GameStop Health Care

I’m no government know-it-all; I’m just a mom, a former elementary school teacher who believes simple is best.  I have been watching as our government partakes in a circus-like atmosphere, trying to choose a health care plan that will cost too much, both literally and figuratively.  I personally have prayed for the uninsured for years; I truly wish everyone could have healthcare, especially those who cannot work.  But from where I stand, each and every “plan” that has been presented just plain sucks.

My son is nine and he loves video games.  My husband and I said he could earn a new video game if he did extra work around the house and continued to get excellent grades.  At the end of the school year, we took him to GameStop so he could choose one.  He looked for a solid thirty minutes, and found nothing.  We told him he could wait until a new game that he really wanted came out, but he wanted to get something that day.  He couldn’t find any game he wanted; he just wanted to get a game.  We reminded him that he worked hard and he shouldn’t just settle for any game just because he wanted a game, and he should not stand around in GameStop just wanting to want any ol’ game.

See where I’m going here?  None of these plans will work.  Obama and his cronies thought winning would be enough; that having a Democratic majority in Congress would give them free rein to do whatever they wanted without any need for Republican support.  They’re standing around, choosing game after game, wanting something to work for them to save face.  Their Talking Head Obama claims that he needs to have a plan chosen this year; since he has failed to keep any promises and Conservatives are onto his Mao-laden gangsta pals, it appears that passing any crappy health care plan is the only thing that can keep the Left from turning on him too.

Maybe it’s time to leave GameStop and wait.  It’s not working.  The country doesn’t want it.  Proposing plan after plan is making our government look incompetent.  No matter how long you stand there, Obama will go down in history as the worst President ever, a marionette whose puppet master marketing gurus got him to the top, only to crash and burn in embarrassment.  And the only ones for whom my heart breaks over this are the African-American youth who look to him as a symbol of what could be.  For them, Obama should be ashamed of the failure that is to come.

Damn Yankees.

In case you needed another reason to hate the Yankees:

This year the Yankees moved into a new stadium. According to baseball economist Neil deMause of the excellent Field of Schemes website, the facility cost a stunning $1.56 billion, and the total project (including replacing 22-acres of parkland that had been destroyed by the construction) totaled $2.31 billion [pdf]. Both figures are all-time records in the history of sports stadia. “Of that,” deMause estimates, “the public—city, state, and federal taxpayers—are now covering just shy of $1.2 billion, by far the largest stadium subsidy ever.”

The biggest three categories of government contribution were the following:

• $417 million in property tax waivers from the City of New York.

• $327 million in federal tax-exempt bond subsidies.

• $232 million worth of land giveaways from the city.

via Yankee Welfare – Reason Magazine.

Today.

So I’m having sort of an author tryout over at Wizbang today. They’re letting a bunch of us post over there for a week and the winner will get a full time gig.

If you don’t already frequent Wizbang, I recommend that you do. Especially today since I’ll be posting over there…:) And who knows, if they like me, maybe I’ll be doing more of it.

Check it out!

Mongo only pawn . . . in game of life.

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year.

The White House put the cost at $13 billion.

The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.

It would mark the first year without an increase in Social Security payments since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

via Obama calls for $250 payments to seniors.

I feel like the AFLAC duck sometimes…in the commercial with Yogi Berra where old Yogi says that “they’ll give you cash, which is the same as money”. The duck’s expression is priceless. If you’ve not seen the commercial, then imagining a duck having an “expression” is sort of implausible….other than just plain old “duck in repose” that is. Ducks pretty much looking the same no matter the occasion and all. Not the AFLAC duck, though. Trust me, if you’ve not seen it, you should go youtube it or something.

So yeah, Obama’s calling it square by giving seniors $250 in lieu of a cost of living increase next year. And he wonders why all us young folk are nervous about our own retirements. Like that scene in Blazing Saddles where Governor Lepetomane has Hedley Lamarr hand out paddle ball games to his cabinet: “Why don’t you give these out to some of the boys in lieu of pay?”

It gets better by the day in Obamatown, doesn’t it?

Blindfolded.

The AP is reporting that President Obama is “looking at any way to create jobs”. That’s interesting. He must not be looking very hard. Or maybe he really is looking, but managed to get something in his eye. Or maybe he’s faking it. Never waste a crisis, you know. It’d be hard to imagine that Americans would be too eager to shift complete control of their lives to the federal government if unemployment was not at 10% and the housing market hadn’t collapsed. That’s got to be it, then. He’s not really interested in finding any way to create jobs because as long as we’re all unemployed, we’ll continue to be led around like sheep. That’s why all of Obama’s “fixes” all smell funny. His fingers are too deep in all of them.

Here’s more from the AP:

SPRINGFIELD, Va. (AP) – Standing at the site of a highway project funded by his massive economic stimulus plan, President Barack Obama said Wednesday he is committed to exploring all avenues to create jobs.

“Middle-class Americans are the ones who built this country,” Obama said. “They deserve leaders in Washington who are willing to work as hard as they work.”

[ . . . ]

Despite the stimulus, the national unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent. Economists have said unemployment could continue to rise.

First—Obama is certainly not committed to “exploring all avenues to create jobs”. That’s just a lie. Note that the AP isn’t quoting Obama directly for that little nugget. If Obama were willing to explore “all” avenues, he’d think about tax cuts for small businesses. Tax cuts, after all, will permit these businesses to keep more of the money they earn…which they would of course use to…hire people. With less money left after taxes, businesses are not too motivated to employ more people.

