It never fails to amaze me how quickly the public forgets.
No one seems to recall that when the Stimulus Bill was passed earlier this year, it was supposed to be an emergency measure to jump-start the economy.
Those against it argued that it was mostly pork; many projects it funded wouldn't even get underway for almost 10 years; it would cripple an already staggering economy with a whopping huge debt.
But Comrade Osama needed it right now! Or the nation would collapse. With the Stimulus Bill, the whole economic downturn would be over by the end of this year at the latest. He sent attack dog Pazzo Pelosi out to bludgeon congresscritters into voting in favor. No one even got to debate the bill. No one even read the whole thing. The whole debacle was kinda like watching a herd of lemmings running over a cliff.
(And yeah... I'm talking about the Stimulus Bill, not crap-and-trade, which admittedly, bears a striking resemblence.)
And now, well, look around. You see any impacts from the Stimulus Bill except an increasing unemployment rate? The Stimulus Bill doesn't do anything for the private sector, which is where the jobs are created in the US. However, I understand that if a major, major project gets underway in Oregon or someplace in five or seven years, turtles will have a tunnel under a major highway. Nice. What is that all about? If you cross the bridge, you collect $200? Now that would be stimulus.
And if you criticize the useless waste of this huge debt vs. the impact an immediate and deep tax cut would have had, Democrats talk about the whopping huge tax cut in the Stimulus Bill -- an average of $13.00 per week, isn't it?
You know what? With the increased tax on tobacco alone, $13.00 will just about pay for two or three packs of cigarettes -- depending on which state you live in. Three bags of potato chips. Two complete meals at a fastfood place. Get out of the way... here comes recovery!
So here's a better idea: Rescind the rest of the Stimulus Bill -- no one read it anyway. No one knows what's in it. It could contain a clause that promises to turn over the entire continental USA to the King of Madagascar at the end of 2011 for all anyone knows. Rescind it on that basis -- "Hey! It was right after New Year's. I was still hungover and the Comrade insisted we pass this piece of crap without reading it!" Reason enough to rescind.
Or, you could argue that it was absolutely brain-dead reckless and irresponsible in the first place. That works too.
Then eliminate payroll taxes for the rest of this year. Just cut them out entirely. No need to file with the IRS next April. The federal government will lose money, but not as much as they're losing with the Stimulus Bill. And it would be absolutely terrific to shut off the funds going to Washington. Put those SOB's on a budget for a change, including IRS staffers. Let them all take the rest of the year off, with an attendant cut in their pay -- sorta like what they're dumping on private citizens now.
And I guarantee, the economy will pick up overnight, like a launch from Cape Canaveral.
The only trouble is.... the buttheads in Washington couldn't control this kind of stimulus. It targets the free market and is a boon mainly to individuals rather than big political donors and fascist-leaning multinational corporations. So it will never go anywhere.
But it would work.
So... would you rather have more than $1 trillion in useless wasted debt, or do you really want to jump-start the economy? Simple choice. Take your pick.
Don't listen to what the blockheads in Washington say. Watch what they do and you'll begin to understand their true motives. It isn't complicated.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Gag me with a spoon
I didn't watch the Sotomayor senate screening thing today. Up all night trying to make a deadline, so went to bed this morning about 30 minutes before they were supposed to begin. However, I did hear about them and saw a couple clips. Senator Lindsey Graham was on Greta Van Susteren tonight and he mentioned that the hearings could be used to torture the terrorists at Guantanamo. "Nineteen senators talking for three hours," he said. So I didn't miss much.
A couple clips I did see were pretty disgraceful. Most notably Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) fawning all over Sotomayor, talking about the judge's wonderful background and all that. So syrupy, so condescending and patronizing. If I was Sotomayor, I probably would have got up and walked out.
In the book, Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell says that liberals treat blacks -- and apparently other minorities, too -- like mascots. And, by the way, I totally recommend this book. I don't have a copy anymore because I gave it to someone else, and they tell me that certain phrases and thoughts from it keep coming back to them. Same with me. It's a terrific outline of the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Anyway, Feinstein at least treated Sotomayor like a mascot. Worse, even. More like a cocker spaniel puppy. "Isn't she cute? Isn't it marvelous that she came so far?" I didn't see too many of the other sentor's statements. Maybe Sessions offering his version of being a ruthless interrogator or something. The real hearings don't start until tomorrow. Today was just get-your-face-on-TV for the senate.
Been thinking all day about how disgusting Feinstein acted. I just can't imagine talking to someone the way Feinstein talked to Sotomayor in public. Feinstein looked so.... bigoted. Like she was overcompensating for her bigotry by going way overboard in the other direction. Yet I don't want to feel sorry for Sotomayor.
In fact, I kinda wonder about the richness of Sotomayor's experiences as a Latina woman, or the authenticity of them. After all, how many Latino kids from the projects in the Bronx get a scholarship to Princeton and then go on to Yale Law School? I mean, is that typical? Does Sotomayor's background reflect any particular hardship? More like she had enormous good fortune and, as Jefferson would say, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
And I really don't think Sotomayor had that difficult of a background to overcome. My dad died when I was a kid, leaving my mom with two young daughters (I was 11, my sister was 12) and three sons who were grown and out of the house with families of their own. My mom had to work, too, and had never worked before outside the home. Her jobs were not exactly executive level, but we got by. We were never on welfare and didn't live in the projects. I went to school on a scholarship, graduated cum laude, but didn't go to law school. Didn't want to be a lawyer, really. A lot of people come from a similar situation, and I would guess that most don't qualify for racial or minority affirmative action programs.
So what's the big deal? Where's the "richness of experiences" that sets Sotomayor's judgment apart -- and puts it above -- a white man's?
Very few people actually get anything easily in the USA. It's a rich country, sure, but there's no free lunch, either. Drop dead in the street and you can count on the fact that most people will probably just step over you.... if they don't empty your pockets first. No matter what color you are. In the cities, anyway.
The big flap over Sotomayor's background seems to suggest that being a Puerto Rican woman is a difficult thing to overcome. And that seems to reflect a really nasty prejudice. Why shouldn't Puerto Ricans and/or women succeed?
Every nationality who arrived here got dumped on one way or another. The Irish were mistreated very nearly as bad as the blacks. The Irish were Catholic, for one thing, and rowdy for another -- forever joining unions and involving themselves in politics.
A couple clips I did see were pretty disgraceful. Most notably Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) fawning all over Sotomayor, talking about the judge's wonderful background and all that. So syrupy, so condescending and patronizing. If I was Sotomayor, I probably would have got up and walked out.
