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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
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?"
No.
This is the desperate ploy of a desperate man running what he knows is a desperate campaign. Take it for what it's worth.
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?"
No.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama: Al Bundy with a Tan
I couldn't resist when I read that line in this article about Obama "Jumping the Shark."
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
1
(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
10
‘(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
9
‘(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.
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.
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:
Read the whole thing.
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.and:
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 clichés 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.
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)