Do you mean Mrs. Joe Biden?

This email from The Obama's PR outfit about the Dems' socialization of higher education is peculiar on various levels. First, they act like "Dr. Jill Biden" is being quoted/paraded because she has a PhD in Education. Well, actually she's Joe Biden's wife. That doesn't mean she isn't smart or accomplished in her own right, but she gets her own email because she's married to Amtrak Joe.

And I enjoyed this paragraph highlighting the fact that Democrats smuggled this into law under the cloak of Obamacare:

[The Gov't's takeover of college "loans" is] a tremendous achievement, but the news may get lost in the excitement around the passage of comprehensive health care reform. So we need to make sure that when folks open the local paper to the letters page this week, they'll see notes from their neighbors supporting these important reforms.

And, just to make us think he's delivering on a campaign promise--any campaign promise, the email tells us:

In Spring 2007, on a conference call with students, then-Senator Barack Obama called for major reform to federal student loans:

"We shouldn't be providing billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways to private banks. We should be providing an affordable, accessible college education to every American."

Yay, universal college education!!! Well, even if all Americans don't get college degrees, at least all Americans can pay for college degrees--universal tuition payments!!!

Socializing student loans . . .

Tucked inside the Democrats' 2,900+page healthcare proposal was another socialist-inspired proposal to takeover the student "loan" business. Obama to sign new student aid initiative | Reuters:

The student loan overhaul fulfills a long-time goal of Democratic lawmakers to end the bankers' role as middlemen and replace them with direct federal loans and aid to students.

The parallels between the Democrats' designs on the student loan market and their designs on healthcare are remarkable. And the rhetoric employed for both proposals is more than "parallel"; it is identical.

The Administration's latest screwed up policy

Obama administration revises anti-foreclosure strategy - washingtonpost.com:

"We're not going to stop every foreclosure. It wouldn't be fair. It would be too expensive, and it probably wouldn't succeed anyway," said Diana Ferrell, deputy director of the National Economic Council, which advises the president.

It's amazing to hear a Liberal admit that Big Gov't causes unfairness. And it's amazing to hear the modest-Marxist sentiments of the "Community Re-investment" dude. He makes Obama's people sound moderate by comparison.

Maybe the Democrats' stimulus will "save" jobs after all

» Politics: Democratic Stimulus Haul is Almost Double Republicans - Big Government

Casada highlights Democrats' lack of concern for 90% of Tennesseans

TN Democratic Party News » Blog Archive » TNDP Chair Appalled At Williamson Lawmaker’s Lack Of Concern For State’s Hungry Children:

Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester said he was appalled by the recent callous statements made by House Republican Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who has introduced legislation ending unemployment benefits for Tennessee families with dependent children.

Casada’s bill, HB3206, was defeated in the House Subcommittee on Employee Affairs on Wednesday despite state Reps. Donna Rowland of Murfreesboro and Mark White of Memphis voting for it.

“Well, I think we all need you to do the best you can to find a job, is what I suggest,” Casada replied during the hearing when asked how affected families should feed their children without the benefits.

Forrester said Casada’s unconcern for the state’s struggling families underscores the fundamental difference between the General Assembly’s Democrats and its Republicans.

“In times like these, many working families are temporarily between jobs, through no fault of their own, and need the help of their friends and neighbors while they get back on their feet,” Forrester said. “I cannot believe someone can be so uncaring."

(emphasis added)
Well, do you think they could ask their "friends and neighbors"--not to mention their family, for the help, instead of the government? And I guess Tennessee Democrats consider 100 weeks on unemployment to be "temporar[]y"?


P.S. This may be nitpicking, but I think Chip Forrester accredits the words of Christ to John the Baptist. In any event, stop ramming your religion down our throats, Chip.

What next for Republicans on healthcare?

I especially like the practical perspectives of Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal. ObamaCare: Repeal, Replace or What? - WSJ.com

CNN shamelessly pulling its weight

CNN is providing talking points for the President's and Democrats' campaign to convince Americans that they should have supported recent healthcare legislation. 5 key things to remember about health care reform - CNN.com:

(CNN) -- What? Really? You don't understand the new health care reform legislation? You find yourself confused? If you haven't mastered the minutiae on all 2,309 pages of the health care reform bill signed earlier this week by President Obama, there's nothing wrong with you -- even experts are having a hard time getting a grip on all the details.

