Thursday, September 10, 2009
Joe Wilson - the beginning of British parliamentary style debate in congress
There is such a thing as tradition. And as a Conservative, I am always hesitant to experiment too much with changes in our traditions, but Obama’s speech to congress – in fact any Obama speech – almost demands that someone (or many some-ones) cry out “You lie!” at every pause.
I applaud Joe Wilson for beginning a new tradition. After all, they have to start somewhere.
Power Line Dissects Obama's Health Care Speech
Actually, the administration has said that around half the cost of the plan, $500 billion, would be paid for by cuts in Medicare. So it isn't exactly "demagoguery and distortion" to suggest that there might be cuts in Medicare.
[N]ot a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
I should hope not, since there isn't any Medicare trust fund, just like there isn't any Social Security trust fund.The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud...Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.
But wait! If we can identify hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and we know how to eliminate it, why haven't we done so already? Why don't we do so--right now!--regardless of the administration's highly controversial health care bill?
There is no possible answer to these questions. The Obama plan--whatever it is, once reduced to writing--depends for most of its financing on the bare assertion that we are currently wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, and that we will stop wasting that money only if taxpayers knuckle under to Obamacare.
This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.
New York Times admits being 'a beat behind' on Van Jones story. Now there's a surprise
New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson has admitted that the paper was just a tad slow in covering the scandal of Van Jones, the Left-wing extremist and 9/11 “truther” who had to resign as Barack Obama’s “Green Czar” after his revolting past was exposed.
Here’s Abramson’s risible explanation for the fact that her colleagues didn’t get round to covering the scandal until after Jones resigned:The Times was, in fact, a beat behind on this story. Why? One reason was that our Washington bureau was somewhat short-staffed during the height of the pre-Labor Day vacation period. This is not an excuse. Another is that despite being a so-called “czar,” Mr. Jones was not a high-ranking official. Nevertheless, we should have been paying closer attention.
Oh, what bollocks. Of course the New York Times was paying close attention to the story. It just chose not to write about it, because Jones was a black appointee of President Obama.
If, on the other hand, it had stumbled across a rumour that a junior member of the Bush administration had ignored a “Don’t Walk” sign when crossing the road, it would immediately have put a team of crack reporters and a zillion fact-checkers on the story. Isn’t that right, Jill?
Infant-mortality myths
Statistics, even at their best, don't tell a whole story. A variety of people employ medical statistics dubiously to push pet causes.
A perfect example: infant mortality statistics. The officially reported U.S. infant mortality rate has been indisputably high compared with similarly industrialized countries since at least the 1920s.
That fact has led to public health officials in the U.S. to conclude the rates are "caused" by poorly distributed health care resources and can be "solved" with a socialized, government-run health care system.
However, there's a basic problem with the numbers: Different countries count differently.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, all babies showing any signs of life - such as muscle activity, a gasp for breath or a heartbeat - should be counted as a live birth. The U.S. strictly follows this definition. But many other countries do not.
Switzerland doesn't count the death of very small babies, less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length, as a live birth, according to Nicholas Eberstadt, a former visiting fellow at Harvard's Center for Population and Developmental Studies. So comparing the 1998 infant mortality rates for Switzerland and the U.S. (4.8 and 7.2,respectively, per 1,000 live births) is comparing apples and oranges.
In other countries, such as Italy, definitions vary depending on where you are in the country.
Eberstadt notes "underreporting also seems apparent in the proportion of infant deaths different countries report for the first 24 hours after birth. In Australia, Canada and the United States, over one-third of all infant deaths are reported to take place in the first day."
In contrast, "Less than one-sixth of France's infant deaths are reported to occur in the first day of life. In Hong Kong, such deaths account for only one-twenty-fifth of all infant deaths."
As UNICEF has noted, "Under the Soviet-era definition ... infants who are born at less than 28 weeks, weighing less than 1,000 grams [35.3 ounces] or measuring less than 35 centimeters [13.8 inches] are not counted as live births if they die within seven days. This Soviet definition still predominates in many [formerly Soviet] countries. ... The communist system stressed the need to keep infant mortality low, and hospitals and medical staff faced penalties if they reported increases. As a result, they sometimes reported the deaths of babies in their care as miscarriages or stillbirths."
