I've got an idea ...

Regent to fill Kennedy's seat?

The widow of the late U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy should be considered as an interim appointee to represent Massachusetts in his place, two U.S. senators said.
Senators Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, and Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday on CNN’s “State of the Union” they could support Kennedy’s widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy as an interim senator if Massachusetts allows a temporary appointment before a special election.

See, a regent fills a spot until the royalty is ready to assume their position.

Kennedy actually benefited from the former Massachusetts law. After his brother John won the presidency in 1960, a family friend was appointed to hold the seat until Ted Kennedy was old enough to run in a special election in 1962 -- his first election to the Senate.

So ... it's obvious that the seat belongs to the Kennedys, so which will step up? Perhaps nephew Joe?

Behold: a TRUE reader

Amide everything going on right now, especially in Michigan, one would think that Deputy Editorial writer Brian Dickerson would have more important pieces to write than the one that appeared in today's Detroit Free Press.

Give President Barack Obama's staff credit for leaving the boss some wiggle room: No one promised Obama would actually finish the five books the White House says were on the president's vacation reading list

Of course Obama couldn't have read all the books he took on vacation, but that's ok, because Bush was an idiot.

I like to think Obama has no interest in emulating his immediate predecessor, who (if his less than scrupulously honest chief adviser, Karl Rove, is to be believed) considered reading a competitive sport.
*****
The competition, he asserted, had started early in Bush's second term and quickly "spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read," Rove wrote, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- it's 'Total Lateral Area.' "

How horrible to reduce reading to some sort of contest. Certainly anyone who advocated such a thing would be little more than a rube. Unfit to either teach or lead out country. But, moving on ...

No, Obama's reading (whether he read his books last week or not - I'm gussing "not") is totally different.

You don't have to know the Total Lateral Area of Obama's pages to intuit that he is a more serious reader than Bush ever was.

The difference is most clearly manifest in the incumbent president's own writing. It's not that his books and speeches are sprinkled conspicuously with literary allusions; the self-conscious Obama is too wary to parade his inner nerd so conspicuously.

But even Obama's casual utterances betray a sensitivity to language that only those who have spent a good deal of their lives reading (and rereading) great writers acquire.

Get off your knees, Dickerson. It's embarrassing.

But, the gist of this piece is that certainly Obama didn't read all those books. He would have had to read over 300 pages a day to get through them all. No, Obama released his reading list in order to inform us lesser mortals as to what we should be reading.

The best thing about releasing your reading list, if you happen to be the best-known bookworm on the planet after Oprah, is the opportunity it affords to promote authors you wish other people, and especially voters, would read.

Tom Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded," which is subtitled "Why We Need a Green Revolution -- and How It Can Renew America," is, in many ways, an extended argument for a policy posture Obama embraced long ago. There isn't much here the president doesn't know, but he knows his job will be easier if another 50,000 people read Friedman's book.

I though he read that book last summer? You know, when he used it in his stump speech? Details like these don't bother Dickerson, despite the fact that he quoted the book right here in Michigan.

Regardless, thank GOD we no longer have a president who read books in some sort of redneck competition, and now instead have one who pretends to read.

Detroit unemployment

28.9% YEA DEMOCRATS!!! WOOT WOOT.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth statistics show Detroit's unemployment rate of 29-percent is the highest since 1970. Unemployment in all of Wayne County is 19-percent. The state's unemployment rate, 15%, is the highest in the nation.

Henry Rollins

On Ted Kennedy.

Funny comments:

n her youth, Laura Bush was also involved in a hit-and-run that killed her ex-boyfriend. She hasn't been criticized for that her entire life. What is the statute of limitations on a tragic--and perhaps even preventable-- accident? I don't know. But life goes on and eventually you have to judge someone by more than one act.

Ah ... the "BUT BUSH ..." defense. Laura ran a stop sign, didn't leave the scene of the crime, was sober ...


It's nice of you to remember Mary Jo at such a convienent time. Is Ted Kennedy ever to be allowed forgivness for making an awful drunken mistake? Or is going to be dragged through the mud yet again by grat minds like you in one of your 'I was just thinking' colums. The man went on to become one of the great senators in U.S. history by being able to reach across the aisle and have legislation passed that helped millions of poor Americans live better lives. I've did a lot of really stupid shit when I was drinking, some escapades causing great harm and near death. It could be my legacy, hopefully I'll do a fraction of the good Ted Kennedy's done to make up for all the stupid things I did while drunk.

Some of us have been remembering Mary Jo for .... ever. Kennedy doesn't get forgiveness because he never made any atonement. In fact, he apparently enjoyed a good Chappaquiddick joke! An awful drunken mistake? Understatement of the year.

