use.
Then came the Town Hall meetings on health care. Or, health insurance reform as it is now known. This is probably due to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has pledged $150 million to selling Obama's plan. (If the insurance industry had been earlier with putting up money, would we now have the need to rage against Big Pharma?) Having displayed an arrogance that they alone knew how to solve the problem, Democrats at first sold themselves on the notion of providing insurance for 47 million uninsured. Never mind that at last weeks Joint session of Congress Obama suddenly, and without explanation lowered that number to only 30 million. (Look, we already removed 17 million from the ranks of the uninsured). But it was when they started tinkering with the whole system, that people became concerned. Obama's lack of credibility on the problem, only exacerbated the concern. (Health Care reform will not raise your costs, nor , , , etc.) Everyone knows that he can't do what he is promising, but he seems to believe that we won't notice.
Then when the third in line to be President, and her majority leader decided to call anyone who disagrees with her UnAmerican, that was probably the breaking point. There were no explanations of why the Democrats were right, it was only disparaging remarks (tea baggers, Brown Shirts, Nazis, racists, etc.) that showed a complete ignorance of what the country was thinking. The other interesting thing, was that the Democrats seem to be operating off the assumption that there is only one way to solve the problem. Theirs. Never mind that in such a complex system, the probability of one solution is about nil.
Couple this arrogance with the outrageous deficits that Obama is running up, and people have every reason to be concerned. But their concerns are usually defelected by assertions that they can't be serious because they weren't concerned when George Bush ran up deficits. Maybe, but maybe it is the speed that the deficit has grown in such a short period of time that is concerning. There is no concern about fiscal responsibility anymore, instead, it seems to just be a cost of doing business. Never mind that our Chinese financiers are becoming nervous, we can solve the problem by printing more money. The funny thing is, that most of the Democrats in Congress have been there so long that they remember the high inflation rates of the late '70s and early '80s. when the news stories were all about the impact of inflation on old folks with fixed incomes. Their lack of concern would be considered criminal, but they are relying on the defense of stupidity, which seems very credible at the moment.
The Democrats had the opportunity to demonstrate that they could govern efficiently and effectively without the corruption of the Republicans. Instead, what they have shown is that they don't care about corruption if it is done by Democrats, and they don't care what the people say, they only care about the unions and such organizations as ACORN and the Center for American Progress. Those constituencies are extremely limited, and are not sufficient to maintain a governing coalition unless the populace remains unconcerned.
Guess what? The population is concerned, and they are rebelling against everything that the Democrats got.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Democrats Suddenly Discover the Need for Decorum

The House Leadership has reversed itself, and is now considering admonishing Cong. Joe Wilson (What is it with guys named Joe Wilson) for calling out that President Obama lied in his recent joint session of Congress address on Health/Insurance Reform. Never mind that just moments before, Obama called anyone who disagrees with his assessment as liars. But apparently, the House leadership feels that Mr. Wilson's outburst violates decorum of such a place.
While I agree that decorum is necessary for debate, the Democrats would be credible if not for their past behavior.
Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Democrat.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Death Panels: True or False

President Obama has decried the term of "death panels" as being perjorative to his takeover of the American health care system. He especially chided "those politicians" who make these scurrillous charges, meaning the former Gov. of Alaska, Sarah Palin. But who is right? If you go to section 1233 of HR 3200, you find the following:


(a) Medicare-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) in subsection (s)(2)–CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(i) by striking ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (DD);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(ii) by adding ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Advance Care Planning Consultation

‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title

The ability to counsel someone carries a duty to offer advice that is in the best interest of the person being counseled. I know that when I present an offer of a plea agreement to a client, I try to remain fastidiously neutral, since as I explain to the client "at the end of the day, I go home either way, but you may not." This is to reinforce that they are the ones making the choice, after I have explained to them the ramifications of their choices.
But if there is a dual loyalty, as in to the patient and the payer of the bills, it is easy to slide into a onesided approach to the problem. i.e. You are too old to chew the leather, and there is this convenient ice floe that is just getting ready to take off. Wouldn't it be lovely to go for a sail away from it all? Especially if the counselor has a financial interest in helping you to make the decision, shouldn't you be concerned that they are not recommending what is in your best interests versus their own?
Maybe Gov. Palin is onto something. Plus, Obama says it's a lie. And we all know we can't trust him.