So we've done the work for you. If you're going to take away just five things from the new legislation, here they are. If you manage to comprehend these five, give yourself an A+

Glenn Beck was a harmless lil' fuzzball back then

This is a revealing exchange between Lefty James Cameron and Glenn Beck. It's hard not to laugh at the amazingly militant and intolerant sentiments of Cameron, but what so many in the MSM don't realize is that Beck used to be more of a humorous, shock jock-ish personality (the ACLU poster boy type of radio personality) than anything else.
Here's video background from Beck. Glenn Beck wears 3-D glasses, mocks James Cameron - USATODAY.com

And here's a peak behind Cameron's curtain. James Cameron: Glenn Beck is 'dangerous' - USATODAY.com:

"According to The Hollywood Reporter, when asked earlier this week at Avatar home-video release junket what he thought about Beck, Cameron said: 'Glenn Beck is a [bleeping][bleep]. I've met him. He called me the anti-Christ - and not about Avatar.' Cameron was apparently referring to Beck's reaction to his 2007 documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus which casts doubt on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

After blasting Beck, Cameron seemed to reconsider: 'I think, you know what, he may or may not be an a--hole, but he certainly is dangerous, and I'd love to have a dialogue with him.'"

No, Beck was making fun of Titanic, and not because of any social or cultural values angle. Beck was particularly affected by 9/11, like a lot of Americans.

Rationed care = DIY care

This story caught my eye (pardon the pun), in light of Democrats' vote late Sunday evening for the gov't to "control costs" of healthcare (read: ration care).

Patient removes faucet from eye socket while waiting for socialized care in China

The X-rays to the right show how the handle to the faucet on which Zhao had impaled himself penetrated about an inch deep into his eye socket. According to a CEN report, Zhao eventually grew tired of waiting for the pipework to be removed and, to the surprise of doctors, pulled it out of his head himself. While the man had suffered a fractured nose and facial bones from the ordeal, doctors said his brain and vision did not appear to be permanently affected. (EuroPics)

Newsflash: infidelity of men related to upbringing

Simplistic, non sequitur-ing, time-wasting article from ABC. I guess they needed an article for the "Tiger Woods" tab over at ABC.com.Raising a Sexually Faithful Son Begins at Home - ABC News:

As Freud said, it's all about mother.

Or, as modern day psychologists point out, fidelity begins at home. Whether a son grows up to be a philanderer, depends a lot on the models he has for parents.

I think author and sociologist Pepper Schwartz has it right:

"This is the worst kind of research you can possibly do . . .. There are 4,000 other reasons why men cheat."

Of course, there are as many "reasons" as there are men, but every man who cheats does so because he wants to.

Tell that to Big Labor

This email from Democrats.com is humorously demagogic given that Unions FORCE people to belong, FORCE people to pay dues and then spend dues money to doggedly campaign against Republicans (only) each election. Sell your stock in ExxonMobil duhduhduh if you don't like how the corporation spends money.

In January, a narrow Republican 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled Corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates.
That includes the nation's largest Corporations like ExxonMobil, which made $45 billion in profits in 2008 and could easily spend $5 billion to defeat every Democrat in the U.S.

By the way, two of the four justices that were in the minority on this opinion were appointed by Republicans.

TN's ignominious part of the Healthcare reform bill

Kimberley A. Strassel: Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory - WSJ.com:

Democrats inserted a new provision providing $100 million in extra Medicaid money for Tennessee. Retiring Tennessee Rep. Bart Gordon flipped to a yes vote on Thursday.

Wow, thanks Bart!

Well AP, why didn't you SAY there was no good reason not to support Obamacare?!

Obama, Democrats show command of health care votes - Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON – Triumph in their grasp, President Barack Obama and House Democrats demonstrated command of the votes needed to pass landmark health care legislation Sunday night, a climactic chapter in a century-long quest for near universal coverage.

The House argued its way through a thicket of Republican objections toward a late-evening vote on the bill to extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

Transformative presidency indeed

Wow, Democrats in Congress are courageous, no?

