Getting the nose under the tent...the foot in the door...insert own metaphor

Yesterday, N.S.Allen commented at length about how laudable are Democrats' efforts to "comprehensive[ly] reform healthcare" here. I responded half-heartedly about the inherent Liberal/statist creep of government, but Mark Steyn articulates the point splendidly in this op/ed over at NRO.com.

Cross the River, Burn the Bridge by Mark Steyn on National Review Online:

These details are obnoxious not merely in and of themselves but because they tell us the truth about where we’re headed: Think of the way almost every Big Government project bursts its bodice and winds up bigger and more bloated than its creators allegedly foresaw. In this instance, the stays come pre-loosened, and studded with loopholes. Because the Democrat operators — the Nancy Pelosis and Barney Franks — know that what matters is to get something, anything across the river, and then burn the bridge behind you.

My Republican friends often seem to miss the point in this debate: The so-called “public option” is not Page 3,079, Section (f), Clause VII. The entire bill is a public option — because that’s where it leads, remorselessly. The so-called “death panel” is not Page 2,721, Paragraph 19, Sub-section (d), but again the entire bill — because it inserts the power of the state between you and your doctor, and in effect assumes jurisdiction over your body. As the savvier Dems have always known, once you’ve crossed the Rubicon, you can endlessly re-reform your health reform until the end of time, and all the stuff you didn’t get this go-round will fall into place, and very quickly.

As I’ve been saying for over a year now, “health care” is the fast-track to a permanent left-of-center political culture. The unlovely Democrats on public display in the week before Christmas may seem like just a bunch of jelly-spined opportunists, grubby wardheelers and rapacious kleptocrats, but the smarter ones are showing great strategic clarity. Alas for the rest of us, Euro-style government on a Harry Reid/Chris Dodd/Ben Nelson scale will lead to ruin.

I also liked this excerpt from the op/ed:

Looking at the millions of Americans it leaves uninsured, and the millions it leaves with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay significantly more for their current health care, one can only marvel at Harry Reid’s genius: government health care turns out to be all government and no health care. Adding up the zillions of new taxes and bureaucracies and regulations it imposes on the citizenry, one might almost think that was the only point of the exercise.

Nicely said.

Mr. Baucus, please debate responsibly

I don't know whether Sen. Max Baucus was drunk in this floor speech (he may always struggle with being lucid and articulate), but it is interesting to hear him and other Democrats assert that Republicans weren't interested in bi-partisan healthcare reform.

It's interesting to me that Dems are so concerned about being solely credited/blamed with passing this healthcare legislation if said legislation is such a great idea. You guys have got the numbers, you don't need any assistance in passing this stupid bill. Why not go for it? That's the beauty of an overwhelming majority and the ability to deny politicians cover for all their duplicitous, dodgy blame-shifting.

In any event, here's a great synopsis of Conservative priorities for so-called healthcare reform. ("John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare" - WSJ.com)

Re. the Gentleman Jihadist: We dodged a bullet

Because of the Christmas holiday, I haven't read a whole lot about The Gentleman Jihadist story, but it is interesting to watch the reaction of politicians related to the whole matter.*

To be clear, I believe it would have been amazing for "authorities" to have been able to avert this act by the Gentleman Jihadist, so I am restrained about casting blame for what might have happened. (I'm also henceforth restrained from whining about not being able to take my 3.5 oz tube of toothpaste in my carry-on). That being said, those dismissive of the dangers we face and shrilly opposed to almost any preemptive security measures need to own certain aspects of this threat.

For example, in a NYTimes report we read:("Security System Failed, Napolitano Acknowledges" - NYTimes.com):

Privacy advocates, for example, have tried to stop or at least slow the introduction of advanced checkpoint screening devices that use so-called millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger’s body, so officers can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been hidden. Security officers, in a private area, review the images, which are not stored. Legislation is pending in the House that would prohibit the use of this equipment for routine passenger screening.

To date, only 40 of these machines have been installed at 19 airports across the United States — meaning only a tiny fraction of passengers pass through them. Amsterdam’s airport has 15 of these machines — more than just about any airport in the world — but an official there said Sunday that they were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United States, for a reason she did not explain. (emphasis added)

And I guess this is the rub in wanting to treat Jihadism as a criminal matter. Innocent until proven guilty falls short in a war context. But it surely fits the squishy, soft-headed mindset of today's Left. Not to mention it's an awfully easy pose to strike for the party who is not sitting in the Oval Office. But let's be clear that we dodged a bullet in this instance.






*President Obama--who is on vacation, hasn't said much, and that's okay from my perspective; though I don't recall a parenthetical statement such as "the White House Press office traveling with the President" in reports about Bush. Correct me if I'm wrong. Gosh, does this guy ever stop working on behalf of the American people?

Hope and Change for Jihadists!

I thought this was a peculiar quote in an article about the failed Detroit bomber:("Wealthy, quiet, unassuming: the Christmas Day bomb suspect" - The Independent):

Another significant factor is the report that the bomber was an engineering student at University College London. Dr Leivesley said that al-Qa'ida was recruiting people with engineering qualifications as well as highly placed scientists, particularly in the nuclear field.

"Al-Qa'ida is finding it difficult to recruit young people," she said. "And, interestingly, the election of Barack Obama is a factor in that, because, whatever you think of him as a president, the fact of him shows young people that there is an alternative to killing yourself. Al-Qa'ida is, however, targeting more highly skilled people." (emphasis added)

Whuh?

Yep. More money; less health care

Less Health Care for More Money - HUMAN EVENTS:

Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation's medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.

Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.

Please defend the "estate tax"

I'm interested to hear a defense of the "estate tax" from someone who supports it. ("No agreement yet on extending estate tax: Hoyer" | Reuters). In my opinion there is probably no better example of socialist tax policy that exists. Now that the question is so clearly loaded, any takers?

Hug a tree . . . and hose (seriously hose) your wife and family!!

From a Bloomberg op/ed on corporate values and Tiger Woods: (Tiger Woods and the Coming Decline of Celebrity Endorsements):

Green-values-oriented Nike is sticking with Woods for the moment, appearing to be rehabilitation-minded and comeback-oriented in other instances too. This fall, Apple, Excelon, and other companies dropped their memberships in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in disagreement with what they saw as the Chamber's foot-dragging on climate change policy. Nike kept its membership while resigning from the Chamber board in order to work for change from within, executives said. But the Chamber incident, too, is evidence that companies increasingly see that their values must be reflected consistently in every decision they make, every marketing campaign they run, and every partnership they form.

