Happy Halloween, Everybody!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Democrats Following Pelosi Off a Cliff?
From Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard: "With Barack Obama as her front man, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--the real power in the Democratic party. . . . [has] combined the most unpopular Democratic and Republican proposals of the last generation in one piece of legislation." Ouch. Kristol says the Pelosi plan will wreck our health care system and (look on the bright side, says Kristol) the Democratic majority along with it.
The mind-numbing insanity of the 2000-page "twenty pound" health care bill produced by PelosiTeam after months of closed-door meetings is simply stunning.
Here's Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R, Minnesota) calling the bill "the Crown Jewel of Socialism." It's the "Pelosi healthcare nightmare." Bachmann says that the final bill will actually come out on Monday night, "a tremendous insult to the American people. We should have months to review this document; the Speaker is giving us about 72 hours."
Mary Katharine Ham at the Weekly Standard Blog knows there's something happening . . .
The mind-numbing insanity of the 2000-page "twenty pound" health care bill produced by PelosiTeam after months of closed-door meetings is simply stunning.
Here's Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R, Minnesota) calling the bill "the Crown Jewel of Socialism." It's the "Pelosi healthcare nightmare." Bachmann says that the final bill will actually come out on Monday night, "a tremendous insult to the American people. We should have months to review this document; the Speaker is giving us about 72 hours."
Mary Katharine Ham at the Weekly Standard Blog knows there's something happening . . .
Image credit: Weekly Standard
Have Cases of H1N1 Virus Been Wildly Overestimated?
Remember this? People standing in the rain for hours to get their H1N1 flu shot? Remember Obama, declaring a NATIONAL EMERGENCY a week or so ago? Well . . .it turns out that maybe we still have a journalist or two left in this country, willing to ask questions and chase down a story.
On the Couric (Katie Couric) and Co. blog of all places--CBS News--Sharyl Attkisson posted this about her efforts to discover the thinking behind why the CDC decided to stop testing individual cases of H1N1 virus. Writes Attkisson: When the public affairs folks at CDC refused to produce the documents and quit responding to my queries altogether, I filed a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the materials. Members of the news media are entitled to expedited access. . .
Attkisson says that on Oct. 27 she finally received a reply from the CDC Freedom of Information Office, which by even the normal baffling standards, borders on the absurd. The letter is to inform me that my request for "expedited" treatment of my FOI request has been denied because the CDC has determined the request 'not a matter of widespread and exceptional media and public interest.'
Another CBS report gives background on Attkisson's post: In July, the CDC advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu and also stopped counting individual cases. The rationale: why waste resources testing for H1N1 when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?
That statement made me think of Alice in Wonderland and Alice's conversations with the Cheshire Cat.
At that point, Andrea seemed at a loss. I'm thinking maybe she has a list of certain words that flip her into "go find the supervisor" mode, and "protocol" is one of them; maybe "pretend" is another. So Andrea put me on hold, and after two minutes the line went dead. Our tax dollars at work.
Evidently doublespeak is a fluent language at the CDC. Watch this video of Dr. Thomas Frieden, Director of the CDC, dance around the reporter's question about obtaining information on numbers of H1N1 cases on a state-by-state basis. This was on September 19.
Watch CBS News Videos Online
My CDC phone buddy Andrea cheerfully suggested (this was at the beginning of our conversation--at the end she wasn't quite so enthusiastic) that I visit the CDC website, which I did. Here's perhaps the most useless graphic evah, published by the CDC about weekly "influenza" (notice they don't elaborate, H1N1 or "other" seasonal influenza data) estimates on a state-by-state basis. There's a little note at the bottom: *"This map indicates geographic spread and does not measure the severity of influenza activity." Right. Because the CDC DOESN'T HAVE THAT DATA.
So does it matter that we don't really know the numbers for H1N1 Flu cases? As I asked in a previous post, is the CDC just making up numbers? Will they use computer models to tell us the "catastrophic" results of H1N1? From the CBS report: With most cases diagnosed solely on symptoms and risk factors, the H1N1 flu epidemic may seem worse than it is. Call me cynical, but I wonder if that isn't the point, coming from this administration. Rahm Emanuel: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why does this sound almost exactly like the bogus counting of jobs "created or saved"?
Oh, and P.S. I still haven't gotten my H1N1 flu shot and don't intend to; with stories like these, it's seeming like a better decision all the time. You have to make your own decision: this post isn't an endorsement of whether or not a particular individual should get an H1N1 flu shot.
On the Couric (Katie Couric) and Co. blog of all places--CBS News--Sharyl Attkisson posted this about her efforts to discover the thinking behind why the CDC decided to stop testing individual cases of H1N1 virus. Writes Attkisson: When the public affairs folks at CDC refused to produce the documents and quit responding to my queries altogether, I filed a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the materials. Members of the news media are entitled to expedited access. . .
Attkisson says that on Oct. 27 she finally received a reply from the CDC Freedom of Information Office, which by even the normal baffling standards, borders on the absurd. The letter is to inform me that my request for "expedited" treatment of my FOI request has been denied because the CDC has determined the request 'not a matter of widespread and exceptional media and public interest.'
Another CBS report gives background on Attkisson's post: In July, the CDC advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu and also stopped counting individual cases. The rationale: why waste resources testing for H1N1 when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?
Cheshire Cat: Oh, by the way, if you'd really like to know, he went that way.
Alice: Who did?
Cat: The White Rabit.
Alice: He did?
Cat: He did what?
Alice: Went that way.
Cat: Who did?
Alice: The White Rabit.
Cat: What rabbit?
Alice: But didn't you just say - I mean - Oh, dear.
Cat: Can you stand on your head?
The CBS report says that when they couldn't get the state-by-state statistics from the CDC, they asked each state for their own statistics on lab confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. What they found "reveals a pattern" that indicates the number of actual H1N1 cases may have been "wildly inflated." Here is their graphic:
In her blog post, Attkisson listed a phone number for the CDC for those who want to let the CDC know that they believe it is a matter of public interest: CDC Officer Lynn Armstrong or Katherine Norris: 404-639-7270. I called that number and since I'm not a member of the media, I was given an 800 number which started out, "Press 1 for English." Finally I was able to talk to a human, name of Andrea, who seemed to have a hard time understanding my point--which was, please let the proper person at the CDC know that it's absurd for a reporter to be told that her FOI request about H1N1 is not a matter of widespread public interest. Andrea wanted to answer her own question, which was: "Why does the CDC no longer test for H1N1 virus?" That one she evidently had a printed answer for, which she gave me three times: "It's not up to the CDC to test for H1N1 virus; it's up to the individual doctor, based on your health and travel history, to decide whether you should be tested." I must admit to going off point when I heard that answer for the third time and I said to Andrea: "Are you nuts? The President has declared a NATIONAL EMERGENCY. This is the CDC we're talking about. They tell the doctors what to do EVERY DAY. What is the protocol for testing during a National Emergency? Who is letting you answer the phone, pretending to answer taxpayers' questions?The CBS report says that when they couldn't get the state-by-state statistics from the CDC, they asked each state for their own statistics on lab confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. What they found "reveals a pattern" that indicates the number of actual H1N1 cases may have been "wildly inflated." Here is their graphic:
At that point, Andrea seemed at a loss. I'm thinking maybe she has a list of certain words that flip her into "go find the supervisor" mode, and "protocol" is one of them; maybe "pretend" is another. So Andrea put me on hold, and after two minutes the line went dead. Our tax dollars at work.
Evidently doublespeak is a fluent language at the CDC. Watch this video of Dr. Thomas Frieden, Director of the CDC, dance around the reporter's question about obtaining information on numbers of H1N1 cases on a state-by-state basis. This was on September 19.
Watch CBS News Videos Online
My CDC phone buddy Andrea cheerfully suggested (this was at the beginning of our conversation--at the end she wasn't quite so enthusiastic) that I visit the CDC website, which I did. Here's perhaps the most useless graphic evah, published by the CDC about weekly "influenza" (notice they don't elaborate, H1N1 or "other" seasonal influenza data) estimates on a state-by-state basis. There's a little note at the bottom: *"This map indicates geographic spread and does not measure the severity of influenza activity." Right. Because the CDC DOESN'T HAVE THAT DATA.
So does it matter that we don't really know the numbers for H1N1 Flu cases? As I asked in a previous post, is the CDC just making up numbers? Will they use computer models to tell us the "catastrophic" results of H1N1? From the CBS report: With most cases diagnosed solely on symptoms and risk factors, the H1N1 flu epidemic may seem worse than it is. Call me cynical, but I wonder if that isn't the point, coming from this administration. Rahm Emanuel: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Why does this sound almost exactly like the bogus counting of jobs "created or saved"?
Oh, and P.S. I still haven't gotten my H1N1 flu shot and don't intend to; with stories like these, it's seeming like a better decision all the time. You have to make your own decision: this post isn't an endorsement of whether or not a particular individual should get an H1N1 flu shot.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Multiple Liars Discuss Single Payer
Kudos to Verum Serum for this excellent video. Along with the people at Verum Serum and probably everybody else who's been paying attention to ObamaCare for the past six months, I too am sick of this issue. I spent my entire summer going to Tea Parties and "letting my congressmen and senators know" how I feel about ObamaCare, for all the good that did. But baby, it's not that long to 2010, and the bums who are up for re-election* are gonna be in for some very bad days. But right now we have to focus and hang in there with this HealthCrap issue. We haven't come this far, this long, to let down now.