In the book, Vision of the Anointed, Thomas Sowell says that liberals treat blacks -- and apparently other minorities, too -- like mascots. And, by the way, I totally recommend this book. I don't have a copy anymore because I gave it to someone else, and they tell me that certain phrases and thoughts from it keep coming back to them. Same with me. It's a terrific outline of the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Anyway, Feinstein at least treated Sotomayor like a mascot. Worse, even. More like a cocker spaniel puppy. "Isn't she cute? Isn't it marvelous that she came so far?" I didn't see too many of the other sentor's statements. Maybe Sessions offering his version of being a ruthless interrogator or something. The real hearings don't start until tomorrow. Today was just get-your-face-on-TV for the senate.
Been thinking all day about how disgusting Feinstein acted. I just can't imagine talking to someone the way Feinstein talked to Sotomayor in public. Feinstein looked so.... bigoted. Like she was overcompensating for her bigotry by going way overboard in the other direction. Yet I don't want to feel sorry for Sotomayor.
In fact, I kinda wonder about the richness of Sotomayor's experiences as a Latina woman, or the authenticity of them. After all, how many Latino kids from the projects in the Bronx get a scholarship to Princeton and then go on to Yale Law School? I mean, is that typical? Does Sotomayor's background reflect any particular hardship? More like she had enormous good fortune and, as Jefferson would say, the harder you work, the luckier you get.
And I really don't think Sotomayor had that difficult of a background to overcome. My dad died when I was a kid, leaving my mom with two young daughters (I was 11, my sister was 12) and three sons who were grown and out of the house with families of their own. My mom had to work, too, and had never worked before outside the home. Her jobs were not exactly executive level, but we got by. We were never on welfare and didn't live in the projects. I went to school on a scholarship, graduated cum laude, but didn't go to law school. Didn't want to be a lawyer, really. A lot of people come from a similar situation, and I would guess that most don't qualify for racial or minority affirmative action programs.
So what's the big deal? Where's the "richness of experiences" that sets Sotomayor's judgment apart -- and puts it above -- a white man's?
Very few people actually get anything easily in the USA. It's a rich country, sure, but there's no free lunch, either. Drop dead in the street and you can count on the fact that most people will probably just step over you.... if they don't empty your pockets first. No matter what color you are. In the cities, anyway.
The big flap over Sotomayor's background seems to suggest that being a Puerto Rican woman is a difficult thing to overcome. And that seems to reflect a really nasty prejudice. Why shouldn't Puerto Ricans and/or women succeed?
Every nationality who arrived here got dumped on one way or another. The Irish were mistreated very nearly as bad as the blacks. The Irish were Catholic, for one thing, and rowdy for another -- forever joining unions and involving themselves in politics.
The Poles and other Eastern Europeans, Italians, Jews, Chinese -- just about any nationality or other type of minority that arrived in the USA in numbers large enough to have any kind of impact were treated like dogs, exploited, abused, ripped-off, etc etc. What's new? And I must add, the mistreatment only lasts as long as the people put up with it. Once they figure out that they have as many rights as anyone else -- that is, assimilate -- they do just fine. As long as you're free, it doesn't matter if others accept you. You could still do what you wanted for yourself.
The thing is, you have to be free. You have to work with that, not stand on line and wait for a hand-out.
Success is not extraordinary in the USA. What is extraordinary is allowing others the same freedom and independence to rise or fall on their own instead of trying to make them your pets.
It's mainly liberals like Feinstein who would find something amazing in the fact that someone who doesn't look like her (Feinstein, that is), talk like her, etc. etc., someone who doesn't understand that freedom works for all people -- only the stupid biased liberals would be surprised that nearly anyone can find or create opportunities for success in America.
Feinstein doesn't strike me as being overly bright, anyway. She was mayor of San Francisco when the Night Stalker, a really scary serial killer, was on the loose. The Night Stalker would break into peoples' homes when they were there and rob, torture, and kill them. He wasn't particular about his victims, they were men, women, kids, adults, and he'd killed maybe a half-dozen people and had left no clues to his identity whatsoever.
Finally at one crime scene -- the Night Stalker had tried to break into a cop's home, if I recall correctly -- he left a footprint in soft soil. The footprint showed the design of the sole of a particular type of running shoe, and the cops were trying to track him down through that. So Mayor Diane Feinstein gets on TV and blabs all over the Bay Area that anyone wearing this particular type of gym shoe was being sought by police.
The Night Stalker tossed the shoes. The cops had to start over.
Anyway, I really don't have such a great opinion of Feinstein anyway. But it's still rather sickening to watch her make a fool of herself the way she did today. And I imagine it made Sotomayor want to retch. It did me. I empathize.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
All the news that's print to fit
I happen to know a lot about journalism and the newspaper industry, its history and all that. The industry was more or less launched in North America by Ben Franklin, who, before he got into politics, was a printer and made a fortune selling what amounted to print business franchises in the North American colonies. You could go to Ben and he'd set you up with a press imported from England, sets of fonts, paper suppliers, and a copy of "Poor Richard's Almanack," which offered self-help axioms to use as "filler" so you wouldn't have to leave a column empty. I do believe he even offered training.
The first newspapers were not much more than broadsides, kinda like little posters printed only one side and pasted up all over the place. They served as ads for printing services and other local businesses who would buy space in them to advertise. That's how printers made a living between other, larger jobs. Some printers still do this. And the weekly bundle of grocery store ads and coupons folded into the Sunday paper is the same type of thing.
Anyway, back in the colonies, printers began adding local news to their broadsides, commentaries from local politicians, accounts of the Governor's Ball, letters from travelers in France and Spain. People began paying for the information. These "newspapers" were sold by subscription.
By the time the US became a nation, the newspaper industry was well underway. For example, Jefferson was rather unhappy that he was compelled to "buy" or sponsor a newspaper to present his side and counteract the "news" spread by his political opponents.
When high-speed, steam-powered web presses came into being, along with them came the rise of mass circulation newspapers. At the time, these were most notably New York papers. You've heard of Horace Greeley? ("Go west, young man....") He was the very powerful publisher of the New York Tribune, which began offering nationwide subscriptions and also was one of the papers that founded the Associated Press wire service. His steam-powered rotary (web) press could crank out thousands of copies of a paper overnight. This was unheard of previously.
The New York Herald, Greeley's most competitive rival that eventually eclipsed the Trib, began selling newspapers on street corners rather than only by subscritpion -- considerably broadening its local circulation -- and also began running lurid crime stories and social scandals.
You can gauge the power of these newspapers pretty simply. Greeley was one of the people who founded the Republican Party. And at the time, his was the only newspaper with a nationwide circulation. In addition, the wire services allowed for newspapers all across the country to pick up and reprint stories from the Trib, Herald, and a few others on their own pages. The Republican Party went from zero to getting Lincoln elected to the presidency in about 15 years. Of course, there were some pretty hot issues at the time, too. But Lincoln was a Nobody from Podunk -- famous only for opposing Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat -- until Greeley took notice of him and began to promote him across the country as one of a field of anti-slavery Republican presidential candidates.