Dennis Miller on Climategate

The inimitable Dennis Miller's comments on Climategate:

Some of them are no doubt vaguely cognizant of the fact that they might have way overbet this hand and that there's now something much more important in play than the plight of the planet. And that of course would be their reputations and standing in the herd of man.

. . . .

In lieu of having the facts (i.e., the thermometer!) bear out their hypothesis, they are now going to have to get creative. They are going to have to press the bet now and steer into the delusional skid, and that sort of desperation makes for a really unsavory individual no matter how much good they are ostensibly doing for their fellow man.

Deniers will be disparaged, data will be fudged and theories will be advanced that are, if possible, even more wing-nuttier than some of the claptrap currently out there. If heretofore depictions of Manhattan under water in the year 2057 were shown to sixth-graders, they're going to have to drop it down to preschoolers in deference to the Gullibility Expansion Joint.

Way to go President Obama!!

These faux "quotes from the future" are hilarious . . . Obama already has stopped catastrophic climate change . . . in its tracks! Way to go President Obama!


World Leaders Send Apologies for Climate Change ... from the Future

UK's Blair says Saddam ouster right, without WMDs

Yep.

Blair articulately defends his decision on Iraq. And it drives people on the Left crazy that one of their few elected leaders won't yield to their intimidation.

Re. Obama's Nobel acceptance speech . . .

Conservative praise for Nobel speech - - POLITICO.com:

Added Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations: “If Bush had said these things the world would be filled with violent denunciations,” said “When Obama says them, people purr. That is fine by me.”

On climate: flawed premises produce flawed conclusions

Can we all agree that flawed premises lead to flawed conclusions? Okay, can we at least agree that flawed premises produce suspect conclusions? I guess not.

This article ("Sarah Palin, Dem greens' grinch" - - POLITICO.com) nicely illustrates the Left's efforts to distract from the damning--absolutely damning, revelations that leading global warming "scientists" were relying on deception and intimidation to promote their environmental agenda. Like the article implies, Sarah Palin (and other "Denialists") are attempting to steal the joy of what should be the HOLYday season for the Left. From the article:

[Democratic Congressperson] Ed Markey said he would welcome the Republicans in Copenhagen because they would be “exposed to the consensus the world has reached…They are in a very, very, very small minority on the planet.”"

Hey Ed, this purported "consensus" is built on the purportedly learned, unbiased, scientific conclusions of purportedly unbiased, honest scientists . . . premises all of which are severely in doubt based on the Climategate disclosures. What's there to "hide," Ed? What's there to "trick"erize? Since when does a scientist bury/destroy/misplace(!) data from which he's drawing conclusions?

Last night the family and I watched How the Grinch Stole Christmas, so pardon me while I run (the opposite direction) with Glenn Thrush's weak metaphor.

Climate alarmists like Al Gore are hoping they can shoo all us AGW skeptics back to our blissful slumber like little Cindy Loo-Who . . . who busts the Grinch stealing her Christmas tree.* In all candor, I think Ed Markey's brain is two sizes too small, and I pretty much believe that this whole climate alarmism scam will turn out alright in the end.



*Classic lines from imdb:
Narrator: As the Grinch took the tree, as he started to shove, he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove. He turned around fast and he saw a small Who. Little Cindy Lou Who, who was no more than two. She stared at the Grinch and said...
Cindy Lou Who: Santie Claus, why? Why are you taking our Christmas tree? Why?
Narrator: But do you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick, that he thought up a lie and he thought it up quick.
Grinch: Why my sweet little tot...
Narrator: The fake Santie Claus lied...
Grinch: ...there's a light on this tree that won't light on one side. So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear. I'll fix it up there, then I'll bring it back here.
Narrator: And his fib fooled the child. Then he patted her head, he got her a drink and he sent her to bed. And when Cindy Lou Who was in bed with her cup, he crupt to the chimney and stuffed the tree up. Then he went up the chimney himself, the old liar, and the last thing he took was the log for their fire. On their walls he left nothing but hooks and some wire. And the one speck of food that he left in the house was a crumb that was even too small for a mouse.

The World's Oldest [form of recruiting]?

This story ("N.C.A.A. Is Said to Inquire Widely of Tennessee’s Recruiting" - NYTimes.com) about an NCAA investigation of UT's football program was poignant after hearing Phillip Fulmer on 104.5 yesterday and thinking about how different he seems to be from Lane Kiffin. From the article:

The N.C.A.A. is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into the University of Tennessee’s football recruiting practices, according to interviews with several prospects, their family members and high school administrators. A significant part of the investigation is focused on the use of recruiting hostesses who have become folk heroes on Tennessee Internet message boards for their ability to help lure top recruits.

Ever since watching Hoop Dreams way back when, I have been intrigued by the recruiting process, and Tennessee's program seems rather innovative . . . and less carnal than is implied in several recent reports I've seen.




Tip 'o the hat to The City Paper.

On a lighter note . . .

It is amazing to me that a man the size of Shaq is able to dance like this:



As a friend has told me in the past, it is very difficult to fully appreciate the agility of NBA players without watching a game in person.

Yeah, Congress'll figure out the best way . . .

Kind of like the incredibly pointed question asked of Dallas Cowboys coach Wade Phillips after the Giants loss, why in the world would we entrust design of a sports championship to Congress? House panel takes step to force college football playoff - USATODAY.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House subcommittee approved legislation Wednesday aimed at forcing college football to switch to a playoff system to determine a national champion, over the objections of some lawmakers who said Congress had more pressing matters.

The bill, which faces long odds of becoming law, would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I football game as a national championship unless that title contest is the result of a playoff.

Circling the global warming wagons

This report linked at National Review's The Corner blog--about Global Warming wagon circling, is hilarious: "The Perils of Groupthink, Cont'd" - Jonah Goldberg.