Second—However nice it sounds to your populist disciples, America wasn’t built by Middle Class people. Not if the word “built” means anything, that is. Sure, they’re the ones that may have wielded the hammers and populated the plants, but these people were uniformly employees—hired by rich people with ideas to move technology forward. The Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts and Fords which dot our history are the ones that “built” America. Not by themselves, of course, but without their entrepreneurial spirit and capital, America doesn’t become industrialized and that’s just a fact. It’s a hard fact for the left to acknowledge, however, and it’s the reason why they see “tax cuts for the rich” as “unfairly” lining the pockets of those in least need of the extra money. The fact is that one of the primary functions in our society of rich corporations is that they hire the rest of us. They enable us all to have health insurance. To save for our retirements and the education of our children. Without rich people who make things and hire people, we’d all be poor. So unless Mr. Obama is exploring ways to incentivize rich people to hire more of us so we can make more stuff, he’s spinning his wheels. Every second he talks about taxing corporations to death, he’s making it more and more likely that unemployment will continue to rise and the recession will continue to grow. Spending billions of TAXPAYER dollars to hire people doesn’t do the trick, either. Tax dollars must first come from someone who earned that money. It is not in itself the product of any growth. That’s why this Stimulus is just a gigantic shell game. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, if you will. Eventually the bills become due. Eventually, we’ll understand that shifting money around like this without creating any new growth is a dead end.

Which brings us to that last bit of the article. Incredulously, the AP admits that “despite the stimulus” unemployment is at 9.8%! As if the stimulus would lead to any other result except higher unemployment. This is shocking? When you take money away from rich people, they have nothing left to hire new people and make new things. They contract. It’s no surprise (to anyone except the AP, that is) that economists are saying that unemployment “could” continue to rise. High taxes work as disincentives for corporations and big business to hire people and make things. THe higher taxes go, the less things are made. The less people are hired. The longer unemployment lasts.

Say it ain’t Snowe.

If one lone Republican supporting your socialist bill indicates “bipartisan” support, then Max Baucus and the Democrats got that yesterday as the first hurdle to a government takeover of our insurance industry was cleared.

Here’s Liberal in Republican clothing Olympia Snowe ruminating on whether a “public option” might be the thing to fix “what’s wrong” with accessibility to health care in this country:

“I think the government would have a disproportionate advantage” in the event of a government-run option, the Maine Republican said in a nationally broadcast interview. Snowe said “at the same time, I want to make sure the insurance industry performs, and that’s why we eliminate many egregious practices.“

Egregious practices, you say? Sounds serious. You’d think the AP would get right to telling us what those practices might be and why they’re so egregious. The AP of course doesn’t do that. We have to wait until paragraph 17 to find out what “egregious practices” this new bill is aiming to fix, which to me is strange. Burying them so deep in the story leads me to believe that they’re really afterthoughts. That the reason to support this bill that the AP really wants you to take away has nothing to do with the egregious practices at all, but has everything to do (as did Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ‘victory’ last week) with…rooting for Obama (and maybe also re-making America into a socialist trough). See for yourself. Tell me if these “egregious practices” are really all that bad:

The measures would bar insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and for the first time limit their ability to charge higher premiums on the basis of age or family size.

Think about that. We’re about to embark on trillions of dollars of government spending over the next couple of decades at least because we don’t like the fact that insurers price their products differently depending on the risk they’re assuming.

Imagine you’re a skydiver with a bad heart. You’re attempting to set the new world record by Scotch-taping yourself to a 1968 VW Bus and parachuting out of a B-1 Bomber. Over the grand canyon. While on fire. You go to your local insurer and attempt to buy insurance. Would you reasonably expect to be charged the same for your policy as a healthy 25 year old non-smoking female Olympic swimmer? Would you really?

Insurance is NOT the same thing as “FREE CARE”. Too many people think it is and it’s this misconception that is driving this debate into the dirt. Insurance companies don’t have to offer you insurance in exchange for money. This (for now) is a free society. They could just as easily go make hot dogs or mow lawns. Instead, through their own free will, they have (thankfully) decided to offer a service to cautious people. In exchange for a monthly sum (called a premium), they’ll promise to pay you a set amount of money in the event that some event happens. As I’ve said in the past, it is a bet. You’re betting that the thing will happen and they’re betting that it won’t. Your death for example. Life insurance. You’re betting Prudential that you will die within the next 30 years. They’re betting you won’t. They’re so confident you won’t die that they’re willing to pay you a lump sum of a million dollars if you end up dying. And all that bet will cost you will be a monthly premium payment.

How big should that premium payment be? Let’s go back to our sky-diver. How big should his monthly premium be? How likely is it that he’ll be right and end up dying? Pretty likely, right? So of Prudential is going to pay him that million dollars for dying in the next 30 years, they’re going to require that the monthly premium be high, right? Higher at least than the 25 year old non-smoking female Olympic swimmer. She’s not likely to die at all. Their promise to pay that million dollars is then a safe bet.

People with pre-existing conditions, who are extremely likely to require care,  are by economic necessity going to be priced higher than people without those condition. Remember, it’s all about managing risk. Betting.  If insurers charged people with pre-existing conditions as if they were healthy, then when it came time to pay out benefits, insurers would take a huge loss. Multiplied over millions of policies, it wouldn’t be long before insurers went out of business.

This would be bad.

For everyone.

The same thing with premiums which “discriminate” by charging higher premiums to older people or to people with larger families. Whenever a party becomes “more likely” to receive a benefit, an insurance company must manage that risk by charging more. Low risk people mean low premiums. High risk means high premiums. All these “egregious practices” which have motivated the left to overhaul our entire insurance industry, are all founded upon basic economic principles. These insurance companies aren’t evil. Their practices aren’t “egregious”. They offer us ALL protection against unforeseen events and the current witch hunt against them is criminal.

