Watched the Comrade's town hall meeting in New Hampshire on health care reform. Basically he delivered a trimmed-down, recycled campaign speech about what he's going to do for us on health care.
Seems that the majority of Americans already are aware of what he's going to do to us on health care. But, as usual, Comrade Osama seems to be relying on his personal charm to sell socialized medicine. This is wearing a bit thin.
Fox News had a too-brief commentary from both Rep and Dem advocates. The Dem advocate said something about, "Well, show us the Republican plan." Actually, the Republicans have a wealth of ideas -- from Newt Gingrich, Jim Demint and others. The Republicans suggest things like tort reform and working to reduce the fraud in existing Medicare/Medicaid programs. But the Dems in congress won't listen and apparently actively exclude Republicans from the legislative process. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z3WBSn1viI
The Democrats and the Comrade are confusing "health care reform" with "socialized medicine," and they seem to want to confuse the public about this, too. They don't understand that you can have one without the other. Or maybe they're just being disengenuous. After all, if we have simple reform, they won't get to micromanage our lives -- and for the socialists and marxists among them, what the hell is the point of health care reform if it doesn't involve a massive expansion of federal power?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
HR3200 a "Transfer of Power" - from you to the feds
Just heard on the news that The Comrade is holding a town hall meeting in New Hampshire today. He also said that he believes reasonable arguments will prevail in congress. Only I don't think he'd recognize a reasonable argument if it bit him on the ankle, so heaven only knows what the heck he's talking about.
The White House supposedly has launched a new website explaining away all the "myths and lies" about socialized medicine. I was going to go take a look at it, but I don't think the White House can tell me anything I don't already know. I've read the bill and actually listened to the arguments for and against it, so I'm way ahead of those buttheads already.
For those attending town hall meetings and everyone else, a few things to keep foremost in your mind:
HR3200 -- the Monster Socialized Medcine Bill in the House -- is only a rough outline of what socialized medicine will look like if it's ever passed and implemented.
You've heard that its "government option" will crowd out private insurance -- which is true. The US government has long-standing policies in place that are based on the proven fact that any product or service that is government-subsidized and government-funded has an unfair competitive advantage in the free market. Health insurance is not an exception. HR3200 includes the federally-subsidized "government option" to pave the way for socialized medicine. Even Barney (Fudd) Frank admitted as much.
The so-called "Advance Death Planning" provisions are in there, too, and when I read the bill, these counseling sessions were required for the elderly. Some congresscritters have claimed the counseling isn't required. Who knows? Maybe they changed this on that last day of congressional scheming behind closed doors before they recessed.
The bill does call for "re-allocating" $500 billion from Medicare to fund HR3200. That's in the bill. You might ask how the federal government is going to pay for Medicare without those funds, considering that more and more people retire every day and enter the Medicare system. I didn't see any suggestions in the bill for replacing these Medicare funds. Will they increase the Medicare co-pays? Send the elderly to Canada? Who knows? You can ask.
Every individual without insurance from their employer or somewhere else will be forced to get some kind of insurance or pay a fine of 2.5% of their annual income. That's in the bill. And any insurance you buy will have to be approved by the federal government; it will have to offer certain types of coverage or it won't count as health insurance. The Health Insurance Exchange will decide what kind of insurance counts as real health insurance -- including policies from private insurers.
The bill calls existing insurance policies "grandfathered" policies. People can keep them for now, and can add their dependents to this coverage, but the policies can't be changed in any way, and the premiums can't change. They're called "grandfathered" because HR3200 phases them out.
What HR3200 does NOT do is outline specific medical procedures and things like that. HOWEVER, it does set up a federal agency to review health care practices and determine "best practices." The bill doesn't really say why, but I'm guessing it will be so that federal bureaucrats can tell doctors what treatments they can provide to whom.
And, by the way, so-called "best practices" already are determined by private professional associations like the American College of Pediatricians and similar groups for other specialties. These private organizations educate and certify doctors in their specialties. These are the certificates that hang on the wall of your doctor's office. Also, doctors are periodically tested by these organizations in order to maintain their certifications. Seems like the federal government may be trying to replace these private associations. Who knows?
You can ask if the bill allows for government-funded abortion. This isn't mentioned specifically in the bill. Apparently the issue will be decided by the Health Commissioner or by some federal agency, if the bill passes.
The bill doesn't mention rationing, either. However, rationing is the inevitable outcome of providing universal access to health care without expanding the pool of available doctors, hospitals, and other related service providers. I haven't heard anyone from Washington address this issue at all. They just pretend "it can't happen here" and want you to trust them on this.
The bill's sponsors claim that the bill will cut costs. Personally, I can't figure out how that can possibly happen. The Health Commissioner or some other bureaucrat may just decide that it will only pay doctors $XX.XX for a certain procedure, or will only pay a hospital $XX.XX per day for a hospital stay. If this is below what the procedures actually costs the doctor or what a hospital stay costs the hospital, the doctor will be forced to find some other line of work and the hospital will close. This is just reality -- no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises a congresscritter might make. It's already happened with Medicare and Medicaid.
You can go on and on with all the various provisions in HR3200. Most are vague and very general. They don't really say how the Health Commissioner and all the various agencies this bill establishes will operate or anything like that. It has very few specifics.
Essentially what HR3200 does is transfer the power to make health care decisions from the individual to the federal government. It takes away your own right to make these decisions and transfers this authority to the federal government.
No bill could list all the details necessary to run the US health care industry. It would have to list every single activity in the industry and offer a regulation about how to handle it. HR3200 doesn't do this.... WHAT IT DOES DO IS ESTABLISH THE OFFICES AND AGENCIES THAT WILL REGULATE EVERY ASPECT OF HEALTH CARE.