Yesterday, on C-Span, I heard Steny Hoyer chronicling what he purported to be calls from Republican U.S. Presidents in the past to enact nationalized (aka, "socialized") healthcare. Today, on Meet the Press, I heard Tavis Smiley discussing how it is necessary to do politically difficult (or "wrong") things in order to do morally "right" things, and he even said that such difficult votes are necessary if one expects to "be a transformative president" or "transformative people." According to Smiley, Newt Gingrich even compared this vote on Obamacare to the vote on Civil Rights legislation under LBJ--I seriously doubt Gingrich would make such a comparison (contrast, maybe) and it is ludicrous to compare instituting big gov't healthcare to ensuring blacks' right to vote.

Well, what makes this vote courageous? The same thing that makes it "transformative" . . . this vote is courageous because voters realize that Democrats want to move healthcare away from principles of liberty and toward principles of statism. It is astonishing to me how the Left (mainly Democrats) either (a) disingenuously ignores or (b) doesn't understand economics.

Hey Democrats, you can keep your Liberal or Progressive or whatever "transformation."

Mom, Steny started it!

There are saddening reports about some protestors on Capitol Hill yesterday. Make That the Nas-Tea Party. I do not condone intimidation or racism. I can, however, appreciate the frustration many Americans are feeling in response to the Democrats' democratic hypocrisy, Dems' historic abuse of the legislative process and Dems' seeming disdain for voter opinion. Steny Hoyer, on the other hand, dismisses as "hate" and "incivility" the frustration exacerbated by Democrats' Chicago-style lawmaking. Hoyer was quoted in the above report as follows:

"On the one hand, I am saddened that America’s debate on health care — which could have been a national conversation of substance and respect — has degenerated to the point of such anger and incivility," he said. "But on the other, I know that every step toward a more just America has aroused similar hate in its own time."

Gallup, Braisted and me

Sean Braisted has a nice post up about legislators doing the right thing as opposed to what is ostensibly popular. Of course, Sean is employing this argument in favor of Dems passing big-gov't regulation of health insurance, but I thought of his post when I read a salient article from George Gallup about the perilous abuse of polling data in the law-making process. Gallup's intro is as follows: George Gallup, Health Care and the Peril of Legislating by Polls -- Politics Daily:

Personally, I do not look forward to the passage of the president's package. I would have few qualms about voting against it if I were in Congress. I'd prefer less government involvement in health care, not more, and less insurance, too. (I think Americans should pay out of pocket for routine medical care, that insurance should be for truly expensive procedures, and that the whole thing should be uncoupled from employment. My views were informed by an eye-opening Atlantic Monthly cover story last summer, 'How American Health Care Killed My Father,' an article that should have altered the national debate, but didn't.) My views aren't important, and I only mention them because this is not a back-door argument for the Democrats' bill. It's a front-door argument for better debate and better governance.

Fmr. Obama staffer: experiences helped shape her art

Ironic story about artist, Alexa Meade, who paints human subjects into icons.  The artist who turns people into paintings - CNN.com:

A former staffer on Obama's presidential campaign, Meade has no formal art-school training. She says her projects "spin reality," and that her experiences in politics have helped shape her work as an artist.

"What one experiences cannot always be interpreted at face value; seeing is not necessarily believing," she said.

Eric Holder posing as "tough" on . . . something

Perhaps AG Eric Holder is over-compensating but, it's interesting to read in the WSJ about Holder's attempted tough-talk on terrorism:

Eric Holder's evasive bravado is getting to be a theme. In November, as we noted then, the attorney general dodged a senator's perfectly reasonable question of what the administration planned to do in the event that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or another Guantanamo detainee had a civilian conviction overturned by saying: 'Failure is not an option.'

He's at it again, the Associated Press reports:

Terrorists in court 'have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer,' the attorney general said. 'It doesn't mean that they're going to be coddled, it doesn't mean that they're going to be treated with kid gloves.'

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn't understand the American public's desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants.

'My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration,' Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson's arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists.

'Let's deal with reality,' Holder said. 'The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom.'

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: 'The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can't be captured by us.'