Let’s get back to that word for a minute. “Unforeseen”. Health insurance, unlike life insurance, deals in things which are foreseeable, right? We know we want to go to the doctor twice a year and to get “routine” bloodwork done. We want  “regular” breast and prostate exams. Remember our sky-diver? His death was “foreseeable” in the life-insurance context, which means his premiums were adjusted up. Not much of a bet when it’s very likely you’re going to lose. To manage that (high) risk of loss, you charge a higher cost to the insured to play the game. Same with the sort of “regular” care most people want in the health-insurance context. If you’re telling your insurer up front that you’re going to DEFINITELY be making claims MULTIPLE TIMES a year to cover exams, shots, etc., then how can your policy be ANYTHING except EXPENSIVE?

This is what people on the Left just do not seem to understand, or if they do, they do a good job of concealing to perhaps realize their underlying objectives of a socialist government in general.

And this should all seem very familiar to you. This should all seem like deja-vu. There was a time when the government thought that more people should receive loans to buy houses too. Remember what happened there? Despite the basic economic principle that people should be given loans based on the likelihood of their ability to pay, the government forced lenders to lend to high risk people, then subsidized those loans and guaranteed them with Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac. What happened there? Do you remember? Look at the headlines if you’re unclear. Unemployment at 10%. No money to be found. Credit dried up. Housing market plummeting.

And we go blithely on pretending that THIS TIME the government knows what it’s doing and that THIS TIME they’ll get it right. Forcing insurers to make economically unsound decisions to insure high risk people at low premiums and then have the government guarantee those bad policies with tax dollars is ITSELF an “egregious practice”. Do we have to wait until it all blows up AGAIN before we realize it was a bad idea?

And this of course is not to say that high risk people should not receive care. That’s dumb. Of course they should receive care and of course they should be able to purchase some type of policy that insures the costs associated with that care. It’s just that government until now has stood in the way of private insurers working together to solve this problem via competitive markets. It is ILLEGAL for example to purchase policies across state lines and to buy policies that do not contain state-mandated things like prostate screening for women or breast exams for men. Because states require that all policies contain provisions for insurers to pay for these things, the costs of those policies (as we’ve seen above) rise unnecessarily. Astronomically. How about a sick person in NY being able to buy a stripped down policy covering only his immediate requirements via the internet from an insurer in California? He can’t. It’s illegal to do so.

That’s where health care “reform” should start. That it’s not, is all you need to know about Olympia Snowe and her “egregious practices”. Reform is not “reform” because someone tells you it is. Break it down. Look it over. When you do so, if it seems like it’s only really an excuse for another expansion of government, you know you’ve hit on something. You’ve hit on exactly why nobody on the left gets too into specifics when they talk about “what’s wrong” with the current system.

“Oh, Homey.”

Marge Simpson to appear in Playboy.

No joke:

She has just turned 20, boasts an hour-glass figure, and has millions of male admirers around the world. But there Marge Simpson’s similarity with your average Playboy cover-girl ends.

In a bold departure for both Hugh Hefner’s empire and America’s longest-running television sitcom, Ms Simpson has nonetheless agreed to become the first cartoon character to disrobe for the glossy gentleman’s magazine.

Pictures of her cover shoot, draped over a strategically placed “bunny girl” chair, in a manner that perhaps recalls Christine Keeler, were released yesterday. It will appear in next month’s magazine, under the headline: “The devil in Marge Simpson.”

A Playboy spokesman said Ms Simpson had granted them an interview, which would appear next to three pages of portraits that are “sexy” and feature “implied nudity”.

The decision for the matriarch of America’s most famous – and lucrative – family to dip her bright yellow toe into the world of soft-core pornography was not taken lightly.

Fox TV, which broadcasts The Simpsons, agreed to the project as part of a public relations offensive for the show’s 20th anniversary. It has just been renewed for another two years, after which it will become America’s longest-running primetime television show ever.

Playboy, for its part, is hoping that the venture will attract a younger generation of readers to its magazine. The firm’s new CEO, Scott Flanders, told the Chicago Sun-Times that Ms Simpson’s cover-shoot is “obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It had never been done, and we thought it would be kind of hip, cool and unusual.”

via ‘Hip, cool, unusual’: Marge Simpson goes nude – TV & Radio, Media – The Independent.

Here’s a sneak peak:

I promise to get back to posting meaningful stuff soon. In the meantime, please allow a bit of cheesecake?

I thank you.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize.

Just so we keep this in perspective, Jimmy Carter also won this award once.

The US president, Barack Obama, was today awarded the 2009 Nobel peace prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.

The Nobel committee said “only rarely has a person such as Obama captured the world’s attention and given his people hope for a better future”.

“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population,” the citation said.

via Nobel peace prize awarded to Barack Obama | World news | guardian.co.uk .

2 quick things:

Who gave ordinary middle eastern citizens more hope that one day they wouldn’t be thrown off a building for being gay or buried up to their chins and stoned to death for daring to be seen in public with a man who was not related to her….than George W. Bush? Democracy in Iraq was a pipe dream…and would continue to be a pipe dream…had not Bush LED the charge of freedom by FORCING it on a barbaric and tyrannical government. Which by the way also condoned terrorism.

And since when is “leadership” defined by how will you ape the values of the majority? I though LEADERSHIP was doing what was RIGHT despite what the majority was doing. At least that’s what I’m going to teach my son one day. In short, the lesson will go something like this—”Be nothing like Barack Obama, son. Be NOTHING like him.”

So keep your Nobel Peace prize, Obama. You’ll need it to score speaking gigs and book deals when you’re long gone from your current job.

Wait, what?

The divorce between Peter Brant and supermodel Stephanie Seymour is getting ugly. According to new legal filings, Brant alleges that Seymour spends $257,000 per month, including $50,000 on new clothes alone (via NY Post.) Brant also alleges his ex is stealing his prized items from their Connecticut home and continuing to abuse controlled substances like Vicodin.

In the same court papers, he claims Seymour has been running amok at their Connecticut mansion and stealing some of his valuable art. “In the past the plaintiff destroyed a valuable piece of art in anger, and recently destroyed the defendant’s Kentucky Derby trophy,” Brant claims.