Do you want to give the feds this kind of power?
Anyway, all of the above are some of the questions you can ask about at the town hall meetings. Otherwise, a really skilled politician will turn your questions around, confuse the issues, try to make you look like an uninformed idiot or a hysterical fool. I think this is what the Democrats plan to do now to try to secure some kind of support for HR3200 -- this crime against humanity.
So just ask for a "yes" or "no" answer to this: Does this bill establish a federal authority that will make health care decisions for me? Isn't "establishing" my health care options the same as "limiting" them? After all, I won't have any more options than those the federal government believes I need, no matter who provides those services.
And, How much will it cost? Not just in dollars, but in terms of keeping your rights and political freedom. If you're free, you can always make money. But once you give your rights away, they're gone for good.
I don't think I'm telling anyone anything new, either. Just don't let youselves get bogged down in the smiley-face "talking points" the White House passed out to Democrats -- marching orders on how to "sell" socialized medicine to people who clearly don't want it. Most congresscritters are good talkers, you know. They're usually very amiable people. That's how they got elected.
The thing is, stay focused on the major issue -- the transfer of power from you to the federal government. That's the most horrifying feature of socialized medicine. That's what we -- and the congresscritters -- really need to be aware of.
The White House supposedly has launched a new website explaining away all the "myths and lies" about socialized medicine. I was going to go take a look at it, but I don't think the White House can tell me anything I don't already know. I've read the bill and actually listened to the arguments for and against it, so I'm way ahead of those buttheads already.
For those attending town hall meetings and everyone else, a few things to keep foremost in your mind:
HR3200 -- the Monster Socialized Medcine Bill in the House -- is only a rough outline of what socialized medicine will look like if it's ever passed and implemented.
You've heard that its "government option" will crowd out private insurance -- which is true. The US government has long-standing policies in place that are based on the proven fact that any product or service that is government-subsidized and government-funded has an unfair competitive advantage in the free market. Health insurance is not an exception. HR3200 includes the federally-subsidized "government option" to pave the way for socialized medicine. Even Barney (Fudd) Frank admitted as much.
The so-called "Advance Death Planning" provisions are in there, too, and when I read the bill, these counseling sessions were required for the elderly. Some congresscritters have claimed the counseling isn't required. Who knows? Maybe they changed this on that last day of congressional scheming behind closed doors before they recessed.
The bill does call for "re-allocating" $500 billion from Medicare to fund HR3200. That's in the bill. You might ask how the federal government is going to pay for Medicare without those funds, considering that more and more people retire every day and enter the Medicare system. I didn't see any suggestions in the bill for replacing these Medicare funds. Will they increase the Medicare co-pays? Send the elderly to Canada? Who knows? You can ask.
Every individual without insurance from their employer or somewhere else will be forced to get some kind of insurance or pay a fine of 2.5% of their annual income. That's in the bill. And any insurance you buy will have to be approved by the federal government; it will have to offer certain types of coverage or it won't count as health insurance. The Health Insurance Exchange will decide what kind of insurance counts as real health insurance -- including policies from private insurers.
The bill calls existing insurance policies "grandfathered" policies. People can keep them for now, and can add their dependents to this coverage, but the policies can't be changed in any way, and the premiums can't change. They're called "grandfathered" because HR3200 phases them out.
What HR3200 does NOT do is outline specific medical procedures and things like that. HOWEVER, it does set up a federal agency to review health care practices and determine "best practices." The bill doesn't really say why, but I'm guessing it will be so that federal bureaucrats can tell doctors what treatments they can provide to whom.
And, by the way, so-called "best practices" already are determined by private professional associations like the American College of Pediatricians and similar groups for other specialties. These private organizations educate and certify doctors in their specialties. These are the certificates that hang on the wall of your doctor's office. Also, doctors are periodically tested by these organizations in order to maintain their certifications. Seems like the federal government may be trying to replace these private associations. Who knows?
You can ask if the bill allows for government-funded abortion. This isn't mentioned specifically in the bill. Apparently the issue will be decided by the Health Commissioner or by some federal agency, if the bill passes.
The bill doesn't mention rationing, either. However, rationing is the inevitable outcome of providing universal access to health care without expanding the pool of available doctors, hospitals, and other related service providers. I haven't heard anyone from Washington address this issue at all. They just pretend "it can't happen here" and want you to trust them on this.
The bill's sponsors claim that the bill will cut costs. Personally, I can't figure out how that can possibly happen. The Health Commissioner or some other bureaucrat may just decide that it will only pay doctors $XX.XX for a certain procedure, or will only pay a hospital $XX.XX per day for a hospital stay. If this is below what the procedures actually costs the doctor or what a hospital stay costs the hospital, the doctor will be forced to find some other line of work and the hospital will close. This is just reality -- no matter what pie-in-the-sky promises a congresscritter might make. It's already happened with Medicare and Medicaid.
You can go on and on with all the various provisions in HR3200. Most are vague and very general. They don't really say how the Health Commissioner and all the various agencies this bill establishes will operate or anything like that. It has very few specifics.
Essentially what HR3200 does is transfer the power to make health care decisions from the individual to the federal government. It takes away your own right to make these decisions and transfers this authority to the federal government.
No bill could list all the details necessary to run the US health care industry. It would have to list every single activity in the industry and offer a regulation about how to handle it. HR3200 doesn't do this.... WHAT IT DOES DO IS ESTABLISH THE OFFICES AND AGENCIES THAT WILL REGULATE EVERY ASPECT OF HEALTH CARE.