But, this comment really gets it right:

So, he was effective as a Senator. And, I am sure he was pleasant to be around when he wasn't in his cups and if you were not a gropable female. However, Teddy Kennedy had a sense of entitlement and got away with things that no one should have gotten away with, first the Manslaughter/Murder of that poor woman and then many drunken offenses against women who were not in positions of power. What a feminist icon!

Yes, a feminist icon. Mike Kelley on Kennedy:

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.

Sexual assault is only an anti-woman act when it's done by conservatives. See: Bill Clinton.

Why no tort reform?

Just ... wow:

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.

“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician,” said Dean. “Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”

Poor Obama

Ready for this? Sit down. Oh, never mind, you're prolly already sitting down. Chris Matthews, yesterday:

What do you make of this whole thing about the good economic news out there the president gets no credit for?" Matthews said on his Aug. 25 show. "I'm in the stock market. I have suffered like others before and I have seen this comeback - back up to almost 10,000 now. He gets nothing for this. The fact that consumer confidence, which was once closer to the bone, is way up. The fact that the Fed chair has done such a good job in pumping up the money supply and pumping back the economy, and averting a Great Depression - no credit."

I guess the media's just biased, Chris. I mean things are just BOOMING, and why no love for Obama? I mean, just look at the unemployement numbers.

The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday.
"If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.

Moving on ..

I know, it's a JOBLESS RECOVERY. Oh, wait, those are bad too, right.

The "You can keep your insurance" lie

Let's review this carefully.

To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.
And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21.

If your current (private) insurance doesn't meet this criteria, they have five years to adjust, and then you'll have to switch to the government plan if the proper changes haven't been made .

The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance.

Guess those 89.5 million don't matter? Additionally, if any significant changes are made to your current policy, again you get dumped into the government-run program.

If you have a HSA, which I do, you're screwed.

Finally, the bills would all but eliminate Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), currently used by nearly 10 million Americans. Section 122 of the House bill and 311 of the Senate bill set minimum payout levels for any insurance policy. Insurance payouts must cover 70 percent of claims under the House bill and 76 percent under the Senate bill. And the bills also prohibit any deductibles or co-payments for preventive care.
But virtually none of the high-deductible insurance plans in existence today, and required to accompany an HSA, can meet such a standard. They are simply not designed to work that way. The result will be that a plan designed to those specifications would offer few if any advantages over traditional insurance and would not be competitive in today's markets.
As a result, insurers warn they would stop offering high-deductible policies.

So, I NOW have to change my policy, or I'm going to get dumped into the public option.

Think my "outrage" is manufactured? Want to call me a tea-bagging, Rush-listening, Fox-watching robot? Go ahead, but your inability to address my honest concerns, my authentic outrage, makes you look like a Kos-reading, Olberman-watching, Randy Rhodes listening idiot.

h/t : SeaNm

Summer Reading, deja vu

heh/. I mean, it's almost as if he's carrying around a pile of books in order to look smart.

Looks like President Obama is one slow reader.

The commander in chief's list of beach books for his Martha's Vineyard vacation includes an environmental best seller that he bragged about reading almost a year ago on the campaign trail.

Obama was so taken with Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" that he quoted it at a rally last September in Flint, Mich., and one media outlet described it as the book that was currently on the then-candidate's nightstand.

The 448-page book appeared again on Monday on the list of five books that Obama planned to read on his vacation in Martha's Vineyard.

Personally, I like to carry "The Black Book of Communism" to impress folks. Doesn't usually work, 'cause peps don't usually know what it is.


What book do YOU carry around to impress people?

With hip waders on ... I visit the fetid swamp

I don't know why, 'cause I have better things I should be doing RIGHT NOW, but this sucked me in. Kennedy's Medicare for all:

Medicare for All Act - Amends the Social Security Act to add a new title XXII (Medicare for All) under which: (1) each eligible individual is entitled to benefits which include the full range and scope of benefits available under the original fee-for-service program under parts A (Hospital Insurance) and B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) of title XVIII (Medicare), with parity in coverage of mental health benefits, subject to appropriate cost sharing; (2) each enrollee is free to choose his or her own doctor and private health plan; and (3) benefits are not less than the benefits offered to Members of Congress and Federal employees under FEHBP (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).
Establishes the Medicare for All Trust Fund.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose: (1) on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.7% of wages received; (2) on every employer an excise tax equal to 7% of the wages paid to each employee; and (3) on the self-employment income of every individual, a tax equal to the applicable percentage of the self-employment income for such taxable year.

Ok ... so an almost 9% tax on everyone. 9% in addition to all the other taxes they pay.

Great.

Those geniuses at Kos are claiming Medicare for all is a "Civil right." I weep for our educational system.

An Anti-boycott

I think I'm going to start shopping at Whole Foods. Who's with me?