Actually, I don't mean to say or imply that the Tea Parties did no good. If not for the Tea Partiers, a health care bill probably would have passed before the August break. These past months have been an amazing ride and also quite an education in the legislative process.
According to Gateway Pundit, the Pelosi House democrats will release their version of ObamaScare tonight, the first time the Republicans have seen the bill. A document distributed by House majority whip James Clyburn shows that, despite what Democrats on news shows are saying--trying to build momentum where none exists--the House doesn't have the votes to pass a bill with a public option. However, "officials" are saying that the bill might come up for a vote on the House floor next week.
In the Senate, Republicans haven't yet seen the Democrat's version of the 1500-page bill that will be scored by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that only a "handful" of Democrats with the Majority Leader who were "writing this thing in secret" have seen the bill. So not only have the Republicans not seen the bill, but most Democrat Senators haven't seen it either. Does Harry Reid have the 60 votes he needs in the Senate? Most are saying he doesn't, not if the public option is part of the bill.
Bills passed by the House and Senate would then have to be merged before the final crap-tastic thing gets sent to Obama for his signature.
This bill stinks, both the process and the product. It ought to be unconstitutional, and it's very possible that part of the bill is unconstitutional--it's evidently all over the legal blogs that the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance. "Are you serious?" said Nancy Pelosi when asked about this. "Are you serious?" she repeated, since she had no answer for the questioner. Yes Nancy, we damn well are serious.
Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, asks, "Where in the [Constitution] is the power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance?" His answer: Nowhere.
It all makes me tired. But then I get revved up again when I see what people like Dana Loesch are doing (see paragraph below).
*If you've been following the New York 23rd District House race for the Nov. 3 special election between Democrat Bill Owens, RINO Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, there's a great website put together by St. Louis Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch: Dump Dede. This is the sort of thing that the Tea Partiers have promised to do in the coming months, leading up to the elections of 2010. We have not gone away, nor are we going away.
Update: The House bill put out today (Thursday) by PelosiTeam is 1990 pages long. If Pelosi were a physician, she could be sued for malpractice for this bloated crapfest. Today Rush Limbaugh called Nancy Pelosi's bill "generational theft."
Kudos to Verum Serum for this excellent video. Along with the people at Verum Serum and probably everybody else who's been paying attention to ObamaCare for the past six months, I too am sick of this issue. I spent my entire summer going to Tea Parties and "letting my congressmen and senators know" how I feel about ObamaCare, for all the good that did. But baby, it's not that long to 2010, and the bums who are up for re-election* are gonna be in for some very bad days. But right now we have to focus and hang in there with this HealthCrap issue. We haven't come this far, this long, to let down now.
Actually, I don't mean to say or imply that the Tea Parties did no good. If not for the Tea Partiers, a health care bill probably would have passed before the August break. These past months have been an amazing ride and also quite an education in the legislative process.
According to Gateway Pundit, the Pelosi House democrats will release their version of ObamaScare tonight, the first time the Republicans have seen the bill. A document distributed by House majority whip James Clyburn shows that, despite what Democrats on news shows are saying--trying to build momentum where none exists--the House doesn't have the votes to pass a bill with a public option. However, "officials" are saying that the bill might come up for a vote on the House floor next week.
In the Senate, Republicans haven't yet seen the Democrat's version of the 1500-page bill that will be scored by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that only a "handful" of Democrats with the Majority Leader who were "writing this thing in secret" have seen the bill. So not only have the Republicans not seen the bill, but most Democrat Senators haven't seen it either. Does Harry Reid have the 60 votes he needs in the Senate? Most are saying he doesn't, not if the public option is part of the bill.
Bills passed by the House and Senate would then have to be merged before the final crap-tastic thing gets sent to Obama for his signature.
This bill stinks, both the process and the product. It ought to be unconstitutional, and it's very possible that part of the bill is unconstitutional--it's evidently all over the legal blogs that the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance. "Are you serious?" said Nancy Pelosi when asked about this. "Are you serious?" she repeated, since she had no answer for the questioner. Yes Nancy, we damn well are serious.
Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, asks, "Where in the [Constitution] is the power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance?" His answer: Nowhere.
It all makes me tired. But then I get revved up again when I see what people like Dana Loesch are doing (see paragraph below).
*If you've been following the New York 23rd District House race for the Nov. 3 special election between Democrat Bill Owens, RINO Dede Scozzafava, and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, there's a great website put together by St. Louis Tea Party organizer Dana Loesch: Dump Dede. This is the sort of thing that the Tea Partiers have promised to do in the coming months, leading up to the elections of 2010. We have not gone away, nor are we going away.
Update: The House bill put out today (Thursday) by PelosiTeam is 1990 pages long. If Pelosi were a physician, she could be sued for malpractice for this bloated crapfest. Today Rush Limbaugh called Nancy Pelosi's bill "generational theft."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Another Award for Nothing: Lady Michelle Wins Woman of the Year Award
More nonsense from the lamestream media. "In under a year, Michelle Obama has transformed the role of First Lady, throwing open the doors of the White House to families and children," says Cindi Leive, Glamour editor-in-chief. For that, Lady Michelle has "earned" her iconic status (the same way she "earned" her seat at Princeton and Harvard Law, is what I'm thinking).
That's right, Cindi, Michelle-O is the only First Lady who has ever "opened the White House" to children. Come on, I don't know how old you are, Cindi, but judging by the way you spell your name, maybe you're not old enough to remember much--but First Ladies and Children go together like white on rice. (Ooooh, is that a racist remark? Well, slap my face.)
Yeah, I'm right. "Cindi" Leive is about 12 years old, just right for editor-in-chief of Glamour.
That's right, Cindi, Michelle-O is the only First Lady who has ever "opened the White House" to children. Come on, I don't know how old you are, Cindi, but judging by the way you spell your name, maybe you're not old enough to remember much--but First Ladies and Children go together like white on rice. (Ooooh, is that a racist remark? Well, slap my face.)
Laura Bush
Hillary Clinton
Barbara Bush
Nancy Reagan
Do I need to keep going?
Rosalynn Carter
Eleanor Roosevelt
Give me a BREAK. As if Lady Michelle is the first First Lady to invite children to the White House. So Michelle-o gets an award as an ICON for inviting children to the White House. Yet she tells young girls that college is too expensive and big business is b-a-d. What kind of mentoring of young girls is that? The over-the-top, affirmative coverage of this woman in the yellow stream media makes me want to throw up on my shoes.
Exit Question: What is it about MO and BO that makes the lamestream media feel the necessity of propping them up with meaningless, unearned awards?
Update: The best Michelle Obama website on the internet is Michelle Obama's Mirror Blog. This person who writes the blog (um, the mirror) is hilarious. Highly recommended.
Update #2: My pal at Sharp Elbows reminds me that this White House hasn't been exactly 100% kid-friendly: "Sobbing Kindergartners Snubbed for Stealers" tells the story of the White House closing its doors to a bus load of young children who were supposed to get a tour but because of traffic showed up late and were told "too bad." I guess Glamour gave Michelle-O a pass for that one.
My Vote for the Dumbest Thing Evah Said by a White House Senior Advisor
Here's Valerie Jarrett, White House Senior Advisor, being interviewed by Campbell Brown of CNN about mean old Fox News. She's speaking about having a conversation about "the facts," calling out the "outrageous" distortions and bias in the news, all the "chatter, distortion, and false information": We're going to call them out. "We're going to speak truth to power."
Um, Valerie. . . honey, you ARE the power. You're the senior advisor to the most powerful man on earth. Evidently, however, Valerie is so used to playing the victim card and the affirmative action card that she hasn't yet dropped the boo-hoo victimhood language of her youth and early adulthood.
Or wait--maybe it means she's walking around the White House talking to herself. If so, there's medication that will help that.
Just imagine--this woman is our President's "Senior Advisor." We are so screwed until we get rid of these people.
Um, Valerie. . . honey, you ARE the power. You're the senior advisor to the most powerful man on earth. Evidently, however, Valerie is so used to playing the victim card and the affirmative action card that she hasn't yet dropped the boo-hoo victimhood language of her youth and early adulthood.
Or wait--maybe it means she's walking around the White House talking to herself. If so, there's medication that will help that.
Just imagine--this woman is our President's "Senior Advisor." We are so screwed until we get rid of these people.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Better Anthem for Us All: Judy Collins Singing Amazing Grace
God Bless Our Troops. Another eight killed in bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan today. October has been one hell of a month.
Update: Charles Krauthammer on Fox News calls Obama's comment on Monday about Bush's "long years of drift" in Afghanistan "truly disgusting" and "beyond disgraceful," a "childlike attack" on his predecessor.
Every President has had issues to deal with that began during a previous term in office. What I hear Obama saying, every time he whines about the "mess" he inherited from Bush, is simply that he's not up to the job. Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He isn't a monarch. He ran for the job, he was elected, and now he ought to do the job. Or not. Have we ever had such a sniveling president?
God Bless Our Troops. Another eight killed in bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan today. October has been one hell of a month.