Redefining the Political Spectrum

David Muller at the American Thinker has a very good piece on the discussion of the political spectrum. For someone who sees tyranny on both sides of the spectrum, this comparison is especially apt. The old version is shown here:

But a more accurate version is here:

It is clear that oppressive forms of government whose objective is to limit liberty encompasses both socialism and fascism, and the individual freedom espoused by libertarianism.

Read the whole thing.

Absolutely No Health Care Reform Now.

President Obama has said that he will not sign any health care reform that adds one red cent to the debt. Guess that will kill health reform forever.

Of course, who believes anything that he says.

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

I'm in Love!

Actually, that's not true, since my wife "The Good Democrat" would be very disapproving. But nonetheless, I love Camille Paglia's assessment of the current political situation. She is and was an Obama supporter, but her criticisms are spot on. Some of my favorite lines:
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clich├ęs that it's positively pickled.

Read the whole thing.

Get Beck!

Kieth Olbermann has had enough of Glenn Beck and his insane pointing out of Van Jones' own words, and has decided to unleash the Leftosphere in finding out any dirt on Beck, his producer and Roger Ailes who heads up Fox News. Now, aside from the fact that Van Jones was a public official in the employ of the federal government, and aside from the fact that he declaims all of the lies and smears that were actually his own words, Olby has decided that it is wrong for a private citizen to question a government official.
Except Bush. Oh, and Cheney. Oh, and on and on and on.
So Olby is going to set up a special web site address where all of the Moonbats can report on the misdoings of Beck et al. My thinking is, "Let's help!"
Flood his site with entirely bogus allegations, but make sure you put in there that "I don't know if this is true, but . . ." Sure you can do the usual, Beck is secretly a Republican, but I am thinking of totally outlandish things, such as "Glenn Beck was abducted by aliens who have implanted a transmitter into his mind, in order to control the world."
The more outlandish the better, because you know the Moonbats will believe it unquestioningly. We can make it into a game: Who can make the most outrageous statements that Olby will investigate?

UPDATE: Apparently, Olby has changed his mind, and is calling off the dogs. Maybe we should continue the game with Sirota as the pinata instead.

Monday, September 07, 2009

A Voice From The Past

David Sirota, (who Dave Budge used to refer to as "The Putz") was on CNN talking about the Van Jones resignation. Actually, that's not quite true. For those of us who remember him, he seems to have completely gone off the deep end. Some of the more interesting comments:
And what I think what's going on here is that the White House is listening to the right-wing's political terrorists, people like Glenn Beck, people like conservative activists who have targeted Van Jones because Van Jones is an African-American with a progressive movement background working on behalf of social justice.
What happened here was that Van Jones was originally targeted because he's an African-American man who worked on behalf of social justice issues.
I think what the White House has done has said to a right wing lynch mob that they will accept their demands, their politically -- their political terrorism.

And what you're going to see is this White House, you cannot appease political terrorists. You cannot appease a right-wing lynch mob.

And so the next time, the next target of this lynch mob, I think, you're not going to be able to appease them. I think the White House is on the retreat. And I think it's really been a political mistake as much as anything.
It was a witch hunt, and a lynch mob going after this guy

Ran the whole panoply of accusations there now, didn't he? The only thing that I think that he left out was the the accusers are also homophobes, then he would have completed the trifecta. It's amusing watching the Left become so unhinged, they are pulling out all the stops, and it still isn't stopping the opposition. Whatever will they do?
Watch for yourself.

UPDATE: Apparently, he forgot psychopaths, but he managed to add it in in regards to the Obama school speech.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Never Confuse Your Opponent's Failure for Your Success

Obama's plummeting polls, and the general disdain that the public is having for incumbents in general, and Democrats in particular is not necessarily a boon for Republicans. As this survey shows, Republican voters are dissatisfied with Republican representatives. The current Republican leadership is going to have to figure out how to get out in front of their constituents, that they are supposed to be leading. Otherwise, the Republican voters are going to have to draw new faces into the arena.