Do you want to give the feds this kind of power?
Anyway, all of the above are some of the questions you can ask about at the town hall meetings. Otherwise, a really skilled politician will turn your questions around, confuse the issues, try to make you look like an uninformed idiot or a hysterical fool. I think this is what the Democrats plan to do now to try to secure some kind of support for HR3200 -- this crime against humanity.
So just ask for a "yes" or "no" answer to this: Does this bill establish a federal authority that will make health care decisions for me? Isn't "establishing" my health care options the same as "limiting" them? After all, I won't have any more options than those the federal government believes I need, no matter who provides those services.
And, How much will it cost? Not just in dollars, but in terms of keeping your rights and political freedom. If you're free, you can always make money. But once you give your rights away, they're gone for good.
I don't think I'm telling anyone anything new, either. Just don't let youselves get bogged down in the smiley-face "talking points" the White House passed out to Democrats -- marching orders on how to "sell" socialized medicine to people who clearly don't want it. Most congresscritters are good talkers, you know. They're usually very amiable people. That's how they got elected.
The thing is, stay focused on the major issue -- the transfer of power from you to the federal government. That's the most horrifying feature of socialized medicine. That's what we -- and the congresscritters -- really need to be aware of.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Democrat pillow talk
I have this theory about the Civil War. I could go into any level of detail about it, but to way over-simplify this conflict, I believe it was primarily that human history was marching beyond the institution of slavery, and the southern planters weren't willing or able to accept that fact.
Was talking to a friend of mine once, who's black, about the Civil War. We were talking about the slave-owners' view of their slaves and their "peculiar institution." My friend said, "What the hell were they thinking?"
Funny, because that's exactly my take on it.
The planters justified slavery in several ways. They needed slave labor for one thing, although the more gentile among the southern gentry (and they all wanted to be gentile), would admit to grubby economic motives only as a last resort.
No, the planters maintained their "dependencies" primarily for the good of the slaves. I mean, the slaves were ignorant, uncivilized, child-like, not overly bright, and habitual liars and thieves. The slaves were lazy and irresponsible and, if left to their own devices without the control of white masters, they'd never be able to manage their own lives. They'd end up shiftless beggars, criminals, rapists, drunkards, etc. etc.
Of course, much of the bad behavior perpetrated by the slaves -- and there was plenty of it -- was because they were slaves. They weren't allowed to develop their intellect or their skills. Like, by the mid-1800s, most slave states had made it illegal to teach slaves to read. A lot of historic evidence indicates that slaves didn't work any harder than they had to, slacked off when they could, and even might runaway and hide in the woods for a few weeks vacation, though most of them were eventually hunted down and returned to their masters, or came back willingly.
Anybody forced into slavery behaves the same way. Matter of fact, this kind of behavior is very similar to that in totalitarian nations. I mean, why work so hard? You don't get anything for it. Lots of theft and even black markets because honest effort for your own advancement and unregulated trade is illegal. People are child-like and irresponsible because they aren't allowed to make their own decisions.
On the other hand, many slaves oraganized and managed the plantations very successfully when their masters were "at the Springs" during summer for months and "in town" or "on tour" sometimes for years at a stretch. The slaves built much of the South brick-by-brick, and they even made the bricks. Many were trained in skilled work and hired out as blacksmiths, ironworkers, mill workers, carpenters, etc. Frederick Douglass was a ship-fitter. But the slave-owners overlooked all this and clung to their belief in the slaves' inborn inferiority and incompetency.
So in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, how did the slave-owners convince themselves that they were acting in the slaves' best intersts? I mean: What the hell were they thinking?
If you read what many of the planters wrote at the time, it's almost funny, and some of it has a really disturbing, almost hysterical edge to it. I mean, let's not forget, in a few slave states, the whites were outnumbered. The planters had this bizarre mind-set. I'll try to describe it:
The white planter -- usually, but not always -- a man, saw himself as the wise, beneficent, intelligent, tough, independent master of the universe. God simply made him that way. It was the planter's job on earth to run things. Some of the pro-slavery crowd even believed they were the product of a certain strain of Scots-Irish and had a birthright to rule. Their superiority was somehow bred into them, so they were obligated to wear the heavy crown of the lord and master.
Generally speaking, their arrogance was insufferable. They even considered white Yankees to be mongrels -- so many of them "mixed" with Irish and Germans -- and quite famously regarded the Yankees as nothing more than "mechanics and mudsills," crass, greedy money-grubbers.
No true gentleman dirtied his hands with manual labor. That's what the "other races" were for. The planter was above all that. His task was to rule.
What reminded me of all this was, I was reading a couple liberal blogs and video clips of Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. You can cut the arrogance with a knife. The sense of superiority and pomposity is positively suffocating. Like, want a laugh? Go read Paul Krugman's blogs in the NY Times... and more importantly, the rah-rah -- yet tasteful -- comments his supportive readers leave like little gifts on his doorstep.
The thing is, the planters' views of slaves is eerily similar to the liberals' views of "everyone else." And in neither case do these views even come close to a useful paradigm for human life on earth.
So how do liberals sustain their silly world-view in the face of reality? They prop each other up with little lies. It's like they all stay drunk together, or spin a soft, quiet cocoon around themselves. They can't afford dissenting opinion, they interpret it -- like the planters did -- as uppity ingratitude. They go completely ballistic when you don't agree with them, and especially if you have a stronger argument. They view it only as back-sass from the great unwashed. Or, since liberals suspect that those who disagree with them are incapable of rational thought, the liberals insist that anyone who disagrees with them must be dupes and marionettes for the truly evil: capitalist mechanics and mudsills.