Update: Charles Krauthammer on Fox News calls Obama's comment on Monday about Bush's "long years of drift" in Afghanistan "truly disgusting" and "beyond disgraceful," a "childlike attack" on his predecessor.
Every President has had issues to deal with that began during a previous term in office. What I hear Obama saying, every time he whines about the "mess" he inherited from Bush, is simply that he's not up to the job. Obama didn't "inherit" anything. He isn't a monarch. He ran for the job, he was elected, and now he ought to do the job. Or not. Have we ever had such a sniveling president?
Our Vote for the National Anthem of Obama's Hopey-Changey World
Hilarious. "The worst song of all time." I'd never thought about it this way, but I think the guy is right. If you really need a laugh tonight and a break from all the crap that ObamaTeam is raining down on this country, then read Kurt Schlichter's article at Big Hollywood. Here's a snip, but read the whole thing for a good laugh: “Imagine” is a cloying, boggy, sonic swamp of numb-skulled sentiments that sound like they were recycled from a bong-fueled, 2 a.m. bull session between a couple of pampered, credulous UC Berkeley lit majors. It’s the national anthem of the hopey/changey crowd — all at once pretentious, smug, tiresome and intellectually bankrupt.
Hilarious. "The worst song of all time." I'd never thought about it this way, but I think the guy is right. If you really need a laugh tonight and a break from all the crap that ObamaTeam is raining down on this country, then read Kurt Schlichter's article at Big Hollywood. Here's a snip, but read the whole thing for a good laugh: “Imagine” is a cloying, boggy, sonic swamp of numb-skulled sentiments that sound like they were recycled from a bong-fueled, 2 a.m. bull session between a couple of pampered, credulous UC Berkeley lit majors. It’s the national anthem of the hopey/changey crowd — all at once pretentious, smug, tiresome and intellectually bankrupt.
Anita Dunn and Chairman Mao, Redux
The lamestream media outcry of Obama's Director of Communications being in bed with Chairman Mao has been--nothing. Fortunately, there are some who think she shouldn't be let off without even a tap on the wrist.
Jamie Glazov, over at NewsReal, wants to know: Anita Dunn, Were You Also Joking About Mother Teresa? Certainly Glaznov, and every other sentient adult, knows that Dunn was not "joking" as she later said she was, when she made her comments about Chairman Mao to high school students last June.
Glaznov continues: Anita Dunn should not be let off the hook so easily, let alone let off the hook at all. And here at NewReal Blog we are not going to let her off the hook. We’re not going to let an adviser to the President of the United States off the hook for articulating a veneration of a communist despot who murdered 70 million of his own people.
Glaznov says that NewsReal is starting a campaign. They want Dunn to answer the question: Were you also joking about Mother Theresa being “one of the two people that I turn to most”? Because you did mention Mao in combination with Mother Teresa. So if you were joking about Mao, were you also joking about Mother Teresa? We want our question answered. And we are asking for all members of the media to join us in this campaign to get an answer from Anita Dunn. Please support us and demand an answer to this question. Seems like a reasonable quesiton to me.
Why would the parents at St. Andrews Episcopal School put up with this crap from Dunn? Where was the outrage? Or is it just too foolish of me to expect "outrage" from an Episcopal organization over a Mao-lover? Actually, Mrs. Dunn probably felt right at home spouting her Mao-loving thoughts at that Episcopal school. These days the Episcopal Church (church in name only, IMO) probably has more affinity with Mao than they do with Jesus Christ. Don't believe me? Look up the heretical ravings of current Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori.
I can say these things because I myself was once (but am no longer) what people used to call a "cradle Episcopalian." That's probably a politically-incorrect term as well. Maybe I need to start a list.
Jamie Glazov, over at NewsReal, wants to know: Anita Dunn, Were You Also Joking About Mother Teresa? Certainly Glaznov, and every other sentient adult, knows that Dunn was not "joking" as she later said she was, when she made her comments about Chairman Mao to high school students last June.
Glaznov continues: Anita Dunn should not be let off the hook so easily, let alone let off the hook at all. And here at NewReal Blog we are not going to let her off the hook. We’re not going to let an adviser to the President of the United States off the hook for articulating a veneration of a communist despot who murdered 70 million of his own people.
Glaznov says that NewsReal is starting a campaign. They want Dunn to answer the question: Were you also joking about Mother Theresa being “one of the two people that I turn to most”? Because you did mention Mao in combination with Mother Teresa. So if you were joking about Mao, were you also joking about Mother Teresa? We want our question answered. And we are asking for all members of the media to join us in this campaign to get an answer from Anita Dunn. Please support us and demand an answer to this question. Seems like a reasonable quesiton to me.
Why would the parents at St. Andrews Episcopal School put up with this crap from Dunn? Where was the outrage? Or is it just too foolish of me to expect "outrage" from an Episcopal organization over a Mao-lover? Actually, Mrs. Dunn probably felt right at home spouting her Mao-loving thoughts at that Episcopal school. These days the Episcopal Church (church in name only, IMO) probably has more affinity with Mao than they do with Jesus Christ. Don't believe me? Look up the heretical ravings of current Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori.
I can say these things because I myself was once (but am no longer) what people used to call a "cradle Episcopalian." That's probably a politically-incorrect term as well. Maybe I need to start a list.
[A little more than] Cautiously hopeful about this news from the Senate: Joe Lieberman says he'll block the vote on Harry Reid's plan
Joe Lieberman (I, Connecticut) has consistently said that he would oppose a public option if it were part of a health care bill. Evidently he's sticking to his guns, since Tuesday he said that he will back a GOP filibuster of Harry Reid's crap-tastic ObamaCare "reform" bill.
Here's the quote from Politico, who has the story today: "Lieberman said that he'd vote against a public option plan 'even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new govenrment entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.'" Lieberman says that he's told Reid that if the bill stays as it is, he will vote against cloture.
White House minions came out on the Sunday shows, tiptoeing past the graveyard, speaking as though Reid has the 60 votes to pass the bill through cloture in his back pocket. Reid has insisted that the public option will be part of the bill, which has made me cautiously optimistic that his stubborn arrogance will be the bill's downfall. If Reid has lost Lieberman, has lost Olympia Snowe--who's next?
The blue dog Dems, that's who.
Update: In case you went to public school and didn't learn how a bill becomes law (I went to public school and we learned all of that in seventh grade, but then--I'm old), here's a short procedural summary of how this works and what it all means. It's not that difficult, once you get past what "cloture" means. If you pay taxes, you might want to check it out. Just sayin'.
Update #2: This from Huffington Post (source warning!) is hilarious. I admit I've had a couple of glasses of wine tonight, and I'm having a little trouble following it. But it seems to me, as it has seemed all day, that dimwit Harry Reid should have known going in whether he did or didn't have the votes--that's pretty much his only job. He doesn't, apparently--so what the heck is he doing? This is from M.S. Bellows, Jr. at the Huffington Post, whoever he is. It's actually pretty funny: "How Lieberman Stole Reid's Candy and Drank Snowe's Milkshake."
When Reid made his happy announcement, I assumed he had cut a deal with Lieberman to guarantee his vote on cloture, because it would be foolish beyond foolishness to abandon Snowe without knowing -- knowing -- that Lieberman's vote was secure. And now we learn that Reid was foolish, and Lieberman's vote was not secure, and health care reform may well be dead.
Lieberman said today: "I also told him [Reid] that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill." In other words: "I will join the Republican filibuster of the bill Reid announced yesterday unless you give me what I want."
If these Washington machinations interest you at all, you have to read the article. In a word (or two) it's highly amusing.
Continues Bellows: 24 hours ago, Snowe became irrelevant -- and two hours ago, Lieberman seized the opportunity, sprang the trap he had set long before, announced his support for a filibuster, and thereby, instantly, became The Most Important Person In The Universe to Obama and Reid.
Health care reform may well be dead, and Harry Reid dead along with it. Sing it, Sisters: "Senate Majority Leader Schumer." Hahahahahaha. I know, a lot of this is inside baseball, unless you follow this like a religious nut the way I do. But trust me, this is comedy gold.
Here's the quote from Politico, who has the story today: "Lieberman said that he'd vote against a public option plan 'even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new govenrment entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.'" Lieberman says that he's told Reid that if the bill stays as it is, he will vote against cloture.
White House minions came out on the Sunday shows, tiptoeing past the graveyard, speaking as though Reid has the 60 votes to pass the bill through cloture in his back pocket. Reid has insisted that the public option will be part of the bill, which has made me cautiously optimistic that his stubborn arrogance will be the bill's downfall. If Reid has lost Lieberman, has lost Olympia Snowe--who's next?
Update: In case you went to public school and didn't learn how a bill becomes law (I went to public school and we learned all of that in seventh grade, but then--I'm old), here's a short procedural summary of how this works and what it all means. It's not that difficult, once you get past what "cloture" means. If you pay taxes, you might want to check it out. Just sayin'.
Update #2: This from Huffington Post (source warning!) is hilarious. I admit I've had a couple of glasses of wine tonight, and I'm having a little trouble following it. But it seems to me, as it has seemed all day, that dimwit Harry Reid should have known going in whether he did or didn't have the votes--that's pretty much his only job. He doesn't, apparently--so what the heck is he doing? This is from M.S. Bellows, Jr. at the Huffington Post, whoever he is. It's actually pretty funny: "How Lieberman Stole Reid's Candy and Drank Snowe's Milkshake."