Maybe not such a bad thing.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

How Obama Could Save Health Care Reform and His Presidency, and Why He Won't

President Obama's Health Care reform is going down the tubes. While many Democrats are blaming the Republicans, that is just because they have always blamed Republicans. There is no other play in the play book. But it's not working this time, because the public is onto them and know that they have the largest majorities in quite some time.
Obama's "health care reform" (whatever it is) is failing rapidly, and with it his public approval. But what if Obama changed course and decided to adopt one of the three Republican's plans? He would put the Republicans on the spot, and they would have to act responsibly. The Democrats would howl, but suddenly, Obama becomes Mr. Bipartisan. He can get enough Democrats to follow him, that he could then make substantive changes to the plan, and start to make it more of his own.
The reason he won't do this brilliant strategy?

Because it came from Republicans! And that will never do.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009


Dodd hopes Kennedy death will quell health care reform discontent

How dare these peasants resist the dying wish of the Greatest Democrat ever?

Why can't they figure out that the reason people are yelling, is that the Democrats aren't listening?

Let the man rest in peace.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Denny is Being Targeted

A coalition of "environmental" groups plan to take out ads against Cong. Rehberg for opposing Cap and Tax. Since my daughter works for the Missoulian, I think that this is wonderful. The Missoulian gets money, and the "environmental" groups tick everyone off.

It's win-win.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Enemies Foreign AND Domestic

Okay, this is red meat, but I do love the Constitutional Scholars who have taken the oath.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Why ObamaCare's Failure Will Be Good For Democrats

While some think that the failure of ObamaCare is going to cost Democrats their majority, I disagree. Instead of the usual Democrat versus Republican debate, the current debate is Democrat versus Democrat with some very angry independents watching from the sidelines. Should ObamaCare pass, the costs are going to be explosive, and once people see what the impact is on their choices of health care, it is going to end the Democrats as any kind of serious power in Washington. Sure, they will have their enclaves where the true believers will pretend that they are still in control of the country. But the Democratic Party is going to be punished for their arrogance.
Suppose instead that ObamaCare does fail, then what happens? The first thing is that the Democrats will revert to their usual bogeyman: The Republicans. Sure the Republicans are a minority, but truth matters less than perception when it comes to the news. The Democrats will be able to say the Republicans are the reason that all of these people are uninsured because of their greed and their insurance overlords. The hard Left, who are advocating for a single payer system or nothing will never blame the Democrats, instead they will also be joining the chorus of blaming Republicans, mostly because it is such fun for them.
Sure, the facts are that the Republicans are totally inconsequential in the debate, but facts are not necessary when it comes to such an emotional issue. Plus, the Republicans will probably try to claim credit even though they are so marginalized because it gives them a sense of heft that they lack at the moment.
With the failure of ObamaCare, we will all go back to the status quo ante, the Democrats blaming the Republicans, and the Republicans pretending they are in control.
Win-Win for the major parties, and we are the losers. But the real beneficiaries of the failure of ObamaCare are going to be the Blue Dog Democrats. They can claim fiscal responsibility, while at the same time blaming the Republicans.
And so, the charade continues.


Presidents often become the recipients of nicknames. Nixon was "Tricky Dick." Reagan was "The Gipper" to those on the Right, and "An Amiable Dunce" to those on the Left. Bill Clinton will be forever remembered as "Slick Willy" and George Bush was "W" for the Right and "Stoopid" to those on the Left.
But for a nickname to stick, it needs to have some elements of mental shorthand that resonate with broad public perception. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Barak Obama, "The Marxist Metrosexual."


True Sentiment


Official I Am Sorry I Voted For Obama Website

Shared via AddThis

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Simple Enough Question

Dave Budge at Electric City has a series of questions that are as interesting as any answer that they might yield. I figure I would add one more: Since the Congress critters are covered under an umbrella of insurance companies, and since they won't use the same health care reform that they are going to stick us with, why not just open enrollment in the Federal Personnel Health plan to everyone?

Oh, that's right, it would raise their rates.