Remember how liberal weenies scorned President Bush for his cowboylike declaration: 'Wanted: Dead or Alive'? At least Bush mentioned 'alive'! And while Holder may be right that bin Laden is likelier to be killed than captured, it is the height of recklessness if the administration really has no plan for dealing with the latter contingency.

But she worked so hard for that title!?!

The Associated Press: Poll: Boxer in tough fight to keep CA Senate seat: "WASHINGTON — California Sen. Barbara Boxer's re-election campaign is shaping up as the fight of her political career, according to a Field Poll released Thursday.

The survey shows a statistical tie in hypothetical matchups between the three-term Democratic incumbent and two of her potential Republican challengers, former congressman Tom Campbell and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina."

File this under "gender confusion"

In What May Be a Worldwide First, Genderless Person Is ID'd in Australia - News - ABA Journal. "ID'd" is only accurate if they're referring to "issued an ID card." This guy has a gender; he's just been confused about it for several decades.

Big shocker: Dennis Kucinich Will Vote for Democrats' Health Care Bill

Health Care: Dennis Kucinich Switches Course, Will Vote for Health Care Bill - ABC News:

While there are 15 other Democratic members of Congress who remain undecided and 21 who say they will vote 'No' on the health care bill, Kucinich's vote is an important one for Democrats, signaling that even those who are staunchly opposed to the bill can be convinced to vote in favor.

When asked if other skeptical Democrats will also reverse their decision, Kucinich replied: "If I can vote for this bill, there are not many other people who shouldn't be able to support it."

The former presidential candidate was one of the leading critics of the Senate health care bill, insisting that he wouldn't vote for the health care bill unless it included the option of a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The public option was included in the bill that first passed the House, but was taken out in the Senate health care bill.

(emphasis added) This is almost humorous. Kucinich was only "staunchly opposed" to the bill not being more socialist.

Democrat: after "demagogue" and before "demonize"

This article provides great context for the healthcare debate wherein Obama and the Democrats laud Medicare and demonize Private Health Insurers.

Snake Oil For Our Health Care Ills - Forbes.com

If Dubya had said this . . .

American Thinker Blog: Obama: You will see 'premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent' under Obamacare

What Democrats are up to . . .

Here's a nice explanation of the Democrats' possible scheme for giving more control of healthcare to gov't ("Democrats aren't suicidal. They're self-executing" | Washington Examiner). Aside from the Democrats' foolish contention that this legislation won't result in rationing or higher taxes, as the article's title says, Democrats seem firm in their belief that such a maneuver will not have electoral consequences.

About Bush v. Gore . . . and those wacist wepublicans . . .

In an interesting profile of likely soon-to-depart SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens is this Liberal reconstruction of what happened in the Court's 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. What will the Supreme Court be like without Justice John Paul Stevens? : The New Yorker:

In Bush v. Gore, Stevens framed his colleagues’ decision as an insult to the judicial role, one that could, he wrote, “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.” In words that became better known than anything in the collectively written majority decision, he continued:


Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Uh, it's probably the very essence of "rule of law" is not to change the rules in the middle of a controversy. The Left really struggles with that concept.

And another point needs correcting in the article:

After his clerkship, Stevens returned to Chicago and took a job at one of the city’s first religiously integrated law firms. Abner Mikva clerked on the Supreme Court the year after Stevens, then returned to Chicago to start a career in public life. “Those were the days when there was such a thing as a moderate Republican, and that’s what he was,” Mikva said of Stevens. “He was a pretty conservative Republican on economic issues, but he was always a great progressive on civil rights and social rights.”

Republicans as a party were certifiably more in favor of "civil rights" than Democrats.

And, near the end of the profile, my beef with Stevens comes to light:

Stevens, throughout his years on the Court, has drawn not just on history and precedent but on contemporary values and even on his own experience as a judge. According to Stevens, that approach has its origins in his brief stint as a lawyer on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee. “That was probably one of the most important parts of my education,” Stevens told me. He recalled an incident involving an antitrust law: “I remember explaining one of the tricky problems in the statute to one of the members of the committee. I got all through it, and he said, ‘Well, you know, let’s let the judges figure that one out.’ ”

What that told him was that “the legislature really works with the judges—contrary to the suggestion that the statute is a statute all by itself,” Stevens said. “There is an understanding that there are areas of interpretation that are going to have to be filled in later on, and the legislators rely on that. It’s part of the whole process. And you realize that they’re not totally separate branches of government—they’re working together.”