Radio and TV hadn't been invented yet, neither were telephones. Newspapers, private letters, and stories carried by travelers were the only way anyone knew what was happening outside of their own communities. And the newspapers were all extremely and forthrightly biased, unashamedly editorializing on the front page, promoting one or another candidate for public office, taking sides on issues like slavery, secession and on and on. Many of them also routinely published poetry and short stories.
The idea of unbiased reporting was born only during the Civil War, and then just barely. But the folks back home had husbands, sons, brothers on the front lines and they wanted to know -- really know -- what was going on. So the papers began to focus on publishing factual information, usually with either some element of rah-rah! cheerleading or sharp criticism still intermingled. For example, it was the newspapers that published the casualty lists after the battles, and before any soldier's mother got a letter from the State Dept. For all of the above reasons, newspapers are an interesting source of information on "color" in history, or public opinion, but they aren't really useful sources of factual historical data.
Newspapers and news as a source of some kind of unvarnished truth without personal opinion is largely a creature of the 20th century. I've worked as a journalist and an editor, and I believe "objective reporting" to be a crock. No matter how hard any individual tries, you cannot tell a story and keep your personal slant out of it. The bias comes out not only in word choice (was it a "mob" or an "assembly of concerned citizens"?), but also in what an editor or publisher chooses to publish.
For example, there are only two known photographs of Franlin Delano Roosevelt in a wheelchair, and those were taken by friends, not members of the press. A lot of people still are unaware that FDR had polio and couldn't walk or stand without assistance. And I've never seen any photos of Comrade Osama with a cigarette in hand, either.
So, you're the publisher or editor. Do you go with the story about Michael Jackson's death, or about passing the cap-and-tax bill through the House of Representatives?
The press says the public dictates what they publish. To some extent, this is true. The public buys the papers, and this income covers part of the cost of production -- but only part. Most of the costs are still covered by advertisers, the same as in Ben Franklin's day, and this is true of TV and radio as well as printed media.
And the public doesn't have a whole lot of choice in what it reads or sees on TV news, either, does it? For the public, the news is like a buffet. They might be able to choose from the baby back ribs and cornbread or the spaghetti and tossed salad, but although steak and potatoes exist, they may not be on the menu.
I've been an editor. Periodically you assemble all the "news" that might be "important" to readers in one way or another. Then you pick what you think is really important -- because you've got limited space and you can't run it all. The really, really important stuff goes up front where most people will see it. The rest is kinda tucked into various departments or on the bottom of page six. These choices are pretty much driven by your own judgment, which includes your own biases. There's just no way around it.
The alternative, particularly in a field like politics where differing opinions proliferate, is to present as many different perspectives as you can gather. That's why I like Fox News. They go back to the original paradigm, when newspapers called themselves the Hoboken Democrat, the Pittsburgh Whig, or the Cincinnati Advertiser. You know where the guys at Fox are coming from. And they invite the self-identified advocates from the other side to argue and debate their views -- honestly. My one beef with Fox is that they often take on major, very complicated issues without enough time to fully air both sides. But at least they try.
That's about as fair as it gets. Much fairer than those news outlets that sincerely believe they have a lock on "truth," then proceed to tell the story through their eyes only, with commentary from people with similar and supporting opinions.
Most of the very sophisticated and better known journalists live in a world where they all pretty much believe the same thing: religion is the "opiate of the masses"; socialism is historically inevitable; anyone who was raised west of the Mississippi, or really, west of the Appalachians, except California, is probably an ignorant hayseed; and they have better biases than anyone else. Oh, and anyone who labors in the vineyards of the Ivy League is probably an omnipotent genius.
Anyway, since the Washington Post has long proclaimed that it has a lock on truth, I was really stunned to see that they were offering to sell access to their reporters and to apparently "unnamed highly-placed sources" in the administration at a series of proposed $25,000-per-plate soirees. And these would all unfold in a friendly and non-confrontational atmosphere. Sorta like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours? Sorta like selling out to advertisers, or to whomever can pay the price of admission?
I mean, really, is it any wonder that Comrade Osama was elected? We're talking about an exclusive insider club of media professionals who have access to nationwide information channels and who, by and large, probably all suffer from liberal guilt to one degree or another. Let's pay no attention to the fact that the man is a socialist; he's part black, so that must be good for the country, which has ever been torn by racial conflicts. Beside that, most of those in the insiders' club got there because they pander to the elitest drivel that embraces socialism as "enlightenment."
It's all a bunch of hogwash. The very fact that the Washington Post wasn't bothered about selling their powerful megaphone to the highest bidder is sort of a tip-off. They were probably thinking, Well, those who pay for these soirees can tell us anything they like, but we'll ferret out the "truth." The Post seems to be blind to the fact that at these soirees, they'd only hear one side of any story. But apparently all they need is one side, if that side agrees with their own biases.
For most of them, only one side really exists. After all, we all know what's "good," what's "right," and what everyone should believe in. If you have any questions about any of this, I'm sure Sally Quinn and Paul Krugman will be more than happy to explain it in language you can understand.
The first newspapers were not much more than broadsides, kinda like little posters printed only one side and pasted up all over the place. They served as ads for printing services and other local businesses who would buy space in them to advertise. That's how printers made a living between other, larger jobs. Some printers still do this. And the weekly bundle of grocery store ads and coupons folded into the Sunday paper is the same type of thing.
Anyway, back in the colonies, printers began adding local news to their broadsides, commentaries from local politicians, accounts of the Governor's Ball, letters from travelers in France and Spain. People began paying for the information. These "newspapers" were sold by subscription.
By the time the US became a nation, the newspaper industry was well underway. For example, Jefferson was rather unhappy that he was compelled to "buy" or sponsor a newspaper to present his side and counteract the "news" spread by his political opponents.
When high-speed, steam-powered web presses came into being, along with them came the rise of mass circulation newspapers. At the time, these were most notably New York papers. You've heard of Horace Greeley? ("Go west, young man....") He was the very powerful publisher of the New York Tribune, which began offering nationwide subscriptions and also was one of the papers that founded the Associated Press wire service. His steam-powered rotary (web) press could crank out thousands of copies of a paper overnight. This was unheard of previously.
The New York Herald, Greeley's most competitive rival that eventually eclipsed the Trib, began selling newspapers on street corners rather than only by subscritpion -- considerably broadening its local circulation -- and also began running lurid crime stories and social scandals.
You can gauge the power of these newspapers pretty simply. Greeley was one of the people who founded the Republican Party. And at the time, his was the only newspaper with a nationwide circulation. In addition, the wire services allowed for newspapers all across the country to pick up and reprint stories from the Trib, Herald, and a few others on their own pages. The Republican Party went from zero to getting Lincoln elected to the presidency in about 15 years. Of course, there were some pretty hot issues at the time, too. But Lincoln was a Nobody from Podunk -- famous only for opposing Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat -- until Greeley took notice of him and began to promote him across the country as one of a field of anti-slavery Republican presidential candidates.