Individuals and the State

The most amazing aspect of the Obama Presidency to me, is the regression from the indviduality that was just beginning to boom. By this, I mean that Obama seems to be intent on returning us to a collective relationship just when individual entrepreneurship was just taking off.
Under Obama, we are being grouped into ever larger collectives, identified by our perceived needs, at least as viewed from Washington. Need a job? You need to go work for Government Motors. Need health care? It's impossible for you to get it on your own, and you need some sort of interference by a bureaucrat to see a doctor. Want to express your opinion? Only those approved opinions are going to be allowed. Check with your SEIU thugs, or your local ACORN community organizer to determine what your opinion will be.
But just a year ago, I was marveling at the ability of individuals to exploit niches in the economy and develop their own businesses. A young stud who left the Public Defender's Office where I work, opened his own practice recently. He has the capability to take credit card payments over his computer, something I could not do when I opened my practice. What this means is that he has the ability to provide for fee services to more people than I could, and still make a living.
We have a lawn service that is run out of the guy's house who advertises on the Internet. He does a good job and can even accept payment over the Internet. Other people locally are selling all over the world through the Internet. What is going to happen to them when we get Obamacare?
Without employer paid health insurance, they will still have a mandate to pay an additional 8% on top of the income tax, self employed tax, FICA and the other taxes that are required by government fiat. This will reduce the possibility of a startup business from making it through the first three years which is the usual measure of whether or not a business will be successful.
As a result, more people will be constrained from beginning businesses that will make my life easier and better. They are going to be kept from exercising their innovation and the country as a whole will suffer from this lack of development.
Less small businesses, more government control, and Obama says that he doesn't want to return to the "failed policies of the past." I guess he wants to try out the failed policies of East Germany, just to make sure that it doesn't work.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

The Coming Global Winter

Human beings are exceedingly simplistic and fail to understand anything that is not facile and in accordance with our expectations. Remember all the arguments for global warming essentially being "that if they are wrong, what harm could it do?" Outside of condemning large swaths of humanity to remain in poverty for their desire to be "carbon neutral," there is the issue that we may be dooming a large number of poor people on this planet to death. But there may be a bigger problem than CO2 sequstration.
What if, instead of global warming, we had solar induced global cooling? The thing that the global warming crowd never really understood, is that warming by 5 degrees celsius is better than a cooling of 5 degrees celsius. If global warming were to occur, we could drive up to Saskatchewan and pick our oranges from their groves. But a cooling environment would result in a significant reduction in arable farm land, and with it a greater risk of mass starvation.
If we are to go through another Maunder Minimum, we may be less prepared than the people who survived it 350 years ago. Our society has become so complex in that technology is of higher value than knowing how to start a fire in the middle of a snowstorm. But knowing how to set code will not keep you from freezing to death when the sun cools.
Jeez we are dumb.

German version of the Tea Party

Gregg had a post with a comment showing a link that I followed to find this: (It's in German, but the sentiment is pretty easy to understand.)

Apparently, they have the same ideals as the Tea Partiers, more individual freedom and less government. Seems like the fundamental human desire to be free is not just an American phenomenon.

I must admit, I kind of like the name though. "The Pirate Party."

UPDATE: From the comments below, I just found out that there is a US Pirate Party. Check them out.

UPDATE 2 Instalanche! Welcome, and take a look at the other conservative bloggers on the left under Dextrafeed.

Friday, August 14, 2009

One Brits view of the NHS

This is not just a rag against socialized medicine. It's instead, a fair analysis of the two systems that needs to be covered while we debate our own version of ObamaCare.

Read the whole thing.

"I am a fan of disruptors."