As a marxist, Comrade Osama has adopted all the liberal crap -- I mean, the whole load. He even takes it a couple steps further than most white liberals would dare. That's why other liberals love him so. For them, he's living proof of their silly beliefs and.... (breathless squeal) he's President!
So here's my challenge to liberals: Try to imagine what it would be like to deal with another human being as an equal rather than as an inferior or as a demigod. Try to conduct a town hall with both give and take. Listen to your consituents, don't just talk at them. They probably have a couple better ideas than you do. They made the country and pay your salary.
But you know what? Like the planters, the liberals just don't know how to act except as bosses or toadies. They don't understand what equality really means. And, like the slave-owners at the time of the Civil War, history is marching past these people and they're clinging deperately to their outmoded delusions and clutching at the reins of power to try to postpone their own obsolescence.
I refuse to call liberals "progressives." They're the true reactionaries, blocking the path to real growth and development.
Was talking to a friend of mine once, who's black, about the Civil War. We were talking about the slave-owners' view of their slaves and their "peculiar institution." My friend said, "What the hell were they thinking?"
Funny, because that's exactly my take on it.
The planters justified slavery in several ways. They needed slave labor for one thing, although the more gentile among the southern gentry (and they all wanted to be gentile), would admit to grubby economic motives only as a last resort.
No, the planters maintained their "dependencies" primarily for the good of the slaves. I mean, the slaves were ignorant, uncivilized, child-like, not overly bright, and habitual liars and thieves. The slaves were lazy and irresponsible and, if left to their own devices without the control of white masters, they'd never be able to manage their own lives. They'd end up shiftless beggars, criminals, rapists, drunkards, etc. etc.
Of course, much of the bad behavior perpetrated by the slaves -- and there was plenty of it -- was because they were slaves. They weren't allowed to develop their intellect or their skills. Like, by the mid-1800s, most slave states had made it illegal to teach slaves to read. A lot of historic evidence indicates that slaves didn't work any harder than they had to, slacked off when they could, and even might runaway and hide in the woods for a few weeks vacation, though most of them were eventually hunted down and returned to their masters, or came back willingly.
Anybody forced into slavery behaves the same way. Matter of fact, this kind of behavior is very similar to that in totalitarian nations. I mean, why work so hard? You don't get anything for it. Lots of theft and even black markets because honest effort for your own advancement and unregulated trade is illegal. People are child-like and irresponsible because they aren't allowed to make their own decisions.
On the other hand, many slaves oraganized and managed the plantations very successfully when their masters were "at the Springs" during summer for months and "in town" or "on tour" sometimes for years at a stretch. The slaves built much of the South brick-by-brick, and they even made the bricks. Many were trained in skilled work and hired out as blacksmiths, ironworkers, mill workers, carpenters, etc. Frederick Douglass was a ship-fitter. But the slave-owners overlooked all this and clung to their belief in the slaves' inborn inferiority and incompetency.
So in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, how did the slave-owners convince themselves that they were acting in the slaves' best intersts? I mean: What the hell were they thinking?
If you read what many of the planters wrote at the time, it's almost funny, and some of it has a really disturbing, almost hysterical edge to it. I mean, let's not forget, in a few slave states, the whites were outnumbered. The planters had this bizarre mind-set. I'll try to describe it:
The white planter -- usually, but not always -- a man, saw himself as the wise, beneficent, intelligent, tough, independent master of the universe. God simply made him that way. It was the planter's job on earth to run things. Some of the pro-slavery crowd even believed they were the product of a certain strain of Scots-Irish and had a birthright to rule. Their superiority was somehow bred into them, so they were obligated to wear the heavy crown of the lord and master.
Generally speaking, their arrogance was insufferable. They even considered white Yankees to be mongrels -- so many of them "mixed" with Irish and Germans -- and quite famously regarded the Yankees as nothing more than "mechanics and mudsills," crass, greedy money-grubbers.
No true gentleman dirtied his hands with manual labor. That's what the "other races" were for. The planter was above all that. His task was to rule.
What reminded me of all this was, I was reading a couple liberal blogs and video clips of Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman. You can cut the arrogance with a knife. The sense of superiority and pomposity is positively suffocating. Like, want a laugh? Go read Paul Krugman's blogs in the NY Times... and more importantly, the rah-rah -- yet tasteful -- comments his supportive readers leave like little gifts on his doorstep.
The thing is, the planters' views of slaves is eerily similar to the liberals' views of "everyone else." And in neither case do these views even come close to a useful paradigm for human life on earth.
So how do liberals sustain their silly world-view in the face of reality? They prop each other up with little lies. It's like they all stay drunk together, or spin a soft, quiet cocoon around themselves. They can't afford dissenting opinion, they interpret it -- like the planters did -- as uppity ingratitude. They go completely ballistic when you don't agree with them, and especially if you have a stronger argument. They view it only as back-sass from the great unwashed. Or, since liberals suspect that those who disagree with them are incapable of rational thought, the liberals insist that anyone who disagrees with them must be dupes and marionettes for the truly evil: capitalist mechanics and mudsills.
As a marxist, Comrade Osama has adopted all the liberal crap -- I mean, the whole load. He even takes it a couple steps further than most white liberals would dare. That's why other liberals love him so. For them, he's living proof of their silly beliefs and.... (breathless squeal) he's President!
So here's my challenge to liberals: Try to imagine what it would be like to deal with another human being as an equal rather than as an inferior or as a demigod. Try to conduct a town hall with both give and take. Listen to your consituents, don't just talk at them. They probably have a couple better ideas than you do. They made the country and pay your salary.