An Inconvenient Peer Review, cont'd

Findings - Fracas Over Hacked Climate E-Mail Shows Peril of Spinning Science - NYTimes.com:

"In fact, one skeptic raised [a concern about drawing conclusions from two sets of data grafted together] in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of “grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,” immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.”

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don’t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.

Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians. Yes, some of the skeptics have political agendas, but so do some of the scientists. Sure, the skeptics can be cranks and pests, but they have identified genuine problems in the historical reconstructions of climate, as in the debate they inspired about the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium."

I love how Mann writes "to our knowledge." Sounds like a press secretary's resort to plausible deniability.

Jim Treacher's friendly chat with the global warming evangelist who lives in his head

Jim Treacher has scripted what reminds me of most any on-line "debate" with a global warming alarmist. Here's an excerpt:

"Do you really think you know more than scientists? They're scientists.

Yes, and science is a wonderful thing. It's improved our lives in countless ways. It also has nothing to do with what these frauds, and the useful idiots who believed them, have been pulling."

ClimateGate criminal?

Robert Tracinski at RealClearPolitics discusses another aspect to the Climategate scandal: ("ClimateGate: The Fix is In"):

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being 'confused' by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

I am skeptical that this is a criminal act, but I guess that depends on assertions that were made in grant proposals and the intent of these "scientists." In all candor (and Tracinski implies as much), I'm inclined to say that these fools sincerely believed the crap they were espousing . . . it was moral relativism mixed with arrogance that motivated them to quash dissent and do whatever was necessary to "be right."

Aunt B oughta like this report . . .

Most Aggressive Dog Breeds - Photos - WFTV Orlando

Covering their tracks on global "warming"

I guess this report should come as no surprise given that leading global warming alarmists had always blown off FOI (UK, US: FOIA) requests ("Climate change data dumped" - Times Online):

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

More Climategate reactions from "scientists"

From the WSJ:

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

Emphasis added.

Climategate in sum

Climategate is despicable on a host of levels . . . institutional censorship of opposing views, defamation, deception. Here's an excerpt from a great essay at Pajamas Media, "Climategate: The Skeptical Scientist's View":

As readers are now aware, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the main climate research center in Britain, has had 128 megabytes of secret emails and other data placed online by someone calling himself “FOIA.” A number of scientists have been trying for years to get the raw data possessed by CRU placed online, filing requests under the British Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Although required by law to release this information, CRU has not done so, or has claimed that the data were accidentally erased. We now have proof in the emails that the illegal withholding of information was intentional, and that the erasure of data was also intentional.

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

Emphasis added.

Tip o' the hat to Instapundit.

Meanwhile: here are some pathetic and almost humorous responses from Environmental Alarmists.

Wow, Arianna Huffington thinks we need to use more plastic . . .

Arianna Huffington has a post at her place entitled, "Will The Unemployment Disaster Be Obama's Katrina?". My first response (in my head, not audibly) was, "Of course not, Bush didn't cause Hurricane Katrina," but I figured that Huffington wouldn't share my perspective. As I read the essay, though, I realized how radically different was our difference of perspective. From the article:

His economic team's resistance to a second round of stimulus, 'lukewarm' reaction to Congressional jobs legislation, and prioritization of deficit reduction over job creation certainly has the feel of a taking-in-the-damage-from-2,500-feet flyover moment.

Wow. Then again, I guess you could say that Libs view economics like bad meteorology . . . giving a convincing forecast and then hand out raincoats with your logo on them.

Yep . . . "locked in" battle with the Left

Sorry, but I have to bring up I didn't notice or hear the phrase "locked in syndrome" the other day when reading about the guy who had been uncommunicative for 23 years. ("Paralyzed Belgium Man Was Awake for 23 Years" - ABC News).

A paralyzed Belgian man who spent the past 23 years incorrectly diagnosed as being in a vegetative state, was fully conscious and could hear everything around him the entire time.
. . . .
Finally, with a little help from a nurse who goaded the doctors, Chiappa was diagnosed as being "locked-in" rather than a vegetable. A massive stroke that hit the base of his brain had left him unable to move, but left his mind perfectly intact.

Neurologists say paralysis plays only one role in a complicated combination of impaired states that can trap a person in their body.

After seeing this story today, I googled "locked in" and "Schiavo" (as in Terry Schindler Schiavo--the relatively young woman at the center of the controversial case involving a loser husband wanting to put his estranged wife to death) and "locked in" and realized that the phrase only showed up in relation to the battle between Schiavo's loser husband and those--like her mother, who didn't think she should be deprived of oral nutrition and hydration. The little google exercise seemed to illustrate an epic clash of two world views.

Good thing this is an anomaly

My Way News - Pa. university students upset about fitness class:

A Pennsylvania university's requirement that overweight undergraduates take a fitness course to receive their degrees has raised the hackles of students and the eyebrows of health and legal experts.

Well, at least we don't have to worry about the gov't ever sticking its nose into our health and healthcare, right?

". . . it's only because of all the fact-checkers' copies"

My Way News - "Going Rogue" is going big:

Publisher HarperCollins said Friday that Sarah Palin's memoir sold 300,000 copies its first day, among the best openings ever for a nonfiction book. In 2004, Bill Clinton's 'My Life' debuted with sales of 400,000 copies. The year before, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 'Living History' started at 200,000.

TN gun ruling: whose Constitutional right is at stake?

Reuters is reporting . . . Tennessee judge blocks law allowing guns in bars | U.S. | Reuters

Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was 'fraught with ambiguity' and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an establishment met the criteria.

Legal gadfly Gordon Bonnyman's wife may be a bit of a gadfly herself; except she's a judge. Under what theory of "standing" does a restaurant owner sue against a law on behalf of patrons who might (or might not) be unsure about whether they're breaking the law? Regrettably, it appears that Judge Bonnyman, like her husband, is inclined to use the courts to legislate her policy preferences.

Bureaucratic boobs

Sister Toldjah nails the mammogram story ("Obama admin starts its health care 'cost cutting' measures")which probably could not come at a worse time for Obama and the Democrats as they prepare to foist government-run (aka "single-payer," "universal," "socialized," "public" etc.) healthcare on Americans. Nonetheless, the story reminded me of an interesting NYTimes article I came across a couple weeks ago--"Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?". . . about studies which reflect that early and often cancer screens may be catching cancers that would otherwise disappear on their own.