In another recent filing, Brant’s legal team complained that Seymour was dragging her heels on getting drug and alcohol tests, which were ordered as part of their child custody dispute. Brant says that Seymour has “abused controlled substances in the past” including an addiction to Vicodin, for which she was hospitalized in 2000.

Seymour’s lawyer, Mark Sherman, said he had no immediate comment.

The couple split earlier this year after 16 years of marriage, though they still share the same mansion. The couple have three children, ages 4, 12 and 15.

via Seymour’s Ex Claims She’s a Big Spender, Abused Controlled Substances — PopEater.

Stephanie Seymour spends lots of money? Sure, no problem.

Stephanie Seymour’s spent time in rehab trying to kick a Vicodin habit? Not surprised in the least.

Stephanie Seymour’s got a 15 year old kid?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

I think I answered a poll in the ’80’s sometime about which was the most beautiful woman in the world, and my answer was Stephanie Seymour (her later fling with the disgusting Axl Rose notwithstanding). I think if I took that same poll last week, my answer would have been the same, though of course I’d need to qualify that for spousal reasons as the most beautiful woman in the world “who’s never been in my kitchen”. I guess the most beautiful woman in the world who’s never been in my kitchen can theoretically have a 15 year old kid, but I’m pretty sure something’s weird about that. Especially when this is the mental image I conjure (oh, and I do conjure) whenever anyone to this day utters the magical words “Stephanie Seymour”

It’s from the 1988 SI swimsuit issue with Elle MacPherson on the cover. How do I remember this?

Do you really want to know?

Do you?

I didn’t think so.

Be well, Stephanie.

Obama, Jack and Squat.

In the world of SNL, life often imitates art.  NBC’s darling President Obama was not spared this weekend, and this opening sketch sums things up somewhat nicely.  I say somewhat because despite the mocking of what little our President has not done, the unbelievable spending, lack of promised transparency, and general dividing of our nation is quite a large problem.

But have a laugh, if for no other reason other than (according to this sketch),  the “Messiah” has done two things: “Jack and Squat.”

Kentucky fried idiots.

Watched the first 2 Rocky movies over the weekend, so forgive the title of this post. In fact, count yourselves lucky I didn’t lift any other quotes like “piss lightening and crap thunder”. Maybe tomorrow I get you that post. Maybe tomorrow.

As for today, I’ve got a little AP/Ahmadinejad story that’ll warm your hearts. In advance of the Iranian President’s visit to to NY, tomorrow, the AP thought it wise to give its readers a little background:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday he was proud his denial of the Holocaust had enraged the West, as the controversial leader geared up for a United Nations trip to stress what he said would be a message of “peace and friendship.”

Ahmadinejad’s latest comment about the killing of millions of Jews during World War II comes as Iran is locked in a bitter dispute with the U.S. and other Western nations over its nuclear program. Even as that fight continues, his remarks were sure to earn the Iranian president an even more frigid reception when he heads to New York on Tuesday to attend the U.N. General Assembly.

“The anger of the world’s professional killers is (a source of) pride for us,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

He was responding to a question about criticism from the European Union following a speech on Friday in which he questioned whether the Holocaust was a “real event.” The manslayers reference appeared to be directed primarily at Israel and the U.S.

“It’s a sad day for the Iranian people,” French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Christine Fages said in an online briefing Monday in reference to Ahmadinejad’s latest Holocaust statements. She said “they unfortunately add to the long list of hateful statements” by Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly raised questions about the Holocaust. He has said it has been used as a pretext for Israel’s formation, and that Israel and Jewish groups are actively muzzling any attempt to link shame over the Nazi atrocities with the what many in the Muslim Middle East believe is the West’s bias for the Jewish state at their expense.

via Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial.

Go back and re-read that first paragraph. Does the AP really believe that a person who’s in one breath proud that his lunatic holocaust- denials are enraging the west could ever really be on a mission of “peace and friendship”? Is such a leader truly only ‘controversial’? Why does the AP tie itself up in knots trying to make it appear that Ahmadinejad is just another foreign leader on his way to NY to talk politics? Ahmadinejad is an anti-semitic madman on a mission to spark a global nuclear conflict. That this is not a mission of peace and friendship should be obvious.

The second paragraph’s a pisser too. Because Ahmadinejad referenced something called “the Holocaust” in paragraph 1, being good journalists, they felt the need to explain to their idiot readers just what that was. As if it was some term of art or foreign dialectic that might otherwise get lost in translation if not translated by the ever-on-the-ball AP. Is the Holocaust really just about “the killing of millions of Jews during World War II”? These jews weren’t passively “killed” The Nazis murdered them. Why? Because they were Jewish. The Holocaust was the systemic murder of millions of Jewish men, women and children by an anti-semitic madman….the SAME type of anti-semitic madman who’s the subject of this balanced news article. The reason why Ahmadinejad’s comments are outrageous and why he is such a dangerous and festering threat to the West (who’s obviously NOT on a mission of peace and friendship) is that  he’s saying the same things that Adolf Hitler said right before he went ahead and set up a government tasked with the object of murdering Jewish people.

Third and fourth paragraphs now. Thank you AP. Without your brilliant analysis, I’d still be wondering who Ahmadinejad was referencing with his “professional killers” comment.  The US and Israel? Brilliant work. I was thinking Sri Lanka and Poland. One question though. “Manslayer”? What’s that supposed to be? The context of Ahmadinejad’s comments indicate that the REAL professional killers (the US and Israel) concocted the story of FAKE professional killers (Germany) to shame the world into ceding Israel to the Jews after WWII. That’s his twisted deal. For the AP to describe the “professional killer” reference as one of “manslayers” is the height of ridiculousness. First, because it almost looks like a madeup word. Second, and most importantly, because it conjures the familiar word “manslaughter” in the minds of its readers. What’s manslaughter? It certainly isn’t murder, right? Manslaughter is what happens when you kill someone that you shouldn’t have, but because you didn’t INTEND to do it, the punishment isn’t that bad. Does the AP really wish to liken the “professional killers” of Nazi Germany with “manslayers”? Did the Nazis really not INTEND to kill all those Jewish people? You’ve really got to wonder if that’s what the AP thinks.