But you know what? Like the planters, the liberals just don't know how to act except as bosses or toadies. They don't understand what equality really means. And, like the slave-owners at the time of the Civil War, history is marching past these people and they're clinging deperately to their outmoded delusions and clutching at the reins of power to try to postpone their own obsolescence.
I refuse to call liberals "progressives." They're the true reactionaries, blocking the path to real growth and development.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Attaboy, Comrade!
Well, today The Comrade gave a speech in Virginia and apparently pretty much suggested that anyone who doesn't want socialized medicine should be bound and gagged -- especially gagged. The dissenters just need to shut up and let him do whatever he wants to do with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. I mean, who the hell are we to question him and his minions? Our role in his Utopian scenario is only as "payer."
All I can say is: I never even remotely suspected him of believing in the value of human life or in individual rights. Because he's a marxist, though, you'd think he'd at least give a courteous nod at the notion of spontaneous political activism, but I guess that only applies when the activism supports his own position.
Dick(head) Durbin is just a plain fool. Never suspected him of much else, either.
And Pazzo Pelosi... well... one Gulf Stream just isn't enough. Now she wants eight of them for the personal use of congress. Perhaps to haul her make-up, clothing, and wigs back and forth between San Francisco and DC. Or an entourage of yes-persons to manage her ego, creating a layer of functioning and obedient insulation between her and the public. Otherwise, she's in real danger of having her delusions shattered.
As reported in the L.A. Times a few days ago, the Dems apparently had planned to blame any resistance to socialized medicine on the insurance industry, but it seems that target has failed to materialize -- except in Democrat Fantasyland, where the top executives of Humana and Kaiser Permanente sit up all night trying on "Joe six-pack" disguises: ill-fitting cargo shorts, short-sleeved plaid shirts, and the inevitable beat-up Nikes.
Anyway, so now instead of going after "organized insurance," the socialists -- including SEIU -- are attacking ordinary American citizens. Quite literally. One poor guy who was selling American flags and other stuff outside of a town hall meeting in St. Louis was physically attacked and beaten by a bunch of thugs advertising their favorite labor union on their T-shirts. Button-down brown shirts might be more appropriate. Sam Browne belts and jack boots would complete the fashion statement.
H-m-m-m-m, who else has attacked American citizens? The Brits under King George, the Confederate States of America, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, and al-Qaeda. Doesn't seem to ever end happily for them, does it?
Let's see how this strategy pays off for the Democrats in 2010.
Have to wonder why the Dems are following such a negative program. You'd think they'd be talking up the wonders of socialized medicine and crowing about all the benefits it will bring to the nation. Don't hear any of that, though. Quite possibly because so few of those in favor actually know what's in the bill and haven't got the foggiest notion of what it's going to do to the nation. However, they're probably hoping that some juicy hunk of pork intended just for them will be tucked in there amongst all those unintelligible clauses.
You know, we pay these idiots for this. Can someone please explain that?
One of my favorite quotes is from Will Rogers:
All I can say is: I never even remotely suspected him of believing in the value of human life or in individual rights. Because he's a marxist, though, you'd think he'd at least give a courteous nod at the notion of spontaneous political activism, but I guess that only applies when the activism supports his own position.
Dick(head) Durbin is just a plain fool. Never suspected him of much else, either.
And Pazzo Pelosi... well... one Gulf Stream just isn't enough. Now she wants eight of them for the personal use of congress. Perhaps to haul her make-up, clothing, and wigs back and forth between San Francisco and DC. Or an entourage of yes-persons to manage her ego, creating a layer of functioning and obedient insulation between her and the public. Otherwise, she's in real danger of having her delusions shattered.
As reported in the L.A. Times a few days ago, the Dems apparently had planned to blame any resistance to socialized medicine on the insurance industry, but it seems that target has failed to materialize -- except in Democrat Fantasyland, where the top executives of Humana and Kaiser Permanente sit up all night trying on "Joe six-pack" disguises: ill-fitting cargo shorts, short-sleeved plaid shirts, and the inevitable beat-up Nikes.
Anyway, so now instead of going after "organized insurance," the socialists -- including SEIU -- are attacking ordinary American citizens. Quite literally. One poor guy who was selling American flags and other stuff outside of a town hall meeting in St. Louis was physically attacked and beaten by a bunch of thugs advertising their favorite labor union on their T-shirts. Button-down brown shirts might be more appropriate. Sam Browne belts and jack boots would complete the fashion statement.
H-m-m-m-m, who else has attacked American citizens? The Brits under King George, the Confederate States of America, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, and al-Qaeda. Doesn't seem to ever end happily for them, does it?
Let's see how this strategy pays off for the Democrats in 2010.
Have to wonder why the Dems are following such a negative program. You'd think they'd be talking up the wonders of socialized medicine and crowing about all the benefits it will bring to the nation. Don't hear any of that, though. Quite possibly because so few of those in favor actually know what's in the bill and haven't got the foggiest notion of what it's going to do to the nation. However, they're probably hoping that some juicy hunk of pork intended just for them will be tucked in there amongst all those unintelligible clauses.
You know, we pay these idiots for this. Can someone please explain that?
One of my favorite quotes is from Will Rogers:
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.So, hey, congresscritters, take your time getting back to work. We're a lot better off when you guys are beyond reach of those voting buttons.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Stop, look, and LISTEN
When I was in college, I took a course in personal communications, which included a segment on listening. Really listening. That's a skill that's greatly lacking among Democrats and many other politicians.