Radio and TV hadn't been invented yet, neither were telephones. Newspapers, private letters, and stories carried by travelers were the only way anyone knew what was happening outside of their own communities. And the newspapers were all extremely and forthrightly biased, unashamedly editorializing on the front page, promoting one or another candidate for public office, taking sides on issues like slavery, secession and on and on. Many of them also routinely published poetry and short stories.
The idea of unbiased reporting was born only during the Civil War, and then just barely. But the folks back home had husbands, sons, brothers on the front lines and they wanted to know -- really know -- what was going on. So the papers began to focus on publishing factual information, usually with either some element of rah-rah! cheerleading or sharp criticism still intermingled. For example, it was the newspapers that published the casualty lists after the battles, and before any soldier's mother got a letter from the State Dept. For all of the above reasons, newspapers are an interesting source of information on "color" in history, or public opinion, but they aren't really useful sources of factual historical data.
Newspapers and news as a source of some kind of unvarnished truth without personal opinion is largely a creature of the 20th century. I've worked as a journalist and an editor, and I believe "objective reporting" to be a crock. No matter how hard any individual tries, you cannot tell a story and keep your personal slant out of it. The bias comes out not only in word choice (was it a "mob" or an "assembly of concerned citizens"?), but also in what an editor or publisher chooses to publish.
For example, there are only two known photographs of Franlin Delano Roosevelt in a wheelchair, and those were taken by friends, not members of the press. A lot of people still are unaware that FDR had polio and couldn't walk or stand without assistance. And I've never seen any photos of Comrade Osama with a cigarette in hand, either.
So, you're the publisher or editor. Do you go with the story about Michael Jackson's death, or about passing the cap-and-tax bill through the House of Representatives?
The press says the public dictates what they publish. To some extent, this is true. The public buys the papers, and this income covers part of the cost of production -- but only part. Most of the costs are still covered by advertisers, the same as in Ben Franklin's day, and this is true of TV and radio as well as printed media.
And the public doesn't have a whole lot of choice in what it reads or sees on TV news, either, does it? For the public, the news is like a buffet. They might be able to choose from the baby back ribs and cornbread or the spaghetti and tossed salad, but although steak and potatoes exist, they may not be on the menu.
I've been an editor. Periodically you assemble all the "news" that might be "important" to readers in one way or another. Then you pick what you think is really important -- because you've got limited space and you can't run it all. The really, really important stuff goes up front where most people will see it. The rest is kinda tucked into various departments or on the bottom of page six. These choices are pretty much driven by your own judgment, which includes your own biases. There's just no way around it.
The alternative, particularly in a field like politics where differing opinions proliferate, is to present as many different perspectives as you can gather. That's why I like Fox News. They go back to the original paradigm, when newspapers called themselves the Hoboken Democrat, the Pittsburgh Whig, or the Cincinnati Advertiser. You know where the guys at Fox are coming from. And they invite the self-identified advocates from the other side to argue and debate their views -- honestly. My one beef with Fox is that they often take on major, very complicated issues without enough time to fully air both sides. But at least they try.
That's about as fair as it gets. Much fairer than those news outlets that sincerely believe they have a lock on "truth," then proceed to tell the story through their eyes only, with commentary from people with similar and supporting opinions.
Most of the very sophisticated and better known journalists live in a world where they all pretty much believe the same thing: religion is the "opiate of the masses"; socialism is historically inevitable; anyone who was raised west of the Mississippi, or really, west of the Appalachians, except California, is probably an ignorant hayseed; and they have better biases than anyone else. Oh, and anyone who labors in the vineyards of the Ivy League is probably an omnipotent genius.
Anyway, since the Washington Post has long proclaimed that it has a lock on truth, I was really stunned to see that they were offering to sell access to their reporters and to apparently "unnamed highly-placed sources" in the administration at a series of proposed $25,000-per-plate soirees. And these would all unfold in a friendly and non-confrontational atmosphere. Sorta like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours? Sorta like selling out to advertisers, or to whomever can pay the price of admission?
I mean, really, is it any wonder that Comrade Osama was elected? We're talking about an exclusive insider club of media professionals who have access to nationwide information channels and who, by and large, probably all suffer from liberal guilt to one degree or another. Let's pay no attention to the fact that the man is a socialist; he's part black, so that must be good for the country, which has ever been torn by racial conflicts. Beside that, most of those in the insiders' club got there because they pander to the elitest drivel that embraces socialism as "enlightenment."
It's all a bunch of hogwash. The very fact that the Washington Post wasn't bothered about selling their powerful megaphone to the highest bidder is sort of a tip-off. They were probably thinking, Well, those who pay for these soirees can tell us anything they like, but we'll ferret out the "truth." The Post seems to be blind to the fact that at these soirees, they'd only hear one side of any story. But apparently all they need is one side, if that side agrees with their own biases.
For most of them, only one side really exists. After all, we all know what's "good," what's "right," and what everyone should believe in. If you have any questions about any of this, I'm sure Sally Quinn and Paul Krugman will be more than happy to explain it in language you can understand.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Ego-politics
I really don't mean to go on and on about Sarah Palin, but apparently David Letterman just won't let her rest. Over the last couple days, Letterman has made several jokes about Palin. He's beginning to look like an awkward prepubescent boy who's got a secret crush on the Cute Girl in the senior class, but doesn't know how to communicate this -- except by punching her or calling her names. Or maybe it's male menopause.
More interesting, really, is Pazzo Pelosi's ongoing conflict with the CIA. Now she has other congresscritters making things up about the CIA. What kind of an idiot is Pazzo Pelosi? Let's review.
She tells a reckless lie to cover her butt, simultaneously smearing the CIA.
Her lie is exposed.
Now she's apparently actively recruiting her friends to support her lie, as if that would make her story true. I suppose every time any one of them passes the CIA HQ in Langley, they honk and stick out their tongues. Mark my words, one morning all the trees outside the building will be draped with toilet paper.
I haven't seen so much drama since my freshman year in high school. And Pazzo Pelosi's reputation surely is much more important than the United States Central Intelligence Agency. It's ego-politics. Save her butt at the expense of the nation. Like good ol' boy Bill Clinton, a living monument to sociopathy.
Pazzo should probably get together with David Letterman. They could exchange information about their neuroses and discuss their medications.
Anyone else suspect that Warren Buffet, who is calling for a second Stimulus, is getting just a leetle bit senile? Or maybe he's cashing in on the down stock market and wants to keep it down. That is where hedge funds cash in.
Another compatible couple: Warren Buffet and George Soros. They can sit together in the park by the lily pond and play checkers until their attendents come and gently guide them to the dining room for a supper of overcooked chicken, mashed carrots, and tapioca pudding.
Anyone notice that Comrade Osama has been overseas? Anyone miss him? See what I mean about the government becoming irrelevant? Who needs him? In fact, he represents such an onerous burden on U.S. citizens, we're much better off without him. What would it take to keep him in Italy?