When Reid made his happy announcement, I assumed he had cut a deal with Lieberman to guarantee his vote on cloture, because it would be foolish beyond foolishness to abandon Snowe without knowing -- knowing -- that Lieberman's vote was secure. And now we learn that Reid was foolish, and Lieberman's vote was not secure, and health care reform may well be dead.
Lieberman said today: "I also told him [Reid] that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill." In other words: "I will join the Republican filibuster of the bill Reid announced yesterday unless you give me what I want."
If these Washington machinations interest you at all, you have to read the article. In a word (or two) it's highly amusing.
Continues Bellows: 24 hours ago, Snowe became irrelevant -- and two hours ago, Lieberman seized the opportunity, sprang the trap he had set long before, announced his support for a filibuster, and thereby, instantly, became The Most Important Person In The Universe to Obama and Reid.
Health care reform may well be dead, and Harry Reid dead along with it. Sing it, Sisters: "Senate Majority Leader Schumer." Hahahahahaha. I know, a lot of this is inside baseball, unless you follow this like a religious nut the way I do. But trust me, this is comedy gold.
Carbon-emitting babies are a "mess" for Britain
Remember when Barack Obama said he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby? Well, it seems some Brits have an even more extreme take on the subject: "The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children."
That's the first line of an article by Alex Renton in The Observer: "Fewer British Babies Would Mean a Fairer Planet." According to Renton, people emitting tons of CO2 every year of their lives then turn around and have babies "who will make an even bigger mess." For the love of Christ. I looked in vain for any sign that Renton could possibly have been writing parody. Nope--not the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm. It's simply 100% wall-to-wall blithering idiocy about "climate change," population control of "the rich," and reduction of CO2 emissions.
I lay the blame for the bilge that this writer spews, and the fact that he can find a publishing venue, straight at the feet of political correctness. Thirty or so years of having politically correct language hammered like nails into our brains has "empowered" (one of my absolutely most-hated words) the crazy Leftists. The loonies have been let out of their cages, and if you don't believe it, read this article by Renton.
Here's just one of Renton's statements that he pulls out of--somewhere: "based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place."
Right. And just who does Renton think is going to pay to feed or give basic medical care to that sub-Saharan child? Or does he think that somehow the people of the sub-Sahara are going to magically wake up one morning and not need the billions in aid that they've received from the West for as many years as any of us can remember? I'd love to see it happen. But before we have the population of the West being substituted 30 to 1 for children born in sub-Sahara, let's see them able to feed and care for the children that are born there now first. Oh, but pardon me, I suppose it's not politically correct to point out that people of the sub-Sahara rely on the West for the basic necessities of life. Or maybe, like in Renton's world, it's not "fair" to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
Oh, and by the way--Renton, maybe you better check on the birth rate these days for WASPs (I'm sure another politically incorrect term) in Europe. Europe is dying, my friend. The total fertility rate for Europe is 1.37, according to Walter Laqueur in The Last Days of Europe. Except, of course, for the Muslim community--2 million in Britain and counting, as of 2008, up from 1.6 million in 2001. You've already made it, Champ; Britain as you knew it has ceased to exist. Hope you enjoy your "cleaner, fairer" life. Dumbass. Have you read the Koran lately?
Political correctness: the scourge of our times.
Hat tip for the article to the guys at Missourah.
I love this post from a commenter: Could you imagine the headline "Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet" in any other country than our craven, post colonial, self-flagellating, excuse for a country?
That's the first line of an article by Alex Renton in The Observer: "Fewer British Babies Would Mean a Fairer Planet." According to Renton, people emitting tons of CO2 every year of their lives then turn around and have babies "who will make an even bigger mess." For the love of Christ. I looked in vain for any sign that Renton could possibly have been writing parody. Nope--not the slightest hint of irony or sarcasm. It's simply 100% wall-to-wall blithering idiocy about "climate change," population control of "the rich," and reduction of CO2 emissions.
I lay the blame for the bilge that this writer spews, and the fact that he can find a publishing venue, straight at the feet of political correctness. Thirty or so years of having politically correct language hammered like nails into our brains has "empowered" (one of my absolutely most-hated words) the crazy Leftists. The loonies have been let out of their cages, and if you don't believe it, read this article by Renton.
Here's just one of Renton's statements that he pulls out of--somewhere: "based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place."
Right. And just who does Renton think is going to pay to feed or give basic medical care to that sub-Saharan child? Or does he think that somehow the people of the sub-Sahara are going to magically wake up one morning and not need the billions in aid that they've received from the West for as many years as any of us can remember? I'd love to see it happen. But before we have the population of the West being substituted 30 to 1 for children born in sub-Sahara, let's see them able to feed and care for the children that are born there now first. Oh, but pardon me, I suppose it's not politically correct to point out that people of the sub-Sahara rely on the West for the basic necessities of life. Or maybe, like in Renton's world, it's not "fair" to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.
Oh, and by the way--Renton, maybe you better check on the birth rate these days for WASPs (I'm sure another politically incorrect term) in Europe. Europe is dying, my friend. The total fertility rate for Europe is 1.37, according to Walter Laqueur in The Last Days of Europe. Except, of course, for the Muslim community--2 million in Britain and counting, as of 2008, up from 1.6 million in 2001. You've already made it, Champ; Britain as you knew it has ceased to exist. Hope you enjoy your "cleaner, fairer" life. Dumbass. Have you read the Koran lately?
Political correctness: the scourge of our times.
Hat tip for the article to the guys at Missourah.
I love this post from a commenter: Could you imagine the headline "Fewer British babies would mean a fairer planet" in any other country than our craven, post colonial, self-flagellating, excuse for a country?
Monday, October 26, 2009
14 Americans Killed in 2 Afghan Helicopter Crashes: Deadliest day for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in more than four years;
Breaking news update: Barack Obama's golf handicap down 5 since inauguration
Good Lord, if Obama has lost Bonnie Erbe, he's in serious trouble. She hosts a weekly "news analysis" program on PBS, and she recently had this to say about Anita Dunn's comments about Fox News, that Dunn's comments are "factually accurate, plain and simple. Fox News is nothing more than a Republican/conservative cheat sheet. Even Fox fans have the intellectual capacity to understand that concept."
Breaking news update: Barack Obama's golf handicap down 5 since inauguration
This is what Sunday looks like in Afghanistan.
This is what Sunday looks like in Washington, D.C.
Our busy, busy President, carefully figuring out his strategy for Afghanistan, taking his time to get it right. Where is the freaking press on this? I'm surprised he isn't wearing a "Sunday red" shirt just like Tiger Woods.
Politico has this story. For those who keep track of such things, Barack Obama, in office for just over nine months, has already hit the links as much as President Bush did--in two years and nine months. How are the three day weekends working out for you, Champ?
Update: Hilarious. The new president of National Organization of Women, Terry O'Neill, is "troubled" by Obama's all-male sports outings. "We know what happens when we segregate, whether by race or by gender--you end up with first class citizens and you end up with second class citizens." She doesn't like the "boys' club" atmosphere of this White House.
Allahpundit at HotAir has a suggestion for the First Sportsman: "If The One wants to avoid that scenario [pick-up basketball games with Duke starters who are running the pick and roll against Hillary Clinton], his only option is to limit the games to friends only. No pols, no lobbyists, just personal acquaintances."
Here's a helpful suggestion for our president, the one with so much time on his hands: Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Service Sec'y played basketball for Trinity University. She could be NOW's token woman at the pick-up games. Cool.
This evidently turned out as another loss for the White House, since Obama suddenly invited a woman [token woman] along on his latest golf outing. Win one for the gipper, Champ.
Exit question: Where has NOW been on the issues that really matter? Their total non-support of Sarah Palin when the media was saying the most vile things about her children turned them into an irrelevant bunch of hags. IMHO.
Update #2: So I thought women looooved this guy--cool, clean, calm Barry Obama. Unmarried women voted for Obama over McCain by a whopping 70 to 29 percent. (Ick.) Overall, women voted for Obama 56 to 43 percent. So what's happened? This morning there's an opinion piece by Bonnie Erbe at U.S. News and World Report: "Obama Not Comfortable With Women in Basketball, Golf . . . or Anywhere Else." Don't tell me Mr. Cool is losing his mojo?
Erbe goes so far as to compare Obama with the late Senator Jesse Helms: Jesse Helms was so rooted in his atavist traditions, he chose to remain true to his misogyny rather than pose for cameras with faux female golfing partners. Ouch! Erbe even has sad words for Lady Michelle: Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was 'likeable enough') or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford wife, I just don't get the impression this man is comfortable with women.
It sounds to me like Rahm (the Ballerina) Emanuel and his merry band had better forget their vendetta with Fox News and concentrate more on getting Leftists like Bonnie Erbe back into line.