The first thing I learned -- and it's true -- is that most people don't listen to each other. They're either focused on the question they just posed instead of registering its response, or they're busting with eagerness to get their two cents in the conversation. They hear, but they don't listen.
Listening is indispensable to journalists. You must listen to the response to any question you ask, if only so that you can ask appropriate follow-ups. Watch the very best journalists when they do an interview. They usually very calmly and intently listen to the answer before they rush ahead to the next question.
So, anyway, lots of stuff on the news today about congresscritters being terrorized by their constituents at town hall meetings. It's funny -- I mean "ha-ha" funny. You have these men, mostly, from congress standing in front of a crowd spewing their meaningless talking points like used car salesmen, and the crowds just aren't having any. The voters want to know this and that -- and they've been asking pretty specific questions in most cases. They know what's going on. And usually they have a certain level of rage in their tone of voice.
As the congresscritter unwraps yet another canned answer -- he got Pelosi's memo -- the crowd jeers and shouts him down. A little sick of the b.s., maybe? And all too aware that the guy is just blowing smoke.
The congresscritters are appalled. How dare these peons talk back? They don't appreciate how hard congress works and the binding nature of the promises they've made to The Comrade to "deliver" support. This rabble knows more about the legislative proposals than their representatives do. And this rabble is pissed.
Worst of all, this sass blows to hell the theory that is apparently commonly-held among congresscritters that the general populace is ignorant, uninformed, unsophistcated, and not very bright. The congresscritters don't how to handle this. It's a whole new world for them, and they aren't in charge anymore.
At a meeting in South Austin, Texas, Rep Lloyd Doggett ran for cover. The crowd followed him out to his car in the parking lot, chanting, "Just say no! Just say no!" I believe it was Doggett who complained that these people weren't even from his district. Or possibly he just didn't recognize them as the same ol' lowly citizens and voters.
The Democrat National party responds to this phenomona by claiming it's all a nefarious plot instigated by "you know who." No, I really don't know who. And I'm not hearing the names of any specific people or organizations, except that Dick(head) Durbin, Senate Dem whip, called the town hall people "tea-baggers and birthers," and pretty much blew them off as lunatic fringe.
At the DNC website, they've posted a press release with hyperlinks to hell's-own-cheat-sheet called "Rock the Town Hall," or something like that. It's a PDF file and tells dissenters how to organize to attend a town hall meeting. It advises people to check the congresscritter's voting record, write down specific questions beforehand -- and include facts and figures. Don't ask vague questions. Don't just whine and complain. Keep your questions short and to the point. Spread your companions among the crowd, keep your hands up to be picked to ask a question. By spreading out, they have a more likely chance of asking more questions and they'll look like a majority.
Somehow, the Democrats think this is a hideous plot to overthrow the American way of life. That's only one indication of how little they know about this country.
I looked up the organization that issued the advice sheet. It's at: http://www.rightprinciples.com/ . Take a look. Apparently it's a group of five guys who all have day jobs, although one says he's a retired attorney. They aren't politicians. They're just concerned citizens, and most haven't been politically active before in their lives.
O-o-o-o-h, scary. At least it is if you're trying to defend the Democrat leadership's socialist agenda.
So what do the Democrats plan to do to overcome the public revulsion at socialized medicine? A group of Dem senators had lunch at the White House today to discuss strategies. They were interviewed as they were leaving, and the scene was rather embarrasing. Max Baucus, who I thought had some sense, was all a-tingle at being in The Comrade's holy presence and just went on and on about The Comrade's wonderful style of presenting himself. Sounds like Baucus is in l-u-u-v.
But more seriously, these creeps are once again raising the specter of "reconciliation." That is to say, they'll present a complete bill for vote on the floor, accept no amendments, severely limit debate, and require a straight "yay" or "nay" vote... and a simple majority wins.
In other words, when reason and persuasion fail, f*** the public. Jam it down their throats. Force them to accept it. Once it's law, you can throw them in jail if they refuse to dance to The Comrade's tune.
These people are lower than pond scum, you do realize that?
An interesting anecdote from history:
George Armstrong Custer remains, as far as I know, the youngest man in US history ever to be made a general. It was a field promotion (brevet) and he went back to a more normal rank after the Civil War.
Anyway, he was a very popular guy. Very flambuoyant. He was the most-photographed officer in the Civil War. He also sometimes took reckless and unnecessary risks with his commands, apparently in hopes of promoting his own career.
As an Indian fighter on the Great Plains, he was hunting buffalo one time and shot his horse in the head by accident and had to walk about five miles back to where his command was bivouacked. It's kinda hard to load and fire a rifle when you're on a galloping horse. Custer didn't often let common sense get in the way of his bravado, though.
The fiasco at Little Big Horn is pretty well known. Custer divided his command, sending one group of his men to the far end of an impromptu village made up of several different nations of Indians. The idea was, one bunch of the US cavalry would ride into the village and drive the Indians to the other end... Where Custer and his men would be waiting for them with hot lead and cold steel.
Well, the Indians figured it out. They had better rifles, too -- breech-loading repeaters, which the US government didn't want to spend money on for the cavalry; they figured most of the troopers would only waste more ammunition. After a couple hours or so of pretty heavy combat, Custer's command was wiped out, except for one horse.
The Indians, even when they were fighting amongst themselves, mutilated the bodies of dead enemies. Each tribe left a distinctive mark to show who'd done the damage. One tribe of Sioux cut throats, another slashed thighs. The Cheyenne cut off fingers, and so on. So the bodies of Custer's cavalry were duly mutiliated. They were stripped naked, relieved of their weapons, etc. Except for Custer, or so the legend goes.