Watched C-SPAN coverage of the House for a while. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Gohmert or something like that (R-Texas). They railed about socialized medicine and raised some very good points. King talked about going to Arizona and looking for health care facilities. He says most of them south of Tucson are closed. Mainly they served illegal aliens for "free," so they went out of business. He also told a story about a Mexican gang-banger of some kind who was knifed in a fight in Mexico, brought to Tucson for emergency care, then flown to a hospital in Phoenix via helicopter for longer-term care. All at the expense of US taxpayers.
Gohmert -- and I probably don't have his name correct, but he represents Tyler, TX -- said that last year, the US government spent enough money on Medicare and Medicaid to give every household in the US more than $9,000. He suggested that the feds actually give every household something like $9,000 and let them buy an HSA (health savings account) and catastrophic insurance. And you know what? It wouldn't cost $1 trillion, and they'd still have money left over.
Sounds better than Ted Kennedy's plan. Speaking of getting just a leetle bit senile....
Why do people respect Teddy Kennedy? I guess memories are short. I clearly recall the time he went some on kind of drunken bender with a campaign worker named Mary Ann Kopechne. They were drving -- apparently drunk and recklessly -- and Darling Teddy ran the car off a bridge.
Then apparently he panicked and dog-paddled like a madman to the closest shore. Leaving Mary Ann to drown.
As if that doesn't paint a scuzzy enough portrait of Darling Teddy, he refused to admit that he had anything to do with the whole event. I mean, he was still married at the time. And his mom was Catholic. Apparently the family lawyers finally convinced him that even if he was a Kennedy, he couldn't hide at Hyannisport forever, so he finally 'fessed up. Gosh, he was sorry.
Nothing happened. Mary Ann Kopechne was still dead. Teddy went back to Washington. Apparently the good citizens of Massachusetts actually like lamebrain idiots; they've re-elected him continuously for more than 40 years. Or maybe it's just their way of keeping Teddy in Washington and away from their daughters.
I suppose the Kennedys paid off the Kopechne family in some way. They should at least have paid for Mary Ann's funeral.
Teddy was a drunken lout all his life. The quintessential spoiled little rich kid whose daddy and family connections were all that kept him out of the penetentiary. His wife finally got fed up and dumped him. Then apparently he woke up in an alley with his wallet and shoes missing or something (I'm making this up) and got religion. Joined AA or something. When he was like 70 years old. Took him a while to figure things out. Darling Teddy always was a little slow....
So now he's an elder stateman and we're supposed to believe his opinions have credibility. Darling Teddy never had any credibility. And now the man has brain cancer, for pity sake. That's not a compelling argument in favor of the lucidity of his thoughts and ideas. And I wonder who's paying for his health care. Experimental treatments, no? Think he could get that under socialized medicine?
Enough is enough.
More interesting, really, is Pazzo Pelosi's ongoing conflict with the CIA. Now she has other congresscritters making things up about the CIA. What kind of an idiot is Pazzo Pelosi? Let's review.
She tells a reckless lie to cover her butt, simultaneously smearing the CIA.
Her lie is exposed.
Now she's apparently actively recruiting her friends to support her lie, as if that would make her story true. I suppose every time any one of them passes the CIA HQ in Langley, they honk and stick out their tongues. Mark my words, one morning all the trees outside the building will be draped with toilet paper.
I haven't seen so much drama since my freshman year in high school. And Pazzo Pelosi's reputation surely is much more important than the United States Central Intelligence Agency. It's ego-politics. Save her butt at the expense of the nation. Like good ol' boy Bill Clinton, a living monument to sociopathy.
Pazzo should probably get together with David Letterman. They could exchange information about their neuroses and discuss their medications.
Anyone else suspect that Warren Buffet, who is calling for a second Stimulus, is getting just a leetle bit senile? Or maybe he's cashing in on the down stock market and wants to keep it down. That is where hedge funds cash in.
Another compatible couple: Warren Buffet and George Soros. They can sit together in the park by the lily pond and play checkers until their attendents come and gently guide them to the dining room for a supper of overcooked chicken, mashed carrots, and tapioca pudding.
Anyone notice that Comrade Osama has been overseas? Anyone miss him? See what I mean about the government becoming irrelevant? Who needs him? In fact, he represents such an onerous burden on U.S. citizens, we're much better off without him. What would it take to keep him in Italy?
Watched C-SPAN coverage of the House for a while. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Gohmert or something like that (R-Texas). They railed about socialized medicine and raised some very good points. King talked about going to Arizona and looking for health care facilities. He says most of them south of Tucson are closed. Mainly they served illegal aliens for "free," so they went out of business. He also told a story about a Mexican gang-banger of some kind who was knifed in a fight in Mexico, brought to Tucson for emergency care, then flown to a hospital in Phoenix via helicopter for longer-term care. All at the expense of US taxpayers.
Gohmert -- and I probably don't have his name correct, but he represents Tyler, TX -- said that last year, the US government spent enough money on Medicare and Medicaid to give every household in the US more than $9,000. He suggested that the feds actually give every household something like $9,000 and let them buy an HSA (health savings account) and catastrophic insurance. And you know what? It wouldn't cost $1 trillion, and they'd still have money left over.
Sounds better than Ted Kennedy's plan. Speaking of getting just a leetle bit senile....
Why do people respect Teddy Kennedy? I guess memories are short. I clearly recall the time he went some on kind of drunken bender with a campaign worker named Mary Ann Kopechne. They were drving -- apparently drunk and recklessly -- and Darling Teddy ran the car off a bridge.
Then apparently he panicked and dog-paddled like a madman to the closest shore. Leaving Mary Ann to drown.
As if that doesn't paint a scuzzy enough portrait of Darling Teddy, he refused to admit that he had anything to do with the whole event. I mean, he was still married at the time. And his mom was Catholic. Apparently the family lawyers finally convinced him that even if he was a Kennedy, he couldn't hide at Hyannisport forever, so he finally 'fessed up. Gosh, he was sorry.
Nothing happened. Mary Ann Kopechne was still dead. Teddy went back to Washington. Apparently the good citizens of Massachusetts actually like lamebrain idiots; they've re-elected him continuously for more than 40 years. Or maybe it's just their way of keeping Teddy in Washington and away from their daughters.
I suppose the Kennedys paid off the Kopechne family in some way. They should at least have paid for Mary Ann's funeral.
Teddy was a drunken lout all his life. The quintessential spoiled little rich kid whose daddy and family connections were all that kept him out of the penetentiary. His wife finally got fed up and dumped him. Then apparently he woke up in an alley with his wallet and shoes missing or something (I'm making this up) and got religion. Joined AA or something. When he was like 70 years old. Took him a while to figure things out. Darling Teddy always was a little slow....