Another update: Helen Smith, writing at Pajamas Media: Smith cites the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals, the ObamaTeam playbook: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
Therefore, says Smith, Obama and his Team need to live up to the rule that helped get them elected: DIVERSITY. It would be hypocritical, says Smith, for liberals to accept anything less than standing by their goal of achieving 100 percent diversity: Obama must be called out on his good ol' boy network. It is unfair, unjust, and discriminatory. He should be forced to put equal numbers of men and women in the White House, on the basketball court, on the golf course, and on his staff. Anything less would be hypocritical and must be considered blasphemy to the liberal playbook that Obama and his administration so greatly adhere to. . . . I expect Obama to enforce the liberal utopia of proper ratios of male, female, black, white, etc., for whatever team he is on — qualifications take a backseat to the liberal vision of diversity.
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." That's Saul Alinsky, baby, straight up.
The White House Food Fight with Fox News Discussed on the ABC Sunday Show
Laura Ingraham, you are so not invited back. Laura is one of my favorite conservatives, and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this on ABC: I thought there would be a total cat fight at the George Stephanopoulos "Round Table" on This Week--Laura Ingraham, outspoken conservative and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, even more outspoken leftist. That didn't really happen, but Ingraham got in a fair shot at clueless Charlie Gibson of ABC News.
George Will started it off by saying that "no president in the history of this Republic has less reason to complain about his treatment by the press than Barack Obama. Liberals have academia, they have the mainstream media, they have Hollywood. They're all for diversity in everything but thought. . . ."
My prediction is that the White House will back off from their fight with Fox News. They've totally lost, and it was never clear what they thought they would accomplish in the first place. All they really did was drive up the ratings on Fox News. Brilliant strategy, White House. Why don't you get to work on what you were elected to do. [No, on second thought, why don't you continue this totally pointless, laughable war with Fox News so that you don't get the work done that you were elected to do. Much better.]
Laura Ingraham, you are so not invited back. Laura is one of my favorite conservatives, and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this on ABC: I thought there would be a total cat fight at the George Stephanopoulos "Round Table" on This Week--Laura Ingraham, outspoken conservative and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, even more outspoken leftist. That didn't really happen, but Ingraham got in a fair shot at clueless Charlie Gibson of ABC News.
George Will started it off by saying that "no president in the history of this Republic has less reason to complain about his treatment by the press than Barack Obama. Liberals have academia, they have the mainstream media, they have Hollywood. They're all for diversity in everything but thought. . . ."
My prediction is that the White House will back off from their fight with Fox News. They've totally lost, and it was never clear what they thought they would accomplish in the first place. All they really did was drive up the ratings on Fox News. Brilliant strategy, White House. Why don't you get to work on what you were elected to do. [No, on second thought, why don't you continue this totally pointless, laughable war with Fox News so that you don't get the work done that you were elected to do. Much better.]
Sunday, October 25, 2009
58 Days and Still Waiting: When Will Obama Make a Decision about Afghanistan?
The White House is still sending its minions around, today again to the Sunday shows, lying about what they "inherited" from George W. Bush, spreading lies about the Bush Administration's Afghan policy after ObamaTeam was graciously offered classified advice on the situation. Today one of them said that ObamaTeam was given a briefing that lasted "about an hour" including a one-page written briefing on Afghanistan. This goes along with what Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel said last week about having to make it up as they go along in Afghanistan because they weren't briefed, or some such thing.
A man by the name of Kristofer Harrison served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration. He was there during the briefings.
Harrison writes: I was involved in the the Bush administration's 2008 Afghanistan review and it was every bit as in depth and serious as the one several years earlier for Iraq. It involved many of the same people who helped conduct Gen. McChrystal's recent review and included Democrats, Republicans, our British allies, Afghans, etc. The strategy put forward was sound and competent, and carbon-copy similar to the one that President Obama announced in March.
It is also true that Obama's transition team asked us to hold the Afghanistan review findings, a request to which President Bush acquiesced because (as it was relayed to me) he did not want to box the new president into a narrow set of options. In March, when Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy, I did not notice a single change from the new plan that we had given him...only Obama did not resource it with enough troops.
The Chicago mob's behavior is unbelievably unseemly. Here they were given an immense amount of material, a complete strategic review and plan with the author's heading left blank. President Bush felt it was his duty to do so. And all Obama can do is smear president Bush, even after he filled his own name into the author's column.
Obama seems not to understand that it is not President Bush who is suffering here. Rather, it is our under-resourced soldiers in Afghanistan who are suffering. Obama has had his hands on this plan for a full year now, and he's done virtually nothing except play politics. He needs to give our soldiers the resources to succeed, and then help create the political atmosphere so that they have time to succeed. It seems he has the intestinal fortitude to do neither. Weak, weak, weak.
Thank you, Mr. Harrison. You can read the whole thing here, although I've posted most of it.
Update: Monday, Oct. 26. Obama to troops: "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way." You have to wonder how the troops in the field feel about Obama's definition of "rush," since we're already at about day 60 on the dithering calendar. It's not like the troops will show up in Afghanistan the day after this tool finally makes his "solemn decision." The question that HotAir asks, asked a thousand times over: Why wasn't the strategic reassessment begun when he replaced Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal in May of this year?
Honestly, I simply cannot abide this posturing fool as our President. I don't know how I'm going to stand this for another three years. He spoke to the troops today at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida on the same day that 14 Americans were killed in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. God bless these sailors for their service. . . however, Obama went to Jacksonville today to tell non-deployed servicemembers--"I won't put you into combat without careful deliberation." I'd like to see him go to Afghanistan and tell our deployed troops why he's taking so long to make a decision about the way forward in this war.
More money for defense, blah blah, "spend our defense dollars wisely," blah blah, "make sure we have the right force structure," as if he would know anything about that, blah blah, "I also promise you this," blah blah, how many promises has this tool broken in the past nine months, blah blah, "I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt," blah blah. Yes, he actually said that. We'll back you up to the hilt unless of course you're already in harm's way in Afghanistan, in which case I'm awfully busy with golf every Sunday, pick-up basketball dates with my homies in the hood, and date night every week with Lady Michelle. Oh, and of course Afghanistan strategizing can't get in the way of my almost-weekly appearances to put money in my own war chest for 2012. So it may take awhile, but "I promise" we be backin' you-all to the hilt.
Sounded like he got a real enthusiastic *golf clap* from those sailors. Wonder what he'd get from the troops in Afghanistan? Just askin'.
Barack Hussein Obama: still voting "present." We'll hear from this tool eventually. Count on his decision to be some sort of bastardized compromise that doesn't work for anyone--sort of like The One himself.
Update #2: It can't be good for ObamaTeam that The One is now being referred to as "Hamlet on the Potomac."
Update #3: Fascinating, the YouTube video of Obama speaking to the troops has been "removed." Could it be because of the less-than-enthusiastic response he got from the Sailors? They were respectful, but "restrained" would be the polite way of describing their response. Not a smile in the bunch of the carefully chosen group standing in back of Commander-in-Chief. I couldn't help contrasting that with Bush's big smile and the way he would put his arm around the troops--he did it so genuinely, just couldn't seem to help himself.
US Marines with Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment and Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers conduct a security patrol in the Nawa district of Helmand province, Afhganistan. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Corporal Phillip Elgie. From The Long War Journal
The White House is still sending its minions around, today again to the Sunday shows, lying about what they "inherited" from George W. Bush, spreading lies about the Bush Administration's Afghan policy after ObamaTeam was graciously offered classified advice on the situation. Today one of them said that ObamaTeam was given a briefing that lasted "about an hour" including a one-page written briefing on Afghanistan. This goes along with what Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel said last week about having to make it up as they go along in Afghanistan because they weren't briefed, or some such thing.
A man by the name of Kristofer Harrison served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration. He was there during the briefings.
Harrison writes: I was involved in the the Bush administration's 2008 Afghanistan review and it was every bit as in depth and serious as the one several years earlier for Iraq. It involved many of the same people who helped conduct Gen. McChrystal's recent review and included Democrats, Republicans, our British allies, Afghans, etc. The strategy put forward was sound and competent, and carbon-copy similar to the one that President Obama announced in March.
It is also true that Obama's transition team asked us to hold the Afghanistan review findings, a request to which President Bush acquiesced because (as it was relayed to me) he did not want to box the new president into a narrow set of options. In March, when Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy, I did not notice a single change from the new plan that we had given him...only Obama did not resource it with enough troops.
The Chicago mob's behavior is unbelievably unseemly. Here they were given an immense amount of material, a complete strategic review and plan with the author's heading left blank. President Bush felt it was his duty to do so. And all Obama can do is smear president Bush, even after he filled his own name into the author's column.
Obama seems not to understand that it is not President Bush who is suffering here. Rather, it is our under-resourced soldiers in Afghanistan who are suffering. Obama has had his hands on this plan for a full year now, and he's done virtually nothing except play politics. He needs to give our soldiers the resources to succeed, and then help create the political atmosphere so that they have time to succeed. It seems he has the intestinal fortitude to do neither. Weak, weak, weak.
Thank you, Mr. Harrison. You can read the whole thing here, although I've posted most of it.
Update: Monday, Oct. 26. Obama to troops: "I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way." You have to wonder how the troops in the field feel about Obama's definition of "rush," since we're already at about day 60 on the dithering calendar. It's not like the troops will show up in Afghanistan the day after this tool finally makes his "solemn decision." The question that HotAir asks, asked a thousand times over: Why wasn't the strategic reassessment begun when he replaced Gen. McKiernan with Gen. McChrystal in May of this year?