Finally, that last paragraph really caps it, doesn’t it. If I tell you right now that Santa Claus appeared to me last night in a dream and told me that Christ was a sham and that Merv Griffin was the Son of God, could my comments legitimately be described by a self-respecting journalist as “raising questions about Christmas”? To say that the Holocaust never happened is not to “raise questions” about the Holocaust. “Raising questions” implies that you’ve actually highlighted a real inconsistency that is backed by evidence, does it not? The mere fact that you’ve asked a question (however ridiculous, unfounded, unsupported or insane) does not imply that you’ve “raised questions”.

So I can’t tell who I hate more—the AP or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Part of me actually hates the AP more because at least with Ahmadinejad, you understand right up front that he’s a lunatic and that he’s dangerous and that he’s motivated by pure evil. With the AP, you don’t get that understanding until it’s WAY too late. Their “analysis” is disguised as legitimate discourse, and you don’t realize they’re defecating on your front porch until it’s too late.

I would like to issue an apology..

To those male students at Hofstra University – you know who you are and I don’t even know you. I didn’t say it publicly, but I had a thing or two to say about how you should be treated in prison for what you all “did” to that girl. It wasn’t pretty. But I take that all back now. She lied. She lied and almost ruined all of your lives. She lied and made it that much harder for REAL rape victims to come forward and be believed. She lied for whatever crazy demented reason and you are the ones who are met with suspicious eyes. Even though the “truth” came out, judgements were made which you will have to live with for the rest of your lives. I don’t know what really happened that night, but I’d like to say I’m sorry for judging you without hearing all sides of the story.

Obama’s Little Comment

I just heard an excerpt this morning on the Glen Beck Show (yeah, I listen to that) of the President’s interview with George Stepenopolus (I really do not care how you spell it – you know who I’m talking about) where George asks the President about ACORN and the President pretty much blows him off and tries to circumvent the question. What would have been wrong with saying something to the effect of ” you know George, when I worked there, the organization was doing good work and probably still does some good work today; but obviously given these videos and the earlier imbezzlement charges, they have some VERY serious issues with corruption from the top down and until they sort that out and get their act together, I support no further federal funding of that organization”. Instead he says “I didn’t know they were getting any federal money and quite frankly we have bigger issues to tackle”. What a load of crap. I mean, this guy must really think we are stupid. I mean, he just wants to talk about healthcare. So, the President is once again, all over the news pitching his health “plan” which isn’t really a health plan because as far as I can tell, there is no real plan per se, certainly no reform, absolutely no details and no two people in Congress can agree on it. And he’s on Univision of all places. Why? To cater to all those illegal immigrants who won’t be covered (wink wink)? Its all so frustrating! But I digress. I’ve been willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but its becoming more and more difficult to overlook little facts here and there when they seem to be making a big giant connect the dots picture.

Bumper sticker.

The following is part of a longer piece published by Doug O’Brien over  at biggovernment.com (the site on which all those delicious ACORN videos originated) that unfortunately is too long for a bumper sticker, but which nonetheless captures the spirit driving a majority of Americans in opposition to Obamacare these days:

Every day, the administration’s promotional campaign becomes more politicized, more strident, more arrogant, and less aimed at a discussion of the real concerns arising from the desire to hastily revamp one-sixth of the nation’s economy. Tell us in real terms how this will be paid for, not with vague estimates of possible “savings.” Tell us exactly how you will prevent rationing and unwarranted delays in care. Tell us how you will guarantee the survival of private insurance, not just pat us on the heads like children and promise that you won’t directly force anyone out of their current plan.

via Big Government » Blog Archive » Rev. Jackson to the rescue of Obamacare.

Obama and his flacks in the media of course won’t tell us those things because they can’t. Reform will be paid for with new taxes. Rationing won’t be prevented. It will be encouraged. Private insurance won’t survive. It’s obsolescence in fact, is the point.

But what kind of sales pitch is that?

So they lie. Peddle half truths. Counter legitimate questions with charges of racism. Because nobody ever chooses Socialism willingly. To gain the authority of law it must rely on the same coercive strategies which Obama is implementing right now.

Lies. Half truths. Manipulation.

Guess who’s coming to dinner?

Someone named Noam N. Levey penned this wonderful little bit of misinformation in today’s LA Times:

Imagine the debate over healthcare legislation on Capitol Hill as a tussle among three friends out for dinner.

All three have been struggling to pay their bills lately. When the check arrives, they try to figure out how to divide it. The problem is no one can really afford the meal. And if one manages to pay less, the other two will go home even deeper in the hole.

That is the dilemma facing President Obama and his congressional allies as they try to develop healthcare legislation that can unite liberal and conservative Democrats and make it to the president’s desk by the end of the year.

“It is all a question of balancing,” said Ken Thorpe, a healthcare economist at Emory University who has advised congressional Democrats working on healthcare bills.

Think of our three friends as consumers, businesses and government, the three major groups that pay for healthcare in America.

The check is the nation’s healthcare tab, which now tops $2.5 trillion a year.

via Splitting healthcare tab is a balancing act — latimes.com.

Does Mr. Levey not realize that “government” pays for nothing? Every dollar spent by government must first come from a “consumer” or a “business” that created it in the first place.

