Lockerbie perp's release: "justice" or "compassion"?

The AP headline reads, "Scotland: Lockerbie decision based on 'justice.'" I'm assuming that Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's deputy first minister was referring to capital J Justice (as in the Ministry of Justice) in this statement (here:)

"What I do know, and what I can state categorically ... is that these deals — if such deals existed — played no part whatsoever in the decision that Kenny MacAskill took to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds," Sturgeon, said. "That was a decision taken entirely on justice grounds, and there were no influences relating to political or economic interests that played any part in that."

"Nothing personal" . . . re. Ted Kennedy's passing

Here's an insightful op/ed from Mona Charen on the difficulty of separating the partisan/political from the personal.

And here's an op/ed that pretty closely articulates my perspective (even the spiritual aspect) on Kennedy's death.

Lies or just stupidity on healthcare?

As they say, the truth hurts, and--in all candor, truth delivered by Ann Coulter hurts even more. But this op/ed is a must read on the issue of Democrats' proposed "reforms" to healthcare delivery. Here's an excerpt:

Apparently, promising to cut costs by having a panel of Washington bureaucrats (for short, "The Death Panel") deny medical treatment wasn't a popular idea with most Americans. So liberals started claiming that they are going to cover an additional 47 million uninsured Americans and cut costs ... without ever denying a single medical treatment!

Also on the agenda is a delicious all-you-can-eat chocolate cake that will actually help you lose weight!

Love advice from, of all people, Ann Heche . . .

Heche let 'er rip on ex-husband, and father of one of her children, Coley Laffoon while appearing on David Letterman last evening . . . view the video here.

MA Dems show their principle after Kennedy's death

Well, Sen. Ted Kennedy has passed away, and his loved ones deserve our condolences, but his passing has exposed some of those deep-seated democratic principles of Mass. Democrats clawing to keep control of his Senate seat:

Last week, Kennedy asked Massachusetts leaders to change state law to give Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy's seat should Kennedy be unable to continue serving.

"It is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election," Kennedy wrote in a letter to Patrick.

Lawmakers are weighing a bill now that honors Kennedy's request. Lawmakers are expected to hold a public hearing next month on the proposal, moving up the consideration date from October, and allowing legislation to be passed and signed into law before the deadline for a special election.

But a change in the law isn't a sure bet. Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo, all Democrats, have stayed mum on whether they would support the change.

But Patrick told a local radio station Wednesday that he believes the proposal was "entirely reasonable" and said he would sign the bill if it reached his desk.

The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.

Less oversight, over interrogation practices

This story, announcing the intention of the Obama administration to bring interrogation of certain detainees under the White House's direct authority, is interesting as the KOSsacks are surely foaming at the mouth to try anyone (ANYone!!) from the Bush administration for a war crime.

Though I think it is appropriate to review and criticize policies of current and past administrations, it seems ironic to me that Obama appears to be choosing to insulate these important actors from oversight from outside the Executive Branch (and even from outside the White House).

In addition, it is ironic to me that Obama is commissioning people to analyze various aspects of interrogation and provide a report to him . . . which is what people like Jay Bybee and John Yoo are being crucified for. From the article:

Still, the Obama task force advised that the group develop a "scientific research program for interrogation" to develop new techniques and study existing ones to see whether they work. In essence, the unit would determine a set of best practices on interrogation and share them with other agencies that question prisoners.

Guys, you better be careful what conclusions you reach after your analysis.

Where will Canadians go for healthcare?

You can hardly fault a Canadian guy with a $38k medical bill for feeling indebted to--heck, even shilling for, Canada's healthcare system, but this story demonstrates the "kernel of truth" behind the joke, "where will Canadians go for healthcare if America adopts socialized medicine?" From the article:

Michael Vujovich, 61, of Windsor was taken to Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital for an angioplasty procedure after he went to a Windsor hospital in April. Vujovich said the U.S. backup doesn't show a gap in Canada's system, but shows how it works.

"I go to the hospital in Windsor and two hours later, I'm done having angioplasty in Detroit," he said. His $38,000 bill was covered by the Ontario health ministry.

On "fishy" White House email controversy

I have not been as concerned as others about sinister motives of "fishy information" gathering by comrades in the White House (here), but I thought their response to the controversy was kind of ironic:

"Despite reports by some bloggers and others in the media that have invoked a variety of sinister conspiracy theories, more people signed up for updates last week than during the entire month of July."

Hey! The White House collected a ton of email addresses last week? Wow!!

About "democracy" and town halls

For the record, I do not subscribe to the idea that legislators in a republic have a duty to care what polls from their constituents or phone calls from their constituents are saying about a given issue. Of course, it is seemingly more difficult to be re-elected if you ignore such pressure, but it is not wrong or a dereliction of duty to ignore it, in my humble opinion.