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Reagan vs. Obama in the Classroom
It’s interesting that Reagan gave a speech in which he praises America. As he leaves office he points with pride to America’s history, to its exceptionalism:
Over these 200 years, country after country has followed our path, and I believe that ultimately all nations will do so. It's no exaggeration to say that the political vision of our Founding Fathers has become the model for the world. This is true not just in the many countries that have turned from despotism to democracy these last years, it's also true even where it's least apparent. It's remarkable to realize that in this century even brutal totalitarian dictatorships kneel at the feet of our Founding Fathers when they try to counterfeit the practices and institutions of democracy in order to claim legitimacy for their ruling their people. Dictators today from Afghanistan to Nicaragua do not want to be called Czar or Commissar; they want to be called Mr. President and to pretend that they rule in the people's name, even if they don't. Yes, even Communist dictators holding power through force, against the will of the people, acknowledge the triumph of the American idea when they go through the motions of holding phony elections, forming rubberstamp legislatures to ratify constitutions that will not be honored, and then using our words to call their regimes democracies or republics.
As a wise Frenchman one wrote: ``Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.'' But when dictators, even in this fraudulent way, acknowledge the basic truth that the right to rule comes from the consent of the governed, the door to freedom begins to crack open, and it can't very easily be closed again. John Adams said that long before the opening shots of America's war for independence -- he was one of our Founding Fathers, as you know -- our revolution had already occurred ``in the hearts and minds of the people.'' And today from Asia to Africa to Latin America and behind the Iron Curtain, the world is in the midst of a democratic revolution that was foretold by the creation of the United States.
From the beginning, the American vision was that our country would be the cradle of freedom for all mankind. Two hundred and thirteen years ago, in Philadelphia, James Allen wrote in this diary that: ``If we fail, liberty no longer continues an inhabitant of this globe.'' But our Founding Fathers didn't fail. And now it's our duty to bring the values of the American Revolution to all the peoples of the world, and this is happening. Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world.
Read the entire speech: Reagan was a President who celebrated America before America’s children, reminding them – teaching them – why they should be proud of their country, that “Shining city on a hill.”
Contrast that with Obama and the message he left: study hard so that you can re-structure a broken country. Here's Obama:
What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.
You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.
Obama’s America is one of broken homes without fathers, a nation of drop-outs, druggies and bullies.
A nation whose students believe
…that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.
A nation that needs an Obama to fix up its schoolrooms, buy books and computers because that’s what Presidents do.
I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too.
In his own inimitable way, Barack Obama continued his apology tour – this time apologizing for America to its school children.
Obama bumper stickers
Go straight to Fascism
"Death Panels"
Pull the plug on grandma
Monday, September 07, 2009
It is now official: You are morons.
It is now official: You are morons.
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to
get it right; it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it
right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it
right; it is broke..
War on Poverty started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1
trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the
poor"; it hasn't worked.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to
get it right; they're broke
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it
right; it is broke
Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill
of 2009 shows NO sign of working.
And finally to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009!
So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that
"services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you
want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health
care system? 15% of our economy? Are you crazy?
Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! (And what does this say about
voters who put such pond scum in office...hmmm? Maybe we need to let
others in on this brilliant record before 2010 and just vote against
incumbents.)
So once again... it's official, you are ALL morons, I don't care what your
political leanings are.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
Self-censoring support of cop killers
... the conversation between Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman about the lessons of Van Jones was a complete scandal. One of Friedman's key take-aways from this whole affair is that too many people will self-censor themselves so they can get government jobs. What a tragedy that fewer people will support cop-killers and anti-American conspiracy groups because of poor Van Jones chilling effect on the culture.
And this from Team Obama on Jones:
I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on Meet the Press and This Week respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.
Compare this to the controversy over Lani Guinier, President Clinton's nominee to run the civil-rights division at the Justice Department. When her views came to light, president Clinton disavowed her. "This has nothing to do with the political center," Clinton insisted, "This is about my center." Who would have guessed that there's a case for saying Bill Clinton's center had more intellectual integrity than Barack Obama's?
No.10 turns on Obama and Clinton for criticising decision to release Lockerbie bomber
Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.
British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.
The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.
‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.
‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.