Some might ask (and they’d be right in asking) why government needs to place itself in between citizens and their health care at all. Wouldn’t it all be more efficient to permit citizens and businesses who create their dollars to pay it directly to the insurance companies themselves? Wouldn’t it make sense to permit interstate competition between health insurance companies? Wouldn’t that competition (like competition between potato chip and motor oil companies) result in more choices for the consumers? Lower prices? Better quality? And wouldn’t it also make sense to permit consumers to purchase insurance against whatever type of contingencies they wish? Shouldn’t a healthy 22 year old male be free to insure against ONLY catastrophic occurrences? Why is he instead required to obtain and pay for a policy insuring things he doesn’t need?

Ah…and now we get to the reason for government. The reason that the government insists on insinuating itself between citizens and their health care is that without the government, the millions and millions of people who feel that they are entitled to FREE health care and who exist like CHILDREN within the soft fluffy womb of Big Government Insulation would be out of luck.

I’m not talking about people who despite their best efforts find themselves temporarily in need of assistance. I’m also not talking about the old, the young, the truly poor, the incapacitated. These people should be helped by the government and the government should be able to collect a little bit of money from the hundreds of millions of us who have some in order to help those who absolutely cannot help themselves.

But there are ALREADY government programs like that. Tremendously wasteful and inefficient ones, I grant you, but systems currently being funded that help the young (SCHIP), the old (MEDICARE) and the poor (MEDICAID). Not to mention social security.

Why isn’t “health care reform” focusing on fixing EXISTING programs to more effectively help those who are already eligible to receive that help?

Because that misses the point, doesn’t it? The object of the current Obama-liberal reform packages is to insure that the producers in this country are screwed to the highest possible degree so that those who are content to recline in the padded lap of government may do so from cradle to grave.

That’s why the various free market approaches that I outline above won’t be seriously entertained by any liberal. Because just as the Stimulus wasn’t created to stimulate anything except the liberal base, so too is health care ‘reform’ not intended to reform anything except capitalism.

The cure for capitalism is a heavy dose of socialism….and that’s just what Obama is planning to deliver.

If recent polls are any indicator though, these plans may be crumbling. Which of course is a good thing, despite what great thinkers like Noam N. Levey believe. The more Obama and his liberal cabal open their mouths to scold Americans on health care ‘reform’, the more we learn of his socialist mischief and the more sick and tired we become of his Presidency.

This chart from Rasmussen says it all:

Keep talking, Mr. President. Keep talking.

Silly kids.

From the AP today:

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) – College students from Missouri to Oregon are urging their schools to stop using coal-based electricity in favor of cleaner energy sources ranging from wood chips to geothermal power.

On Wednesday, students at the University of Missouri and other schools nationwide mounted a Sierra Club-led campaign targeting coal-based power at colleges, whether generated at on-campus plants or purchased from private utilities. The campaign began the same day a group of college presidents rallied in Washington in support of clean energy legislation.

Student organizers said colleges have a societal obligation to reduce and eventually eliminate coal use in favor of renewable energy. At Missouri, the school used more than 48,000 tons of coal to generate electricity in 2007, accounting for 80 percent of campus energy use.

via College students protest coal use on campuses.

Wood chips and paper pellets. I’ll bet they’re at least as efficient as coal, right? Probably lots cheaper too.

And what’s this about “societal obligation[s] to reduce…coal use”. What does that mean? Where did this obligation come from?

Go ahead, click through and read that entire article. In it, you’ll find:

1. no mention of any opposing viewpoint anywhere in the piece. It is taken as gospel that coal use IS BAD and that OF COURSE these students are correct and noble for boycotting their own schools. Schools, by the way, which are costing their parents upwards of $30k per year.

2. no mention anywhere in the article as to WHY coal is so bad in the first place. They say COAL IS BAD and then they say GLOBAL WARMING, but nowhere is the connection made. Anywhere in the piece.

Obama bails on Poland & Czech Republic.

From today’s AP report:

PRAGUE (AP) – The Czech prime minister says President Barack Obama has told him that the U.S. is abandoning plans to put a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Czech Premier Jan Fischer told reporters in Prague on Thursday that Obama phoned him to say that Washington has decided to scrap the plan that had deeply angered Russia.

Fischer says Obama confirmed that Washington no longer intends to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic.

The Bush administration had said the missile shield was a strategic way to counter a threat from Iran or another rogue state in the Middle East. But Russia was deeply angered by the prospect of having U.S. interceptor rockets in countries so close to its territory.

via Obama scrapping missile shield for Czech, Poland.

First of all, Obama chooses September 17 as the day he announces that he’s not going to defend Poland against rogue aggression? He couldn’t have picked another day? Did he purposefully try to insult free nations everywhere and place himself on the wrong side of history by choosing this date? After all, it isn’t like this isn’t the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland to help kick off the festivities of WWII, is it?

Oh yeah, that’s right, it is.

This guy couldn’t be more of a jackass if he tried.

Second, a hat tip to our intrepid betters at the AP who attempt to balance the debate by reporting that, in defense of weapon placement in Poland, the Bush administration said it was a good idea. And you know, if the Bush administration said it, it must be bad. To present the counterpoint, does the AP say that Russia “says” it was angered over the placement? No, of course not. The Russians’ anger we are supposed to take at face value.

Russia WAS deeply angered, and for proof that the placement was a good idea, all we have is Bush SAYING it was a good idea, which , you know, means it was a terrible idea.

Why can’t they say that Russia SAID it was angered by the placement?

No, these AP writers choose their words very carefully. Russia’s anger is to be taken for granted. The legitimacy of the placement of the missiles, however, is to be viewed at through the skeptical lens of the AP’s Bush hatred.

Unbelievable. Read it again. This is no small thing.

What side is the AP on? If NO side (what we’d expect from an ‘objective’ news organization) why not say that Russia SAYS it was angered? Then we can judge for ourselves whether to believe that anger to be legitimate. No. Russia IS angry. Which we are to take at face value.

Latest ACORN sting video – Part II

Why isn’t this group a criminal enterprise? Why are they still receiving federal money? Why did Barack Obama once work for them? Why do they continue to play such a large part in his political agenda?