Obama and Statism

From Victor Davis Hanson.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

I've argued over the dinner table that Obama's election was an alignment of the stars. It wasn't just about Obama, but the radical ideology that lurked behind his "Hope and Change" demeanor. Radicalism that took root in the '60s (although the roots go further back) in the minds of students; students who have now risen to positions of power in Universities and the media, among other places, to support the snow-job done during the last election. Many people didn't vote for a radical knowingly; they denied he was one. Many are still denying it today. Despite what Obama and those around him said.

But, he told us that radical organizations would shape his agenda.

He told us that he would create a Civialian national sercurity force that rivaled the military

Rahm told us he supported Universal Service, that wasn't mandatroy, but required.

Obama told us that he believed in spreading the wealth around.

Obama stated that thinks that the constitution lists "negative rights" and needs to be fixed to state what the government should do on your behalf.

He told us that under his plan electricity rates would skyrocket.

His wife told us Barack wouldn't allow us to be unengaged.

Obama told us he would fundamentally transform America.

And, the simple response from the left every time anyone criticizes the policies coming out of the White House is that those opposed are simply flat-out racists.

I don't oppose universal healthcare, I'm just a racist. I don't oppose Cash for Clunkers, I'm simply a racist. I don't oppose the 9 trillion of debt we're running up, I'm simply a tea-bagging racist.

I have no core beliefs, I'm simply spoon-fed talking points every morning, which I regurgitate. My ODS is so bad, I can't see straight.

Yea, right. I've heard it all. Do you folks have anything new? Until then, you can frak off.

Must see PJ TV

Bill Whittle on Political Correctness. I heard about this days ago, but my internet is teh suxxor, yada yada yada.

Oh, and Bob, Mr. Whittle's got a few words for you and your fourth-grade "teabagger" insults.

I know, I know, it's all you got. And it's SO FUNNY.

Obama's got a "blame" problem

Having run out of folks to blame, the administration is starting to blame the media. Et tu, Brute?

It tried blaming Republicans, but the GOP is too far out of power. When the leader of the free world is complaining about a posting on the former governor of Alaska’s Facebook page, he’s got problems.
Team Obama tried blaming special interests, but that was a bust too. The president’s deal with the pharmaceutical industry gets him $150 million worth of ads to boost his plan, whatever it is.
The same people who bombard us with ads for products that promise to prevent hardened arteries or encourage hardening elsewhere will soon be selling you Obamacare.
“If you experience doubts about the plan lasting more than four hours, seek immediate help from Organizing for America.”
Democrats tried blaming the “mobs” of “un-American” protesters and “evil mongers” who were giving raspberries to members of Congress at town halls.
That flopped too, leaving the administration to blame the messenger.

That's wee-weed up.

Fred Barnes on Rush, and Republicans, and not going wobbly:

Inside Washington, they were urged to reduce the influence of pro-lifers in the party and distance themselves from conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. They were told to warm up to Mr. Obama, the new master of American politics, and they were told to fret about all those voting blocs that were drifting away from the GOP—Hispanics, young people, gays, urbanites, blacks, voters in Northeastern states and independents. To survive, in short, they needed to move the party to the center. Conservatism was dead.

I think about how many times I read right after the elections that Republicans would be wandering in the desert for forty years, and I laugh and laugh. I laughed back then, but it just gets funnier as time goes by.

Yesterday I was at the little fair my town has every year. They had both a Democratic booth and a Republican booth. One had brisk business of people signing up for email alerts and one was rather lonely looking.

About that "Death Panel" lie....

There are no death panels in H.R. 3200. Obama's pulled out the big guns, religion, and proclaimed that his opponents are "bearing false witness." Sounds kind of God-bothery to me, doesn't it? I thought our government wasn't supposed to impose morality on the people, because George Bush, bla bla bla. I guess it's ok when Obama does it. Although VD nailed it quite right:

This contrived use of religiosity (e.g., “There are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.”) has a Reverend Wright flavor of mixing politics and religion in cynical fashion to bolster Obama's fides as an authentic moral figure. And isn't the use of religion as a political tool precisely what Obama and others have objected to in the Christian Right?;
*******
I think we are seeing a sort of presidential meltdown. As Obama's polls free-fall, and threaten wider political damage, it causes him a certain novel exasperation that for the first time in his life soaring hope-and-change rhetoric for some strange reason no longer substitutes for a detailed, logical, and honest agenda.

Yes, but moving on. Death panels.

Charles Krauthammer says, basically, let's stop calling them death panels, cause that's not what they are. The end of life counseling isn't benign, though. Living wills are basically little more than insurance against your greedy relatives pulling the plug early, because in reality the decision, should you become incapacitated, is STILL up to your family. No, the end-of-live counseling in Obamacare serves another purpose.