They didn't touch Custer's body. Except that the Indian women punctured his ear drums so that he might learn to listen.
By the way, the Sioux, who had a major presence at Little Big Horn, never lost a battle against the US cavalry. Rather, they were starved into submission and dependency and herded onto government-run reservations.
The first thing I learned -- and it's true -- is that most people don't listen to each other. They're either focused on the question they just posed instead of registering its response, or they're busting with eagerness to get their two cents in the conversation. They hear, but they don't listen.
Listening is indispensable to journalists. You must listen to the response to any question you ask, if only so that you can ask appropriate follow-ups. Watch the very best journalists when they do an interview. They usually very calmly and intently listen to the answer before they rush ahead to the next question.
So, anyway, lots of stuff on the news today about congresscritters being terrorized by their constituents at town hall meetings. It's funny -- I mean "ha-ha" funny. You have these men, mostly, from congress standing in front of a crowd spewing their meaningless talking points like used car salesmen, and the crowds just aren't having any. The voters want to know this and that -- and they've been asking pretty specific questions in most cases. They know what's going on. And usually they have a certain level of rage in their tone of voice.
As the congresscritter unwraps yet another canned answer -- he got Pelosi's memo -- the crowd jeers and shouts him down. A little sick of the b.s., maybe? And all too aware that the guy is just blowing smoke.
The congresscritters are appalled. How dare these peons talk back? They don't appreciate how hard congress works and the binding nature of the promises they've made to The Comrade to "deliver" support. This rabble knows more about the legislative proposals than their representatives do. And this rabble is pissed.
Worst of all, this sass blows to hell the theory that is apparently commonly-held among congresscritters that the general populace is ignorant, uninformed, unsophistcated, and not very bright. The congresscritters don't how to handle this. It's a whole new world for them, and they aren't in charge anymore.
At a meeting in South Austin, Texas, Rep Lloyd Doggett ran for cover. The crowd followed him out to his car in the parking lot, chanting, "Just say no! Just say no!" I believe it was Doggett who complained that these people weren't even from his district. Or possibly he just didn't recognize them as the same ol' lowly citizens and voters.
The Democrat National party responds to this phenomona by claiming it's all a nefarious plot instigated by "you know who." No, I really don't know who. And I'm not hearing the names of any specific people or organizations, except that Dick(head) Durbin, Senate Dem whip, called the town hall people "tea-baggers and birthers," and pretty much blew them off as lunatic fringe.
At the DNC website, they've posted a press release with hyperlinks to hell's-own-cheat-sheet called "Rock the Town Hall," or something like that. It's a PDF file and tells dissenters how to organize to attend a town hall meeting. It advises people to check the congresscritter's voting record, write down specific questions beforehand -- and include facts and figures. Don't ask vague questions. Don't just whine and complain. Keep your questions short and to the point. Spread your companions among the crowd, keep your hands up to be picked to ask a question. By spreading out, they have a more likely chance of asking more questions and they'll look like a majority.
Somehow, the Democrats think this is a hideous plot to overthrow the American way of life. That's only one indication of how little they know about this country.
I looked up the organization that issued the advice sheet. It's at: http://www.rightprinciples.com/ . Take a look. Apparently it's a group of five guys who all have day jobs, although one says he's a retired attorney. They aren't politicians. They're just concerned citizens, and most haven't been politically active before in their lives.
O-o-o-o-h, scary. At least it is if you're trying to defend the Democrat leadership's socialist agenda.
So what do the Democrats plan to do to overcome the public revulsion at socialized medicine? A group of Dem senators had lunch at the White House today to discuss strategies. They were interviewed as they were leaving, and the scene was rather embarrasing. Max Baucus, who I thought had some sense, was all a-tingle at being in The Comrade's holy presence and just went on and on about The Comrade's wonderful style of presenting himself. Sounds like Baucus is in l-u-u-v.
But more seriously, these creeps are once again raising the specter of "reconciliation." That is to say, they'll present a complete bill for vote on the floor, accept no amendments, severely limit debate, and require a straight "yay" or "nay" vote... and a simple majority wins.
In other words, when reason and persuasion fail, f*** the public. Jam it down their throats. Force them to accept it. Once it's law, you can throw them in jail if they refuse to dance to The Comrade's tune.
These people are lower than pond scum, you do realize that?
An interesting anecdote from history:
George Armstrong Custer remains, as far as I know, the youngest man in US history ever to be made a general. It was a field promotion (brevet) and he went back to a more normal rank after the Civil War.
Anyway, he was a very popular guy. Very flambuoyant. He was the most-photographed officer in the Civil War. He also sometimes took reckless and unnecessary risks with his commands, apparently in hopes of promoting his own career.
As an Indian fighter on the Great Plains, he was hunting buffalo one time and shot his horse in the head by accident and had to walk about five miles back to where his command was bivouacked. It's kinda hard to load and fire a rifle when you're on a galloping horse. Custer didn't often let common sense get in the way of his bravado, though.
The fiasco at Little Big Horn is pretty well known. Custer divided his command, sending one group of his men to the far end of an impromptu village made up of several different nations of Indians. The idea was, one bunch of the US cavalry would ride into the village and drive the Indians to the other end... Where Custer and his men would be waiting for them with hot lead and cold steel.
Well, the Indians figured it out. They had better rifles, too -- breech-loading repeaters, which the US government didn't want to spend money on for the cavalry; they figured most of the troopers would only waste more ammunition. After a couple hours or so of pretty heavy combat, Custer's command was wiped out, except for one horse.