Honestly, I simply cannot abide this posturing fool as our President. I don't know how I'm going to stand this for another three years. He spoke to the troops today at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida on the same day that 14 Americans were killed in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. God bless these sailors for their service. . . however, Obama went to Jacksonville today to tell non-deployed servicemembers--"I won't put you into combat without careful deliberation." I'd like to see him go to Afghanistan and tell our deployed troops why he's taking so long to make a decision about the way forward in this war.
More money for defense, blah blah, "spend our defense dollars wisely," blah blah, "make sure we have the right force structure," as if he would know anything about that, blah blah, "I also promise you this," blah blah, how many promises has this tool broken in the past nine months, blah blah, "I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt," blah blah. Yes, he actually said that. We'll back you up to the hilt unless of course you're already in harm's way in Afghanistan, in which case I'm awfully busy with golf every Sunday, pick-up basketball dates with my homies in the hood, and date night every week with Lady Michelle. Oh, and of course Afghanistan strategizing can't get in the way of my almost-weekly appearances to put money in my own war chest for 2012. So it may take awhile, but "I promise" we be backin' you-all to the hilt.
Sounded like he got a real enthusiastic *golf clap* from those sailors. Wonder what he'd get from the troops in Afghanistan? Just askin'.
Barack Hussein Obama: still voting "present." We'll hear from this tool eventually. Count on his decision to be some sort of bastardized compromise that doesn't work for anyone--sort of like The One himself.
Update #2: It can't be good for ObamaTeam that The One is now being referred to as "Hamlet on the Potomac."
Update #3: Fascinating, the YouTube video of Obama speaking to the troops has been "removed." Could it be because of the less-than-enthusiastic response he got from the Sailors? They were respectful, but "restrained" would be the polite way of describing their response. Not a smile in the bunch of the carefully chosen group standing in back of Commander-in-Chief. I couldn't help contrasting that with Bush's big smile and the way he would put his arm around the troops--he did it so genuinely, just couldn't seem to help himself.
Dear President Obama: Please Give Them What They Need to Win or Get Out
A blunt, powerful video put out by the 545 Project: the government's indecisiveness is putting our troops at risk. The 545 Project: 1 President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 100 Senators, 435 House of Representatives: 545 run the U.S. and influence much of the world. We the People ... Proclaim this is our country, not the government's. We work to provide for our families, not for the government to waste.
Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York) and Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) were on Meet the Press this morning, talking about Afghanistan. I'm a little confused as to why Chuck Schumer is the Democrat expert on Afghanistan. His committees: Committees on Rules and Administration; Joint Economic Committee; Judiciary Committee; Finance Committee; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Chuck is a faithful Obama administration attack dog, but other than that, I'm not sure why his expertise is sought about Afghanistan. He agrees with Joe Biden? Oh for the love of God.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, Afghanistan, I agree with Joe Biden. He said when we hear Dick Cheney, we remember seven years of neglect of Afghanistan that once again now President Obama is going to have to deal with. He's dealing with it in a thoughtful, careful way. He's listening to everybody. He will not be rushed to judgment. It's a--I, I'm wrestling with it myself, and boy it's difficult. There is no good answer. But for Dick Cheney, after seven years focusing on Iraq, the wrong place, instead of Afghanistan, to now say, "It's a few months into this administration, they'd better come up with a solution," that's not fair or right.
SEN. CORNYN: Americans are fighting and dying in Afghanistan today as they have for the last seven years. I don't understand, for a president who said this is a war of necessity to now question the recommendation of his lead commander General McChrystal on resourcing the war in order to be successful and win.
[I've deleted a lot of badgering nonsense from David Gregory, asking Cornyn if Bush supplied enough troops in Afghanistan to win.]
SEN. SCHUMER: Just quickly, one, they were so busy with Iraq they didn't pay attention to Afghanistan. And if the right strategy is that we need a new strategy, where was the strategy for seven years? Now, I'm not--I don't want to point fingers of blame. [Chuck, you're a disingenuous fuck.] Our soldiers are out there in the fields. But it's a little bit, gee whiz, here Obama's trying--President Obama's trying to come up with a strategy listening to everybody, and immediately the Republicans are pounding and say, "Do this, do this, do this," when for seven years they didn't, either in number of troops or good strategy. [Excuse me, Chuck, but you're the ones who said that Afghanistan was the "good" war--not Bush. Duh.]
Chuck Schumer is the senior senator from New York, in the Senate since 1999. He's a Harvard grad, also from Harvard Law. Figures. He's the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate. He knows nothing about guns (he grew up in Brooklyn and probably has never been off a sidewalk), but he authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He's a strong pro-abortionist guy, getting a 100% rating from NARAL. He recently did a 180 on his views of same-sex marriage: he now supports the issue after being against it. He was a constant and strident whining critic of George W. Bush's Iraq war strategy. Chuck is something of a running joke among his colleagues when he gets around the cameras--don't get between Chuck and a camera, or you could get hurt. A self-satisfied smirk is his natural face. Time for you to go, Chuck. You and so many others.
Watch this video with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.), calling Chuck a "liar" about the Iraq surge; Peters says Chuck has no idea what he's talking about--"He's never been there." I love Peters--he's the kind of guy I would follow into hell.
I'm just saying, why is Chuck Schumer's opinion about what's happening in Afghanistan given any credibility, even on a left-leaning Sunday talk show. If this is the best that David Gregory can do, then he ought to resign. I miss the big guy on Meet the Depressed, Tim Russert. I sure as heck didn't always agree with him, especially after he went squirley on Iraq, but I always respected him. Gregory is branch water.
Here's an article written by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters in the New York Post about Afghanistan. Peters says exactly what he means--he's a no bullshit kind of guy. He writes about the rules of engagement: "The Rules Murdering Our Troops."
My favorite line: Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink. . . .As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
Here's a quote from an open letter to the President from "Deebow," posted on Blackfive: Mr. President, deciding to do nothing is still a decision. He ends it with one of my husband's favorite expressions: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.
A blunt, powerful video put out by the 545 Project: the government's indecisiveness is putting our troops at risk. The 545 Project: 1 President, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 100 Senators, 435 House of Representatives: 545 run the U.S. and influence much of the world. We the People ... Proclaim this is our country, not the government's. We work to provide for our families, not for the government to waste.
Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York) and Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) were on Meet the Press this morning, talking about Afghanistan. I'm a little confused as to why Chuck Schumer is the Democrat expert on Afghanistan. His committees: Committees on Rules and Administration; Joint Economic Committee; Judiciary Committee; Finance Committee; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Chuck is a faithful Obama administration attack dog, but other than that, I'm not sure why his expertise is sought about Afghanistan. He agrees with Joe Biden? Oh for the love of God.
SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, Afghanistan, I agree with Joe Biden. He said when we hear Dick Cheney, we remember seven years of neglect of Afghanistan that once again now President Obama is going to have to deal with. He's dealing with it in a thoughtful, careful way. He's listening to everybody. He will not be rushed to judgment. It's a--I, I'm wrestling with it myself, and boy it's difficult. There is no good answer. But for Dick Cheney, after seven years focusing on Iraq, the wrong place, instead of Afghanistan, to now say, "It's a few months into this administration, they'd better come up with a solution," that's not fair or right.
SEN. CORNYN: Americans are fighting and dying in Afghanistan today as they have for the last seven years. I don't understand, for a president who said this is a war of necessity to now question the recommendation of his lead commander General McChrystal on resourcing the war in order to be successful and win.
[I've deleted a lot of badgering nonsense from David Gregory, asking Cornyn if Bush supplied enough troops in Afghanistan to win.]
SEN. SCHUMER: Just quickly, one, they were so busy with Iraq they didn't pay attention to Afghanistan. And if the right strategy is that we need a new strategy, where was the strategy for seven years? Now, I'm not--I don't want to point fingers of blame. [Chuck, you're a disingenuous fuck.] Our soldiers are out there in the fields. But it's a little bit, gee whiz, here Obama's trying--President Obama's trying to come up with a strategy listening to everybody, and immediately the Republicans are pounding and say, "Do this, do this, do this," when for seven years they didn't, either in number of troops or good strategy. [Excuse me, Chuck, but you're the ones who said that Afghanistan was the "good" war--not Bush. Duh.]
Chuck Schumer is the senior senator from New York, in the Senate since 1999. He's a Harvard grad, also from Harvard Law. Figures. He's the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate. He knows nothing about guns (he grew up in Brooklyn and probably has never been off a sidewalk), but he authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. He's a strong pro-abortionist guy, getting a 100% rating from NARAL. He recently did a 180 on his views of same-sex marriage: he now supports the issue after being against it. He was a constant and strident whining critic of George W. Bush's Iraq war strategy. Chuck is something of a running joke among his colleagues when he gets around the cameras--don't get between Chuck and a camera, or you could get hurt. A self-satisfied smirk is his natural face. Time for you to go, Chuck. You and so many others.
Watch this video with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.), calling Chuck a "liar" about the Iraq surge; Peters says Chuck has no idea what he's talking about--"He's never been there." I love Peters--he's the kind of guy I would follow into hell.