[I]t is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it’s intended to gently point you in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sick room where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

Krauthammer is, as always, reasoned, rational, and fair.

But, we aren't dealing with a reasoned, rational, or fair opponent. So, I'll stick with Andrew McCarthy's take on the issue.

The editorial’s contention was that there wouldn’t “literally” be death panels. To me, that’s not much different from quibbling over “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” The stakes here couldn’t be higher, time is short, and “death panel” cuts to the chase.

What, after all, is “end of life” counseling in a bill that, we here all agree, rations care (i.e., redirects it away from those who consume most of it now: the elderly and the infirm) and raises fast-track-to-euthanasia worries? In the Wall Street Journal, former Bush White House official Jim Towey alerts us that, at the Veterans Administration, Obama has reinstated a 52-page “end of life planning document” authored by a medical ethicist who has advocated doctor-assisted suicide in a Supreme Court brief. This Orwellian “Your Life, Your Choices” questionnaire, in the familiar “push poll” manner, methodically steers the patient toward the notion that he is a malingering near-vegetable causing a “severe emotional burden” for his family. I don’t know what the correct, non-hysterical term for such a process is, but “Grim Government Reaper” strikes me as more accurate than “Your Life, Your Choices.”
****
Obama, of course, wanted health-care “reform” done — all 1,000-plus pages of it — before the summer recess. In essence, Democrats want to repeal individual liberty; move one-sixth of the private sector into the same government-controlled model that has produced bankruptcy in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; add additional trillions to the already exploded national debt; and they want to do it all right now — no discovery, no settlement negotiations, no five-week trial, no delays.

Given this Democratic whirlwind, I don’t see why we owe them better than “death panels.” They are what we’re sure to get if Obamacare isn’t killed first.

Exactly. There isn't time for reasoned and rational. Reasoned and rational debate takes years, not months. Reasoned and rational debate occurs in actual townhalls, not ones populated by Obama shills and fake doctors.

Update: I'd like to work the word "wee-weed" into this post. Any suggestions?

This is me

Boycotting NBC and all it's affiliated stations. I'm not watching ANYTHING you have to offer.

I know, I know. Big threat since they don't have anything watchable anyway.

Green Shoots?

Jobless claims rise:

– The number of first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly for the second straight week, a sign that jobs remain scarce even as other data show the economy is stabilizing.
The Labor Department said Thursday the number of new jobless claims rose to a seasonally adjusted 576,000 last week, from a revised figure of 561,000. Wall Street economists expected a drop to 550,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Ignore this news

Gotta work (again) today, but this is the big story for today:

Yeah, right. Let’s run this again … Man owns firm, man takes government job, man sells firm and firm owes man $2 million (if firm goes bust, man out $2 mil), firm lands multi-million dollar contracts from organizations doing business with the government on a top issue for the person man works for and man is out advocating for.

Doesn’t pass the smell test, no matter how many times it’s being run through the washing machine.

And, by "big story", I mean the conservative sites will be talking about it, the liberal sites will be responding But, but but HALLIBURTION! and the MSM will mention it not at all.

VDH has a good article today

What Went Wrong.

Among his points:

[M]any voters really believed in the “no more red/blue state America” healing rhetoric. Instead, polls show they got the most polarizing president in recent history — both in his radical programs and in the manner in which he has demonized the opposition to ram them through without bipartisan support. “Punch back harder” has replaced “Yes, we can.”

A point I've been making for a while. It's hard to even remember that Obama ran as a "new" politician, who was going to bring us together. When is that going to happen?

And, related:

[E]ven skeptics are surprised at the partisan cynicism. A year ago, Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama praised organizing, dissidents, and protest. Today they have become near-Nixonian in demonizing popular resistance to their collectivized health-care plans as mob-like, inauthentic, scripted, Nazi-like, and un-American. There are still ex-lobbyists in the government. High officials still cheat on their taxes. Hacks in the Congress still profit from their office. The public is sensing not only that Obama has failed to run the most ethically clean government, as promised, but indeed that he is not running as ethically clean a government as the predecessor who he so assiduously ridiculed.

Only the most partisian Obamabots could believe the smear that the opposition to Obamacare is Astroturf. And speaking of Obamabots ...

Sixth, there is a growing fear that Obamism is becoming cult-like and Orwellian. Almost on script, Hollywood ceased all its Rendition/Redacted–style films. Iraq — once the new Vietnam — is out of the news. Afghanistan is “problematic,” not a “blunder.” Tribunals, renditions, the Patriot Act, and Predators are no longer proof of a Seven Days in May coup, but legitimate tools to keep us safe. Words change meanings as acts of terror become “man-caused disasters.” Hunting down jihadists is really an “overseas contingency operation.” Media sycophants do not merely parrot Obama, but now proclaim him a “god.” New York Times columnists who once assured us that Bush’s dastardly behavior was proof of American pathology now sound like Pravda apologists in explaining the “real” Obama is not what he is beginning to seem like.