The Indians, even when they were fighting amongst themselves, mutilated the bodies of dead enemies. Each tribe left a distinctive mark to show who'd done the damage. One tribe of Sioux cut throats, another slashed thighs. The Cheyenne cut off fingers, and so on. So the bodies of Custer's cavalry were duly mutiliated. They were stripped naked, relieved of their weapons, etc. Except for Custer, or so the legend goes.
They didn't touch Custer's body. Except that the Indian women punctured his ear drums so that he might learn to listen.
By the way, the Sioux, who had a major presence at Little Big Horn, never lost a battle against the US cavalry. Rather, they were starved into submission and dependency and herded onto government-run reservations.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Cash for Clunkers to the nth power
Just a quick observation.
The federal government's so-called Cash for Clunkers program offers citizens $4500 for their old car if they trade it in for a newer model. Congress in all its wisdom set aside $1 Billion for this program and scheduled it to run from the end of July to mid-November.
The program ran out of money in FOUR DAYS. Congress has now tripled the program's budget just to keep it afloat for a while longer. I mean, think of all those car dealers who bought ad campaigns for the program. The ad campaigns would last longer than the program did.
So how do you think "free" government health care is going to work?
Congress is expecting to pay -- so far -- a little under $1 TRILLION on this over the next ten years.
What do you want to bet the program will run out of funds in less than one year -- or even quicker.
And the feds are claiming that Cash for Clunkers is a resounding success. Will they make the same claim when citizens are seeing more than half their incomes confiscated to pay for socialized medicine?
More important, will you?
The federal government's so-called Cash for Clunkers program offers citizens $4500 for their old car if they trade it in for a newer model. Congress in all its wisdom set aside $1 Billion for this program and scheduled it to run from the end of July to mid-November.
The program ran out of money in FOUR DAYS. Congress has now tripled the program's budget just to keep it afloat for a while longer. I mean, think of all those car dealers who bought ad campaigns for the program. The ad campaigns would last longer than the program did.
So how do you think "free" government health care is going to work?
Congress is expecting to pay -- so far -- a little under $1 TRILLION on this over the next ten years.
What do you want to bet the program will run out of funds in less than one year -- or even quicker.
And the feds are claiming that Cash for Clunkers is a resounding success. Will they make the same claim when citizens are seeing more than half their incomes confiscated to pay for socialized medicine?
More important, will you?
Socialists on the march
Man, the socialists are quick!
I had barely finished the last blog about Pelosi and the Democrats' hate campaign against the insurance industry, when ... lo and behold!... an early-morning talk radio show features an interview as a live-and-in-color demonstration of same.
On a show hosted by Paul Harris at 6:00 am Saturday morning on WLS-AM, a speaker named Wendell Potter comes on. He's described as a public relations professional who was for decades employed by the insurance industry. But he's left that industry because it just made him sick. (He's truly concerned about people, you see, and only looking out for their best interests.)
Now he works for The Center for Media & Democracy, which is funded in part by the Tides Foundation and Proteus Fund. If I recall correctly, these organizations are tied to ACORN and to George Soros. The Center's web site also lists other organizations that are supposedly all about "democracy."
Mr. Wendell Potter is soft-spoken, somehow sad and sympathetic, talking about, "Boy, it's amazing when you see what these guys [insurance industry executives] will do to please Wall Street."
The magic of radio: you can just picture him sorrowfully nodding at the horror of it all, with a tear welling up in his eye.
And, of course, those nasty, greedy insurance executives.... They're the old meanies who are driving up costs and wrecking the health care industry. They just want to make a profit.
What a load of crap! And out so quickly!
Mr. Potter points out that there is public transportation and also people driving cars on the very same roads.... See, he says, the "public option" doesn't drive out the privately-owned.
If Mr. Potter truly had a brain and truly spent so many years in the insurance industry, he must be aware that transportation and health care are two very different animals, but we won't talk about that.
These jerks are organized. Man the battle stations! Unfortunately, I couldn't find the phone number to this talk show to call up and call this jerk out.
I had barely finished the last blog about Pelosi and the Democrats' hate campaign against the insurance industry, when ... lo and behold!... an early-morning talk radio show features an interview as a live-and-in-color demonstration of same.
On a show hosted by Paul Harris at 6:00 am Saturday morning on WLS-AM, a speaker named Wendell Potter comes on. He's described as a public relations professional who was for decades employed by the insurance industry. But he's left that industry because it just made him sick. (He's truly concerned about people, you see, and only looking out for their best interests.)
Now he works for The Center for Media & Democracy, which is funded in part by the Tides Foundation and Proteus Fund. If I recall correctly, these organizations are tied to ACORN and to George Soros. The Center's web site also lists other organizations that are supposedly all about "democracy."
Mr. Wendell Potter is soft-spoken, somehow sad and sympathetic, talking about, "Boy, it's amazing when you see what these guys [insurance industry executives] will do to please Wall Street."
The magic of radio: you can just picture him sorrowfully nodding at the horror of it all, with a tear welling up in his eye.
And, of course, those nasty, greedy insurance executives.... They're the old meanies who are driving up costs and wrecking the health care industry. They just want to make a profit.
What a load of crap! And out so quickly!
Mr. Potter points out that there is public transportation and also people driving cars on the very same roads.... See, he says, the "public option" doesn't drive out the privately-owned.
If Mr. Potter truly had a brain and truly spent so many years in the insurance industry, he must be aware that transportation and health care are two very different animals, but we won't talk about that.
These jerks are organized. Man the battle stations! Unfortunately, I couldn't find the phone number to this talk show to call up and call this jerk out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)