Whatever happened to judicial restraint (read: a proper, limited role of the judiciary) and separation of powers, not to mention textualism?

Get real, Ms. Hunter

Yeah, he committed to that whole "till death do us part" thing with Elizabeth. Rielle Hunter: I Will Love John Edwards 'Till Death Do Us Part' - Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards : People.com:

Does she see herself living happily ever after with him? "I have no idea," Hunter says. "I do know that I will love him and that love is till death do us part, and probably beyond. We have a child together, so at the very least we will be co-parents together."

Great interview with Karl Rove

The BBC article linked to the audio of the interview is headlined "Karl Rove defends waterboarding" . . . an explanation point was judiciously left out of the headline.

. . . because you don't wanna miss a meeting on Capitol Hill with Emanuel

Reid's wife hospitalized after traffic accident - washingtonpost.com:

Reid, D-Nev., went to the hospital after being notified of the accident and returned to Capitol Hill for a meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on efforts to pass health care legislation. He went back to the hospital Thursday evening.

But I wish Reid's wife and daughter a speedy recovery.

Leave it to a Mockingbird

I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt from Ann Coulter's latest op/ed ("What's Arabic For 'You're No Atticus Finch'?" - HUMAN EVENTS) From the article:

You will notice a pattern developing: We only hear paeans to the 'American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients' when it's being used to defend causes popular with liberals -- serial killers, terrorists and a horny hick who promised to save partial-birth abortion.
. . . .
Not only do Americans have a right to know the legal backgrounds of lawyers setting detainee policy at the Department of Justice, but I personally demand the right not to have to listen to Eddie Haskell lawyers constantly claiming to be Atticus Finch.

"Progressives" love them some marches

Recently I was looking into Mao's "Long March" and into the totalitarian/communist penchant for "forced marches" and militarism in general, so it was poignant to get a email today from former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe announcing Obama and the Democrats' "Final March to Reform" on healthcare. Reminds me of the iconic Soviet propaganda movie "Our March." Heaven help us.

Can I sue Lohan for gross egocentrism?

I hate to see our family's favorite commercial dragged into court like this: News - Lindsay Lohan Suing E-Trade for Milkaholic "Parody" - Movies, TV & Music - UsMagazine.com

Not >exactly< what Massa said . . .

White House: Eric Massa's Charges Are 'Ridiculous' - ABC News

Obfuscation isn't exactly unprecedented for White House spokesmen (or the MSM) but it's interesting to see the White House's handling of accusations (here) from retiring Congressman Massa . . . for example, they haven't denied that Emanuel jumped down Massa's throat while Massa was showering in the House Gym. And it is probably more accurate to say that Massa's story has actually developed rather than "changed" or "shifted": no one would deny that Massa has a bad health history, and he was definitely in the cross-hairs of Democratic leaders (including the WH) for a vote opposing the Democrats' plans for healthcare in America . . . so it is no surprise that this "ethics investigation" has a David Bonior-like stink about it and it is probably a mischaracterization (and probably willful) to say Massa resigns to avoid ethics probe (Reuters); thus, Massa's claim that he was "set up" and was, in a way, being "forced out" of Congress is not outlandish.

I wouldn't say this isn't a scandal per se, but I think it illustrates the way Chicago politics is played. Some idiot like Massa isn't going to spoil Rahm and Obama's plans to put Americans on forced march to government-controlled healthcare.

No wonder he's gay, CA taxpayers provide his wheels

The Associated Press: Calif state senator says he's gay after DUI arrest:

The next day, reports surfaced that he had left Faces, a gay nightclub, with an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle.

Dan Rather . . . only on MSNBC

Dan Rather: 'Articulate' Obama Couldn't Even 'Sell Watermelons' | NewsBusters.org:

DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."

Inside the mind of a Liberal journalist--Obama and his critics

Interesting and disturbing article about threats to Obama's security (here). I believe the idiots making these threats are practically harmless (though their stupidity/inability to execute their plans should not diminish their punishment), but I guess I'm not surprised that this behavior exists on such a scale.