The only bit I have a quibble with is the word "becoming."

One more:

Ninth, Democratic populism turned out to be largely aristocratic elitism. Obama spends more money on himself than did Bush. The liberal Congress has a strange fondness for pricy private jets. Those environmentalists and racialists who lecture us about our ecological and ethical shortcomings prefer Martha’s Vineyard and country estates to Dayton and Bakersfield. Offering left-wing populist sermonizing for others while enjoying the high life oneself is never a winning combination.

Let them eat cake.

Debate without deleting

Some people like to delete comments they don't like. I'll delete offensive comments (like if OC starts calling me a racist again), but I don't delete comments just because I disagree with them.

With THAT in mind ... Danger, from all the way over in the ME, linked this over at Protein Wisdom and it's well worth a read and a discussion.

Over at Bob's joint, the discussion of healthcare came up, and I was the big fat meanie 'cause I want to ration folks out of the health care system. I guess that's the crux of the argument, right? I'm against everyone (aside from our Government employees, of course) being thrown into one giant system and ALL care being rationed, and "for" individual choice. But that leaves out (or "rations", goes the argument over in Bob's comments) 50 MILLION PEOPLE !!ELEVNTY!!111

Or are there?

2005 analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 6.4 million of that "50" (really 45.7, but rounded up by the teleprompter) are actually Medicaid "undercounts." They are on one or two of the government healthcare programs but inaccurately reported their status on the Census.

Another 4.3 are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but haven't signed up.

9.3 are non-citizens.

10.1 have incomes more than 3 times the poverty level.

15.6 are adults between the ages of 18 and 34 without kids.

10.6 do not fit into any of the above categories, and may actually be closer to the "real" number of those in need of affordable healthcare.

I don't want to hear that 46 million figure any more. It's bullshit.

Today's racist post

Which is your favorite?

While we're waiting ...

For Bob to get us that list, I thought it would be interesting to get to know one of our Michigan Representatives.

John Dingell has been a Democratic US Representative of Michigan's 15th congressional district since 1955. Wow! 1955! That's a long freakin time! You know what makes this fact even more amazing? John's DADDY held the post before him; from 1933 until 1955.

So, for the last 75 years, Dingbells Dingells have been running Michigan's 15th district. Gosh, I hope John has a son who can take over.

This is the post where Bob demonstrates his "free thinking" by listing all the times he's broken with his party's views

Go!

Jonah 'splains

Why I'm flummoxed at liberals right now:


When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing “guidance” on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.

Apparently "Universal" healthcare is higher on their list than civil liberties. Who'd have thought?


The Czar of Muscovy" is reading HR 3200, and has got 100 pages down. So far, here is his synopsis:

This is an operations manual, in effect, for a new insurance company called America, Incorporated. And like new companies, the business model is not solid yet: so instead of specifics about how the company will make money, re-invest capital, or lower costs, it’s filled with SWOT analyses (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), and detailed descriptions of jobs, roles, and tasks such as bill collection, arbitration, information technology, and so on.

Of course, this really isn’t a start-up company. It’s the federal government, so it will become a health benefits provider in exactly the same way the United States Armed Forces is a security service, the USPS is a private courier, or the FBI is a speed-trap cop.

And this is the incredible mistake of this legislation. The United States is not a competitive player: it becomes a monopoly. Yeah, the theory is pretty simple: the United States becomes an alternative to the big insurance providers. The problem is that by doing so, it squeezes out the competition, who could never muster the resources enough to counter the government muscle. Within a few years, the United States will become the largest health insurance provider in the country, with only a few niche players surviving (and even thriving).

Other's have gotten a tad further than the Czar. What is the goal of HR 3200? Connect the Dots.

Obama must assume we are fools when he tries to persuade us that this plan is anything but a complete federal takeover of health care coupled with medical treatment rationing to contain costs. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. George Orwell said it best, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool."

Read the whole thing on that last link.

Test

Sarah Palin leaves Alaska with a mountain of ethics issues.

Why are Obama supporters such h8ters?

Case in point

My son just got done with a 4 week (twice a week) swim course. The first week or so, this one mom was really friendly. About a week and a half into the course, I was having a conversation with one of the children's grandmother and we were talking about Obamacare. I prolly made my position rather well known.

The following lesson, the friendly mom wore this rather hideous Obama t-shirt, and since then has not only not said a word, but basically ignored me.

Nice.

Heh

Maybe Nancy's right. The astro-turf at these townhall meetings is embarrassing.

The Obama healthcare plan is wonderful. Just ask pediatric primary care physician Roxana Mayer.