Tom Curley: Today's Slime Mold on the Surface of the MSM Pond
From Vanderleun:
Curley, an executive battening off the rotting hulk of the Associated Press, had ignored common decency and a direct appeal from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to refrain from publishing photographs of a dying United States Marine. Gates said,“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
Decency? For the chancre ridden media scum that infest our nation, decency is something they have never, ever heard of. Their lack of decency is something vermin like Tom Curley and all those who cash checks from the vile operation known as the "Associated Press" confirm with every day of their miserable existence.
Curley, it would seem, has appointed himself and his company, Associated Press, as truth czars in the war against war. Last February, this boil on the backside of humanity, declared that the news industry must immediately negotiate a new set of rules for covering war because "we are the only force out there to keep the government in check and to hold it accountable."
Ah, the neutral observer mask slips again. The question today is who will hold the AP in check and make it accountable? In light of Curley's action "Appalling" seems to be too slight a word. "Sorry," wouldn't cut it either. Indeed, nothing seems to be sufficient.
You see, in the world of the Curry's there are never any consequences. Even should he lose his job, even should the AP continue to crater, there will not be any "real" consequences for this kind of scum. At the very least, he'd swan on to a position at someplace like "The Aspen Institute" ("Dedicated to fostering enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue through seminars, policy programs.") where he'd continue to ooze his excrement into our society.
My friends all note that I have a distinct tendency towards bloody-mindedness when the normal level of daily outrage has been exceeded as it has today by Mr. Curley. It's not really bloody-mindedness, but only a nudge from my soul about justice denied. It's only shadow of a literary memory that, when I read about corporate media scum like Curley, causes me to remember this passage from Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities"The Gorgon had surveyed the building again in the night, and had added the one stone face wanting; the stone face for which it had waited through about two hundred years.
It lay back on the pillow of Monsieur the Marquis. It was like a fine mask, suddenly startled, made angry, and petrified. Driven home into the heart of the stone figure attached to it, was a knife. Round its hilt was a frill of paper, on which was scrawled:
"Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from Jacques."
Not to worry, it's only fiction, not the news according to the Associated Press. That Wikipedia edit was quickly erased and Tom Curley went back to being a stub. I'm sure that's where he'll stay.
Yobie Benjamin: Idiot with a word processor
When the Smithsonian opens its "Last Vestiges of the Newspaper Business" exhibit, Yobie Benjamin's masterpiece of propaganda will hold a hallowed position.47% of America voted for John McCain so it is fair to say that Fox cable news and the right wing's agent provocateur Glenn Beck has a lot of fans... [he] claims Obama's "civilian national security force" is "what Hitler did with the SS," "what Saddam Hussein" did. Beck also says Obama wants us all to work for ACORN or Americorps...From what I read from Media Matters and thorough scan of all of the President's speeches, he was talking about expanding AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps and the foreign service not some uniformed version of East Germany's Stasi.
Benjamin's use of Media Matters as a source is somewhat akin to relying upon a Magic Eight Ball for major life decisions.
Of course, Benjamin neglects to actually describe Obama's speeches referencing a "civilian national security force". The reasons he omits the transcripts are obvious:"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." -- Barack Obama,July 2008
President Obama asserts that the U.S. military cannot achieve national security objectives and that the country therefore requires a civilian national security force. His words, not mine.
What ObamaCare is set out to do.
Congress returns this week, and here's hoping that its members, Democrats in particular, learned a little something from this summer's town hall meetings. The lesson to be drawn from these occasionally raucous events is that America is on the verge of--or already knee-deep in--one of those moments that periodically roil the country and rearrange our preconceived notions about public life. And not a moment too soon.
Popular outbursts serve as a check on, and corrective to, our elites' behavior. The people know things the elites forget or don't want to remember. The political class is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. As Gerald Ford said after assuming the presidency on August 9, 1974, "Here the people rule."
For a while now, the message from Washington has been that we know what's good for the public, whether the public likes it or not...
And
The second thing that is motivating the new public outcry is a sense of estrangement from political decisionmaking. The worry that Obamacare will result in fewer personal choices and more government fiat is legitimate. That's what Obamacare is set up to do. The debate is not merely a matter of which inputs will produce--voilà !--the desired outcomes, as the Obamacrats think. It's about freedom and responsibility. It's about a family's ability to control its fate, an individual's ability to shape his nation's future.