ObamaCare and Waterloo

Senator DeMint had once claimed that failure of ObamaCare would be Obama's Waterloo. He has since been pilloried for making that statement and has gradually withdrawn into the shadows. But I think that an honest assessment would show him to be wrong anyway. Failure of ObamaCare or even its passage under a "recision" method is more akin to Napoleon entering Moscow, only to find it abandoned, and no one there to surrender to him. Another example would be Lee at Gettysburg, in that what started out as Lee's final blow to destroy the Union Army degenerated into a slugfest that Lee was finally forced to withdraw from,and was the last major incursion into the North for the rest of the war. Both of these cases were the high mark of what finally ended up being a doomed enterprise.
The Democrats need to conduct an honest assessment of why they are not successful if they wish to remain the power in control, although I do not believe that they are capable of doing so. The major reason is that they have fooled themselves, and this lack of honesty prevents them from making an accurate assessment of who they are. One of their faults, is that they believed their own propaganda that after the 2008 elections, conservatism had been finally vanquished. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that while Republicans may have been discredited, liberalism is still outnumbered by almost 2-1. If the Democrats were smart, they would recognize that they are operating from a tenuous position and only act carefully so as not to antagonize their constituents. They would not be trying to minimize or ignore the real outrage that is being shown at the Town Hall meetings across the country.
Instead, they see a solid majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This means that the public is well aware of the unlimited power they are capable of, and Americans are not sure that they like it.
The real lessons to be learned from the 2006 and 08 elections is that the public rejected the arrogance of Republicans. The lesson the Democrats will learn at this rate in 2010 is that their version of arrogance is no different.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Who Loves Ya Baby?

Rasmussen has a report out about trust on the issues that is an interesting read. Two things jump out at me: 1st, that the Republicans lead on all but two issues,; 2nd they are tied with Democrats on Iraq and still lag significantly on Government ethics.
Lagging behind Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and too many others to spend time recounting? The Republicans have a severe image problem that they are going to have to fix if they want to have any chance after the Democrats commit Hari-Kari in November of 2010.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Abuse of Power by the Government

Okay, that is redundant, but I wanted to post this article from The Agitator in its entirety, because it is just more evidence that we are not the sovereigns of the country, but the subjects of those in power.

Monday, August 10th, 2009

…there doesn’t seem to be much at work in this story.

When Donald Ross’s sister passed, more than 100 people attended her funeral mass in Spokane.

The burial was scheduled for a nearby cemetery, but Ross and his family only made it a quarter of a mile when flashing lights forced them to the side of the road.

“Harold, his (my husband’s) brother, said, ‘You pulled us out of a funeral procession,’” said wife Shirley Ross.

But the deputy kept them there, writing up five citations because the driver and the passengers were not wearing a seat belts…

Those five tickets took 12 minutes to write. By the time Ross and his family members got back on the road, the burial was over.

The police department has apologized and reprimanded the officer. Just kidding!

…the sheriff’s department says [the deputy] had every right.

“We’re out here trying to prevent funerals, not disrupt them,” said Dave Reagan of Spokane County Sheriff’s Office.

Police officers don’t have rights, they have powers. And the fact that they have them doesn’t mean they always have to use them, even in those situations where the law allows them. Seems to me that making a woman miss her brother’s burial in order to write her a ticket—not for endangering others, but for not buckling her own seat belt—would be one of those times when some discretion might be in order.

Thanks to reader Judy for the tip.

I've Been Robbed

Actually, it just goes to show that the solution to the problem is not ObamaCare. But earlier, I had posted this where I suggested some methods to alleviate the problem with providing health insurance. Then some guy goes and puts this article in the Wall Street Journal with many of the same points that I made. I could say that mine were the first suggestions, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks (Not you Mark) that there are workable solutions that don't require government run health care.

An Example of those Hate Mongering Town Hall Protesters

The "Angry Mobs" ™ protesting Obamacare have gone just too far as shown in this news article:
When Obama visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Obama is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.
One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Obama's assassination. The man held a large photo of Obama that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.
"OBAMA: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."
Another poster showed Obama's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"
A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE OBAMA." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.
Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Obama and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"
Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.
Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.
The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Obama's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.
All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "OBAMA: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"
Okay, it wasn't that hard to figure out that I just substituted Obama for Bush from this article. I could argue that this is just another example of the cover given to Obama versus what is given to Republicans, but what would be the point. The Media and the Left have zero credibility when they claim that they are "Shock-ed, Shock-ed" that anyone would use these sort of tactics.