I wonder if she's accepting new patients right now?

Camille Paglia goes a-ass kicking

After first pointing out, though, that she still supports the president. Apparently, the World Apology Tour is Ok by her, but whatev:

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

Harsh words? I dare any of the libs who've been hiding to defend Nancy Pelosi.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

And now, for the grand finale:

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

Paglia is interesting, because she is one of the few liberal writers actually willing to voice criticism of her party. Not to bring it down and destroy it, but it make it better.

When Nancy Pelosi came out lat week and accused angry citizens of manufactured rage, she was spitting on every one of us. How DARE we question what they are doing for our country. And Barack Obama's stump speech Vigorous Town Hall Debate should have been an insult to every thinking person out there. How do you have a vigorous debate among what the Huffington Post even described as a "friendly crowd."

The encounter was so friendly, in fact, that by the end Obama was even asking for skeptical questioners to come forward – to no avail.

Imagine that! Not ONE skeptic was there! How could that have possibly happened? I guess Teh One is just that persuasive. I've got a great idea. I'm going to have a "Vigorous Debate" right here on Is this blog on about healthcare. But, the ground rules are I'm gonna "bus in" those allowed to participate. I may even have my 9 y/o daughter pipe-in with a question!

Most excellent rant

No title, but we'll call it Stop Calling me a Fucking Racist.

This is what they think of you

All you non-Obama supporting riff-raff.

You see, you're merely anti Healthcare/cap-n-tax/spendulous because you're a hater. An Anti-Obama, racist hater. Chances are that if you don't live in a major city yer stoopid.

Today, for instance, some -- I don't know if it's 40 percent, but a considerable minority -- who voted for John McCain are galvanizing into, not just an opposition party in exile, but a kind of fifth column, an enemy within trying to undermine the operation of our government, opposing the president at every turn for purely ideological, if not pathological, reasons.

Oh, see, I left out "pathological." You're prolly "pathological" if you oppose Obama.

>Cities make you smarter
God bless Chicago. Having just driven across the country and back, I can tell you that most places are bumps in the road, and it's chilling to see the kind of undiluted reactionary opinion they marinate in. Every roadside diner's TV is tuned to Fox News, every radio station serves some right-wing nut grimly insisting on the reality of utter fantasy. It was out West that I saw a bumper sticker reading, ''Where's the birth certificate?'' referring to the mad claim that Obama was born in Kenya and thus was not eligible to be elected president.

I was sitting in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in Mesquite, Nev., when I turned on the radio and heard someone -- it may have been Michael Savage -- explain how the entire birth certificate controversy was -- ready? -- fabricated by the White House in order to distract the public from the president's health care reform.

Insulted enough yet? Oh, there's more:

It's scary, but we must remember that -- like the Royalists and the America Firsters -- the current crop is on the wrong side of history. The Royalists fled to Britain with their Tory overlords. The isolationists forgot their initial eagerness to ignore Hitler and spent the next 50 years patting themselves on the back as the Greatest Generation. Alas, we're stuck with our present misguided 40 percent, and will have to move forward best we can, with them clinging to our ankles and trying to trip up their own nation every step of the way.

I like how Mr. Steinberg argues FOR Obama's agenda by focusing on the birther stuff. No, there are no reasonable arguments coming out of the right. Not here or here or here or at any of those links over there on my sidebar. Why don't you, Mr. Steinberg, stick with the weakest, most irrelevant argument coming from the right, the birther stuff, because I think that's about all you can handle.

Don't strain yourself.

Good read

From a couple days ago from Velociman:

As if a professional, highly trained rabble rouser from the south side of Chicago would not look at union thugs whomping on citizens, and congressmen frantically shouting down these citizens in rage, and all of his machinations coming together, and say: Just as I planned. Now what's your fucking problem?

Dan's got the run-down on the douchbags who are spinning for Obama's team.

Obama must know this makes him look bad, and his new message is that he welcomes vigorous debate. His angle now is that people are arguing from an uninformed position (cause they haven't read the bill) and that once people look at the legislation, more "sensible and reasoned" argument will "emerge."

It's not that you folks are unAmerican. You just don't know what you're talking about.

And thrown-in, because the media doesn't report this, Obama approval rating? 45%

Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are liars

Dissent is un-American again. Remember when it was patriotic? I guess it just depends who is doing the dissenting.

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. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion.

Let the facts be heard

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. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.

Right here we've got a video of these mobsters:


Just frightening.

h/t: sox

The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice. It will allow every American who likes his or her current plan to keep it. And it will free doctors and patients to make the health decisions that make the most sense, not the most profits for insurance companies.

There's a lie in there. See it? And, while the "evil profit" motive may be eliminated, the rationing of health care motive will take it's place.

Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket.