So now he's an elder stateman and we're supposed to believe his opinions have credibility. Darling Teddy never had any credibility. And now the man has brain cancer, for pity sake. That's not a compelling argument in favor of the lucidity of his thoughts and ideas. And I wonder who's paying for his health care. Experimental treatments, no? Think he could get that under socialized medicine?
Enough is enough.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Run, Sarah, run
On Friday, Sarah Palin resigned from her office as governor of Alaska, effective July 26. Everyone in the media has been running around asking why. I thought she explained why -- because her critics are making all kinds of ridiculous claims against her that must be at least investigated and perhaps defended at considerable expense to the state. She doesn't like these critics attacking her family, either. Does she need more reasons?
I looked up at least one critic, an Alaskan woman and self-proclaimed "progressive to the core" who writes a blog called Celtic Diva or something like that. For several reasons I won't go into, lest I be accused of less than civil commentary (actually, that ship has sailed), I'll just say Celtic Diva's major problem with Sarah Palin very well might be envy in all its nasty manifestations. See my blog for March 8, "The mediocrity of evil."
Personally, I don't know where Sarah Palin stands on every issue, only those that were debated during the presidential campaign. I do know she favors free markets over government control, although she understands that governmental power can be used well; she believes in limiting government to preserve individual liberty; and she doesn't like the corruption of the typical "good ol' boys network" in politics. And I believe she's honest. She's not in politics to make a million or to accumulate adoring fans, but because she feels like she can do something to help the country, and that's important to her.
More than being just physically attractive, Sarah Palin is able to think and speak on her feet. That usually results from understanding and holding certain clearly defined principles and being able to apply them to real life and real issues, rather than simply memorizing talking points.
So I like Sarah Palin. Even if I couldn't agree with her on everything, I would have to respect her. Not too many other politicians in that category.
The socialists hate her and, to my way of thinking, that's a real plus. I'm sure most socialists haven't got a clue what Sarah Palin believes in -- they can't afford to consider any other point of view but their own. Their hatred is just a kind of knee-jerk reaction to Sarah Palin's attitude, her honesty, intelligence, and most of all, her self-assurance.
If there's one thing socialists can't tolerate, it's self-assurance. Self-assured people don't need the socialists or their approval, so the socialists can't bully them. Socialism is fueled by a few key things, depending upon whether you believe you'd be among the elite who run it or one of the "great unwashed" collecting the benefits:
Right now, so many people are deeply outraged at the direction the nation is taking, like the Tea Party protesters. But so far, their anger and indignation has had very little impact. Those in power seem to think they can just steamroller any dissent, just ignore it... and once they legislate all the crap they want to legislate, they can just put those people in jail, or threaten to.
I think Sarah Palin can galvanize this discontent, perhaps more than anyone else can right now. Whether or not she runs for the presidency in 2012, she can unite conservatives around the principles of freedom and free enterprise. And it's leadership that is lacking right now. Her major problem is that she might be pushed into running for the presidency or some other office before she's ready for it, or that her "star power" might overwhelm the issues -- which is exactly how Comrade Osama got elected.
I hope she does act somehow to develop these fragmented groups of disaffected voters into a unified block of voters. Not necessarily Republican, either. It's the independent voters who are falling away from the current regime in droves.
By the way, Comrade Osama is supposed to be on his way to Moscow.... If it were 20 years ago, he'd probably feel right at home there, or might be forced to confront the nightmare reality he's hoping to re-create in the USA right now. But more like he'll just come back with a bunch of new (to him) ideas and rationalizations for suppressing human rights.
I looked up at least one critic, an Alaskan woman and self-proclaimed "progressive to the core" who writes a blog called Celtic Diva or something like that. For several reasons I won't go into, lest I be accused of less than civil commentary (actually, that ship has sailed), I'll just say Celtic Diva's major problem with Sarah Palin very well might be envy in all its nasty manifestations. See my blog for March 8, "The mediocrity of evil."
Personally, I don't know where Sarah Palin stands on every issue, only those that were debated during the presidential campaign. I do know she favors free markets over government control, although she understands that governmental power can be used well; she believes in limiting government to preserve individual liberty; and she doesn't like the corruption of the typical "good ol' boys network" in politics. And I believe she's honest. She's not in politics to make a million or to accumulate adoring fans, but because she feels like she can do something to help the country, and that's important to her.
More than being just physically attractive, Sarah Palin is able to think and speak on her feet. That usually results from understanding and holding certain clearly defined principles and being able to apply them to real life and real issues, rather than simply memorizing talking points.
So I like Sarah Palin. Even if I couldn't agree with her on everything, I would have to respect her. Not too many other politicians in that category.
The socialists hate her and, to my way of thinking, that's a real plus. I'm sure most socialists haven't got a clue what Sarah Palin believes in -- they can't afford to consider any other point of view but their own. Their hatred is just a kind of knee-jerk reaction to Sarah Palin's attitude, her honesty, intelligence, and most of all, her self-assurance.
If there's one thing socialists can't tolerate, it's self-assurance. Self-assured people don't need the socialists or their approval, so the socialists can't bully them. Socialism is fueled by a few key things, depending upon whether you believe you'd be among the elite who run it or one of the "great unwashed" collecting the benefits:
- The elite believe, like ancient monarchs, that they're better than most people and therefore deserve to rule. They honestly think they're morally and otherwise superior, so everyone else needs and should be forced to take their advice. Their arrogance is literally Hitlerian.
- The great unwashed are afraid they can't make it on their own, or they want a reason to not try so hard. In an essay in Imprimis, a newsletter published by Hillsdale College, journalist Mark Steyn noted that socialism tends to "infantalize" a population. That is, they aren't quite adult, refuse to accept the responsibility for their own lives, and seek Big Daddy or Mommy or a Nanny State to rely on. They're perennially dependent, emotionally and every other way.
Right now, so many people are deeply outraged at the direction the nation is taking, like the Tea Party protesters. But so far, their anger and indignation has had very little impact. Those in power seem to think they can just steamroller any dissent, just ignore it... and once they legislate all the crap they want to legislate, they can just put those people in jail, or threaten to.
I think Sarah Palin can galvanize this discontent, perhaps more than anyone else can right now. Whether or not she runs for the presidency in 2012, she can unite conservatives around the principles of freedom and free enterprise. And it's leadership that is lacking right now. Her major problem is that she might be pushed into running for the presidency or some other office before she's ready for it, or that her "star power" might overwhelm the issues -- which is exactly how Comrade Osama got elected.
I hope she does act somehow to develop these fragmented groups of disaffected voters into a unified block of voters. Not necessarily Republican, either. It's the independent voters who are falling away from the current regime in droves.
By the way, Comrade Osama is supposed to be on his way to Moscow.... If it were 20 years ago, he'd probably feel right at home there, or might be forced to confront the nightmare reality he's hoping to re-create in the USA right now. But more like he'll just come back with a bunch of new (to him) ideas and rationalizations for suppressing human rights.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Bombs bursting in air....