Healthcare is complicated stuff . . . it's comforting to think that gov't bureaucrats may soon be making all these decisions for us, huh?

So-called scientists

Here's a great article in the WSJ about emerging evidence of deception by so-called scientists working on global warming. Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor - WSJ.com. From the article:

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

Yep . . .

Higher Ed crisis!

The cost of higher ed is rising faster than the cost of health insurance . . . let's pull an all-nighter to solve the problem!



It is interesting to note that Democrats are in the process of "disadvantaging" non-governmental education loan companies . . . sounds a lot like the likely problems with making non-governmental health insurance companies compete with a "public option."

Back to the drawing board on same-sex "marriage"?

Yesterday, Maine voters became the 31st state body politic to reject same-sex "marriage," but Maine is unique in that the defeat at the polls came after a majority of the Maine legislature had approved of the concept.

Thus, the results of yesterday's referendum in Maine have national significance inasmuch as they lay bare the political strategy of homosexual activists like Tim Gill ("They won't know what hit them."-- The Atlantic). In sum, it's a little disingenuous to contend that the so-called legislative route is/was, pardon the pun, out in the open, as is implied in this TIME story. After Maine Gay-Marriage Defeat, Activists Look Ahead - TIME From the article:

In order to counter that argument [that homosexual marriage is being "foisted" upon Americans by "out-of-touch" judges], [attorney Mary] Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage there decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers who were friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than by decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign."

I'd say it's one thing to present an issue/platform squarely to voters and let them vote, and another to simply get people elected who covertly share your agenda. The latter looks more like a coup than republican government.

He invented climate-alarmism profiteering

Gore’s Dual Role - Advocate and Investor - NYTimes.com From the article:

Mr. Gore says that he is simply putting his money where his mouth is.

“Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” Mr. Gore said. “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.”

In an e-mail message this week, he said his investment activities were consistent with his public advocacy over decades.

“I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service,” Mr. Gore wrote. “As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way.”

It's one thing to be in business and another thing to be intimately involved in crafting the policies that lead to GOVERNMENT contracts. And you gotta love the word-smithing of "global warming pollution reductions." Read: Carbon Dioxide. Which reminds me of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

The audacity of spendthriftiness

Wow.
Obama team makes it official: Budget deficit hits record. By a lot. - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency:

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.

In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.

Waging Obama's non-war

BBC NEWS--"US warned on deadly drone attacks":

The US has been warned that its use of drones to target suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan may violate international law.

UN human rights investigator Philip Alston said the US should explain the legal basis for attacking individuals with the remote-controlled aircraft.

He said the CIA had to show accountability to international laws which ban arbitrary executions.

Drones have killed about 600 people in north-west Pakistan since August 2008.

At first I was struck at how this article hardly referenced our current Commander in Chief, but Obama is mentioned in the next-to-last sentence:

Mr Alston's warning came as US President Barack Obama reviews US strategy in the Afghan campaign.

Which leads me to think that drones may perfectly illustrate Obama's uninspired war-by-proxy strategy in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Sloppy policy thinking

I came across a great post (and seemingly great blog) via Post Politics this morning.

The writer is pointing out that some women resist Feminism because of its Big Gov't baggage more than its presumed stances on "social issues." From the article (The Libertarian Side of Global Feminism? « Cosmopolitan Conservative):

As a social conservative in America, you would think that my main issue with feminism would be abortion. However, it is feminism’s deep commitment to socialism that bothers me the most. Feminists believe that to empower women, you need to weaken men. In order to help the poor, you have to take away resources from the rich through taxes, lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws or quotas. Feminists believe that in order to change society, the federal government has to step in and pass a law. It’s as though freedom, wealth and liberty are in limited quantities and must be rationed out to the masses in different levels determined by arbitrary perceptions of discrimination.

If feminists spent more time trying to alter society’s perceptions instead of bullying people through lawsuits, mandates and laws, I believe that a lot many more Americans would embrace the movement. However, feminists have allowed their cause to be co-opted by the Democratic party in order to maintain political power and relevancy. They’ve sacrificed the “principles” of their movement for short-term gains. Allowing a political party to take o[]ver your movement only weakens it. (Sadly, that comes from watching Republicans all but destroy the fiscal conservatism on the right. )

As I thought about how easy it is to blur party and principles, I was thinking about the perils of sloppy thinking on policy. For example, her last point about the GOP and fiscal conservatism. It is tempting for all of us to put on the ideological cruise control. And thermodynamically speaking it does not work to just rubber stamp the activities of Political Party.

The Pup tent Dems

Interesting email from my inclusive friends at Democrats.com:

Dear Ned,
After months of debate, an overwhelming majority of Americans support a "robust public option" similar to Medicare.
And thanks to the heroic efforts of progressive activists, we have almost enough votes in the Senate and House to pass it.
The Democratic majorities in the Senate (60/40) and the House (258/177) are large enough to pass a "public option" even with no Republican support. But a handful of conservative "Democrats" are blocking the will of the Democratic majority.
These conservative "Democrats" refuse to listen to the Democratic voters who elected them. That means it's up to our Democratic leaders - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama - to persuade them.
Join the Democratic Donor Strike for a Robust Public Option . . .

I have missed the poll that showed "an overwhelming majority of Americans support 'a robust public option'" (though the quotation marks in the original email are indicative of hair-splitting, I think), and I like how they put the word Democrats in quotation marks when referring to those Democrats who are bucking purported overwhelming majorities.

Under moral siege

Somer Thompson Body Found: Sheriff Matches Birthmark, Clothing - ABC News:

As investigators examined a child's body found in a Georgia landfill, they hoped they wouldn't find what they were looking for. But a birthmark and clothing told them that they had, indeed, found 7-year-old Somer Thompson, who disappeared Monday while walking home from school in her Orange Park, Fla., neighborhood.
. . . .
[Clay County Sheriff Rick] Beseler said detectives are following up on leads today and trying to finish locating all of the more than 90 sex offenders who live in a three-mile radius around Somer's home.

(emphasis added) That is astonishing. 90 people who have committed sexual crimes. How could you not feel under siege, morally speaking, in that neighborhood?