They're gonna prevent Cancer and Heart disease! Oh yea! Of course, it's ironical and shit because you won't be paying a dime-out-of-pocket 'cause they're gonna steal your money before it MAKES it to your pocket.


TANSTAAFL.

Linda Chavez on health care reform:

We sometimes forget that the overwhelming majority of Americans — over 250 million people — already have health insurance of one sort or another. Any "reform" that reduces the range of services and choices available to the already insured or taxes their benefits will leave this group worse off than they are now. Yet these are precisely the kinds of cost-saving measures Congress must pass if coverage is to be extended to approximately 15 percent of Americans who don't have health care coverage now.

Added heh:

If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.

( Ron HartviaReason via instapundit,


h/t Puppy blender

Saturday must reads

Manufactured rage? Talking point is a swing and a miss, except for those stupid enough to fall for it.

And, Rosie's got a righteous rant going. Fuck you Obama. I mean it. I'm supposed to shut up? I don't think so.

Puppy Pics

Isn't this cute?

About that tax thing ...

How many times did Obama say that there would be no new taxes for those making under $275,000 $250,000? I think later they lowered it to $225,000. Heh.

Anyway, we all remember that, right? Hello?

Well, folks are checking the math.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a total additional deficit of approximately $4.9 trillion dollars during President Obama's first term (2009-2012). Currently, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 40 percent of the tax, or $450 billion a year, or approximately $1.8 trillion dollars during the next four years, leaving a $3.1 trillion hole. Increasing the tax rate on those high earners to 100 percent might yield an additional $1.5 trillion the first year, but this will only work for the first year. Most people, after being taxed 100 percent on their income, will quit work and/or put their investments in nontaxable entities, such as tax-free local government bonds.

It is also not mathematically possible to take care of all the new spending by increasing taxes on the top 5 percent of taxpayers (those making $160,000 or more annually) who already pay 61 percent of the federal tax (or $676 billion per year). Most of these people are now paying close to the revenue maximizing rate, which means that any increase in their tax rate is unlikely over the long run to bring in much more tax revenue.

Quite simply, upper-income people have options. History shows that when tax rates are raised, many will choose to work less (leisure is nontaxable), retire earlier than they had planned and save and invest less in taxable, productive activities. Those making more than $160,000 per year would need to have their taxes roughly tripled to take care of just this year's deficit. (One merely has to look at the tax evasion practiced by the chairman of the congressional tax writing committee, the secretary of the Treasury and the former majority leader, et al. at today's tax rates to know that they and their colleagues, as well as most everyone else, will find either legal or illegal ways to avoid paying the tax.)

Heh. It's is NOT mathematically possible. Obama is going to tax the middle class. Our "free" health care is going to cost everyone paying taxes. Apparently, the only people who will be "saving" money on their health care are those who aren't paying taxes. You know, we simply do not reward, enough, those folks who contribute nothing financially to the upkeep of our great country.

On a related topic, how are those tax evasion investigations going for Charlie Rangel?

Funny. Don't ever hear it mentioned. Not even while he advocates a new 5.4% income tax surcharge on others.

h/t NRO's Corner

Oh, Good Grief

The delusion is strong with this one.

Can't help but notice a resemblance to the inane posturing of that one.

I would say they are the same person, except thor is way to much of mysoginst to be Bob.

Regarding the North Korean hostages, I'll just cut and paste what Krathammer said last night:

Well, it's the return of hostages in exchange for stuff. And we will learn about that stuff. It's clear that this was wired in advance.

There probably was an apology [offered by President Clinton in Pyongyang]. After all, the secretary of state, the president's wife, had said openly, as we saw earlier, that we were sorry about the incident, and we were asking for amnesty, which was implying the legitimacy of the arrest and the trial. So we have already issued an apology.

Secondly, it is obvious that he was an envoy of the Obama administration, despite our denials. This is the one time in history in which the official news station of the North Koreans told the truth, but it does happen once every 50 years.

But thirdly, there was obviously a quid pro quo. The first of it we saw because we had Kim Jong-Il, who has had a stroke- - he's been wobbly and unsteady, and you can understand in a dictatorship like his how that begins the rumors of succession — so by standing up in the photos that we just saw, obviously engaged with Clinton, he looks like he is back in charge. That helps him personally.

Secondly, by getting a very high level envoy — you can't get higher level than a former president of the United States — it does help the North Koreans in their legitimacy.

And it's a demonstration of direct negotiations with the United States, which is what Pyongyang has always demanded. So...it got a lot.

And it probably has gotten stuff that we haven't even heard about and we may never hear about — aid in food and oil. All of that stuff will happen quietly in the future.

But it was a hostage ransom. No question at all.

On the plus side, Kim Jong Il has a new photo for his wall:

The DNC is becoming dangerous

Statement from the DNC yesterday:

These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.