And the kind of rhetoric in the video below--of a man at a town hall forum hosted by PA's U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, is a little troubling. And I have no love for Specter, I just think that some folks need to dial it down and realize that accusations and near-threats are counter-productive.

Rove and US Atty firings: where's the injustice?

The first line of this story is tantalizing, but where's the beef? Where's the injustice? From the story:

White House e-mails and transcripts of closed-door interviews with former Bush aides Karl Rove and Harriet Miers reveal involvement as early as May 2005 by Rove's office in the 2006 firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Voter fraud (which is of the certifiable and Democratic Party variety) may not be important to certain DOJ attorneys, but it is to me and to most Republicans.

Stossel on healthcare reform

I encourage you to listen to John Stossel's latest piece on healthcare reform (here), and here's one his salient assertions in this Obama age of steamrolled schemes like "cash for clunkers" and "cap and trade":

When politicians interfere with free markets, unintended consequences harm everyone, except the companies that lobby hard enough to protect themselves.

Is it too much to expect our rulers to understand this?

That term "rulers" has bite, doesn't it?

Newt Gingrich expounds on Obamacare

I just wish that Newt could have kept his wedding band in mind over the years . . . watch this video of his appearance on ABC "This Week" on Healthcare reform and the debate over the debate about Healthcare reform . . . or, as Democrats are insisting "health insurance reform."

Whatever happened to "dissent isn't un-American"?

Is Pelosi really so stupid as to put these words in writing?

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,'' the two leaders write. "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.''

I guess a fawning press coupled with an enormous bullhorn allows you to say just about anything.

They're just not that in to Paula Abdul

I don't watch American Idol, and though I've always marveled at how (dumb) lucky Paula Abdul was to be on the show, I haven't been following the subject of her future with the show at all. Accordingly, I was curious to read that she was leaving the show and curious to see that it appeared to be her decision. Her twitter statement read,

With sadness in my heart, I've decided not to return to IDOL. I'll miss nurturing all the new talent, but most of all being a part of a show that I helped from day 1 become an international phenomenon.

The self-congratulatory phrase was intriguing, too.
But then, all the way at the end of the article, they report that auditions for the show begin TOMORROW, and American Idol's producers had not even offered her a contract. Indeed, Abdul and her agent are "very sad[]" that she lost this gig.

On Obama's healthcare agenda . . . survey says?!?

Interesting CNN Poll (here) about public's views on the Obama (and Democrats') healthcare agenda. At first I was impressed (depressed?) by the favor/oppose numbers, then I was impressed by the whats-in-it-for-me numbers . . . but this "revelation" from the poll kind of undermines the credibility of the opinions given as well as the poll's overall value/utility:

Some lawmakers are holding town hall meetings or other public forums on health care reform over the next few weeks, where voters will get a chance to speak out about the various proposals for change. The poll indicates that seven in 10 Americans say they're very or somewhat likely to attend such events.

(emphasis added)

Comparing the numbers of people who seem to be "supporting" the proposal with the numbers of people whose support seems to be based on a vague perception that somebody else will be helped by it, you can appreciate why Obama & Co. have to cram this legislation--unread and undebated and unipartisan, down the throats of America.

On healthcare, how stupid . . .

. . . do they think we are?

Linda Douglass, of the Obama Administration, has responded via youtube (sure to go viral!!! Not.) to evidence (see here) that the Obama Administration and Democrats may be using their health insurance proposal as a trojan horse for socialized medicine. (here's the WH video response) The problem is that the response is premised on naked assertions ("nothing could be further from the truth") and on video clips from June and July of THIS year . . . kind of like looking at the fine exterior of the benign-looking trojan horse to determine if there are soldiers inside of it waiting to pounce on you once you put your polearm in the corner for the night.

This is insulting.

Healthcare debate bombshell

With one exception (see below) this compilation of video clips is bound to hugely impact the debate about Obama's (and the Democrats') proposed healthcare reforms.



What is the exception? I think that one can fairly conclude that Obama wants to do away with "[the system of] employer-provided health insurance" (at 34sec and 54sec, which I think is a good idea, if you're talking about removing the favorable tax treatment for buying healthcare insurance that self-employed people do not enjoy) . . . even as these words roll off my fingertips, though, I realize that he is probably using "employer-provided" as shorthand for "private." And I should probably stop giving him the benefit of the doubt on anything.

So it is reasonable to conclude from these clips that Obama and Democrats are pushing trojan horse legislation. And the interesting thing about trojan horses is that once the subject has come up, every "gift" offered is suspect.