That being said, it's doubly disturbing that the article twice links the threat to Obama with American Conservatism. Some of this might be explained by the fact that the writer is a Brit, but aw geez . . .

From the article:( Inside the world of Obama's secret-service bodyguards | World news | The Guardian):

The Southern Poverty Law Center began life in 1971 as a tiny law firm specialising in civil rights cases. It took on the might of the Ku Klux Klan, and was duly rewarded by having its offices razed and its senior lawyers targeted for assassination. But it kept on going and grew to be one of the most respected monitoring groups of rightwing extremism in America today.

What makes the KKK "right-wing"? Or perhaps the question should be, how can they use the term "right-wing" to apply to the KKK and to, say, the GOP?

In the 13 months that Barack Obama has been the occupant of the Oval Office he has been the subject of an extraordinary outpouring of emotion from the American electorate. At the start it was largely adulatory, though more recently the adoration has been drowned out by a cacophony of criticism from tea party activists, birthers, global-warming deniers and viewers of Fox News. At the same time, largely hidden from view, there has been a layer of antagonism towards Obama that lies well beyond the boundaries of reasonable political debate.

Dang, didn't you mean "tea baggers," Mr. Journalist?

I'm only surprised that we're going to have a reasonable debate

Interesting story ("Shelby County's infant-mortality rate 'inflated', new study says"--Commercial Appeal) about use (and abuse, I think) of medical statistics, in this case related to "infant mortality." Various local blogs are discussing the issue:
Post Politics and Tiny Cat Pants and seemingly expressing some surprise at the story. I'm only surprised that we may possibly have a reasonable debate on the relevant issues.

From the Commercial Appeal article:

“The problem is much more of extreme prematurity than infant mortality,” [Professor and study author Bryan L.] Williams said.

The distinction involves more than mere semantics. Fetal and infant mortality arise from much different causes and require entirely different solutions, he said.

Infant mortality often is the result of disease, sudden infant death syndrome, violence or inadequate health care. But fetal mortality typically stems from extreme prematurity.

Since extremely premature births occur in Shelby County at a rate four times the national average, Williams said local officials should focus on possible causes, which could include various stresses during pregnancy, drug abuse, obesity or hypertension.

You know what they say about statistics . . . and the truth is that statistics like these are powerful PR weapons in gaining funding, scoring political points, etc. whether generically trashing America or arguing “how much we need to socialize medicine” or need to “stop oppressing certain populations” or whatever.

I’m glad they did an in-depth study, but it’s a shame that the obvious distinction between “extreme prematurity” and “infant mortality” was previously overlooked.

Gosh, I wonder what this "reporter" thinks oughta happen?

UPDATE 1-US Democrats would kill healthcare over abortion | Reuters:

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - A dozen House of Representatives Democrats opposed to abortion are willing to kill President Barack Obama's healthcare reform plan unless it satisfies their demand for language barring the procedure, Representative Bart Stupak said on Thursday.

Jim Bunning's concerned about all those who AREN'T being paid not to work

Bird-flipping Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning blocking checks to 8,000 unemployed New Yorkers:

"As of yesterday, 8,000 New Yorkers are left without benefits," said Leo Rosales, a spokesman for the state Department of Labor. "You can imagine the worry they have right now."

Well, if he wasn't a Liberal Democrat . . .

This whole Governor Paterson story is intriguing . . . to see someone purportedly "strong on [Liberal] women's issues" . . . who followed the resignation de scandal of another "strong on women's issues" Democrat . . . who, as an incumbent, was on the outs with Democrat leaders and has been in the sights for awhile . . .Calls on Governor Paterson tjavascript:void(0)o resign get louder as 'Aide-gate' gets worse. Just do what feels right Governor!

what motivates a man like John Albert Gardner, III

I was privileged to meet James Dobson yesterday afternoon at the Opryland Resort, and upon reading this sobering story ("Man is arrested in San Diego teen's disappearance," Los Angeles Times), as I was contemplating what motivates someone to do this sort of thing, I was reminded of Dobson's groundbreaking interview (here) with serial murderer and rapist Ted Bundy, prior to Bundy's execution in Florida.

It is worth a listen.