The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the President's citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 – and it is bound to backfire again.

This is what mob rule looks like.

Regarding claims that these were rent-a-mobs funded by Republican "operatives" and special interest? Prove it. As for claims that the views expressed by these folks are not reflective of American opinon regarding health care reform? Another lie.

Anger and discord? You've got to be fucking kidding me. The left, during the last 8 years, wrote the BOOK on political anger and discord.



(Image by zombie- link above)

Racist Post du Jour

-Martha Reeves will end her career on the City Council as a one-termer, rebuffed Tuesday by voters who advanced all other incumbents to the November general election.

Question ... how did Detroit voters become so racist?

Many voters said they're fed up with recent behavior from council members, such as last month's guilty plea by Monica Conyers on a federal bribery charge. She resigned last month but remained on the ballot, finishing 62nd in the 168-candidate field.
Reeves placed 25th.
Reeves, a Motown legend , has garnered bad press in recent months, including missing meetings for her concert tours and for a BBC interview in which she called her $81,000 council post a "second job." She's also struggled financially, with $200,000 in unpaid income taxes.

There were fears that Monica would actually get some sort of sympathy vote. Congrats Detroit! Although she SHOULD have finished even lower than 62nd.

Informants wanted!

I had to report myself.

Perhaps you folks should too? Flag@whitehouse.org

Loyal Obamabot;

I'd like to report myself. I have, on numerous occasions, online and in real life (including casual conversations), opposed the health care overhaul plan. I haven't yet sent out emails, but I'm pretty sure I'll engage in that as well.

I've even mentioned that Obama, before elected, was heard to mention that his goal for reform was a single payer system.

Do I need to report somewhere?

Thanks,
Carin

If I "disappear", you folks will know what happened.

Racist Post du Jour

Why the Stimulus Bill isn't stimulating anything.

And, what would a racist post be without a(n) (African) Uncle Tom?

The Barack Obamas of the world helped to kill off so many cultures throughout the African continent. He is now here, with his Bacchic attendants, working hard to kill (conservative) American culture. He is killing everything that this country stands for. He is doing it under the guise of altruism. However, there is nothing altruistic about Obama. Instead, what we are witnessing is the greatest comedy of fateful errors that the world has seen in quite some time. The gods must be laughing like crazy.

The move towards the Euro-style imperialist socialism that has taken over this country has been a long time coming. For decades, oblivious youth have been indoctrinated at American universities to sympathize with far-left values; the entertainment industry is filled with leftist blowhards who wear the mask of intellect; liberals of all stripes have become unselfconscious in mocking (Christian) religious customs, and the juggernaut that is the left-stream media has been sealing the deal for years, helping to make this Republic increasingly vulnerable to demagoguery and despotism.

During the campaign, there was a reason why Obama's handlers kept telling him to say, "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" So many are waiting in the wings for their chance to audition. Obama is now the playing the lead role. But new faces will come and take his place when he is done.

I don't think I need to link the "Obama-as-the-Joker" poster, right?

A bit more, from VDH:

Not long ago I tried to explain to an Obama supporter that he belonged to the targeted 5%, who, as an elite taxpayer, had “made out like a bandit under Bush”, was obligated to “spread the wealth around” a bit, and should prove his patriotism by paying more. But it was a hopeless task: most well-off Obama supporters simply do not believe that their marginal tax rates are going up, that they may have to pay a health care surcharge, that the income caps of the FICA payroll tax will come off, subjecting much of their income to steep social security taxes, and that their state income tax in California is now over 10%.

In other words, a number of professionals in my state do not yet grasp that their own icon has them in the cross-hairs, and that within 2 years they will be paying perhaps 65% of their gross income to government—AND—receive no particular thanks by the rest of the population for their contribution, see no reduction in the federal deficit for the new bite out of their income, and probably be in line for future tax increases given their “wealthy” status.

So it will be quite interesting to see how the Obama elites react when they soon discover that they will have about 30-40% of their income to operate on. It is easy to talk about “higher taxes”, but so far all this is mere table chat. Wait until the real bite shows up in smaller monthly checks or larger quarterly estimates.

They key to understanding Health Insurance

Get the healthy people to foot the bill for the sick people. 'Cause insurance is a bit of a pyramid scheme.

Krauthammer:

There will be only one way to make this work: Impose an individual mandate. Force the 18 million Americans between 18 and 34 who (often quite rationally) forgo health insurance to buy it. This will create a huge new pool of customers who rarely get sick but will be paying premiums every month. And those premiums will subsidize nirvana health insurance for older folks.

Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the U.S.; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory, and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity.

Krathammer seems confident that Obamacare will be reduced to tweeks in the insurance industry and, as noted, mandatory coverage for young folks.