Today (actually yesterday now) was the 4th of July. Enjoyed a rather nice visit with friends, despite rainy weather. Then at home was a bit dismayed that my neighbors were trying to set fire to all the roofs in the neighborhood, trees, telephone poles, anything above ground level, really. I've never seen mortars explode up close before. And can someone explain the enduring charm of firecrackers? I mean once you've seen them blow up and heard the noise, do you expect anything different from them the 15th or 28th time you set them off?
Anyway, I've tried to cling to the beauty of it -- the 4th of July, that is. Went to Philadelphia once, to the old State House where the Founders debated, wrote, and signed the Declaration of Independence. Saw the chair Ben Franklin mentioned -- the one with a design carved on the back of either a rising or a setting sun. He left it up to posterity to determine exactly in which direction that sun would be moving. Then I think about a young Thomas Jefferson, ink-stained hands, a kinda pompous but very bright and aggressive John Adams, and all those other folks. The flaming radicals from New York, including John Hancock with the gutsy big signature.
Some show on TV talked about how those guys locked themselves inside the building as they debated, blocked the windows, etc. Whoever wrote that show didn't seem to be aware of something the Framers were: that they could be hanged for even being there. The name of the person who wrote the Declaration of Independence was kept secret for his own safety. In fact, this was among the secrets that Benedict Arnold revealed to the British, and the British then promptly went after Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as governor of Virginia at the time.
Benedict Arnold himself led the raid up the James River to Richmond. Jefferson couldn't locate enough members of the executive governing committee to get the quorum he needed to call up the militia. So, instead, he bundled up a lot of the state papers and sent them to Monticello, where he believed they'd be safe.
Benedict Arnold trashed Richmond and headed up toward Monticello. Jefferson fled from there only a few minutes before the British arrived. Hiding in the woods, he watched them tear up the place. Benedict Arnold wanted to deliver Jefferson himself to the British for trial for treason, but Jefferson escaped.
Benedict Arnold had been a highly commended and trusted general during the French and Indian War. He was head of West Point during the Revolution, until he tried to sell it out to the British. Benedict Arnold was a truly despicable character. I'm quite sure he didn't think the colonials had a chance against the British and was bucking for a plum job in England or someplace.
Funny thing, though, when you betray those who trust you, almost no one will ever trust you again, not even those people who benefitted from your betrayal -- surely, they know you too well. Benedict Arnold died a pauper in London and that was really too good for him. I don't care if he loved his wife, who apparently talked him into his treachery. He didn't appreciate the ideals behind the American Revolution and actively worked against it, so I don't really have too much use for him.
Those principles behind the American Revolution haven't changed. Neither have I.
I really love it:
Intersting to contemplate: this grants all human beings the right to revolution. It means we have a right to live, and if the government deliberately and persistently obstructs that, it's the government that has to go.
Think about that a while. Especially you folks in Washington.
And have a good one.
Anyway, I've tried to cling to the beauty of it -- the 4th of July, that is. Went to Philadelphia once, to the old State House where the Founders debated, wrote, and signed the Declaration of Independence. Saw the chair Ben Franklin mentioned -- the one with a design carved on the back of either a rising or a setting sun. He left it up to posterity to determine exactly in which direction that sun would be moving. Then I think about a young Thomas Jefferson, ink-stained hands, a kinda pompous but very bright and aggressive John Adams, and all those other folks. The flaming radicals from New York, including John Hancock with the gutsy big signature.
Some show on TV talked about how those guys locked themselves inside the building as they debated, blocked the windows, etc. Whoever wrote that show didn't seem to be aware of something the Framers were: that they could be hanged for even being there. The name of the person who wrote the Declaration of Independence was kept secret for his own safety. In fact, this was among the secrets that Benedict Arnold revealed to the British, and the British then promptly went after Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as governor of Virginia at the time.
Benedict Arnold himself led the raid up the James River to Richmond. Jefferson couldn't locate enough members of the executive governing committee to get the quorum he needed to call up the militia. So, instead, he bundled up a lot of the state papers and sent them to Monticello, where he believed they'd be safe.
Benedict Arnold trashed Richmond and headed up toward Monticello. Jefferson fled from there only a few minutes before the British arrived. Hiding in the woods, he watched them tear up the place. Benedict Arnold wanted to deliver Jefferson himself to the British for trial for treason, but Jefferson escaped.
Benedict Arnold had been a highly commended and trusted general during the French and Indian War. He was head of West Point during the Revolution, until he tried to sell it out to the British. Benedict Arnold was a truly despicable character. I'm quite sure he didn't think the colonials had a chance against the British and was bucking for a plum job in England or someplace.
Funny thing, though, when you betray those who trust you, almost no one will ever trust you again, not even those people who benefitted from your betrayal -- surely, they know you too well. Benedict Arnold died a pauper in London and that was really too good for him. I don't care if he loved his wife, who apparently talked him into his treachery. He didn't appreciate the ideals behind the American Revolution and actively worked against it, so I don't really have too much use for him.
Those principles behind the American Revolution haven't changed. Neither have I.
I really love it:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare that causes that impel them to that separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they have become accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, persuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to render them under absolute depotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government....
Intersting to contemplate: this grants all human beings the right to revolution. It means we have a right to live, and if the government deliberately and persistently obstructs that, it's the government that has to go.
Think about that a while. Especially you folks in Washington.
And have a good one.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Same old same old
Haven't written for the last couple of days because there's not much more to say that I haven't said already. Feel free to click on past blogs to re-live the thrill of discovery. (I am kidding.)
Comrade Osama on TV again today, promoting socialized medicine. Looking for the data from the Lewin Group, which ran the numbers and determined that about 160 million of the currently-insured would be dumped into a socialized medicine program, I came across a video from ABC-TV's "We love socialism!" special dedicated to giving Mr. Comrade maximum free air time.
(You know, I was a magazine editor for a while. We used to get "PSAs," public service announcments, from charities and similar organizations. We'd run them sometimes if we had an empty space on a page that we couldn't fill with paid advertising. Perhaps this principle explains the ABC-TV thing.)
Mr. Shiels, an executve from the Lewin Group, told the Comrade what Lewin's findings were, that employers would stop offering benefits and dump employees into the socialized medicine option. Comrade Osama responded by promising to penalize -- oops! I mean, "dis-incentivize" -- any company that terminated its health care benefits and tossed their employees upon the stormy seas of public sentiment and misdirected good intentions.
OK. So what the hell is the point of offering socialized medicine in the first place? I mean, who is it supposed to serve? Most people in the USA get health care insurance from their employers, but employers will be banned from considering it? And will be "dis-incentivized" from using it. (Like, nationalize them? In this administration, it could happen.)