Latest ACORN sting video – Part 1.

There are no words.

What if ‘naked liberalism’ is just VERY unpopular?

Is it really true that BUT FOR racist white Americans, Obama’s liberal agenda (including the socialization of our health care industry) would skate through Congress and become law?

I guess we could test the data, couldn’t we? If racism is really the single factor holding Obama’s agenda back, we should be able to find recent historical evidence of white presidents successfully pushing similar agendas through congress without opposition, shouldn’t we?

Of course we should.

So let’s look.

In 1972, after 4 years of Richard Nixon’s involvement in the Viet Nam War, Americans were so eager for an anti-war liberal to come in and fix things that they….re-elected Nixon 49 states to 1.

In 1980, after 4 years of Jimmy Carter’s unabated liberalism, Americans went ahead and elected Conservative Ronald Reagan 44 states to 6.

In 1984, Americans were so upset with this Reagan Conservatism and so attracted to the prospect of Carter’s old liberal VP taking over, that they came out in DROVES…and sent Mondale back to Minnesota 49 states to 1.

In 2004, after 4 years of the rumblin’, bumblin’ and stumblin’ antics of NeoConservative George W. Bush and his “illegal” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans were so eager for Liberal John Kerry that they…re-elected Bush.

News flash.

Naked Liberalism is not very popular at all with American voters, regardless of the color of the skin of the head Liberal in charge. Whether it be McGovern or Carter or Mondale or <gasp!> Barack Obama himself, Americans like their capitalism and they like their individualism and they get off on the fact that a citizen should be required to be accountable to himself and his community and rise and fall on his own merit.

Barack Obama didn’t run as a Liberal though, did he? No, he was smarter than that. He read his history. He saw the same election results that you and I saw. He figured he’d run as the only thing he knew he could convince Americans was good.

He ran as a black guy.

No other credentials. That he was black was enough. And he was right. Our media didn’t ask questions where questions were painfully wanting.

What of your lack of experience? What of your shady connections? What of your roots as a “community organizer” and your association with and support for people who wished to tear America down?

Irrelevant, said Obama. Don’t you know I’m not running as a Liberal? Anything in my past that may make me appear to be liberal is therefore irrelevant. I’m actually running as a black guy. Therefore, given the state of race relations in this country (thankfully inflamed by my minions of race baiters, white and black, who populate the upper echelons of the Democrat party), it’s impossible for you to condemn me. I’m black, you see, and whites can’t criticize blacks without appearing hateful and small and ignorant. And since no white person wants to be made to appear or even feel hateful and small and ignorant, I should skate by.

And skate by he did.

Because his real agenda was Liberal, but he knew he couldn’t advertise that.

And now we’ve got what we have now. An unabashed, dyed in the wool Socialist operating the levers of the United States Government like he’s moving toy soldiers around in some 3rd rate banana republic.

Want to criticize him?

Careful.

He’s black you know.

And we all go blithely along….

It’s like a Twilight Zone episode, isn’t it? I suppose I’ll get a few nasty comments about how racist I am, but I’m Conservative so I’m used to those comments. I get them when I post about abortion or Israel too. I’ve got a thick skin. Besides, everything any white person does can’t be racist. Otherwise, racism has no meaning, and I don’t think that’s the object of the game, is it?

If it isn’t, then Democrats need to start being real careful about how and where they throw that word around. People who disagree with you on health care are not racist. People who voted for Bush are not racist. People who go to church are not racist. To be sure, there are racists who do go to church and who did vote for Bush and who do disagree with you on health care, but that and a token will get you on the subway, right? There are also racists in the Democrat party, who voted for Kerry, and who never go to church.

What does this mean? Like I said, not much.

How about let’s talk about the issues instead?

Anyone?

Does ‘racism’ even mean anything anymore?

If not, then what a sad, sad day for the genuine victims of racism.

Here’s the AP reporting on Jimmy Carter’s latest steaming nugget of wisdom:

ATLANTA (AP) – Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears of a black president.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

“Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” he said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, was formally rebuked Tuesday in a House vote for shouting “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last Wednesday.

The shout came after the president commented that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republicans expressed their disbelief with sounds of disapproval, punctuated by Wilson’s outburst.

via Carter: Rep. Wilson comments ‘based on racism’.

As if it weren’t already clear enough that Jimmy Carter is out of step with American virtue, here’s the latest poll from Rasmussen on the subject:

Twelve percent (12%) of voters nationwide believe that most opponents of President Obama’s health care reform plan are racist. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of voters disagree, and 21% are not sure.

In recent days, several Democrats have suggested that racism is a factor. The most prominent to make that accusation is former President Jimmy Carter.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans reject the notion that most of the opponents are racist. So do 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party. However, just 39% of Democrats share that view.

Got that, Jimmy?

While you and your fellow Democrats may hold the view that the only possible reason to oppose Obama’s Socialist agenda is because he’s black (mixed-race, actually, which I’m thinking is the topic of another post sometime real soon), that view is hardly mainstream. Actually, 12% of voters is a pretty fringe constituency, I must say. So cheer up, America. The only racists here are Carter and his fringe posse of misfit toys. Keep up the fight against Obama’s Socialist agenda.

Because what’s actually going on here is quite mischievous. Instead of arguing WHY Obama’s plan won’t end up with our health care becoming more expensive, rarer, and of inferior quality (which are Americans’ main concerns) the Democrats have chosen instead to  label all who disagree with Obama as racist. It’s much simpler to do that than to argue ideas. Especially when your ideas are as unpopular as the Democrats’ are. And who wants to be a racist? Their game is that enough of us will listen to them and cave to their little game of extortion. And that’s exactly what it is–extortion. Either sign on to their terrible idea or they will ostracize you. Forget about argument.  Their ideas suck and they know it. The only way they can carry this day is to shame us into following them.