While mowing the lawn the other day, I got to thinking about how far my personal morals--about pornography or "adult entertainment"--should influence the public policy I push. How open am I to being a Libertarian in political terms? I had watched some of Penn Jillette's "penn says" online videos and was wondering to what degree I could cooperate with him on public policy. (I had ventured to the site to watch Jillette's comments (profanity advisory) about a nasty confrontation with surely non-mean-spirited, tolerant, Liberal Tommy Smothers.) The report about Obama's laxening of Federal interest in laws (here) relating to marijuana use also got me to thinking about such things.

As I ruminated on the ramifications of Libertarian policies, I was thinking of comparisons with industrial pollution in a community or with other passive dangers to humans, but they all seem to fall short of the danger that messed up humans pose to humans. I suppose what constitutes moral pollution is more subjective than biological/environmental pollution. And though all people aren't affected the same way by their use of pornography or marijuana (or alcohol), laissez faire treatment of such vices would be a difficult argument to make to Diena Thompson today. How could she not be concerned about the impact--on appetites and psyches and families--of cultural messages and public policies reflecting the view that people are objects and self-gratification is harmless? Where are the appropriate moral and political boundaries?

I'm seriously interested in hearing different viewpoints on the matter . . .

Bad actors on several levels

Frankly, after watching a couple youtube clips of the infamous Heenes, there is certainly one element of their story that is rather incredible: the parents, Richard and Mayumi, have received acting instruction. From a CNN story ("Authorities: 'Balloon boy' incident was a hoax" - CNN.com):

The parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, met in a Hollywood acting school . . .

If they're guilty of this costly hoax, they are guilty of bad acting on various levels.

Thanks, AP, for giving us the expert's "qualifications"

This AZ sheriff has always fascinated me--especially the pink prison boxers and tents for inmates, so I was curious to hear about a dust up he is having with the Obama Administration. In the AP's report (here) of the controversy, they are careful to "qualify" the opinion of one legal expert:

Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office — like every other local police agency — can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up.

In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said.

'It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much,' said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

(emphasis added) This is almost humorous, if it wasn't so transparently biased and if its source wasn't so unduly influential at framing public debate. I'll be eager to see future background info on every legal scholar with a Liberal opinion.

Hey MSM, we need you to be our eyes and ears for the news, not our brains.

Ramming through healthcare "reform"

Yesterday while leaving the post office, I was targeted for a scam by two conmen (I'll share more about that in another post), and one thing that I realized as I interacted with these guys is how valuable a perception of haste is scamming a "mark."

I've been ruminating over a soundbite I heard from John F. Kerry the other day, something along the lines of, "We've been waiting since Teddy Roosevelt to do this" (in reference to socializing healthcare or whatever he's acting like this bill is going to do). That sounds about right and it's consistent with what I've been reading in Liberal Facism. The Dems' efforts on healthcare seem like a big rush for those of us who appreciate free markets (and free people), but maybe not for people like Kerry.

While radio channel surfing this morning I heard a great interview by Fred Thompson with healthcare expert James Capretta about the blushingly presumptuous (not to mention disingenuous) predictions from the Left about actual costs of current Liberal healthcare reform proposals. For example, the $821 billion estimate presumes $100 billion of reduction in fees paid to physicians that anyone in the know will admit are cuts that will not happen.

Another example was upwards of $100 billion that the Feds are presuming they can pass along to the States. Which was corroborated by candid statements from Gov. Bredesen. Terry Frank links to it at her place. terryfrank.net » Bredesen Predicts Even Larger Costs to Tennesseans

And now there's word (via Drudge) that Harry Reid is admitting the gross underestimate of likely costs for taxpayer-funded health insurance. Let's slow down a little Dems.

Al of Freddy's Fashion Mart fame speaks out on Limbaugh and NFL

From the master of division and incendiary-ness ("Group Cuts Ties With Limbaugh to Buy NFL Team" - FOXNews.com):

[Al] Sharpton added in a telephone interview that major sports leagues shouldn't welcome owners who are "divisive and incendiary."

Way to go TNRtL

It is intriguing to read Tennessee's Left (and Squishy Right) decry the TNDP's (a) failure to appreciate that "the Man" is more important than the party ("Why didn't they recruit a better $?%&@# Candidate?!?!?) and (b) failure to choose a candidate who was strong on their (Democratic) Principles while simultaneously assailing Tennessee Right to Life for making a non-partisan, principled choice to endorse a candidate who was solid on their issues over someone cool/arguably indifferent on their issues.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with Adam Kleinheider's assessment of the race . . . below is some of the less-informed buzz about Pat Marsh's win over Ty Cobb in the special election for Tennessee House District 62:

AuntB

Southern Beale


Left-wing Cracker

And comments at Post Politics.

Obama lets handlers handle this one

The question of where, if at all, the Obamas would attend church in D.C. had not even crossed my mind until I heard today that they were still church hunting. But I thought the following paragraph on the subject was ironic, given Obama's history of apparently indiscriminate pew-filling "Washington Churches Eye the Obamas" - NYTimes.com):

"Mr. Obama’s search for a church home has touched off a frenzied competition among ministers of various colors and creeds who are wooing the first family. The president, in turn, has sent emissaries to observe worship services, interview congregants and scrutinize pastors. (His aides even searched YouTube to vet one local minister.)"

(emphasis added) And later in the article we read this choice detail:

In January, Mr. Obama prayed at his first Sunday service here at Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, where hundreds of black professionals worship in a gleaming white sanctuary well beyond this city’s corridors of power. (The president took notes.)

(emphasis added)

Though I can hardly imagine how it is possible to be a part of a church when you are president or a president's family member, godspeed in finding your church, Mr. President.

Obama's Nobel [Ap]Pea[s]e Prize?

The whole "story" about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is fascinating to me. Sour grapes (here) might explain some of my feelings upon hearing the news, but really it is more of plain ol' disbelief. I think even honest Liberals would admit they couldn't believe the news when they heard it.

And it has led to an interesting car conversation with my 10-year-old. When I told her the news, and my take on it (the award was based on what Obama had promised to do) she really impressed me by referring to a joke she had told me about a year ago (aren't young minds impressive?). Here's the joke.