Does this sound like a load of b.s. to you? It does to me. Like, for one thing, exactly how would that be enforced? It's like the crap-and-trade provision for using energy-saving light bulbs. Think of how many jobs will be created in the Light Bulb Enforcement Tactical Squad (LBETS), ski-masked individuals armed with M-16s who will invade your home without warning, rip the shades off your table lamps and wall sconces, and check that you're using politically correct light bulbs. OMG! A 125-watt incandescent. Hey, mister, come with me.....
No doubt it's this kind of thing Pazzo Pelosi had in mind when she was howling "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" like a demented lottery winner in the House of Reps when the bill passed.
Then Comrade Osama keeps insisting that the socialized medicine program will pay doctors at acceptable rates, reduce fraud, and cut administrative costs. But this is purely PROVEN b.s. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Many doctors refuse Medicare/Medicaid patients because those programs DO NOT pay the doctor's costs, require massive amounts of paperwork, and are subject to other types of non-medical regulation and bureaucratic interference. And I've said it before, but it's worth repeating -- The New York Times and Washington Post, both fond of enormous government -- set the Medicare/Medicaid fraud rate at about 15% of all their costs. They estimate that at about $60 BILLION per year.
But Comrade Osama's "public option" will not suffer from the same problems of the existing socialized medicine programs. No, his program will be much better. How's he going to do that? Well, we are talking about the Golden Boy here, the Messiah. Perhaps he's going to transport Santa's Little Helpers from the North Pole to implement and manage the program, or resurrect all the dead Catholic saints.
And there are how many insurance companies, insurance plans, health care providers in the market today? And Comrade Osama insists there is not enough competition? We need the federal government to get involved to provide competition? So the new buzzword for "socialism" is "competition"? He does do this kind of thing often -- rename things to make them appear more acceptable.
Sometimes I suspect that Comrade Osama arrived on earth about three days ago in a space capsule from zeta reticuli. He demonstrates daily that he has no awareness of what's actually occuring on earth. Perhaps his latest information comes from episodes of "I Love Lucy" broadcast into space 50 years ago.
The most amazing thing is the numbers of people who are willing to believe him. Or maybe are just hoping for a seat on the gravy train. Although, according to Rasmussen Reports, those numbers are diminishing. The last couple of days, the number of people polled who "strongly disapprove" of Comrade Osama has been higher than the numbers of people who "strongly approve" of him. So maybe Americans have finally recovered from their election hangover and are beginning to look at the facts.
And, on other issues.... Wanna run for congress? Here's a simple formula:
Get up every morning and stand in front of the mirror. Then repeat, "Gosh darn it, people like me!" You too might succeed in achieving your American Dream.
And I must say, when the new, psychotically-liberal senator from Minnesota did this bit on Saturday Night Live with Michael Jordan, that was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. I do hope we can look forward to a steady stream of this kind of entertainment from the US Senate. It may distract them from legislating.
Comrade Osama on TV again today, promoting socialized medicine. Looking for the data from the Lewin Group, which ran the numbers and determined that about 160 million of the currently-insured would be dumped into a socialized medicine program, I came across a video from ABC-TV's "We love socialism!" special dedicated to giving Mr. Comrade maximum free air time.
(You know, I was a magazine editor for a while. We used to get "PSAs," public service announcments, from charities and similar organizations. We'd run them sometimes if we had an empty space on a page that we couldn't fill with paid advertising. Perhaps this principle explains the ABC-TV thing.)
Mr. Shiels, an executve from the Lewin Group, told the Comrade what Lewin's findings were, that employers would stop offering benefits and dump employees into the socialized medicine option. Comrade Osama responded by promising to penalize -- oops! I mean, "dis-incentivize" -- any company that terminated its health care benefits and tossed their employees upon the stormy seas of public sentiment and misdirected good intentions.
OK. So what the hell is the point of offering socialized medicine in the first place? I mean, who is it supposed to serve? Most people in the USA get health care insurance from their employers, but employers will be banned from considering it? And will be "dis-incentivized" from using it. (Like, nationalize them? In this administration, it could happen.)
Does this sound like a load of b.s. to you? It does to me. Like, for one thing, exactly how would that be enforced? It's like the crap-and-trade provision for using energy-saving light bulbs. Think of how many jobs will be created in the Light Bulb Enforcement Tactical Squad (LBETS), ski-masked individuals armed with M-16s who will invade your home without warning, rip the shades off your table lamps and wall sconces, and check that you're using politically correct light bulbs. OMG! A 125-watt incandescent. Hey, mister, come with me.....
No doubt it's this kind of thing Pazzo Pelosi had in mind when she was howling "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" like a demented lottery winner in the House of Reps when the bill passed.
Then Comrade Osama keeps insisting that the socialized medicine program will pay doctors at acceptable rates, reduce fraud, and cut administrative costs. But this is purely PROVEN b.s. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. Many doctors refuse Medicare/Medicaid patients because those programs DO NOT pay the doctor's costs, require massive amounts of paperwork, and are subject to other types of non-medical regulation and bureaucratic interference. And I've said it before, but it's worth repeating -- The New York Times and Washington Post, both fond of enormous government -- set the Medicare/Medicaid fraud rate at about 15% of all their costs. They estimate that at about $60 BILLION per year.
But Comrade Osama's "public option" will not suffer from the same problems of the existing socialized medicine programs. No, his program will be much better. How's he going to do that? Well, we are talking about the Golden Boy here, the Messiah. Perhaps he's going to transport Santa's Little Helpers from the North Pole to implement and manage the program, or resurrect all the dead Catholic saints.
And there are how many insurance companies, insurance plans, health care providers in the market today? And Comrade Osama insists there is not enough competition? We need the federal government to get involved to provide competition? So the new buzzword for "socialism" is "competition"? He does do this kind of thing often -- rename things to make them appear more acceptable.
Sometimes I suspect that Comrade Osama arrived on earth about three days ago in a space capsule from zeta reticuli. He demonstrates daily that he has no awareness of what's actually occuring on earth. Perhaps his latest information comes from episodes of "I Love Lucy" broadcast into space 50 years ago.
The most amazing thing is the numbers of people who are willing to believe him. Or maybe are just hoping for a seat on the gravy train. Although, according to Rasmussen Reports, those numbers are diminishing. The last couple of days, the number of people polled who "strongly disapprove" of Comrade Osama has been higher than the numbers of people who "strongly approve" of him. So maybe Americans have finally recovered from their election hangover and are beginning to look at the facts.
And, on other issues.... Wanna run for congress? Here's a simple formula:
Get up every morning and stand in front of the mirror. Then repeat, "Gosh darn it, people like me!" You too might succeed in achieving your American Dream.
And I must say, when the new, psychotically-liberal senator from Minnesota did this bit on Saturday Night Live with Michael Jordan, that was one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. I do hope we can look forward to a steady stream of this kind of entertainment from the US Senate. It may distract them from legislating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)