Saturday, August 08, 2009

Stupid Republicans

I am enjoying the self destruction of the Democrats, but then I find out that the Republicans haven't learned a single thing. I do think that Denny is doing an acceptable job and replacing him with MacDonald would be a tremendous mistake, even if it is highly unlikely that he would succeed.
But the whole basis for the Tea Party protest and the Town Hall protests are about the tone deaf representatives who go to Washington and start to bribe each other with our money. If they can't figure out that it's wrong, they don't deserve to serve, and need to be removed.

"Fixing" the Debate

We have two parallel and yet different discussions going forward about "Health Care Reform." One is about Health Insurance, and the other about Health Care.
Most of the debate has been about the greedy insurance bastards who are ripping us all off by reading actuarial tables and figuring out the probability of whether or not their company will still be in business in a few years. They are abetted in this scheme by the Insurance Commissioners of the several States who invent rules to control and oversee them. For instance, in the 1970s, we in Montana passed unisex laws for insurance for cars and for health. As a result, young males paid less in car insurance than young females, and more (if they bought it at all) for health insurance than they would have otherwise paid. It was a good idea at the time, but nobody reasoned it all the way out. As a result, Montanans pay more for both health and car insurance than many other states.
One of the proposals being put forward is the "public option" plan that would provide coverage to anyone without restrictions on pre-existing conditions for a reasonable cost. Seems imminently reasonable doesn't it? But what if you go with the public option and are paying only half of what you were paying before to a private insurer. You feel good about your wise decision until your wife finds a lump in her breast. You go to the doctor that you have always had, but she tells you that she won't treat your wife because the reimbursements are too low and she loses money on your insurance.
That's alright you say, there are other doctors, so you start to call around and all refuse your coverage, except for the guy who just had his license restored after being suspended for malpractice. You have health insurance, but if the doctors don't want to take it you don't have health care.
You start to realize how unfair the system is, so you start to demand that doctors accept your coverage. Unless you are willing to repeal the XIII Amendment to the Constitution, there is no way that you can force doctors to take your case. If the government puts caps on how much anyone can charge for care, you will find a large number of doctors dropping out completely and a rise in black market medicine without the necessary oversight and controls. So, that doesn't work either.
So you see, health insurance is not the same as health care. But what are we to do about it?
I have been kicking around some ideas for awhile, such as requiring doctors to post their fee schedule so that consumers can make informed choices. Doctors who are very experienced will be able to command a higher fee than less experienced ones, but it will be the patient who decides which doctor to use. Next, do away with employer provided health care coverage. If you are given something for free (ostensibly) you don't have much regard for its value. As such, you are willing to expend it on every little thing because the cost of the copay is so small. If you are someone who never goes to the doctor until ten minutes before you die, your employer was paying the same for you as someone who went every week for every little sniffle. If you are in control of where and how much money is spent on health care, you might use it only when you needed it, and not for every sniffle or cough.
Another suggestion I would like to see is to reactivate the Armed Services Medical School. This was shut down due to pressure from the AMA, but if we were to give people who wanted to be doctors a free tuition plus a GS-16 pay scale on the condition that they would have to serve for 20 years in underserved areas in the National Health Service, it would be a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to remake the health industry into Obama's image. By reducing the number of indigent who go to private practitioners and going to the above NHS doctors, doctors would no longer have to pad the bills paid for by insurance in order to cover the indigent. Win Win all the way around.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Obama's Thugocracy in Action

Having tried to demonize ordinary Americans by calling them Nazis, Brooks Brother's Brigade, Astroturf and other derogatory names, Obama's followers are now going in for direct action:

A supporter of health care reform, left, who did not want to give her name, pushes forward to rip a sign out of Kris McLay's hands outside the Stout Street Clinic visited by Nancy Pelosi. (THE DENVER POST | RJ SANGOSTI)

I love my country, even though there are periods I am not proud of: Slavery; Extermination of Native people; Anti-Sedition laws of WWI; the internment of Japanese Americans; and the McCarthy era. I always hoped that if I was confronted by such shameful actions I would stand up against it.

It's time to stand people!

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Obama as the Joker Poster

is unacceptable. Let's face it as
Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.
"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."
I mean, just look at what is being portrayed:

Oops, sorry, I mean this one

My bad, I mean this one:

Darn, this is hard, what with all of the outrage about Obama's poster. I mean, really, is this that bad?