But what prompted this post was something from Jay Nordlinger at The Corner on National Review Online providing some interesting back story about the Nobel Prize:

I’ve read some commentary that the Nobel Committee has handed Obama a “poisoned chalice,” because now his freedom of action will be constrained: How can he take military action, when necessary — or persevere in war, when necessary — while holding the title of “peace laureate”? As it happens, this issue arose in Norway, about Norway, long ago. Let me explain.

Continue reading about the Nobel Prize's poison chalice history here.

Because Norwegians don't get to vote in American elections . . .

This paragraph provides all the necessary context for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's controversial pick of simply-successful-presidential-candidate Barack Obama ("Nobel Committee Courts Controversy Over Obama Peace Prize Decision" - WSJ.com):

The committee has also been criticized for political bias, especially after it awarded the Nobel to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007 -- moves that were both seen as rebukes to the then U.S. President, George W. Bush.

UPDATE: Thankfully, even Obama supporters are acknowledging--and calling the Nobel Committee out regarding, this silly decision.

PostPartisan - A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks?:

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

'Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

Amazing software not-too-crudely "automates" graphic design

PhotoSketch: Internet Image Montage from tao chen on Vimeo.

Unhealthy healthcare

Deroy Murdock shares some salient data on how unhealthy government-run healthcare is ("Government Medicine Kills"):

The Senate Finance Committee should sink Obama-Baucuscare and instead craft a patient-friendly, pro-market, limited-government approach to health-care reform. Perhaps some senators cannot fathom the Hippocratic Oath’s key insight: First, do no harm. If that’s Greek to them, here it is in language they understand: First, don’t kill your voters.

Iron[ies] of ironies

While reading about Ahmadinejad's Jewish heritage, I happened upon a photo album on the Telegraph's (UK) website. The album's introductory copy reads:

When Lennart Nilsson's pictures of developing embryos were published in Life magazine in 1965, they caused a sensation. Within days, the entire print run of eight million had sold out. More than 40 years later, the photographs have lost none of their power.

(emphasis added) I agree, and I encourage you to give 'em a look see. ("A Child is Born: Photographs of the foetus developing in the womb," by Lennart Nilsson)

But I had to comment on the irony of the caption beneath a stunning photo of a two-month old "embryo" (here):

Eight weeks. The rapidly-growing embryo is well protected in the foetal sac

Well, in light of Liberal American abortion policy, not really protected.

Which reminds me of the 40 Days for Life being conducted locally by Nashville Right to Life through Nov. 1st. I just read this account of a conversation between a crisis pregnancy counselor and a woman who changed her mind about getting an abortion:

She told me that she already had four children, was not financially sound, and had to work full time. She then added, "But that's not my baby's fault."

(40daysforlife.com)

The Olympics whiff

A couple of finger-pointing references in articles over at Drudge got me to thinking about what would have motivated the Obama to go to such lengths on behalf of getting the 2016 Olympics bid. Which led me to this intriguing article about the person--Valerie Jarrett, who led Obama et al down this path. Based on her bio, it's going to be unfortunate if she continues as the proverbial power behind the throne.

Polanski case as litmus test

Jonah Goldberg of National Review nicely states the litmus test-y nature of the Roman Polanski matter ("Polanski Controversy Shouldn’t Be Controversial") From the op/ed:

It all boils down to the fact that Polanski is famous and talented and an Olympian artist, living above the world of mortals. Indeed, if he didn’t rape that girl — and he did — Polanski would still be considered a pig in most normal communities. This is the man who, after all, started dating Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15 and he was in his 40s. His taste for teenage girls is an established fact.

His defenders don’t care. They are above and beyond bourgeois notions of morality, even legality.

And that’s the main reason I am grateful for this controversy. It is a dye marker, “lighting up” a whole archipelago of morally wretched people. With their time, their money, and their craft, these very people routinely lecture America about what is right and wrong. It’s good to know that at the most fundamental level, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

The American Infant Mortality Myth

Speaking of (ahem) lies in the healthcare debate Ann Coulter e_v_i_s_c_e_r_a_t_e_s the we-need-socialized-medicine-because-of-infant-mortality-rates myth* here.





*here, here, here . . .

Yarbro--now THAT'S progressive!

In announcing a District 21 primary challenge against "Dean of the Senate" Douglas Henry (D-Nashville) Jeff Yarbro offers this critique of Henry:

Too often, our elected representatives have spent more time playing partisan politics than supporting our schools, creating jobs, fighting crime, and improving our health. The Tennessee General Assembly is failing to address either the short-term economic crisis or the long-term challenges facing our state.

(emphasis mine) Surely Yarbro isn't accusing Doug Henry of this? Yarbro doesn't showcase any Liberal policies on his campaign site, but he is careful to sprinkle the word "Progressive" here and there. No doubt Henry gets under the skin of folks like Chip Forrester. I guess Yarbro wasn't willing to take on Jim Cooper?

The Whoopi cushion speaks . . . on "rape-rape"

Roman Polanski: backlash as Whoopi Goldberg says director didn't commit 'rape-rape' - Telegraph:

Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film director Roman Polanski didn't commit 'rape-rape' when he had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

And her flatulent ignorance on the facts of the case are astonishing.

Whose pro-life priorities?

Adam Kleinheider pronounces Tennessee Right to Life unwise in endorsing the more pro-life candidate (Post Politics: Right to Life makes wrong choice endorsing Democrat):

So why, on the cusp of victory for the political party that carries it's legislative portfolio, would the premier pro-life organization in Tennessee endorse the Democratic candidate? Why did TNRTL endorse Cobb?

The TNRTL endorsed him for the same reason a child defies a parent or a wife cheats on an emotionally distant husband. They wanted to be noticed. If the TNRTL had simply gone along and endorsed the Republican candidate, it would have been expected. But, by endorsing the Democrat, the TNRTL got to make a splash. They sent a message.

Yeah, and what is the message? That after 36 years of abortion on demand--an overwhelmingly minority position (here--and btw, ACK is relying on old polling data), Tennessee Right to Life expects more than lip service on their issue.

At least the sex predators are safe . . .

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an "older man." At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings, is President Obama's "safe school czar.

McCarthyism motivates the Hondurans!

The AP (here)nicely slants this story against those supporting Rule of Law in Honduras with this nice characterization of what happened there . . . they were skeered of them Commies!!!