I'm just saying, why is Chuck Schumer's opinion about what's happening in Afghanistan given any credibility, even on a left-leaning Sunday talk show. If this is the best that David Gregory can do, then he ought to resign. I miss the big guy on Meet the Depressed, Tim Russert. I sure as heck didn't always agree with him, especially after he went squirley on Iraq, but I always respected him. Gregory is branch water.
Here's an article written by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters in the New York Post about Afghanistan. Peters says exactly what he means--he's a no bullshit kind of guy. He writes about the rules of engagement: "The Rules Murdering Our Troops."
My favorite line: Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink. . . .As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.
Here's a quote from an open letter to the President from "Deebow," posted on Blackfive: Mr. President, deciding to do nothing is still a decision. He ends it with one of my husband's favorite expressions: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.
Immoral and Obscene: Congressional Raises Top Last Year's Insurance Profits
Nancy Pelosi: “I’m very pleased that our Chair of our Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and member of the leadership will be talking too about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." Yet during "the worst recession since the Great Depression," Congress has awarded themselves a 2.8% raise.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.
Nancy Pelosi: “I’m very pleased that our Chair of our Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and member of the leadership will be talking too about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." Yet during "the worst recession since the Great Depression," Congress has awarded themselves a 2.8% raise.
Is This Report True? Has Fox News Fired Marc Lamont Hill?
When did Fox fire Marc Lamont Hill? Evidently this happened 'way back on October 16. Where was I? Dunno.
I was so disgusted when they hired him. Now he's gone. Good for Fox, although why they hired him in the first place is beyond me.
Update: Trust the people at NEWSREAL to keep an eye on this guy. Hilarious. Marc Lamont Hill's List of Overrated Black People: Spike Lee, Part 1.
I was so disgusted when they hired him. Now he's gone. Good for Fox, although why they hired him in the first place is beyond me.
Update: Trust the people at NEWSREAL to keep an eye on this guy. Hilarious. Marc Lamont Hill's List of Overrated Black People: Spike Lee, Part 1.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Here It Comes: The First Obama-declared "National Emergency"
I've felt this coming for months--Obama just itching to declare some sort of phony national "emergency." He did it today, declaring the H1N1 flu outbreak a "national emergency," allowing the federal government to take over private sector services.
With the declared emergency, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers. What else this paves the way for Sebelius to do has as yet gone unreported by the Obama lapdog media.
The AP is reporting that the "national emergency declaration" was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis.
"As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communitties, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic," wrote Obama in Saturday's declaration.
"Many millions" of Americans have had swine flu so far, according to an estimate that CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden gave Friday. The government doesn't test everyone to confirm swine flu so it doesn't have an exact count. How many millions do you imagine "many millions" is? If I have "many" oranges in a bag, then do I have more than five oranges? He could have used the word "several" millions--"several" is an indefinite word, more than two but less than many. But instead he said "many" millions. I don't think if I had five oranges in a bag, I would say I had "many" oranges. I think 5 oranges would still be "several." I think it would take at least 7 or 8 oranges for me to say I had "many" oranges in the bag. So does that mean we've had 7 or 8 millions of American cases of H1N1 flu? He also said there have been more than 20,000 hospitalizations. So if we've had 8 million cases of swine flu and 20,000 hospitalizations, then that means that 0.25% of the H1N1 cases ended up hospitalized. And this is a national emergency? How different are these numbers from the normal seasonal flu that killed 56,000 Americans in 2006? I guess we'll find out.
Quoted from Breitbart: The EMEA's committee for medicinal products for human use reiterated recommendations from September that the three H1N1 vaccines -- Celvapan, Focetria and Pandemrix -- should be taken as two doses at least three weeks apart. But according to the limited data available so far, one dose for Pandemrix and Focetria may be enough, it added. So I guess even if a person gets the H1N1 vaccine, organizations like EMEA are still arguing that it may not be effective.
OK, SO WAIT A MINUTE. What am I missing here?
Mark my words. I can see it like I'm looking at a crystal ball.
Update: Well, I was wrong. There was very little said today on the Sunday morning talk shows about the H1N1 influenza "emergency." Evidently having the White House declare a national emergency isn't newsworthy. Of course had they talked about it in any depth at all, uncomfortable questions might have been asked about issues like vaccine availability.
Update #2: I'm thinking the White House must hate the Washington Examiner about as much as they hate Fox News. I get a lot of good stuff from their online publication. I got this from an opinion piece by Mark Tapscott, quoting Kathleen Sebelius about the "ample supply" of H1N1 flu vaccine that would be available by mid-October: "We're on track to have an ample supply rolling by the middle of October. But we may have some early vaccine as early as the first full week in October. We'll get the vaccine out the door as fast as it rolls off the production line."
And Tapscott points to an obvious conclusion, which perhaps is one reason why Obama's NATIONAL EMERGENCY didn't lead the Sunday shows: These are the same government officials who will be in charge of your health care under the government-run health care system being sought by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
Farther down in the article, Tapscott quotes one of my favorite journalists, Henry L. Mencken, the bad boy of Baltimore. Keep in mind that Mencken did the bulk of his adult work in the 1910s through 1930s, so obviously we've seen this shit from the government before, something I keep trying with little success to tell the people around me. From Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Thanks for the reminder, Henry. By the way, Mrs. Dunn, one of my favorite philosophers, one whom I turn to the most, is H.L. Mencken.
With the declared emergency, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal rules when opening alternative care sites, such as offsite hospital centers at schools or community centers. What else this paves the way for Sebelius to do has as yet gone unreported by the Obama lapdog media.
The AP is reporting that the "national emergency declaration" was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius extraordinary powers during a crisis.
"As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of government, and as individuals and communitties, taking unprecedented steps to counter the emerging pandemic," wrote Obama in Saturday's declaration.
"Many millions" of Americans have had swine flu so far, according to an estimate that CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden gave Friday. The government doesn't test everyone to confirm swine flu so it doesn't have an exact count. How many millions do you imagine "many millions" is? If I have "many" oranges in a bag, then do I have more than five oranges? He could have used the word "several" millions--"several" is an indefinite word, more than two but less than many. But instead he said "many" millions. I don't think if I had five oranges in a bag, I would say I had "many" oranges. I think 5 oranges would still be "several." I think it would take at least 7 or 8 oranges for me to say I had "many" oranges in the bag. So does that mean we've had 7 or 8 millions of American cases of H1N1 flu? He also said there have been more than 20,000 hospitalizations. So if we've had 8 million cases of swine flu and 20,000 hospitalizations, then that means that 0.25% of the H1N1 cases ended up hospitalized. And this is a national emergency? How different are these numbers from the normal seasonal flu that killed 56,000 Americans in 2006? I guess we'll find out.
Quoted from Breitbart: The EMEA's committee for medicinal products for human use reiterated recommendations from September that the three H1N1 vaccines -- Celvapan, Focetria and Pandemrix -- should be taken as two doses at least three weeks apart. But according to the limited data available so far, one dose for Pandemrix and Focetria may be enough, it added. So I guess even if a person gets the H1N1 vaccine, organizations like EMEA are still arguing that it may not be effective.
OK, SO WAIT A MINUTE. What am I missing here?
- "Many millions" in the U.S. have already had H1N1." But we don't have an "exact count" because we don't test everyone (my guess is, they don't test anyone, unless they're on a ventilator in ICU or unless they die) to see if they have H1N1. So does this mean we get to make up numbers? I don't trust this freaking government to tell me the truth about anything.
- Approximately 1,000 people in the U.S. have died. That's really horrible if you or a family member is one of those 1,000, but there have been "many millions" of cases and only 1,000 deaths? So again, using our handy definition of "many" as 8 million, and doing the math, then 0.0125% of the people who have H1N1 flu have died. I don't want to seem cold, but that seems like a pretty low number to me, especially considering that almost no one has been vaccinated yet--about 10 million out of 300 million, or 1/30th of the population, if most of those doses have found their way into people, which I doubt.
- Despite the federal government's initial optimistic estimate that as many as 120 million doses of the vaccine would be available by mid-October, only about 11 million doses have reached health departments for distribution to clinics and doctors offices. Play along with me here: At your job, if you deliver less than 10% of what you promised, and also in your job you're dealing with something on the level of a NATIONAL EMERGENCY, do you keep your job? I'm just askin'.
- The EMEA (European Medicines Agency) is still unsure, because of "limited data available" whether people need one dose of the vaccine or two. But is the Obama Lapdog Media reporting that inconvenient little detail in the American press? Anybody?
Mark my words. I can see it like I'm looking at a crystal ball.
Update: Well, I was wrong. There was very little said today on the Sunday morning talk shows about the H1N1 influenza "emergency." Evidently having the White House declare a national emergency isn't newsworthy. Of course had they talked about it in any depth at all, uncomfortable questions might have been asked about issues like vaccine availability.
Update #2: I'm thinking the White House must hate the Washington Examiner about as much as they hate Fox News. I get a lot of good stuff from their online publication. I got this from an opinion piece by Mark Tapscott, quoting Kathleen Sebelius about the "ample supply" of H1N1 flu vaccine that would be available by mid-October: "We're on track to have an ample supply rolling by the middle of October. But we may have some early vaccine as early as the first full week in October. We'll get the vaccine out the door as fast as it rolls off the production line."