Opposing Obama is not a racist position. Post it on your FaceBook pages and scream it to anyone who will listen. Do not be cowed by these brigands and knaves masquerading as respectable men and women. And by these I mean politicians as well as regular everyday people you meet and interact with daily. Anyone who would rather assume you to be racist than to have a viewpoint in opposition to the President, is not worthy of your respect or your time.

Are you a RACIST?

It is no secret to readers of this blog that Jonah Goldberg kicks some serious ass, and this article does not disappoint.  Apparently anyone who opposes the President is a racist.  It does not matter if the reason you oppose him has nothing to do with his race; it is automatically assumed because our President and his crappy policies have set the Civil Rights movement back at least 40 years.  Everywhere I turn I am reminded that I am a racist because I don’t want his stupid Obamacare, I don’t want his spending, I don’t want his talking-head-teleprompter-addicted self yapping at me on the TV.  In all honesty, I don’t see him as a black man, I see him as a man.  Does that make me a sexist?  Can you be a sexist, or is what you do or think sexist?  Now I’m confusing myself.

“Take America Back.”  Where is the racism in that?  I want the old, non-wannabe-Socialist America back.  That has nothing to do with race.  What’s with all of this reading into everything and making it about race?

My stomach turned at this tweet, brought to you by the genius who tweeted Obama’s “jackass” comment: “@raa3Would Wilson heckle a white POTUS like that? Dunno. But, in general, it’s easier to be rude to those we do not consider our equals.”

Okay…Wilson said “YOU LIE!”  He did not say, “YOU LIE, BLACK MAN.”  That would be a racist comment.  To assume that Wilson said this because he considers our President to be beneath him is ridiculous, but I guess this kind of crap sells lots of newspapers (not…that was a joke.  Nobody is buying newspapers, except liberals) or gets viewers on your lousy news channel.  The mainstream media is playing us for fools.  THEY LIE.  Now I’m a Media Racist.

*angry sigh*

In which Thomas Friedman gets it exactly wrong.

Here’s Thomas Friedman in yesterday’s NY Times:

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.

via Op-Ed Columnist – Our One-Party Democracy – NYTimes.com.

One party autocracy (cf. modern day Venezuela, Cuba, China as well as historical (key distinction) Germany, Italy and Soviet Union) has “drawbacks”? Assuming by “drawbacks” he means “absence of freedom” and “stultifying political bondage”, is there really any room for a “but” at the beginning of the next sentence?

That’s like saying that Mussolini may have had “drawbacks”….BUT he sure did get the trains running on time, didn’t he? Can’t forget those trains.

Go ahead and read the entire article. He’s actually saying that it’s a good thing to have an autocracy running things because then they’d get to impose “politically difficult” fixes on policies which in their own unopposed view are important to society.

I wonder if he’d have been in favor of giving the Bush administration absolute freedom to pursue their own “politically difficult” yet “critically important” fixes to counteract global Islamic fundamentalism. Do you think?

This is the same nonsense that Obama himself spouted soon after he took office. Remember all that “the time for petty political debate is over” stuff? The unspoken follow up was that “now get in line behind me and stop asking questions.”

Which all of course misses the point of our little Democratic Republic, does it not?

“Political difficulty” is actually a pretty good thing. It forces compromise, which insures that the greatest amount of people agree with your fix before it moves forward. Again, this is a VERY GOOD THING. Your own fix, however great you think it is, may not be all that popular with everyone else. Giving the strongest party the leverage to do whatever it wants ASSUMES that that party’s plans are the BEST solutions to ANY problems and are beyond reproach.

This is an obscene viewpoint.

Sure, as Friedman says, China has the “freedom” (I use this term in the loosest possible sense) to position itself in what Friedman perceives as the “lead” on “clean power and energy”. In essence, they can do whatever they want because there’s no opposition. But what  are the long term consequences of this freedom? Because nobody is opposing certain things that the Chinese are doing the way people are opposing certain things that we are thinking about doing here in the US, what important details are being left out? What interests are being overlooked? What will these supposed great “fixes” look like in 10 or 15 years because nobody was there NOW to say WAIT…you FORGOT to think about THIS?

While the Soviet Union was doing all those 5 year plans and planning the Soviet economy in an echo chamber…nobody was permitted to say STOP! If you keep this up, you’ll be out of business in 50 years!

And what happened?

They were out of business in 50 years.

The founders of the United States set up a pretty cool Democratic Republic on the back of a cocktail napkin more than 230 years ago–the fundamental premise of which was that unopposed, autocratic dictatorships should be AVOIDED at all costs. Why? Because they are unfree. Because they depend on coercion and bondage of their own people to survive. Because the best and most lasting policies should be openly debated in the marketplace of ideas  and be a genuine pronunciation of the People.

Someone please tell Mr. Friedman.

Pickled.

From Camille Paglia’s latest column over at Slate:

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.

[clip]

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.

That, my friends, is a skewer. The right is no friend of Camille Paglia (she’s an Obama supporter, after all), but this column was positively delicious and I recommend you devour the whole thing.

Is there anything that the Federal Government is good at?

The title of this post is almost as long as the post itself.

Consider that the Washington DC Public schools are the only public schools in the country that are completely administered by the Federal Government.

Want to take a guess at what they spend per student?

You got it. $16,540.

Bear in mind that the average cost per pupil for all states (including DC) is about $9,500. So it costs DC almost twice as much to educate each pupil as it does the average pupil in other states. As a frame of reference, it costs about $34,000 a year to send your kid to Princeton.

So for $16,540, you’d expect DC students to be among the best educated in the nation, right? After all, according to Obama, once the Feds get involved, waste and inefficiency magically disappear.

Want to take a guess at how the DC public schools rank in terms of overall test scores?

You got it. Dead last.

So what do you think? Is it time to turn over health care to the Feds?