In June, the country's Congress and courts, alarmed by Zelaya's political shift into a close alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuba, backed the president's removal.

Vols make us proud

I liked this sentence from CBS' Dennis Dodd (While Vols stand tall, Gators at a loss after win):

Oh, you haven't heard? Tennessee defeated Florida 13-23.

A legal but perverse stimulant

I've always heard (and believed, for the most part) that aggressive tax-avoidance measures (aka "availing oneself of tax benefits") were justified because we were doing what the government wanted us to do. Well, it was interesting to find that exact line of reasoning in this blog post about how citizens are spending their stimulus-sourced monies.

“We did exactly what the government wanted us to do,” said Ms. Myers, a third grade teacher. “We stimulated the economy.”

Sorry, but no. All of these Cash for ________ programs do not "stimulate the economy." They encourage people to spend instead of save and buy this instead of that. Tax rate cuts, on the other hand, encourage people to work harder, increase productivity and grow the economy. Under Obama, we're getting more redistribution and higher tax rates — exactly the opposite of economic stimulus.

I find it hard to fault the couple in this article, but I have to concur with NR's Stephen Spruiell that no matter how innocuous the stimulus' intentions, it very often would qualify as a perverse incentive.

Racism behind every tree (UPDATE)

I was disturbed by the headline on Drudge that mentioned the race of a victim in a "beat[ing]": "WHITE STUDENT BEATEN ON SCHOOL BUS; CROWD CHEERS." I am bothered by racism, wishing that we could somehow move beyond or through our country's (and our world's) troubled history on the subject. Indeed, a flippant accusation of racism by Mike Lupica today gave me a similar feeling (criticizing Conservative protestors thusly: "Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren't enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.") Accordingly, I am always concerned that race be injected into--or hastily raised as a factor in, a given situation.

So I followed Drudge's link ("Tape shows beating on bus of Belleville West student" - STLtoday.com), and from reading the story, it appears that this is an example of a bully or bullies (or in a more modern articulation, "thugs") who perpetrated on a harmless victim--a guy who had the audacity to sit where a thug told him he couldn't.

I don't know anything about Belleville, Illinois, but a police spokesman seemed to jump to a racist conclusion:

"In my estimation, it's racially motivated," said Capt. Don Sax of the Belleville Police Department. He said one reason he had formed this opinion was that many of the students, most of whom were black, yelled their support for the beating.

"There was absolutely no justification for the beating either time," Sax said.

The still picture of the incident seems to reflect that a majority of the kids close to the incident were non-caucasians, yet the article says that, "students intervened to help the victim both times" (though "the crowd's" reactions generally reflect a disturbing moral poverty, too).

I won't deny that our society is coarsening, in general, but it is counter-productive in a variety of ways to summarily categorize such problems as motivated by race.

UPDATE: Ex-President (yes, picture the "Ex" who could never get the message) Jimmy Carter weighs in on the racial aspects of socializing healthcare . . . maybe Carter reads Mike Lupica.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE II: It gets worse . . . from RealClearPolitics.com:RealClearPolitics - Why Can't We All Just Get Along?:

"'Surrounded by middle-aged white guys -- a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't,' declared Maureen Dowd in her Saturday New York Times column. 'But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!'

Of course, it's fair. If inserting a racial epithet into a quote is wrong, I don't wanna know what's right. It is, moreover, common knowledge that middle-aged white men are bigots. If there's a problem with Dowd's premise, it's that Wilson likely lacks the intellect to string together more than two words per sentence. He is from South Carolina, after all."

Joe Wilson and there's safety in numbers

This op/ed from Mike Lupica, "whoever he is," inspired me (way to go Mike Lupica!!) to revisit the subject of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). ("Shrill shouters betray post-9/11 promises to be best we can be")

While I do not condone what Wilson did, I also didn't condone what other joint sessions of Congress have done during presidential addresses. The same could not be said of many from the Left who are attempting to make hay from the Wilson incident. As I've pointed out previously, it appears that the key in avoiding Lefty fire and brimstone for such a thing is to (a) be a Democrat, (b) make sure you have a crowd of other hecklers on your side, or (c) make sure you have the MSM on your side (that's kind of redundant with (a), isn't it?)

Marriage should be honored by all

Here's a great op/ed from NR's K-Lo on the state of marriage (and adultery) in America.

Wilson was rude, but "precedented"

I posted earlier this week (here) about Joe Wilson's outburst during the Obama's healthcare homile, in sum, I thought his heckling was not cool even if his assertion was correct. But it appears that he may have gotten the wrong idea about how to conduct oneself during a presidential address from . . . (drumroll) . . . Democrats:



From this video, it is fair to conclude that Wilson's problem was that his rudeness wasn't lost in a sea of rudeness from his fellow party members.

Update: Franken party trick

This is impressive. Al Franken freehands a surprisingly accurate map of the U.S.



I'm kind of interested to hear the audio of his running commentary . . . (UPDATE: here's an example of it--not flattering to Franken, candidly).


UPDATE II: While I still think it's cool, its sheen was a little diminished when I realized that he has been doing this for more than 20 years.

Re. healthcare reform lies and distortions . . .

You've likely heard the Dems' focus-grouped talking points about "lies and distortions" from opponents of socializing medical insurance. Well, in this week's column, Ann Coulter addresses the following Liberal lies about (Liberal) healthcare reform proposals: (Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series)

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job"

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

Republican Joe Wilson's heckling not cool

The outburst by Joe Wilson (Wilson the congressman, not the one who outed his CIA agent wife) during Obama's umpteenth national address last night was not cool. ("Obama heckled by GOP during speech: 'You lie!'" It was a breach of decorum and it was unprofessional.

That being said, I've always admired and kind of enjoyed the Brits' practice of Prime Minister's Questions.

Obama's speech: loco parents or in loco parentis?