And Tapscott points to an obvious conclusion, which perhaps is one reason why Obama's NATIONAL EMERGENCY didn't lead the Sunday shows: These are the same government officials who will be in charge of your health care under the government-run health care system being sought by Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
Farther down in the article, Tapscott quotes one of my favorite journalists, Henry L. Mencken, the bad boy of Baltimore. Keep in mind that Mencken did the bulk of his adult work in the 1910s through 1930s, so obviously we've seen this shit from the government before, something I keep trying with little success to tell the people around me. From Mencken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Thanks for the reminder, Henry. By the way, Mrs. Dunn, one of my favorite philosophers, one whom I turn to the most, is H.L. Mencken.
H.L. Mencken, having a beer with his breakfast. Where have all the guys like him gone?
Looney Swedes Now Checking Food Labels for Fat and Sugar Carbon Emissions Content
I guess I just haven't been paying attention to what's going on in the Leftist world; I tend to try to ignore them and let them go their own looney way, but recent news from Sweden is simply too nutty to ignore. The NYT recently published an article about a new food labeling scheme that Sweden has come up with: labels on food will include the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods, as in this label on a box of oatmeal--"Climate declared: .87 kg CO2 per kg of product." Huh?
Lantmannen, Sweden's largest farming group, has begun placing precise labels on some categories of foods in grocery stores, including chicken, oatmeal, barley and pasta. Take the example of carrots, which it seems to me ought to be a sort of simple, basic food. But evidently not in Sweden. Swedes are now able to obsess about whether choosing carrots over cucumbers is the "right" choice and will help save the planet. Carrots are recommended over cucumbers or tomatoes since the latter must be grown in heated greenhouses, consuming energy. But wait! If those carrots are gown in soil with high concentrations of peat, then all bets are off, since plowing peat releases "huge amounts" of carbon dioxide. And to complicate the issue, says the NYT article, apparently with no intended irony, "the emissions impact of . . . a carrot can vary by a factor of 10, depending on where it is grown."
Linking CO2 emissions to food consumption has turned the simple act of going out for a hamburger, for Swedes, into a morality play. Swedes who just want a burger now find these carbon emissions numbers listed on the menu, making them choose between killing the planet if they eat a burger (1.7 kg of CO2 emissions), or saving the planet if they eat a chicken sandwich instead (0.4 kg). Kristian Eriksson, 26, an information technology specialist, looked embarrassed when asked about the burger he was eating at an outdoor table. 'You feel guilty picking red meat,' he said. Hey Champ, if you're that gullible, then maybe you should feel guilty.
The article states that two metric tons per year of CO2 emissions is attributable in Sweden to eating. So since I assume that Swedes won't be willing to stop eating entirely, just how much do they expect to save with this absurd food-nanny scheme? The article doesn't say. Have the Swedes allowed themselves to be sold a bill of goods on CO2 emissions propaganda? I don't believe any intelligent person disputes that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But the how and the when of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 are far from the established science that the global-climate-changeism people would have us believe.
I found an interesting website: CO2 Science. On this site was a video by Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville, talking about the future of CO2 in a Democratic country--which, unlike Sweden, I guess we still are, sort of, at least for the moment. This Fortune magazine interview with Christy calls him the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.
Says Christy in the Fortune interview: Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely.
Thank God someone still believes in good old-fashioned American ingenuity and enterprise--and democracy.
Actually, I think the "deniers" are starting to have some effect over the "liars."
Lantmannen, Sweden's largest farming group, has begun placing precise labels on some categories of foods in grocery stores, including chicken, oatmeal, barley and pasta. Take the example of carrots, which it seems to me ought to be a sort of simple, basic food. But evidently not in Sweden. Swedes are now able to obsess about whether choosing carrots over cucumbers is the "right" choice and will help save the planet. Carrots are recommended over cucumbers or tomatoes since the latter must be grown in heated greenhouses, consuming energy. But wait! If those carrots are gown in soil with high concentrations of peat, then all bets are off, since plowing peat releases "huge amounts" of carbon dioxide. And to complicate the issue, says the NYT article, apparently with no intended irony, "the emissions impact of . . . a carrot can vary by a factor of 10, depending on where it is grown."
Linking CO2 emissions to food consumption has turned the simple act of going out for a hamburger, for Swedes, into a morality play. Swedes who just want a burger now find these carbon emissions numbers listed on the menu, making them choose between killing the planet if they eat a burger (1.7 kg of CO2 emissions), or saving the planet if they eat a chicken sandwich instead (0.4 kg). Kristian Eriksson, 26, an information technology specialist, looked embarrassed when asked about the burger he was eating at an outdoor table. 'You feel guilty picking red meat,' he said. Hey Champ, if you're that gullible, then maybe you should feel guilty.
The article states that two metric tons per year of CO2 emissions is attributable in Sweden to eating. So since I assume that Swedes won't be willing to stop eating entirely, just how much do they expect to save with this absurd food-nanny scheme? The article doesn't say. Have the Swedes allowed themselves to be sold a bill of goods on CO2 emissions propaganda? I don't believe any intelligent person disputes that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect or that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But the how and the when of the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 are far from the established science that the global-climate-changeism people would have us believe.
I found an interesting website: CO2 Science. On this site was a video by Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville, talking about the future of CO2 in a Democratic country--which, unlike Sweden, I guess we still are, sort of, at least for the moment. This Fortune magazine interview with Christy calls him the environmental lobby's worst nightmare - an accomplished climate scientist with no ties to Big Oil who has produced reams and reams of data that undermine arguments that the earth's atmosphere is warming at an unusual rate and question whether the remedies being talked about in Congress will actually do any good.
Says Christy in the Fortune interview: Generally people believe what they want to believe, so their minds will not change. However, as the issue is exposed in terms of economics and cost benefit - in my view, it's all cost and no benefit - I think some of the people will take one step backward and say, Let me investigate the science a little more closely.
Thank God someone still believes in good old-fashioned American ingenuity and enterprise--and democracy.
Actually, I think the "deniers" are starting to have some effect over the "liars."
Friday, October 23, 2009
Welcome to the Future of U.S. Health Care if Obama Gets His Way
Here's a photo of people waiting on line outside in the rain in Milwaukee--for their flu shot. It seems to me that if you didn't have the flu before you got in that line then you'd have a pretty good chance of taking it home with you.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel posted this photo essay.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.
I feel badly for young moms these days, trying to do the right thing by their kids--do I vaccinate or not? With the alarming reports of increase in autism--and who knows why that's happening, but I would certainly at least wonder if maybe the vaccines have had something to do with it--how in the world does a lay person know what to do? I know, immunization vs. autism is one of those "whacko" theories, but if it's your kid, you still wonder.
I overheard a couple of moms talking about the "Do I vaccinate?" for the H1N1 virus issue today after spinning class. These weren't brand-new, freaked out moms--one had five kids and one had three. One of them was upset because she hadn't known to ask for vaccine without mercury. She found out after her kids were vaccinated that in her pediatrician's office, for kids under five, they use non-mercury-containing vaccine, but for kids over five, the parent has to specifically ask for vaccine without mercury. Catch 22--they didn't give her that information because she didn't ask for non-mercury vaccine. She was plenty upset, and I can't say as I blame her.
For myself, as I've posted elsewhere, I have no intention of getting a flu shot. I take my waterless hand sanitizer with me wherever I go, and I use it. Everyone needs to make their own decision about the issue, based on individualized risk factors. Regardless, standing outside in the cold and the rain in a line that snakes around the building, waiting for the shot, seems to me like utter insanity.
Update: By popular demand, I'll post the pic that was posted at Gateway Pundit. The guy with the sign has it exactly right.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel posted this photo essay.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.
I feel badly for young moms these days, trying to do the right thing by their kids--do I vaccinate or not? With the alarming reports of increase in autism--and who knows why that's happening, but I would certainly at least wonder if maybe the vaccines have had something to do with it--how in the world does a lay person know what to do? I know, immunization vs. autism is one of those "whacko" theories, but if it's your kid, you still wonder.
I overheard a couple of moms talking about the "Do I vaccinate?" for the H1N1 virus issue today after spinning class. These weren't brand-new, freaked out moms--one had five kids and one had three. One of them was upset because she hadn't known to ask for vaccine without mercury. She found out after her kids were vaccinated that in her pediatrician's office, for kids under five, they use non-mercury-containing vaccine, but for kids over five, the parent has to specifically ask for vaccine without mercury. Catch 22--they didn't give her that information because she didn't ask for non-mercury vaccine. She was plenty upset, and I can't say as I blame her.
For myself, as I've posted elsewhere, I have no intention of getting a flu shot. I take my waterless hand sanitizer with me wherever I go, and I use it. Everyone needs to make their own decision about the issue, based on individualized risk factors. Regardless, standing outside in the cold and the rain in a line that snakes around the building, waiting for the shot, seems to me like utter insanity.
Update: By popular demand, I'll post the pic that was posted at Gateway Pundit. The guy with the sign has it exactly right.
I just read at the CDC website that as of the end of October, they expected 26 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine to be made available, but so far, as of October 24, only 13 million doses of the vaccine have been doled out. Really? Is that the best this country can do? Evidently it's the best the government can do. Oh please, sign me up for the PRIVATE OPTION of ObamaCare right now, puh-leeze. Cripes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