One last thing (maybe) about Obama's homeroom assembly for public school kids K-12. The Left's response to criticism about the speech and accompanying lesson plans has been intriguing. Sure, some of the outrage was from people who see a socialist plot behind every Obama-era tree. But a lot of the outcry is/was from parents because the Obama Adminstration's strategy (yes, "strategy") upset, in my estimation, the delicate relationship parents have with schools. Parents rely on teachers and schools to exercise discretion in how they influence our kids, and the intent of this campaign (based on the pre-public-outcry lesson plans, really) was unsettling to many. Charles Krauthammer said something along these lines late last week:

Look, this was never about content. We were not going to have the president urging eight-year-olds to come out in favor of high taxes as patriotic. And anything he said would be perfectly OK, it will be “tie your shoelaces and be nice to your neighbor.”

What is odd and creepy is the conception of government that underlay whoever it was in the Education Department — and it could have been a plural — to have a question [for the kids to write about]: 'How can you help your president?'

That is not innocuous. Look, it is not going to do any real damage. We're not going to have people chanting poems about their Dear Leader. The question is that that kind of thing — about a relationship between the child and the president — is extremely odd. A child has a relationship with a parent or with a teacher, later a mentor or a coach, but not a president.

A child swears allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, but not the man who happens to be sitting in the White House. That's the difference between a 'popular democracy' (which is really a dictatorship) and a constitutional democracy.

And the idea that you would want a child to have any relationship with a president is odd. He shouldn't have any at all.

Update: NBC says (here), "A lot of the parents complaining aren't smart enough to raise them very effectively." I'm just sayin' . . .

Re. Van Jones: "lies"? "distortions"?

Of course Van Jones would shamelessly would flat-out deceive about his critics, but what is Dr. Dean, M.D.'s excuse?Van Jones decries 'lies and distortions,'quits as Obama's environmental advisor -- latimes.com:

The only person Sunday to offer a defense of Jones was former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has emerged as a titular leader of the country's liberal movement.

Dean told 'Fox News Sunday' that Jones was "brought down," and he called it a "loss for the country."

He said that he had spoken with Jones, and that Jones should not be held responsible for signing the Sept. 11 petition.

"He was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else," Dean said. "I think that's too bad."

Well, I think it's too bad that you have such contempt for Americans' intelligence. And it is interesting to see that Democrats aren't apologizing for Jones' Commie-ness.



For the record, I don't ever recall demanding or calling for Van Jones' resignation . . . I just think it's valuable to tar and feather a Marxist, though not run him out of town on a rail. Maybe people like me are who Jones was thinking of when he stated he had, "received encouragement from across the political spectrum to 'stay and fight.'"

Elementary principles of Obama's cookie jarred hand

Well, Liberals and Obama supporters are mocking concerns about plans by the Obama administration to speak directly to every school-aged child in America. But even though Democrats are flooding the media with fresh claims that the message was "to be about the need to work hard and stay in school," the facts are that this is their revised message. From reports:

"The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to 'help the president.'
. . . .
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.'

Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what 'the president wants us to do.'
. . . .
Presidential aides also acknowledged to [the Washington Times] that they helped the U.S. Education Department write the suggested assignments, which stirred criticism by many who say Obama is trying to indoctrinate the education system."

In light of the creepy Pledge of Allegiance (to Obama) video (here), and the original lesson plans disseminated by Obama's Department of Education (and "presidential aides") non-koolaid-drinking parents legitimately questioned the motives and intent of this virtually unprecedented maneuver.

UPDATE: Libs (in this case blogger Mark Brown) are pulling out all the Soros-funded tools to defend the Obama administration's blatant political overreach. Holding up a Q&A by Reagan with four groups of middle school-aged visitors to the White House (here) and history teaching mat'ls available at the Reagan Library. Come on, just admit that you got busted Libs and we can all move on.

Ferrier's flagellation and flailing

Lindsay Ferrier waxes nostalgic about the heyday of divorce and career-obsessed parents in today's City Paper. (Suburban Turmoil: "Blame Bellevue’s zombies," Nashville City Paper). Speaking about how children of That 70s Single Mom are screwing up, Ferrier writes:

Now, their children quietly go about the business of undoing all their work. We will give our kids the happy playground, the landscaped flowers, the cookie-cutter house, the neighborhood pool. We will fight harder to stay married, and beat ourselves up more if we fail. We will haunt our children’s schools and recitals and sporting events. We will be there, dammit, when they get home from school.

We will stumble through parenthood together, a generational mob with only one thing on what remains of our minds: giving our kids the childhood we think we should have had. And in true horror tradition, we will do far more damage than mere mortals could.

Look, I typically enjoy Ferrier's writing, and she is understandably troubled by quasi obsessive-compulsive parenting and living. But this essay constitutes a non-curative combo of self-flagellation and flailing at all the wrong culprits.

Lindsay, go buy your mother an afternoon at the spa or communicate your appreciation in a keepsake letter on nice stationery. I'd bet that she wouldn't take up arms for either side in the Mommy Wars. Ultimately, life/parenting/marriage are simple, though they're rarely easy. But please spare us any paeans to the mythical Enjoli ethic.

Classless and stupid

Not only is the statement--by Obama czar Van Jones, that "Republicans are a**holes," offensive, the premise of it is laughable: that Republicans were able to ram through unpopular legislation while "bi-partisan" Obama and the Democrats have been stymied these past eight months:

Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark

"Republicans are the ones really pulling the plug on grandma."

Lefty partisan hackery (from Jacob Weisberg writing in Slate) takes one on the glass chin: Weisberg Unplugs the Logic Machine - Ramesh Ponnuru - The Corner on National Review Online. Hopefully Weisberg is embarrassed, but hey, whatever it takes to socialize medicine, right?

Following the science indeed . . . on "global warming"

"Global Warming and the Sun" by Jonah Goldberg. From the op/ed:

I applaud [Climatologist Gerald] Meehl’s reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. For all I know, he’s right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

A different kind of Kennedy

Ross Douthat writing in the NYTimes . . . "A Different Kind of Liberal":

Only 13 days separated the passing of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the founder of the Special Olympics, from the death of her brother Ted last week. But amid the wall-to-wall coverage and the stream of retrospectives for the senior senator from Massachusetts, it was easy to forget that he wasn’t the only famous Kennedy sibling to enter eternity this month.
. . . .
Along with her husband, Sargent Shriver, Eunice belonged to America’s dwindling population of outspoken pro-life liberals. Like her church, she saw a continuity, rather than a contradiction, between championing the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed and protecting unborn human life.

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.